Science's War On Reason (The God Series Book 31)

Table of contents :
Science’s War On Reason
Table of Contents
How Not To Think
Einstein
The Grand Book of Nature
Bertrand Russell: The Enemy of Math
The Unconscious
Scientific Brutes
The Death Illusion
Perceiving God?
Pneuma
The Calculus Mystery
The Best Possible Illusion
Scientific Theism
Nullibists, Operationalists and Holenmerists
Brainwashing
The Enemies of Reason
Game of Thrones
Psychopyrism
The Thought Experiments
The Barbarians
Leibniz’s Last Hours
Ultimate Existents
The Enigma of Zero
The Argument Against God’s Goodness
Something and Nothing
Light = Life = Mind
The Supernatural?
Pythagoras
The Anti-Mathematician
The Zombie Argument
Dreams
The Best Possible World
Barbaric Physics
Doublethink
Apparatchik
The Rosenhan Experiment
The Problem With Science
German Idealism versus British Science
The Existence of God?
Physical Consciousness?
Monopsychism
The Language of Existence
The Einstein Syndrome
Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang
Eternal Life
The Physicist’s Mindset
The Futility
The Great Science Hoax
Could Science Be Any More Wrong?
Prime Numbers
Falsification
How Many Dimensions?!
Metamorphosis
The Evolution of the Theory of Evolution
The Matter Mystery
Incommensurate Minds
The Desperate Cure
Fantasy Science

Citation preview

Science’s War On Reason M P

H H

B

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

Table of Contents Science’s War On Reason Table of Contents How Not To Think Einstein The Grand Book of Nature Bertrand Russell: The Enemy of Math The Unconscious Scientific Brutes The Death Illusion Perceiving God? Pneuma The Calculus Mystery The Best Possible Illusion Scientific Theism Nullibists, Operationalists and Holenmerists Brainwashing The Enemies of Reason Game of Thrones Psychopyrism The Thought Experiments The Barbarians

Leibniz’s Last Hours Ultimate Existents The Enigma of Zero The Argument Against God’s Goodness Something and Nothing Light = Life = Mind The Supernatural? Pythagoras The Anti-Mathematician The Zombie Argument Dreams The Best Possible World Barbaric Physics Doublethink Apparatchik The Rosenhan Experiment The Problem With Science German Idealism versus British Science The Existence of God? Physical Consciousness? Monopsychism The Language of Existence

The Einstein Syndrome Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang Eternal Life The Physicist’s Mindset The Futility The Great Science Hoax Could Science Be Any More Wrong? Prime Numbers Falsification How Many Dimensions?! Metamorphosis The Evolution of the Theory of Evolution The Matter Mystery Incommensurate Minds The Desperate Cure Fantasy Science

How Not To Think People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. “Reason” is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who “reason” with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative “logic”, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly ... with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes

from thousands of years ago. Of course, Christians claim that God did deliver his message directly – via Jesus Christ. Really? Are Jesus’ rambling, incoherent, contradictory parables the thoughts of God? God help us! Where’s the philosophy, the mathematics, the science, the logic, the detailed, rational explanation of existence? No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat. A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists ... it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientific materialists and empiricists. “Atheism” is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of any reality predicated on immaterial, non-empirical, indestructible, necessary, eternal zero and infinity, i.e. atheism is an irrational position attacking mathematics, not religion! Scientific materialists and empiricists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the great historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition. No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.

There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and antiintellectual basis). Science wages war against “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation. Scientists are people of the senses, not people of reason, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science. Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such an absurd conclusion. Experiments address phenomena, not noumena. Scientists are such philosophical ignoramuses that they place all of their faith in the nonexistence of noumena. The only difference between scientists and followers of mainstream religion is that they irrationally swear by their senses, rather than their feelings and mystical intuitions. Scientists and religious believers alike will never accept mathematical rationalism. It’s not God that defines existence, but the God Equation ... a cosmic master formula arrived at exclusively through rational, logical, mathematical considerations. Nothing could be more repellent to a scientist than that reason alone can reveal the secrets of existence. Not even one sensory experiment is required. You are on the side of reason only if you agree that this is so. If you don’t, you are opposed to reason. You are clearly not a person of reason if you privilege your delusional human senses over your rational intellect. If you look to your senses, feelings, or mystical intuitions, how can you claim

to be a supporter of reason? People of reason, by definition, use their reason. They don’t rely on things other than their reason. They don’t pray, they don’t meditate, they don’t chant, and the only experiments they perform are thought experiments conducted inside their own heads. The world of reason is the world of mathematics. No sensory experiments are required. If you are rational, you have to ask yourself a simple question – why does science use mathematics given that mathematics has nothing to do with experiments? What would science be like if scientists were banned from using mathematics? It would be more ridiculous than any religion. It’s not experiments but non-experimental mathematics that gives science its power. It’s science’s use of mathematics that elevates it above religion, spirituality and philosophical speculation (all of which have no mathematical content). But, in that case, who needs science? Who needs the Church of the Senses? Who needs to have faith in experiments? Why don’t we simply replace sensory science with ontological mathematics? People of reason do not need science. They need mathematics. Scientists, far from being on the side of reason, are waging war on reason ... on mathematics. They use mathematics, without having any ontological understanding of mathematics. Every day, they butcher mathematics in order to fit it to their irrational sensory interpretations of reality. They have a religious faith in something called “matter”, a miraculous, unprovable, undefined substance said to exist independently of minds and the ideas in minds. Indeed, scientists claim that minds and ideas are actually made of matter, even though not one of them has ever suggested how. It’s about time that science, as much as religion, was identified as an enemy of reason and rationalism. Science is the slavish worship of the irrational human senses, given a rational tinge only thanks to mathematics. There are five approaches you can take to understanding reality: 1) religion, 2) spirituality, 3) philosophy, 4) science, and 5) mathematics. Only mathematics reflects pure reason. Science works well purely because of its use of math, and for no other reason. Remove math from science and it’s automatically revealed for what it is: a quasi-religious faith. You are either on the side of reason, or you are opposed to reason. Make your choice. Only ontological mathematicians are people of reason. All others are frauds, impostors and charlatans. Scientists are some of the most irrational people you can encounter. What’s worse, they delude themselves

they are promoting reason rather than opposing it. Well-known irrationalists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris absolutely oppose mathematical reality, yet proclaim themselves champions of reason. It’s time this farce ended. If you don’t agree that reality is made of reason (mathematics) – as Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel all asserted – you cannot be a person of reason, and you have an irrational notion of what reason actually is. Reason can never be expressed through the human senses. The human senses are not organs of reason. Science is the fallacious, irrational belief that they are. Scientists believe in their “concrete” sensory experiences. They do not believe in their feelings or mystical intuitions. They do not believe in “abstract” reason. They do not accept any rational, logical principles. They do not accept eternal, necessary verities. Science’s famous method makes no mention of reason, logic, rational principles, mathematics, ontology, epistemology, noumena, metaphysics. All it does is match mathematically framed hypotheses (philosophy expressed as mathematical formulae) to observed patterns. That’s the extent of its “sophistication”. If the answer to existence isn’t sensory – and it emphatically isn’t – then the scientific method is 100% useless in explaining what reality is. That’s a rational fact. Own it!

Science’s War On Math “I don’t believe in mathematics.” – Albert Einstein “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” – Albert Einstein “One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians.” – Richard Feynman “I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce.” – Freeman John Dyson

***** Science believes it’s waging a war against irrational, speculative religion and metaphysics. In fact, it’s waging a war against reason, logic and

mathematics. Metaphysics is simply what comes after physics. It’s not religion, the supernatural or philosophical speculation that lies beyond science, but mathematics, the true expression of metaphysics. Science is all about the senses, and the temporal, contingent, observable order we perceive with them. Mathematical metaphysics, on the other hand, is about the eternal, necessary, unobservable, non-sensory order that defines existence, hence defines science. Science is about induction, synthesis, and “truths of fact”. Mathematical metaphysics is about deduction, analysis, and the eternal truths of reason. As ever, they are the opposites of each other. Science acknowledges no eternal, necessary, essential order, i.e. an absolute ontology. In fact, it explicitly denies it, seeing it as a disguised way of referring to either God or a Cosmic Mind, which are equally unpalatable to scientists. Science repudiates the principle of sufficient reason. Science has no rational and logical first principles, no formal ontology and epistemology, and is based on nothing more sophisticated than a sensory method, which necessarily says nothing about anything non-sensory. Science supports empiricism against rationalism. So how can anyone claim that science is a rational enterprise? To see how irrational science is, simply imagine it stripped of mathematics. What would be left? ... a religion, a Mythos. There would be nothing worth saving. Imagine scientists trying to work out eclipses without math. Imagine Newton’s laws without math. Imagine Einstein, Bohr, Born, Dirac, Heisenberg and Feynman trying to do science without math. Imagine relativity and quantum mechanics without math. Imagine science without calculus, matrices, waves, trigonometry, Riemann geometry, Fourier mathematics, and so on. Science without math dissolves into gibberish ... into divination, soothsaying and alchemy, all of which involved painstaking observations of the natural world, i.e. the method by which science swears. Given the indispensability of math to science, you might imagine that item number one on science’s agenda would be to define and explain math. In fact, no scientist has ever written a scientific paper on what math is, which means that science is built on something it can’t define or explain, in

which case how can anyone take it seriously? As soon as you rely on things you don’t understand and can’t define, you are playing the religious Mythos game, not the rational Logos game. You are building towers with no foundations, and all such towers fall over. Science has been in a state of total rational collapse since the advent of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Scientists say, “Look at all the success science has achieved”. In fact, science hasn’t achieved any success at all. Math is 100% responsible for everything science has supposedly achieved. To see the truth of this, just take math out of any science theory, and see what’s left. Without math, there would be nothing left in science of any value. Science is 100% dependent on math, but math doesn’t need science. So, which is the monkey and which is the organ grinder? We simply don’t need science. Science can be wholly replaced by ontological mathematics: the true science – the mathematics – of existence. It’s impossible for the non-analytic, heuristic fictions of science to be validly combined with the analytic truths of mathematics. That’s why the unstable hybrid of scientific empiricism and mathematical rationalism can never be anything other than an inconsistent and incomplete approximation ... a fudge. Mathematical metaphysics must be complete and consistent. Such a system can avoid the logical trap of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems only by defining numbers ontologically. Any other way of defining mathematics automatically fails. Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”) gives the scientific game away. Firstly, science is admitted to be a philosophy (“natural” philosophy), which means it should be subject to rational and logical scrutiny like every other branch of philosophy, yet it arrogantly and irrationally refuses to engage with philosophy, either ignoring it or actively mocking it. Secondly, mathematical principles are introduced into natural philosophy without any explanation, and with no justification other than that they seem to work, i.e. science is all about perceived success and has no connection with intellectual integrity, logical rigour and truth. As Wikipedia says, “Newton’s defence [against criticisms of his theory of gravity, including the accusation that he had introduced ‘occult agencies’ into science] has been adopted since by many famous physicists – he

pointed out that the mathematical form of the theory had to be correct since it explained the data, and he refused to speculate further on the basic nature of gravity. The sheer number of phenomena that could be organised by the theory was so impressive that younger ‘philosophers’ soon adopted the methods and language of the Principia.” Here we see the core claim of science: anything that apparently explains the data must be true (a claim we know to be false in Newton’s case since Newtonian physics has been superseded by Einsteinian physics, which will in due course be falsified by some new physics, and so on). The fallacy of this claim is apparent from quantum mechanics (QM) where there are around twenty radically different interpretations of what QM means, all of which agree with the available data, hence must all be true according to science, yet can’t all be true since they utterly contradict each other ontologically and epistemologically. At best, only one of these interpretations is true. At worst, none of them is true. Science has no means at all to establish any kind of truth when rival hypotheses all agree with the experimental data. Truth and interpretation are radically different things. Finding a suitable, interpretive, heuristic fiction – a Mythos – to describe data is a profoundly different thing from truly explaining the data. Any philosopher could tell you that, but science’s central problem is that it has contempt for philosophy, and refuses to debate with philosophers. In a proper scientific world, every hypothesis would be “peer reviewed” not by other scientists but by philosophers, who would challenge each and every assumption made, and inference drawn. This would filter out an enormous amount of the nonsense routinely spouted by scientists. It’s astounding how much irrational, illogical tripe is uncritically admitted to the scientific literature. It’s as if no serious review has taken place at all. So much for the claim that “peer review” filters out the crazy stuff. In fact, peer review should be renamed “groupthink review” and should be understood as the means by which scientific orthodoxy is enforced. Radical new science papers are not rejected for being manifestly wrong; they are rejected for being manifestly heretical and blasphemous as far as science’s ideology is concerned. In other words, science’s much-vaunted peer review is about as objective and interested in the Truth as the Spanish Inquisition! The fact that mathematics is used to explain data in science constitutes the central problem of science ... how can math be relevant to “natural

philosophy” if nature isn’t mathematical? And if nature is mathematical, who needs science?! Newton feigned no hypotheses when it came to explaining the presence of math in science. He simply pointed out that it worked, and the rest of science has complacently followed him in this antiintellectual, anti-Truth stance ever since. If science can’t explain math, how can it explain the world, given that it relies on math for all of its “explanations”? Extract math from the scientific method, and what value does the method have? Where does the method address itself, where does it justify and validate itself, where does it explain its use of mathematics? What possible natural connection does rationalist mathematics have with an empirical method? Isn’t it a category error to put the two together? Would any Nobel Prize winning scientist care to address why it’s not? Good luck with that! Have you ever seen a science paper explaining the rational validity and truth content of the scientific method? What is truth scientifically? When does any scientist ever define truth, and hence falsehood? When do scientific conferences take place to debate the nature of truth, and how we can determine what it is? When has any scientist ever explained why truth should be connected to the fallible, unreliable, delusional, evolutionary (i.e. mutable, temporary and contingent) human senses, and not to more suitable candidates, such as eternal reason and logic? Why is rationalist math so essential to empiricist science? How does it even make sense for rationalism (a priori analytic deduction) and empiricism (a posteriori synthetic induction) to be combined? Mathematics is the quintessential anti-experimental, non-sensory subject, so what’s it doing partnered to experimental science? Mainstream religion makes many mad claims. Doesn’t science make a mad claim too ... that mathematics (a subject which it can’t explain or define) can be validly united with an experimental method with which it has no connection, and, indeed, which it explicitly contradicts? It’s highly convenient for scientists that they reject philosophy because then they need give no philosophical justification for their ridiculous and inconsistent system. Science works because it uses mathematics. It could use the scientific method all it liked, but the exercise would be futile if mathematics were not then deployed to make sense of the experimental data.

***** “The famous book of mathematical Principles of natural Philosophy marked the epoch of a great revolution in physics. The method followed by its illustrious author Sir Newton ... spread the light of mathematics on a science which up to then had remained in the darkness of conjectures and hypotheses.” – French mathematical physicist Alexis Clairaut (1747) Clairaut’s quote highlights the central fact of science – which all modern scientists ignore – that without mathematics science would be in darkness, based on nothing but wild guesses. Therefore, mathematics itself should be the primary concern of science. Science must explain mathematics before it can explain anything else, but science doesn’t explain mathematics at all. In fact, it typically regards math as an unreal, manmade abstraction, which makes it incomprehensible how it can account in any way for the natural world. As Clairaut pointed out, it’s only when mathematical principles are applied to “natural philosophy” (science) that science becomes a meaningful subject. Aristotelian science, for example, was painfully lacking in mathematics, and full of dubious philosophical and religious principles. Aristotelian science wasn’t overthrown by the scientific method, it was overthrown by science becoming enormously more mathematical. So, why don’t we now overthrow science, leaving nothing but pure, ontological mathematics? Can anyone doubt that this is the inevitable trajectory in which science is heading? M-theory has almost no connection with experimental science, and is ferociously mathematical. When M-theory inevitably fails, perhaps scientists will then adopt true M-theory, i.e. Mathematics itself. “M” should stand for “mathematics”, and nothing else. When has any scientist attempted to explain the relationship between mathematics and nature, especially if the assumption is made that mathematics is non-ontological, hence has nothing to do with nature? Is it acceptable for scientists to churn out scientific theories if they can’t even explain what science is, and why it’s configured as it is? The thing most in need of scientific justification is science itself. Science uses an unfalsifiable falsification principle and an unverifiable verification principle. What a mess!

“A more recent assessment has been that while acceptance of Newton’s theories was not immediate, by the end of a century after publication in 1687, ‘no one could deny that’ (out of the Principia) ‘a science had emerged that, at least in certain respects, so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar of science generally.’” – Wikipedia It was purely the application of mathematics to science that made science so formidable. Without mathematics, science, such as it was in preEnlightenment times, was a humble branch of philosophy ... the one dealing with observable nature rather than unobservable supernature (metaphysics). Mathematics removed it from “mere” philosophy, and gave it a wholly different character. Science has always involved observations of nature, and simple experiments, so it’s not these that elevate science above philosophy ... it’s mathematics alone. The question is immediately invited of why we don’t view science in reverse, i.e. why don’t we start with mathematics (rather than observations) as the basis of reality, and then apply observational and experimental scientific principles to it, to allow us to establish exactly what kind of mathematics we are dealing with in nature. As it turns out, the mathematics of nature is the mathematics of sinusoids ... of energy waves.

***** “Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight.” – Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe Identity statements are inherently tautological: they are the most extreme cases of tautology. So, Goethe is absolutely right. Mathematics is identity and tautology, and that’s exactly what’s required for a complete and consistent, infallible system. As soon as any version of math is allowed to stray from identity and tautology, it can no longer be infallible. It slides into incompleteness and inconsistency.

Math is not infallible per se. Only tautological, ontological mathematics is infallible. People need to realise that there is no such subject as unqualified mathematics. All manner of different types of mathematics are possible, and all but one will be fallible, inconsistent and incomplete. Only ontological mathematics is infallible. Only it is true. E. P. Wigner wrote, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” Isn’t about time that science tried to understand it? How can scientists claim to understand reality if they can’t understand why mathematics is so necessary to the success of science?

***** “Mathematics is the only good metaphysics.” – William Thomson Baron Kelvin Exactly so. Mathematics is metaphysics ... the subject beyond physics, which provides the base for physics. “If there is a God, he’s a great mathematician.” – Paul Dirac “God” is mathematics. “The laws of Nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” – Euclid The laws of ontological mathematics are the laws of Nature. Math is Nature. Mathematical sinusoids are the thoughts of Nature, of existence itself. “Mathematics may be defined as the economy of counting. There is no problem in the whole of mathematics which cannot be solved by direct counting.” – Ernst Mach Mathematics is all about ontological numbers (sinusoids), and their relations and interactions. Sinusoids are energy-in-itself, information-initself, thought-in-itself, and life-in-itself. All the things that manifest themselves in the observable world – energy, information, mind and life – must all be present in prototype form in the fundamental constituents of existence. Otherwise, we would be making the claim that properties – such as mind and life – can miraculously and magically emerge from things in which they have no precedent. Science makes exactly this irrational,

illogical claim when it insists that mind and life temporarily emerge from mindless, lifeless material atoms, and then vanish again as soon as the material atoms are mysteriously no longer organised in quite the right way (at death). “When in the 18th century Euler discovered those formulas which today still delight the mathematical phantasy, he seriously stated that his pencil was more clever than himself. This impression that mathematical structures can include a kind of self-determination concerns me at this time. ... Mathematics and Philosophy attack the world’s problems in different ways. Only by their complementary action do they give the right direction.” – E. Kaehler This manifests the classic error of Cartesian dualism. The universe is either mathematical or philosophical. It can’t be both. Either philosophy is a branch of mathematics, or mathematics is a branch of philosophy. The same argument holds for mathematics versus religion, spirituality and science. “It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention.” – P. W. Bridgman This is the falsest statement ever made (!), and goes to the heart of humanity’s strange reluctance to accept mathematics as reality. It’s the merest truism, evident at once to any rational person, that mathematics is the only language not invented by humans, hence is the authentic language of Nature. What’s for sure is that “unsophisticated observers” will always fail to understand what math is. “The Way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures.” – Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching Existence is all about counting, about numbers. The Way, which begets one, is the zero/infinity Singularity. The Way is monadic Math. “The essence of mathematics is not to make simple things complicated, but to make complicated things simple.” – S. Gudder Exactly so! What could be simpler than a universe of mathematical points (“nothings”), directed by the principle of sufficient reason alone?

*****

“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers.” – Heinrich Hertz The world is ruled by intelligent mathematical minds. We ourselves are those monadic minds. We, the discoverers of math, are math (which is why we were able to discover it). All of the wisdom of math is available to each and every one of us.

***** “The role of science must always be to clarify, to understand, to predict. And that means the development of explanatory theories must remain the final goal of all scientific endeavours. It must simplify, not mystify.” – Dr Stuart Clark But science doesn’t explain anything. It models phenomena using its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, then “explains” those phenomena with regard to that model (just as all religions “explain” the world according to their particular God-based model of reality). Science, like religion, does not explain its model. It does not define or prove the existence of “matter”, and it fails to disprove the existence of non-sensory, non-empirical hidden variables and rational unobservables. If you can’t explain everything, you can’t explain anything. All you can do is account for things via a highly dubious model (interpretation; Mythos) you have constructed according to your current, temporal, contingent, provisional, limited understanding. Science’s model leaves out mind, life, consciousness, the unconscious, free will, the origin of the universe, necessity and eternity, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, meaning, teleology and mathematics. When all of that is omitted, what you are left with is the claim that we live in a pointless, meaningless, purposeless universe that randomly summoned itself into existence from non-existence, for no reason, without any mechanism, and where free will, consciousness, causation, determinism, and so on, are all empty and inexplicable epiphenomena. That’s exactly what science insists is the absolute Truth of existence. Are you buying it? If you are, you’re a nutcase! You’re worse than the most egregious person of religious faith in the world. Your “explanations” are even crazier than theirs!

***** “The highest form of pure thought is in mathematics.” – Plato Mathematics is pure thought. Mathematical sinusoids are thoughts in themselves, thoughts stripped of all appearances. As such, they are also lifein-itself, since life and mind are the same thing. To say, “I think, therefore I am”, is equivalent to saying, “I am alive because I am thinking”, or, equivalently, “I am thinking because I am alive”.

Heisenberg “From these experiments it is seen that both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time – the two concepts are too different. ... “The solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead us to form – the one of the particles, the other of the waves – are both incomplete and have only the validity of analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases. ... Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. “It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme – the quantum theory – which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies – the wave picture and the corpuscular picture.” – Heisenberg What’s remarkable about Heisenberg is that he realised there was something extraordinarily special about math, yet he refused to see the elephant in the room ... reality itself is mathematical, not scientific, and it’s when we stray from math, and deploy manmade languages, concepts, images, models and

ideologies (including that of scientific materialism), that we become trapped in error. Only math offers clarity and precision, and can escape human delusion.

***** Heisenberg said, “...matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character”. There’s nothing remarkable about it. Matter is simply “broken” light, i.e. light that, due to non-orthogonal phase relations, has entered space and time rather than remaining outside space and time (in the frequency Singularity). “Matter” comprises entities that have non-orthogonal phase relations between their constituent sines and cosines. Light comprises entities that have orthogonal phase relations between their constituent sines and cosines. What could be more straightforward? “Matter” is simply mind existing in a certain, non-orthogonal mode. These asymmetric phase relations are the ontological basis of spacetime (dimensionality). Orthogonal phase relations equate to dimensionlessness. It’s all in the math! Cartesian dualism could equally be referred to as orthogonal phase relations (mind) versus non-orthogonal phase relations (matter). Defined in these terms, there’s no mystery whatsoever about how mind and matter are related to each other, and how they interact. Matter is mind, but simply exhibiting different, asymmetric phase relations. It’s as unmysterious as you can possibly get.

Einstein “I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science.” – Einstein It’s essential for scientists to become literate regarding the history and philosophy of science, mathematics and metaphysics. All scientists are incredibly specialised now, and have no general knowledge of their subject, and nor are they interested in anything outside of their reductive little box. “So many people today – and even professional scientists – seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest.” – Einstein

Exactly right. Narrow scientists are those who can’t see the wood for the trees. “A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” – Einstein All scientists today are prisoners of their time, of the current prejudices supporting the prevailing paradigm peddled by the careerist establishment. Career is far more important to a scientist than the truth. “Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!” – Einstein Humanity needs ontological mathematical thinking. Then we can become divine. “But there is another reason for the high repute of mathematics: it is mathematics that offers the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security which, without mathematics, they could not attain.” – Einstein Science, without math, is religion. Math alone offers certainty and security of knowledge.

Pythagoras “Pythagoras was intellectually one of the most important men that ever lived, both when he was wise, and when he was unwise. Mathematics, in the sense of demonstrative deductive argument, begins with him, and in him is intimately connected with a peculiar form of mysticism. The influence of mathematics on philosophy, partly owing to him, has, ever since his time, been both profound and unfortunate.” – Bertrand Russell On the contrary, the influence of Bertrand Russell on mathematics has been both profound and unfortunate (leading to anti-rationalist, empiricist mysticism), and it’s to Pythagoras, the first ontological mathematician, that we must return. Russell, an atheist, despised any notion that mathematics could support a fully religious and spiritual conception of reality that falsified all of the randomist nonsense of scientific materialism and empiricism.

The Grand Book of Nature “Philosophy [i.e. science] is written in this grand book – I mean the universe – which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.” – Galileo Galilei Mathematics is the language of Nature, and mathematics is Nature. Isn’t it about time science became mathematics. Science is science purely because it prefers to believe in a sensory speculation called “matter” rather than mathematical energy waves.

Tesla “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” – Nikola Tesla The exact reverse is the case. Scientists reject mathematics as ontological, and still believe, like Tesla, that experiments reveal “reality”. It’s experimental science that builds a structure – a simulacrum – that has no relation to reality. Tesla, like all scientists, failed to grasp the difference between phenomena and noumena. He failed to comprehend that mathematics is what underpins science, which is why science without math is an absurdity.

Finite? “Our minds are finite, and yet even in those circumstances of finitude, we are surrounded by possibilities that are infinite, and the purpose of human life is to grasp as much as we can out of that infinitude.” – Alfred North Whitehead Our minds are defined by zero and infinity. Our minds are singularities, and have infinite information capacity.

Bertrand Russell: The Enemy of Math “Mathematics was associated with a more refined type of error. Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact, and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. ... This form of philosophy begins with Pythagoras.” – Bertrand Russell Pythagoras was absolutely right, and Russell absolutely wrong. Mathematical knowledge is certain, exact, and applicable to the real world. It is indeed knowledge obtained by mere thinking, without the need for observation. It does indeed supply an ideal, against which empirical “knowledge” falls woefully short. Thought is superior to sense, and intuition is superior to observation. The world of sense must fit the world of mathematics, but it will do so as phenomenon to noumenon. Russell’s view – the prevailing one in today’s world of science, philosophy and even mathematics – has done immense damage to the intellectual progress of humanity. Where Pythagoras stands for the rationalist tradition of Truth, Russell stands for the irrationalist, empiricist tradition of interpretation. Russell and his ilk say, “If the world of sense does not seem to fit mathematics, so much the worse for mathematics (for reason, logic, and rationalism).” Russell was an out-and-out mystical irrationalist. It’s no wonder that such an illogical empiricist should regard Pythagoras as an irrational mystic. Pythagoras supported rational deduction, Russell empirical induction. Which route leads to infallible, incontestable knowledge, and which to mere sensory interpretation? “I believe that mathematics is ... the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as a super-sensible, intelligible world.” – Bertrand Russell Mathematics is the eternal and exact truth. Mathematics is the basis of the noumenal, super-sensible, intelligible, transcendental, ontological

mathematical world. What’s the problem? Science, as Russell makes so clear, believes in a sensible world, not an intelligible world. It believes in empiricism and rejects rationalism. It privileges the senses over reason. It believes in verification and falsification, not infallible Truth. Science, and people such as Russell, are the enemies of Truth, and of the great tradition of rational, mathematical philosophy and metaphysics, championed by Pythagoras. “Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.” – Bertrand Russell If mathematics isn’t real, then physics – if it purports to be about reality – must have no mathematical properties. If mathematics isn’t real, there can be no mathematical properties to be discovered in the physical world. In fact, physics is mathematical for the simple reason that reality in itself is mathematical. We can know all about the rationalist mathematical world. The same isn’t true of the empiricist “physical” world. We experience the physical world, and observe it, but we do not know it. You have to be a rationalist to understand that. Empiricists will never get it. They have rejected reason. There’s nothing to know about the physical world because physicality isn’t a knowable, or even definable, thing. It’s as mystical and obscure as “God”. Experience isn’t, and never can be, knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always mathematical. Take away the math and there is no knowledge at all. Take away math from Newton’s laws of motion and his theory of gravity and what remains?

***** “I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe – because like Spinoza’s God, it won’t love us in return.” – Bertrand Russell It’s ridiculous when people such as Russell claim to like mathematics. As empiricists, they are fundamentally against it, and they badmouth it and downgrade it at every opportunity, as his previous comments demonstrate. They always blabber on about sensory evidence, as if such an unreliable thing could miraculously be superior to eternal, necessary, infallible

mathematical truth. Mathematics can love us. Math is love. After all, mathematics is everything. Mathematics has to do with every planet, every moon, every star, every galaxy, everything in the universe. There is nothing “accidental” about the universe. Only anti-rationalists, opposed to the principle of sufficient reason, could ever claim, as scientists do, that the universe comes about by chance and accident, and is full of indeterminism, acausation and uncertainty ... all the things that destroy knowledge and understanding of reality, all the things incompatible with absolute, infallible, eternal, necessary Platonic Truth. As soon as anyone starts talking about vague, undefined, nonmathematical things, you know they have rejected reason as the basis of reality, and they subscribe to the principle of unreason. They are irrationalists, and bring irrationalism to bear on everything they say, and every conclusion they reach. “Mathematics takes us still further from what is human, into the region of absolute necessity, to which not only the actual world, but every possible world, must conform.” – Bertrand Russell Russell is right that mathematics is the least “human” subject of all. It’s therefore the most free of human error, delusion and fantasy. Mathematics is indeed about absolute necessity, and any possible world must reflect the laws of mathematics.

***** Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, a person of fanatical faith, was explicitly opposed to reason, calling it “the Devil’s whore”. Science is every bit as opposed to reason as Luther, yet, incredibly, claims to support reason. Science is all about empiricism, and empiricism is entirely opposed to rationalism. Protestantism is the bizarre doctrine that faith reveals knowledge to us and allows us to understand divine revelation. Empiricism is the equally bizarre doctrine that all knowledge begins with sensory experiences. Rationalism, on the other hand, is the doctrine that reason is the basis of all true knowledge. Plainly, you cannot be on the side of reason if you oppose rationalism, as all people of faith do, and as all empiricists do.

Scientists are so irrational that they don’t realise there’s only one reason why science works ... it uses rationalist mathematics. Mathematics has no connection with the experiments with which science defines itself. Remove math from science and science becomes augury. Given that stark fact, any rational person would conclude that math is what gives science its power, and the more we use math the more powerful it becomes. In the limit, science is dispensed with entirely, leaving nothing but ontological mathematics. But science doesn’t reach this obvious conclusion. Instead, it concludes that math is some bizarre, unreal, inexplicable abstraction, probably manmade. It therefore has to explain how an unreal, manmade abstraction is what allows science to model reality, and how that thesis can make any sense, i.e. how can something unreal have any value in describing reality? Science, as you would expect, never responds to any such logical catastrophe. It ignores all objections, and just blabbers on about “observation”, never once referring to reason. Science does not have any foundational logical principles, and it repudiates the principle of sufficient reason. That’s how much of an enemy of reason it is. All supporters of reason have a simple task ... to leave behind scientific irrationalism and embrace ontological reason, conveyed by mathematics. The true Age of Reason is defined by ontological mathematics, reflecting the principle of Sufficient Reason. It’s certainly not defined by irrational science, predicated on the denial of the principle of Sufficient Reason, and the irrational worship of the delusional, unreliable human senses. Where were the senses at the Big Bang? The senses can tell us nothing at all about the non-sensory state that preceded the Big Bang, but reason can. Reason and logic apply eternally, and only they can reveal the rational state that produced the Big Bang. It was of course an entirely analytic, mathematical state, reflecting the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics. It’s time for rationalists to have as much contempt for sensory science as they do for religious faith. Sense and faith aren’t the path to knowledge ... reason and logic are. The great champions of rationalism are Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Hegel. None of these figures holds a significant position in

modern scientific thinking, while a host of empiricist charlatans are standing on science’s highest pedestals.

Baphomet and Sophia “Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield (1901–1988), one of the scholars who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, argued in his book The Essene Odyssey that the word ‘Baphomet’ was created with knowledge of the Atbash substitution cipher, which substitutes the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet for the last, the second for the second last, and so on. ‘Baphomet’ rendered in Hebrew is ‫ ;בפומת‬interpreted using Atbash, it becomes ‫שופיא‬, which can be interpreted as the Greek word ‘Sophia’, or wisdom.” – Wikipedia The Knights Templar revered Baphomet (Sophia). They were the knights of wisdom.

Leibniz: The Antidote The great rationalist Leibniz is the supreme antidote to scientific bullshit, the ultimate defender of reason and logic. Science has rejected all of the great rationalists, yet claims to be on the side of reason. What a farce. Science is as great an enemy of true reason as religion is. It simply sells the ignorant, gullible masses a different Mythos: one based on the senses rather than on feelings. “Besides the World, that is, besides the aggregate of finite things, there is some dominant unit... [that] not only rules the world, [but] also makes or creates it. It is superior to the world and, so to speak, beyond the world, and is therefore the ultimate reason for things.” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe The dominant entity that rules the universe and creates it is the mathematical Singularity = the Cosmic Mind (made of individual monadic minds). The Cosmic Mind is immaterial and outside space and time (“beyond the world”). It’s the ultimate reason for all finite, material things. “Neither in any single thing, nor in the total aggregate and series of things, can the sufficient reason for their existence be discovered. Let us suppose a book ... to have existed eternally, one edition having always been copied from the preceding: it is evident then that, although you can account for the present copy by reference to a past copy which it reproduces, yet, however

far back you go ... you can never arrive at a complete [explanation], since you always will have to ask why at all times these books have existed, that is, why there have been any books at all and why this book in particular. What is true concerning these books is equally true concerning the diverse states of the world, for here too the following state is in some way a copy of the preceding one (although changed according to certain laws). However far you turn back ... you will never discover in any or all of these states the full reason why there is a world rather than nothing, nor why it is such as it is.” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe Postmodernists talk of the “copy without the original”. This is exactly the sort of concept that prevails in science. Just as you can’t have a copy of something without what it was copied from (the original is necessary in order to have a copy of it), you can’t have any contingent thing that doesn’t come from something necessary. This is a fundamental principle denied by science, which literally claims that entire universes can jump out of nothing at all, for no reason at all, via no mechanism at all. For science, as for the postmodernists, copies of things can produce themselves, can miraculously summon themselves out of nothing. All scientific things are copies in the sense that they copy the laws of science. However, the laws of science are themselves magically produced out of nothing to, i.e. they are supposed not to exist eternally and necessarily. If they did, it would mean there was an eternal, necessary order of things in which they inhered, given that you can’t have free-floating, magical laws that exist separately from the things they are asserted to control. Plato separated his eternal Forms from the world. The things of the world were proposed to be imperfect copies of these perfect Forms. Although science repudiates Plato, it dishonestly subscribes to a version of Platonism. It more or less says that there are eternal laws that exist separately from the world, but can create the world out of nothing (rather in the manner of the Abrahamic God). If it claims that there are no eternal laws at all, then its position is that laws suddenly create themselves out of nothing! ... for no other reason than to gratify scientists, presumably. Laws are either eternal or they’re not. If they’re eternal, they contradict science’s claim that there is no eternal, necessary order of existence that precedes the Big Bang. If laws are not eternal then it must be concluded that

they appear miraculously out of nothing, contradict all laws of conservation, and especially the law of energy conservation. If the law of energy conservation is not itself eternally conserved then there’s no such thing as energy conservation. If the law of energy conservation can magically jump out of nothing, or vanish back to nothing, then the same must be true of the energy it controls, which means that energy can randomly and magically come and go as it pleases, thus repudiating energy conservation. Nothing falsifies science more than the law of energy conservation – supposedly the central plank of science. Whatever way you look at it, it’s fatal to science. Aristotle modified Plato by always combining form and matter, except in the boundary cases of formless matter (prime matter; total potentiality), and matterless form (prime form; pure reason = “God”; total actuality). If science believes that laws can exist eternally, divorced from matter, then it’s reflecting an Aristotelian concept of God! In Illuminism, you can’t have form divorced from content (matter). They always go together. All forms inhere in ontological things. So, if forms (laws) are eternal, so must the things be in which they inhere. This means that laws and what they control co-exist and are as eternal as each other. Laws are built into things, which is why those things always “know” what law to obey, and how to obey it. Science cannot define the relationship between laws and the things controlled by laws, and it can give no explanation for why anything obeys laws at all. In fact, given conventional quantum thinking, things don’t obey laws. “Laws” themselves are no longer deterministic and causal – as science used to regard them prior to the twentieth century – but have become probabilistic and statistical. There’s a vast difference between a law that says, “This will definitely happen according to this definite law”, and one that says, “Anything with a finite probability might happen, and there’s no way of determining what’s going to happen.” Is the second a “law” at all? Consider E = mc2. Is this a law of science, or something that’s merely probable, but could easily be violated in many situations? Science seems to rely on precise, deterministic, non-probabilistic laws – when it suits it – and then uncertain, imprecise, indeterministic, probabilistic laws whenever that’s more convenient. This, of course, is a version of Cartesian substance

dualism. How can you have deterministic laws coexisting and interacting with indeterministic laws, non-probabilistic laws coexisting and interacting with probabilistic laws? To put it another way, how can the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics possibly have any relationship with the nonprobabilistic laws of classical physics; how can the latter seem to emerge from the former? It’s a category error to imagine they ever could. An inherently probabilistic world at the microscopic level would be inherently probabilistic at the macroscopic level too ... it would look nothing like a classical deterministic world. Otherwise, we would be violating the Cartesian principle that effects cannot have more reality than their causes. Imagine a world of “Dice Men” rather than actual people. Instead of acting for specific reasons, each Dice Man assigns a dice number to every potential course of action, and the dice is a special one that comes equipped with as many different faces as there are options. At all times, Dice Men roll their dice and carry out whatever action corresponds to how the dice falls. They never do anything for an actual reason. Would “Dice Man World” look anything like the normal human world? It would have no similarity whatsoever! Likewise, if all quantum particles are indeterministic (they’re all dice players ... God does play dice), how can the world they produce look anything like a world of scientific determinism: the classical clockwork universe? It’s impossible for these two worlds to resemble each other. An indeterministic universe at the microscopic scale can never look like a deterministic universe at the macroscopic scale. Why isn’t that self-evident to scientists? – because they’re irrational. The universe is either indeterministic or deterministic, and it’s a category error to claim, as science does, that microscopic indeterminism can produce macroscopic determinism. There is not one shred of actual evidence that the microscopic world is indeterministic, as science claims it is. Indeterminism is a philosophical inference flowing from science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. No one has ever seen, or ever could see, an indeterministic event. As soon as you add mathematical “hidden variables” to quantum mechanics it ceases to be indeterministic, hence there is no longer any contradiction between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds: both are fully deterministic (insofar as every event has a mathematical sufficient

reason). Human minds are themselves mathematical “hidden variables” ... mathematical monads. You cannot rationally explain reality without mathematical hidden variables that guarantee a complete and consistent system. “You may well suppose the world to be eternal; yet what you thus posit is nothing but the succession of its states, and you will not find the sufficient reason in any one of them, nor will you get any nearer to accounting rationally for the world by taking any number of them together: the reason must therefore be sought elsewhere.” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe The temporal, contingent world can be explained in only four ways: 1) Infinite contingent regress ... the succession of states goes back forever, with no foundational state. There is no sufficient reason for such a system. It does not and never can have a formal explanation. 2) Miraculous, spontaneous production ... the world springs out of nothing for no reason via no mechanism. There is no sufficient reason for such a system. It does not have a formal explanation. 3) Divine production ... the Abrahamic God miraculously creates the universe out of nothing at all. But then both the miracle and “God” are in need of explanation. 4) Rational production ... the observable world of our experience arises out of a non-theistic, eternal, necessary order – such as that of ontological mathematics. Only a mathematical explanation of the world can be rational, logical, analytic, complete and consistent. “Things eternal may have no cause of existence, yet a reason for their existence must be conceived. Such a reason is, for immutable things, their very necessity or essence...” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe Caused things can be explained via their cause. Uncaused things plainly cannot be explained by their causes since they have none. Despite being uncaused, they are not things without a sufficient reason for their existence.

As Leibniz says, their essence provides this reason. They have a definition that necessitates their eternal existence. This is the basis of the mathematical monads that convey ontological mathematics. “The reasons [sufficient, full, complete] for the world are therefore concealed in some entity outside the world. ... Thus we must pass from the physical or hypothetical necessity, which determines the later states of the world by the earlier, to something endowed with absolute or metaphysical necessity, for which no [further] reason can be given.” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe The physical world has no eternal necessity. Existence could logically get by without physicality ever coming into being. This is not true of the metaphysical world. The metaphysical world exists necessarily, i.e. its supposed non-existence would constitute a fundamental logical contradiction. This is exactly why the physical (scientific) world must be underpinned by an invisible, noumenal, rational, logical, complete and consistent, metaphysical (mathematical) world. This is what scientific empiricism and materialism denies, but which scientific rationalism and idealism fully accepts. Science cannot explain why it uses math (given that math is unobservable, non-empirical, non-experimental, and is claimed by many scientists to be manmade, hence to have no connection with nature), and has never explained what math actually is. With ontological mathematics, it becomes self-evident why science uses math, and what math is ... it’s the fundamental, eternal, necessary fibre and fabric of existence. Math is the language of existence, of nature, both seen and unseen. “For the actually existing world is necessary only physically or hypothetically, but not absolutely or metaphysically. ... Since therefore the ultimate root of the world must be something which exists of metaphysical necessity, and since furthermore the reason for any existent can be only another existent, it follows that a unique entity must exist of metaphysical necessity, that is, there is a being whose essence implies existence. Hence there exists a being which is different from the plurality of beings, that is, from the world; for it has been granted and proved that the world does not exist of metaphysical necessity.” – Leibniz, On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe

In fact, the precise logic of Leibniz’s position – as he well knew – was that infinite beings have existence as part of their essence. If there is a sufficient reason for one entity to have existence as part of its essence then there’s automatically a sufficient reason for infinite such beings. The conditions that allow one to exist necessarily can have no finite limits on them, hence these conditions must allow infinite such entities to exist. The monad is necessarily a net nothing. It requires nothing, hence nothing can prevent its existence. There is no hurdle to be overcome. It can’t not exist. And exactly the same is true for infinite such monads since the sufficient reason that applies to one applies to them all. Leibniz was of course trying to appease Christians by suggesting that the Christian God was at the root of everything. In fact, it’s the Cosmic Mind (= ontological mathematics, conveyed by infinite monads) that is the metaphysically necessary, eternal entity that underlies everything, and thus is the source of all.

Substance “A substance is a being that is capable of action. It is either simple, meaning that it has no parts, or composite, meaning that it is a collection of simple substances or monads. (Monas is a Greek word meaning ‘unity’ or ‘oneness’.) Any composite thing – any body – is a multiplicity, a many, but simple substances are unities, or ones. There must be simple substances everywhere, because without simples there would be no composites – without ones there could not be manies. And simple substances are lives, souls, minds – where there is a simple substance there is life – and the world’s being full of such substances means that the whole of nature is full of life.” – Leibniz This is a vital definition of “substance”. True substances are active, living, unitary mental agents = souls. Bodies are not substances, and are not inherently alive. As soon as they lose their contact with a soul, they perish, and return to dust. Only immaterial singularities – outside space and time – can be souls. They have no material parts. If they did, they would not be souls. Souls are made of light, and light is massless, unextended, and outside space and time. “Because monads have no parts they could never be either made or unmade, because that would involve their being assembled or dismantled, which

would require them to have parts. They cannot naturally either begin or end, and therefore they last forever, that is as long as the universe (which will alter but will never go out of existence). They can’t have shapes or sizes, because for that they would need to have parts. So two monads at a given moment can’t be distinguished from one another by shape or size, and must be distinguished by their internal qualities and actions. The qualities of a monad must be its perceptions; a perception is a representation in something simple of something else that is composite.” – Leibniz How would you distinguish one mind from another given that they are entirely non-sensory? What differentiates two minds is their thoughts – their internal qualities, actions, perceptions, etc. “And a monad’s actions must be its appetitions, which are its tendencies to go from being in one state to being in another, i.e. to move from one perception to another; these tendencies are the sources of all the changes it undergoes.” – Leibniz A mind’s activity can never cease under any circumstances. Even “death” can’t stop mind’s actions. Death is only bodily, not mental. “A substance’s being simple means that it can’t have many parts, but it doesn’t rule out its being in many states all at once; and those many different states must consist in the many different relations it has to things outside it. Similarly, a geometrical point is completely simple; yet infinitely many angles are formed by the lines that meet at it, and each of those corresponds to a relation that the point has to something other than itself.” – Leibniz A mind can have countless thoughts at once, but we can be conscious of only one at a time (the rest will therefore be unconscious).

Final and Efficient Causes Final cause: what something happens for; why it happens. Efficient cause: how something happens. Science is all about how; teleology is all about why. When science abolished teleology, it abolished why and thus any explanation of existence. Science never explains why anything happens or why the universe exists at all. All it does is describe processes. It replaces “God” with “Randomness”.

Is that a rational exchange, or merely replacing one idiocy by an even greater one?

The Unconscious “Awareness is not given to all souls, and no soul has it all the time. It was for the lack of this distinction that the Cartesians went wrong, by regarding perceptions of which we are not aware as nothing – a naively unscientific view like the view of folk who regard imperceptible bodies as nothing! This same underlying mistake led those same Cartesians to think that the only monads are [conscious] minds; they denied that non-human animals have souls, and were even further from allowing any mind-like sources of life at sub-animal levels.” – Leibniz Scientists do indeed regard “imperceptible bodies as nothing” – a catastrophic error caused by worshipping the human senses rather than divine reason. Plenty of New Agers commit the sin of believing that the universe is underpinned by “cosmic consciousness”, thus ignoring the fact that the vast majority of mental activity is necessarily unconscious. “Along with offending too much against people’s ordinary beliefs by refusing all feeling to non-human animals, they went too far with popular prejudices by confusing a long stupor arising from a great confusion of perceptions with death strictly so-called. (If death occurred, it would involve the stopping of all perception, not mere confusion of perceptions.) This confirmed people in their ill-founded belief that some souls go out of existence, and also confirmed the so-called ‘free-thinkers’ in their miserable opinion that our own souls are not immortal.” – Leibniz Souls can never perish. There rational essence guarantees their immortality. As for animals, they are on a continuum with humans, not completely separate from them. We evolved from animals, plants and protozoa.

Dark Mind If dark matter is invisible matter, dark mind is invisible-to- consciousness mind (i.e. the unconscious).

Scientific Brutes “The perceptions of non-human animals are interconnected in a way that has some resemblance to reason. But it differs from reason because· it is grounded only in the memory of facts or effects, and not at all in the knowledge of causes. That is what happens when a dog shrinks from the stick with which it has been beaten because memory represents to it the pain the stick has caused. In fact human beings, to the extent that they are empirics – which is to say in three quarters of what they do – act just like non-human animals. [An ‘empiric’ is someone who goes by obvious superficial regularities and similarities without asking ‘Why?’ about any of them.] For example, we expect there to be daylight tomorrow because we have always experienced it that way; only an astronomer foresees it in a reasoned way (and even his prediction will prove wrong some day, when the cause of daylight goes out of existence). But genuine reasoning depends on necessary or eternal truths like those of logic, arithmetic and geometry, which make indubitable connections between ideas and reach conclusions that can’t fail to be true. Animals that never think of such propositions are called ‘brutes’; but ones that recognise such necessary truths are rightly called rational animals, and their souls are called minds. These souls are capable of reflective acts – acts of attention to their own inner states – so that they can think about what we call ‘myself’, substance, soul, or mind: in a word, things and truths that are immaterial. This is what renders us capable of science, or of demonstrable knowledge.” – Leibniz Scientists are empirics – brutes – because they do not accept rational, necessary truths.

Putrefaction “The ancients believed that living things come from putrefaction, that is, from formless chaos; but recent researches have shown – and reason confirms – that this is wrong, and that plants and animals (the only living things whose anatomy we know) come from pre-formed seeds, and therefore from the transformation of pre-existing living beings.” – Leibniz Scientists – like the primitive ancients – believe that living things come from dead things!

The Death Illusion “And just as no animals completely come into existence when they are conceived or generated, so none go completely out of existence in what we call their death; for it is only reasonable that what doesn’t begin naturally should not end naturally either.” – Leibniz Souls aren’t “born”, and anything that was never born can never die. Bodies are born and die, but not their souls. This means that souls are not in bodies. Rather, they connect to bodies inside space and time from outside space and time (from the mental Singularity), and control them remotely, like pilots controlling drones thousands of miles away. Evolution has caused the mind to imagine itself located inside the body. Bicameral humans may not have had this notion, or not nearly as concretely. In drone terms, imagine how much more efficient and manoeuvrable the drone would be if its pilot imagined himself inside the drone, as if the drone were his body. Evolution works hard to bind mind and body as closely as possible. “What happens at death is that the animal throws off its mask or its tattered costume and returns to a smaller stage, where it can still be just as sensible [French, meaning ‘capable of sensing’ or ‘capable of being sensed’] and as orderly as it was on the larger one.” – Leibniz Leibniz proposed that, at death, monadic souls don’t leave space and time entirely (as they await a new body), but, rather, remain in a much smaller body (a body the size of a speck of dust), from where they can acquire a new, full body. This doctrine was necessary to protect the uniqueness of “God”, the only entity perfectly outside space and time.

Metamorphosis “...in their birth and death, [animals] are only transformed – unfolded and refolded, stripped bare, re-covered. A soul never leaves behind its whole body, passing to an entirely new one. So there is no metempsychosis [= ‘a mind’s switching from one body to another’], but there is metamorphosis [= ‘a body’s changing its form’]. Animals do change, but only by gaining and losing parts. In the process of nutrition this happens continually – little by little, by tiny, imperceptible steps. It happens all at once and very

perceptibly in conception or in death, which makes the animal gain or lose a great deal all at once.” – Leibniz Leibniz’s views on metamorphosis flowed directly from his assertion that only God can be perfectly “clear”, i.e. perfect form, completely free of matter. He needed to adopt such a view to preserve the singular status of the Christian God. However, in his secret system, where there was no Christian God, all monads were capable of existing as pure form, hence he could rationally endorse reincarnation.

Infinity “For everything in nature goes on to infinity...” – Leibniz If eternal life is the essence of something, it can never perish. It will indeed necessarily go on to infinity.

Metaphysics What is metaphysics? It’s about getting your concepts right – properly, systematically defined – before you embark on physics. It’s about placing a rational system underneath an empirical one. “So far I have spoken only of what goes on in the natural world; now I must move up to the metaphysical level, by making use of a great though not very widely used principle, which says that nothing comes about without a sufficient reason; i.e. that for any true proposition P, it is possible for someone who understands things well enough to give a sufficient reason why it the case that P rather than not-P. Given that principle, the first question we can fairly ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing? After all, nothing is simpler and easier than something. Also, given that things have to exist, we must be able to give a reason why they have to exist as they are and not otherwise. “Now, this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe can’t be found in the series of contingent things – that is, in bodies and the representations of them in souls. I shall explain why it can’t lie in the facts about bodies; that it can’t lie in the facts about mental representations of bodies follows from that. The reason is that there is nothing in matter, considered in itself, that points to its moving or not

moving, or to its moving in some particular way rather than some other. So we could never find in matter a reason for motion, let alone for any particular motion. Any matter that is moving now does so because of a previous motion, and that in turn from a still earlier one; and we can take this back as far as we like – it won’t get us anywhere, because the same question – the question Why? – will still remain. “For the question to be properly, fully answered, we need a sufficient reason that has no need of any further reason – a ‘Because’ that doesn’t throw up a further ‘Why?’ – and this must lie outside the series of contingent things, and must be found in a substance which is the cause of the entire series. “It must be something that exists necessarily, carrying the reason for its existence within itself; only that can give us a sufficient reason at which we can stop, having no further Why? question taking us from this being to something else. And that ultimate reason for things is what we call ‘God’.” – Leibniz Math, not God, is the ultimate reason for everything, that which fully and necessarily expresses the principle of sufficient reason. The God Equation defines ontological mathematics, which defines everything else, and provides the sufficient reason for everything else. “This simple, primal substance must have, eminently, the perfections possessed by the derivative substances that are its effects. [‘The technical term “eminent” means “in a higher form”. To grasp this, take the example of will. You are able to decide how to act and then act on your decision; that’s what it is for you to have will, which Leibniz calls a perfection. This comes from God, he says, but will in you is coloured and constrained by many features that aren’t present in God: the limits on your knowledge and on your physical powers, the potential influence of emotions, and so on. So will in God is tremendously unlike will in you; it is will in some higher form; which Leibniz and his contemporaries expressed by saying that God eminently has will.’ – Jonathan Bennett] Thus, the primal substance will have perfect power, knowledge, and will; which is to say that it will be omnipotent, omniscient, and supremely good. And God must also be supremely just, for justice in the broadest sense is nothing other than goodness in conformity with wisdom. God (the primal Reason) who made things come to exist through himself also makes them depend on him for

their staying in existence and for their operations. Whatever perfections they possess they continually receive from him; but whatever imperfections they retain come from the essential and inherent limitation of a created thing.” – Leibniz All scientific things are limited, “created” things, which can’t explain themselves. All fundamental mathematical things are eternal, and are fully explained by their rational essence ... by their inherent ontological definition. They are “something nothings”, i.e. somethings that are perpetually zero thanks to perfect internal balance between positive and negative. We don’t have something rather than nothing: we have something that infallibly balances to nothing, which can happen only mathematically. Mathematics is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present, and omni-aware. It is not, however “supremely good” (an ambiguous moral description involving subjective judgments). It is, on the other hand, supremely rational. This is a rational, intelligible universe, not a moral universe. “God is supremely perfect, from which it follows that in producing the universe he chose the best possible design – a design in which there was the greatest variety along with the greatest order, the best arranged time and place, the maximum effect produced by the simplest means, in created things the highest levels of power, knowledge, happiness and goodness that the universe could allow. For in God’s understanding all possible things lay claim to existence, with their claims being strong in proportion to their perfections; so the outcome of all those claims must be the most perfect possible actual world – the one with the strongest claim. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to give any reason why things have gone as they have rather than otherwise.” – Leibniz This expresses the opposite of the increasingly popular Multiverse worldview of science, where all possible things happen indiscriminately. For science, there is no “best possible world”, but “all possible worlds”, i.e. absolutely no choice, judgment, discrimination, meaning or purpose is present in science. Everything is random and meaningless. “God’s supreme wisdom made him choose, above all, the laws of motion that hang together the best, and that have the best fit with abstract or metaphysical reasoning. They conserve the same quantity of total or

absolute force, i.e. of action, of relative force, i.e. of reaction, and of directional force.” – Leibniz Actually, “God” didn’t choose anything. All laws derive from a single eternal and necessary law – the God Equation – from which all of the above considerations automatically and necessarily follow. “Furthermore, adding to the wonderful simplicity of the basic laws of physics, action is always equal to reaction, and the complete effect is always equivalent to the total cause. These laws of motion have been discovered in our own time, some of them by me. If we want to explain why they are laws, it turns out, surprisingly, that we can’t do this purely in terms of efficient causes, that is, in terms of matter. I have found that to explain why the basic laws of physics are laws we have to bring in final causes, and that these laws don’t depend on the principle of necessity, as do the truths of logic, arithmetic and geometry, but on the principle of fitness, meaning that they depend on what God in his wisdom has chosen. For anyone who can look deeply into things, this is one of the most convincing and most evident proofs of the existence of God.” – Leibniz In fact, the “principle of fitness” has nothing to do with God’s wisdom. It reflects dialectical evolution. As for the basic laws of physics, they do depend on the principle of necessity. They are exactly the laws mandated by the underlying ontological mathematics. “From the supreme Author’s perfection it follows not only that the order of the entire universe is the most perfect that could be, but also that every living mirror that represents the universe according to its own point of view, that is to say every monad, or every substantial centre, must have its perceptions and its appetites ordered in the best way that is compatible with the perceptions and appetites of all the rest. And from that it follows also that souls – that is to say, the most dominant monads – cannot fail to wake up from the state of stupor into which death or some other accident may put them. (I said this about ‘souls’, but really it applies to the animals of which they are the souls.)” – Leibniz It’s the God Equation – aka the principle of sufficient reason – that is supreme perfection, and the author of all things.

“For everything in things is ordered once and for all with as much regularity and as much correspondence as possible. (The correspondence in question is that between the states of each monad and the states of each other monad; it constitutes a sort of ‘harmony’·.) This is because supreme wisdom and goodness can only work in perfect harmony.” – Leibniz Only math can guarantee such an outcome ... the mathematical harmony of the entire universe. Mathematics is quintessential harmony. Nothing else is. Any part of math necessarily works perfectly well with any other part. That’s true of no other system. Nothing in science has any necessary relation with any other part of science, which is why relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and neither is compatible with Darwinian evolution.

Perfect Reason “As far as the rational soul – the mind – is concerned, there is something more to it than to monads generally, or even to mere souls that are not rational. A rational soul is not only a mirror of the universe of created things, but also a likeness of the creator. A mind not only has a perception of God’s works, but can also produce something that resembles them, though on a smaller scale. For our soul is systematic in its voluntary actions, and in discovering the sciences that God has followed in his ordering of things (by weight, measure, number, etc.). The soul imitates in its own sphere, and in the little world in which it is permitted to operate, what God does in the world at large. (I spoke of the soul’s ‘voluntary’ actions so as to set aside the wonders of dreams, in which we easily invent things that we couldn’t come up with while awake unless we worked at them for a long time, these dream achievements of ours being involuntary.)” – Leibniz To reason perfectly is to be God. There is nothing to stop anyone from reasoning perfectly. Of course, to do so, you need to be incredibly intelligent, and to overcome all of the irrational (or sub-rational) forces that are sabotaging your reason. There is no such thing as “God reason” as a separate type of reason from “human reason”. Reason is universal. Reason is reason. “God” does it well, and humans do it badly. If humans did it as well as God – and there’s nothing to prevent this – then they would be God too.

The more rational you are, the more divine you are. All forces that obstruct reason are Satanic. They are holding us back from our own divinity. Religious faith and scientific empiricism are both blocking humanity’s progress. Both must be smashed to smithereens by reason. “That is why all minds, entering (by virtue of reason and of eternal truths) into a kind of community with God, are members of the City of God – that is, of the most perfect state, formed and governed by the greatest and best of monarchs. This applies to the minds of men and also those of higherthan-human spirits.” – Leibniz It’s through reason that you become a member of the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine. A rational humanity can build heaven on earth. Any other type of humanity produces hell on earth ... as history demonstrates.

The Kingdoms The physical domain is the kingdom of nature. The moral domain is the kingdom of grace (say the Christians). But true morality actually resides in the kingdom of reason. The rational thing to do is always the most moral thing to do.

***** “This harmony works in such a way that nature itself leads on to grace, and grace perfects nature – completes it, rounds it off – while at the same time making use of it.” – Leibniz It’s the rational dialectic, not “grace”, that accomplishes this. “Grace” is a preposterous, undefined, miraculous quality or force invoked by irrational Christians. There is no such thing as grace.

Architect or Monarch? Abrahamists regard God as a monarch, a ruler. In fact “God” is the God Equation, and is a cosmic architect (“Demiurge”, in the Platonic sense). An architect has no need of followers, believers or worshippers. His job is to produce “a machine for living”. The world is exactly that machine for living.

The Inversion “Only revelation can tell us in detail about the great future that awaits us in the next life; reason can’t do that.” – Leibniz This is indeed what Christians believe. However, as Leibniz well knew, the exact opposite is true. Revelation can’t tell you anything. It’s pure Mythos. Only reason – Logos – can reveal our destiny: the big picture, if not all the small details. “God” himself, according to Leibniz, used his perfect reason to calculate the best of all possible worlds, which is therefore the most rational of all worlds. If it’s good enough for God, it’s good enough for everyone else. God himself didn’t use revelation to understand the future, so why should we? In Leibniz’s system, the infinite mind of “God” knows everything that is going to happen, hence why he has perfect foreknowledge. This knowledge is supplied by God’s reason, not by “revelation”.

Perceiving God? “We can’t perceive God through our external senses...” – Leibniz We can’t perceive Truth through our senses. Reason alone can reveal it to us. “God” = Truth = Math.

Mathematical Pleasure “The pleasures of the senses themselves come down in the end to intellectual pleasures – they strike us as sensory rather than intellectual only because they are known in a confused way. Music that we hear can charm us, even though its beauty consists only in relations among numbers, and in the way the beats or vibrations of the sounding body return to the same frequency at certain intervals. (We are not aware of the numbers of these beats, but the soul counts them all the same!) Our pleasure in the proportions of things we see are of the same kind; and those that the other senses produce will come down to something similar, even though we couldn’t explain them so straightforwardly.” – Leibniz All pleasure, as Leibniz indicates, is based on numbers, relations between numbers, geometrical symmetry, numerical patterns, numerical order,

numerical sequences, numerical harmony, numerical elegance, correctness and fitness ... on our unconscious enjoyment of patterns, connections, sequences, ratios, harmonies, symmetry. What is laughter if not our response to the unexpected breaking of an expected pattern. But this can produce tragedy.

Meritocracy Meritocracy is the government of God ... of pure reason.

Leibniz’s Theory of Matter In the Leibnizian universe, nothing exists other than monads. Leibniz said, “I believe that there are only monads in nature, everything else being only phenomena that result from them.” So, everything must be explained via these simple, indivisible, unextended substances without any physical parts, which are in permanent internal motion (they are always thinking, albeit mostly unconsciously). How, then, does Leibniz account for matter, which is extended, spatial, temporal and “physical”? Ultimately, he must resort to a mental, phenomenal explanation. Immanuel Kant, who was significantly influenced by Leibniz, said that the “reality” we encounter is mind-generated (phenomenal), and we can know nothing about noumena (things-in-themselves). Leibniz himself said we can know about noumena – because they are none other than monads – and that the phenomenal world is entirely derived from their properties. Where Leibniz explains noumena and the phenomena that result from them, Kant “explains” only phenomena, and turns noumena into a total mystery. That’s the difference between a rationalist (Leibniz) and an empiricist (Kant). It’s remarkable that Kant is taken as the more influential philosopher given that he made the world less explicable. As for science, it ideologically denies that there’s any noumenal, nonsensory world. Nietzsche also regarded noumenal reality as a nullity, fantasy, or completely unknowable, hence railed against all systems that pointed to this other world. He denounced Plato and Socrates as much as he did Christianity. For Leibniz, noumena are simply minds, and matter is the phenomenon they generate. He said, “Matter is not composed of constitutive unities, but

results from them.” To understand what this means, it’s necessary to go back to ancient Greek thinking. Pythagoras contended that everything is made of points (monads) and reflects their relations. A 1D line is created by joining two points. and 3D solids are created by joining points in three dimensions. So, Pythagoras’s position is: “Matter is composed of constitutive unities.” However, this position fails to address what the joining lines are made of (i.e. what, ontologically, connects the points?), and this is why the more nuanced approach of Leibniz is required. Leibniz’s view has had to be modified in turn by the even more nuanced approach of modern Illuminism, based on Euler’s Formula, Fourier mathematics, and sinusoids. Plato conceived of matter as a formless cosmic clay in need of having form imposed on it. This was accomplished via the “Demiurge”, who had knowledge of the perfect Forms (located in a transcendent mental domain outside space and time), and could use this knowledge to stamp matter with appropriate forms. Aristotle abolished Plato’s transcendent realm of Forms, proposing instead that matter and form are always found together (the doctrine of hylomorphism), except in two limiting cases: 1) God is matterless form (pure actuality), while, at the opposite end of the scale, stands formless matter (prime matter; pure potentiality). Everything else is a mixture of the two, i.e. formed matter. In his published writings, Leibniz followed Aristotle’s lead, in a typically ingenious way. His radical step was to make “matter” a property of monadic mind. God, for Leibniz, was the purest monad: completely “clear” and pure form, with no material component. The opposites of the perfect God monad were the barest monads – pure matter and no form, which were completely “unclear” and confused. It’s crucial to grasp that these “material” monads do not constitute anything physical. They are still dimensionless, massless, unextended, and so on. They are purely mental, but their mental activity can be conceived in materialistic, phenomenal terms. Kant and Boscovich both seized on this notion of “material” pointsatoms. However, they divorced them from mind and instead made them the centres of Newtonian forces, thus hoping to reconcile the opposing systems of Leibniz and Newton.

Apart from the extreme monads – the perfect God monad on the one hand, and the bare monads on the other – all other Leibnizian monads were hybrids of matter and form. We might say that they were hybrids of the bare monads (total potential) and God (total actualisation). So, we all contain a seed or spark of God. The implication of this is that, through time and evolution, all of our potential will be converted into actuality, and we ourselves will become Gods, completely clear and perfect. Aristotle believed we were all linked to God (perfect reason) via our immortal nous, and that this was the only part of our body (matter) and soul (the form of the material body) that would survive our death. To put it another way, nous was actually part of God rather than part of us. It operated through us, but did not belong to us. The Stoics subscribed to an Aristotelian system. S. E. Frost, Jr. wrote, “[The Stoics] agreed with Aristotle that the universe is composed of two principles: form or “force” and matter. Force moves and acts, while matter is acted upon. These two principles are not separated from each other, as Plato taught, but are united in every object. Further, both force and matter are, for the Stoics, bodies. The bodies which are force are very fine-grained, while those which are matter are coarse and formless. Thus, everything in the universe is a body, is corporeal. “All the forces in the universe form a force which is in everything, a sort of fire which is the active soul of the universe. The Stoics thought of this world soul as fire because they believed that heat produced everything and moved everything. Heat, for them, is the giver of life. Consequently, fire is the basic principle of the universe. “This fire, or world soul, is related to everything in the universe just as the soul of man is related to his body. Indeed, the world is merely the body of the world soul. “From the original fire, the Stoics taught, air, water, earth, and all else in the universe arise. These four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which were also the four elements of Empedocles), combine in many ways to form the things of the universe. And through every object in the universe the divine principle flows, making it alive. “The Stoics were not willing, as were the Epicureans, to think of the universe as something that just happened by chance. Nor were they willing to go along with the Epicureans to the extent of holding that the universe is purely mechanical. Their principle of force was alive, and the universe

which came into being was also alive. For them the universe was a perfect sphere or ball floating in empty space, a ball held together and made alive by its soul. [MH: note how today’s scientists are modern Epicureans, believing in chance and mechanism, and denying that the universe is an evolving, teleological organism with a soul.]” Where the Stoics believed in fine-grained force-bodies interacting with coarse and formless matter-bodies (just as in modern physics, with bosons and fermions), Leibniz made the force (form) and matter different aspects of monads. Where Plato regarded form and matter as belonging to separate domains, Aristotle regarded them as separate yet always found together as hybrids in one domain, except in the limiting cases of prime matter (formless matter) and God (matterless form), neither of which can be experienced with the senses (i.e. they are noumenal rather than phenomenal). So, Plato put form in an immutable, intelligible, dimensionless domain outside space and time, and matter in a mutable, sensible, dimensional domain inside space and time (but allowed the Demiurge to shape matter as inferior copies of forms), while Aristotle brought them together in the natural world, yet kept prime matter and God separate from all the perceivable, experienceable hylomorphic substances of nature. Where Plato made it clear that form was separate from matter, Aristotle made the distinction much more ambiguous. It might be concluded that Aristotle’s God was the highest mode of matter (fully actualised matter), or that matter was the lowest mode of God (form as pure potentiality). The Stoics took the former view and regarded both form and matter as corporeal (with form as the highest and finest expression of matter). Leibniz, on the other hand, took the latter view, and regarded form and matter as incorporeal (with matter as the lowest and crudest expression of mind). Plato was an advocate of an immaterial soul that could exist separately from matter. For Aristotle, and Leibniz in his published writings, only God was immaterial. Where Plato said that immaterial, living souls inhabited certain kinds of otherwise dead matter (the bodies of plants and animals), and thus animated them, Aristotle’s view was essentially one of hylozoism (matter, as we encounter it, is inherently alive since it always manifests form), or of panpsychism (mind is everywhere, so all matter has mind).

That said, Plato’s concept of the World Soul meant that the entire universe was permeated by mind, hence was a living organism, so could also sustain hylozoistic and panpsychist interpretations. However, the key point is that Plato insisted that individual soul could exist separately from matter, whereas Aristotle believed that only God (matterless form) was separate from matter (although we might alternatively regard God as perfectly refined, clarified and actualised matter ... matter in the limit of actualisation). Dialectical materialism, like Stoicism and Aristotle (to some extent), has mind as the fullest expression and highest mode of matter. As for scientific materialism, it regards mind as an empty epiphenomenon that emerges miraculously and pointlessly from matter, and has no causal efficacy, or capacity to exist independently of matter.

Pneuma The Stoics believed that the universe’s soul was made of pneuma (ancient Greek: “breath of life”) ... a fiery, creative, vital energy, made of aetherial fire and air. The highest and purest expression of pneuma is logos. In the New Testament, the pneuma is the spirit of man, while the psyche is man’s soul, thus drawing a distinction between spirit and soul. In the 17th and 18th centuries, pneumatology or pneumatics was a branch of metaphysics dealing with the theory and science of spiritual beings, which included God, the angels, and humans. Epicurus regarded pneuma as the source of motion in atoms, and capable of causing them to randomly swerve (i.e. to reflect indeterminism), while the Stoics regarded pneuma as the deterministic source of motion in the universe. Pneuma for the Epicureans was different from the Stoic pneuma. It was cold rather than hot, and, instead of relating to “breath” (a word associated with living motion), it concerned “wind” (a concept associated with lifeless motion). Epicurus – an Atomist – believed that the soul consisted of a collection of atoms. Philosopher John Longeway wrote, “According to Epicurus, the soul must be a body, for it acts and is acted upon, and so is not the void, and

body is the only other thing there is. Interaction requires contact, and only bodies can come into contact with one another, so immaterial things, if there were such, could not interact. ... A mind, then, to become aware of or attend to something, must make contact with it in a way it did not before, possibly through an intermediary image. “Soul is made up of four kinds of atoms: (1) air, which accounts for tranquillity of character, and in part for the way in which a living thing forms a unity, its different parts communicating with one another, (2) heat, which is responsible for the warmth of the body and aggressiveness, (3) wind (pneuma, a word which might be translated in another context as ‘spirit’), which moves the limbs and causes fear and flight, and (4) a fourth kind without a name, composed of the smallest sort of atom, perfectly spherical and so more easily moved than any other kind of atom, which is responsible for sensation and intellect. These four sorts of atoms are all so thoroughly intermixed as to form their own kind of stuff. The fourth sort, making up the rational part of the soul, is to the soul as the soul is to the body, for just as the soul makes the body a unity by causing it respond to things as a unity, and so ‘hold together’ much in the way the tonos of the Stoics holds the body together and makes it a unity, so the finest part of the soul ‘holds it together’ as a unity capable of doing the things that define soul, namely sensing, thinking and willing, and no doubt self-awareness as well. But soul does not hold the body together physically, nor does the finest part of the soul hold the soul together in this way. Soul is spread throughout and contained by the body, and without the body soul would dissipate like any gas. Moreover, soul’s abilities, even those peculiar to soul such as its ability to sense, will, or reason, are abilities it only possesses within the structure of the body. But it is also the case that the soul enables the body to function and maintain itself. Each needs the other to survive. “We think and feel with the ruling, rational part of the soul, the mind, located in the heart, to which sensation is transmitted from the coarser irrational soul, the spirit, in the rest of the body. ... “Epicurus’s account of the soul’s physical composition is rooted in the traditional breath-soul providing warmth to the body, and as usual, Epicureans follow folk beliefs as far as they can, ignoring the new findings of the physicians in Alexandria placing the mind in the brain. ... the main point is the soul’s corporeality, and the consequence that upon death it dissipates.”

***** Using the Aristotelian concept of potentiality versus actualization, Leibniz defined the material aspect of monads as passive (potentiality), and the mental aspect of monads as active (actualization). Monads “evolve” by converting matter into mind (potentiality into actualization), and becoming “clearer”. If they could keep going, they would become perfectly clear – in fact, they would become God! Bare monads are primary matter while God is primary mind, with everything else located between these two poles. If all bare monads, and, indeed, all monads with any material aspect, evolved to the fullest extent, they would become Gods, and the universe would be nothing but divine mind ... heaven itself, the home of the Gods. Primary matter in these terms is the passive aspect of mind, hence is not equivalent to scientific matter. When many minds are aggregated, so are all of these primary matters. What they produce is “secondary matter”. It manifests itself as what minds perceive as solid, material objects. These are appearances – mental phenomena – not things that exist independently of mind. There is simply no such thing as freestanding, physical matter. Material objects are objects of perceptions; not objects in their own right. They are real only to the extent they are perceived to be real by minds. If no minds existed, there would be no matter at all. What distinguishes this Leibnizian system from idealism or phenomenology, is that the reality he describes is, as he puts it, a “wellordered and exact phenomenon”. In other words, it’s not some arbitrary mental system where minds simply invent things, but a perfectly precise mathematical and scientific system where the state of reality at any instant can be calculated exactly merely by reading across the properties of all minds. Minds thus can’t invent objective content in the way they invent subjective content in dreams. What each mind objectively perceives is absolutely constrained by the whole ensemble of minds. To this extent, mental content – shared between all monads – is always scientifically objective, and never subjective. Moreover, the system is so ingeniously contrived that the properties of the whole universe can be calculated from any one monad. (“When a change occurs in one, there follows some corresponding change in all the

others.” – Leibniz) Each monad reflects the whole universe from its own unique perspective. This is therefore scientific idealism or scientific phenomenology. Everything is made of monads since, in a strictly monadic system, there’s obviously nothing else. The phenomenon of matter is a derivation, a resultant, of monadic properties. A human body, for example, is, in Leibniz’s system, composed of countless monads. Leibniz said, “Every simple substance (or individual monad) is the centre and source of unity of a composite substance such as an animal; the central monad is surrounded by a mass made up of an infinity of other monads which constitute its body.” But all of these monads are dimensionless points, so the human body as something extended and solid (non-pointlike) is not “real” but merely an appearance (a phenomenon). Here then, decades before Kant’s philosophy arrived on the scene, we have a system explaining how noumena (unobservable, undetectable monads) can generate phenomena (the stuff studied by science). The noumena are not unknowable, as Kant claimed, but fully rationally knowable. In modern Illuminism, they are precisely definable mathematically, and a universal formula applies to them. It’s plain that most philosophers didn’t understand Leibniz’s system, otherwise they wouldn’t have been so impressed by Kant who produced, in effect, an obscurantist version of Leibniz’s philosophy.

One Way There is one true ontology and epistemology, one true philosophy of nature (both seen and unseen, “material” and mental), a single correct view of reality. There is one true rational ethics based upon it. There is one true logic to reveal it. Everything else is false. Humanity has always followed the path of falsehood, and called it Truth.

The Science Deception Science is simply mathematics subjected to an invalid philosophy of materialism and empiricism. It involves intellectual, mathematical objects being replaced by sensory, “material” objects.

The Assault Reason is assailed on two fronts: from religious faith, and from scientific empiricism. Bizarrely, religious believers regard their faith as rational, and

scientific empiricists frequently claim they are defending reason against faith, even though they are openly opposed to rationalism, and they privilege the senses over reason and intellect. You cannot be a rationalist and a believer. You cannot be a rationalist and an empiricist. You must choose. Is this a rational (intelligible) universe, an empirical (sensible) universe, or a faith universe (ruled by an inexplicable deity)?

The Central Problem The central problem for humanity is that it perceives events (effects) – phenomena – and not the causes of those phenomena (i.e. noumena). We then have to work out the unperceived causes, and this is where humans invent all the drivel that has stained and defaced human history, most especially regarding mainstream religion. “God”, the cosmic conscious, the cosmic unconscious, cosmic Spirit, cosmic Will, cosmic Will to Power, bare awareness, scientific laws, potentiality wavefunctions, and so on, have all been proposed as the origin of causation. None of these can be perceived. None of them is empirical. We can’t perceive any probabilistic, uncertain, random order underlying reality, of the kind popular amongst modern scientists, which they prefer over rational causation and determinism. Reason alone – and not any kind of religious Mythos or empirical speculation – can reveal to us the unperceivable world of causation, the world that lies behind phenomena, events, effects, observations and perceptions. We don’t have to see things to know things. Scientists have never understood this. They are all about perception and not about intellect. They deal with the visible (phenomenal) order of existence, but all the answers to existence reside in the invisible (noumenal) order of existence. The most certain fact of all is that you will never perceive with your senses or feel with your emotions what the answer to existence is. Mysticism won’t help you either. Whether you like it or not, you’re going to have to work it out intellectually, i.e. rationally and logically. It’s a purely intellectual problem, not any other kind of problem. Prayer won’t help you, meditation won’t help you, faith won’t help you, observations won’t help you, and experiments won’t help you. The human tragedy is that people are anti-intellectual and regard the stuff of the intellect as weird, abstract, unreal and ideal. They place their

confidence in their senses, experiences, feelings and mystical intuitions, which they regard as real and concrete. Nearly all humans fail in their attempt to understand reality at stage one, i.e. they can’t even identify the kind of the problem they’re trying to solve. Let’s just repeat it ... the problem of existence is an intellectual problem. Therefore, no means other than intellectual means can be used to answer it. The instant you pray, or meditate, or perform experiments, you have revealed that you are clueless about the true nature of reality. The Truth is not a democracy. It’s for the people intelligent enough to work it out. Any approach to finding the answer to existence that does not use pure reason is ipso facto using unreason and will generate an absurd, wrong, false, and irrational answer. Just look at human history to see all of the crazy ideas humanity has advanced to explain reality in the absence of pure reason. Those who follow pure reason invariably arrive at mathematics as the answer to everything. Anyone who opposes mathematics is irrational. That’s a rational fact. You can’t claim to be a person of reason by opposing reason (as religious and scientific types do).

***** Science treats phenomena as noumena, i.e. it rejects the existence of an inherently hidden, rational, causal order of existence, available intellectually (rationally and logically) but not sensorily. It believes that the appearance of something is the thing in itself rather than that which disguises the thing in itself (which is permanently hidden). In fact, the noumenal order is the invisible order of causes, while the phenomenal order is the visible order of effects. You can’t have effects without causes, but modern science believes you can. It replaces a hidden causal order beneath phenomena with statistics, probabilities, accident, chance, indeterminism, indeterminacy, contingency, temporality, provisionalism, arbitrariness, acausality, the ad hoc and the heuristic. Science rejects reason and replaces it with random events (“causes” that have no explanation, no sufficient reason). Science is therefore a system of self-performing magic and miracles. Science hated the idea of an invisible “God” or “Cosmic Mind” controlling reality, so it did away with them, and put in their place a self-

perpetuating magic act where anything that can happen does happen. It happens because it can, not because anything is causing it.

Perception “Physical” perception takes place inside space and time. Mental perception takes place outside space and time. Science denies that anything at all occurs outside space and time. It reflects an exclusively spacetime conception of reality.

***** You cannot perceive reason. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? If reality is rational then it cannot be perceived. If reality is intelligible, it must be approached intellectually, and in no other way. Reason does not feature in prayer, faith, mysticism, meditation or science. These are therefore all false.

Spirituality Spirituality = non-spatial. Spirituality = non-temporal. Spirituality = immaterialism. Science = spatio-temporal materialism. Science and spirituality do not mix!

Religion and Math A soul is nothing mystical or mysterious. It’s a zero/infinity singularity. It’s pure math. The fact that it is zero guarantees that it is indestructible. The fact that it is infinite means that it is immortal. The fact that it has zero mass means that it’s immaterial. The fact that it’s a dimensionless, unextended singularity means that it’s outside space and time. All the things that religion, spirituality and mysticism contemplate are actually just mathematics, and, in particular, singularities. Mathematics is what guarantees you an afterlife, and guarantees that the spacetime world of matter (and science) is definitely not all there is. Atheism is an irrational, anti-mathematical faith system, which denies the existence of monadic singularities (autonomous Fourier frequency

domains). Atheists are unimaginative, unintuitive, irrational and illogical. They are people ruled by their senses. They are all on the autistic spectrum. Science, like religious faith, reflects a serious disorder of mind. It’s a mental illness, one that seeks to deny the existence of mind. Anyone who rejects their own mind is in serious trouble. Anyone who rejects free will has rejected their own mind. They attribute no causal agency to themselves. They take no responsibility for their own lives, and regard themselves as the puppets of external forces over which they have no control.

The Two Steps 1) Ask a scientist to define mind. He will be unable to do so, but will claim that mind is something that results purely from matter. 2) Ask a scientist to define matter, i.e. to state what it is ontologically. He will be unable to do so. “Matter” is of course just a label used by scientists to refer to objects said to be independent of minds. Scientists can’t define either mind or matter, yet claim they are on the side of reason and logic. What a joke! These people are clueless. They pontificate while having no idea what they are talking about.

Final Theory? The final theory of science will be expressed as a mathematical formula, but math has nothing to do with experimental science. Logically, the final theory of experimental science should of course concern a definitive experiment. But there’s no such thing, and never can be. Experiments, by their very nature, can never reveal ultimate truth. Ultimate truth will always lie beyond experiments, observations, perceptions and the senses, i.e. beyond science, which is why science has to turn to math. The answer to everything is not a thing, an object, something you can touch, smell, taste, hear and see, i.e. it has got nothing to do with the human senses. So, what, exactly, does science think it’s trying to accomplish?

The Rise of Science Humans first thought with their feelings and intuitions. Abrahamism is what you get when you take religious feeling to its ultimate conclusion. You construct one, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing Super Being with whom everyone can have a personal relationship. This is theism.

Mystical intuition leads not to a personal Being, but to an abstract “Oneness”, which absorbs everyone. This is pantheism. Science switched the emphasis away from feelings and intuitions to the senses. The senses cannot detect any invisible Super Being or noumenal Oneness, so scientists invariably start to lose their religious inclinations. This culminates in atheism. What made science distinctive was that, unlike Abrahamism and Eastern religion, it embraced mathematics. Without mathematics, science is just a primitive philosophy of observable nature, or even a religion. In ancient times, augury was a science. The observable things of nature were taken as signs, tokens and omens of the thoughts and feelings of the gods. “Experts” (augurs) – the equivalents of modern scientists – had to interpret the observables. Like scientists, they had hypotheses and theories, and, like scientists, always sought to have their claims verified. Modern science was productive insofar as it replaced faith and mysticism with sensory mathematics, involving objective measurements. However, it became a form of irrationalism and mysticism by rejecting all features of mathematics not susceptible to experimental observation. Science’s central problem is its incoherent relationship with mathematics, on which it’s entirely reliant. Science, like the religious institutions it displaced, is now obsessed with authority and tradition. Scientists believe themselves open minded, but they are open minded only within the narrow box of their Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. Beyond that, their minds are as closed as those of the most fanatical religious believers. The Truth is not about emotions, mysticism or the senses. The Truth is about reason. Reason, ontologically, is simply mathematics. The first Enlightenment replaced faith and mysticism with sensory empiricism. We now need a second and final Enlightenment, where sensory empiricism is replaced with mathematical rationalism. There is nowhere else to go after that. Math is the end of the line, the answer to everything. Humanity’s great task is to go beyond the senses in a rational way, rather than in the old, absurd, superstitious ways of faith, mysticism, prayers and meditation. Science has staked everything on its experimental method. Yet it cannot do without math, which has nothing to do with the experimental method. This is the fundamental and fatal contradiction at the heart of science,

which scientists refuse to address, and are not equipped to address since they hate and reject the clear thinking of philosophy. Reason itself is rejected by science. It has found no place in science. The Age of Reason must spell the end of science, and its replacement by ontological mathematical metaphysics (that which comes after physics and underpins and defines physics).

***** Science is a sensory Mythos, which uses mathematical Logos. We need to move to Logos itself ... pure ontological mathematics, the true language of metaphysics.

***** Sensory knowledge (empirical knowledge) is radically different from nonsensory knowledge (rational knowledge). Only rational knowledge is true knowledge.

The Greatest Challenge Human beings are profoundly affected by their feelings. They are aweinspired by their mystical intuitions. Nothing is more concrete to them than what their senses reveal to them. The least concrete, most abstract entities to human beings are the products of reason. Mathematics, logic and the inferences to be drawn from the principle of sufficient reason all seem radically divorced from humanity’s empirical reality, hence are rejected as unreal. Humanity’s greatest challenge is, against all of its instincts and assumptions, to reverse what it regards as concrete and real and what as abstract and unreal. The rational, logical things of the intellect are what is truly concrete. All the rest is abstract, illusory, fantastical, phenomenal, credulous and interpretive. As ever, humanity gets everything the wrong way around. That’s why it finds it so difficult to understand reality. It looks where the answers can never be found, and never looks where the answers actually are. Evolution has not designed us for truth, but for survival, and the brutal, dialectical contest for power. Truth is the last in the line of the things evolution cares about. The organ for truth – the rational intellect – is the final thing that evolution conferred on humanity, the last item in Pandora’s

box. It is still the faculty least exercised by humans, least understood by humans, and most rejected by humans. Humans will pray, humans will meditate, humans will perform experiments. What they won’t do is read logic and math, and study the laws of reason. They regard all of that as an abstract waste of time and energy.

The Calculus Mystery If, as the mathematical establishment claims, information can go missing during calculus – i.e. we can’t infallibly recover by integration a function we have first differentiated – then mathematics is ipso facto inconsistent and incomplete, does not obey conservation laws, is not eternal and necessary, and is not tautological and analytic. The mathematical establishment is completely wrong, and is deluded about the true nature and definition of mathematics. Just as the scientific establishment is irrational and a huge obstacle to progress, so is the mathematical establishment (full of many of the same kind and social class of people who dominate science, and indeed economics. i.e. privileged, rich materialists with contempt for reason, philosophy and metaphysics).

The Best Possible Illusion Do you want the best available illusion (science), or the truth (math)? Your choice. All sensory things are illusory things. All rational things are true things.

The Error Religion is a primitive theory of how the world works ... an intellectual error. So is science, but a more sophisticated error: a sensing rather than emotional error, hence more objective.

Two Eternal Principles In Aristotle’s system, “God” (matterless form; actuality) is identical to one of two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. The other is “prime matter” (formless matter; potentiality), which

is utterly unqualified (formless), and inert (it has no inherent motion and activity). Form acts, and matter is acted upon. “God” is equated to eternal reason (logos) = the intelligent designing fire in Stoicism.

The Epicureans versus the Stoics “The Epicurean view of the soul is intrinsically linked with their view on physics. According to Epicurus, there are only two substances that exist. Atoms and the void. Atoms are the physical entities which bodies are made up of. They have various properties which account for the different properties of various bodies. The void is the blank empty space in which all of the atoms and bodies made up of atoms can interact and move. “In the Epicurean view, any immaterial entity could neither act upon nor move bodies, in the way one observes the soul to do. Therefore, the soul must also be made up of atoms. Epicurus argued that the atoms making up the soul are very fine, and are spread out throughout the body, and through them one can have sensations and experience pain and pleasure. When a body loses its soul atoms it can no longer sustain life, and therefore it dies. There is also a part of the human soul concentrated in one’s chest, and it is the location of all of the higher intellectual functions. [MH: In the ancient world, the heart was often assigned the functions now attributed to the brain.] “There are two consequences of this view. The soul is not capable of surviving following the death of the body, and as the soul dies along with the body, there is no possibility of punishment after death. Secondly, there are no purely mental phenomena, as all sensations and experiences are in some way physical.” – Max Sipowicz The views of Epicurus are remarkably similar to those of modern scientists. Today’s science is just a clunky revisioning of ancient Greek Atomism. Science is wholly rooted in an ancient view of reality, and the ancient materialist philosophy. Shouldn’t science move with the times? Talk to any scientist and it soon becomes obvious that their core understanding of reality is based on particles travelling in empty space. The only significant ingredient science has added to ancient Atomism is the concept of the action-at-a-distance forcefield, and even that has been reinterpreted as the transfer of virtual particles. (A forcefield by itself would seem to Atomists like a spooky, immaterial influence on matter).

“The Stoics’ view was different in a few ways. They believed that the soul, or pneuma, was the animating force of bodies. It consisted of two of the four elements recognized by the Stoics: fire and air. Those were the active principles of the Stoic physics, distinguished from the passive ones which were water and earth. They assumed it was so because when animals die their bodies get cold and they cease to breathe, so the bodies must have been sustained by warmth and breath. Importantly to Stoic physics, pneuma was mixed in with the body. This way they could explain how there could be two bodies in the same spot. The soul was not only the sustaining cause of all bodies, but it was also guiding the growth and development of bodies that it is contained within. Pneuma can also consist of various ratios of the active elements, and in this way the Stoics could account for different qualities of bodies.” – Max Sipowicz Note how the Stoics carefully observed the world, and formed explanatory hypotheses, and so on ... just like scientists. But no scientist would take this kind of physics seriously. Why? Because it doesn’t feature mathematics. However, if math is what elevates science to something coherent and valuable, why not just switch to math entirely? Who needs science?! “From today’s standpoint, the Epicurean view appears to be much more plausible. With our knowledge that in some way the brain and the nervous system account for our conscious experiences, it seems plausible that what the Epicureans meant by ‘soul atoms’ was the same as neurons. On the other hand, the Stoic view requires one to accept the existence of a deity. The principle of Fire was associated with God in their view, putting an element of the divine into every living thing. As appealing as it would be to believe that there is an element of divinity in each living thing, realistically we can experience what the Epicureans argued for, and that puts their view above the Stoics.” – Max Sipowicz Note how Sipowicz reflexively uses that word “experience” to argue that the Epicurean system is superior to the Stoic system. In fact, Stoicism, if we equate pneuma to mental energy, is much closer to the rational, nonempirical truth!

***** “Moreover, one must also think of this, that we apply the term ‘incorporeal,’ in the most common meaning of the term, to what could be

conceived as independently existing. But the incorporeal cannot be thought of as independently existing, except for the void. And the void can neither act nor be acted upon, but merely provides motion through itself for bodies. Consequently, those who say that the soul is incorporeal are speaking to no point. For if it were of that character, it could neither act nor be acted upon at all. But in fact both these characters are clearly distinguished as belonging to the soul.” – Epicurus This is what any of today’s scientists would say. The trouble is this view is 100% falsified by Fourier mathematics. Epicurus knew nothing about Fourier mathematics, so he had a legitimate intellectual excuse. Modern scientists have no such excuse. They are stupid pure and simple, completely unable to recognise the truth.

***** For the Atomists, space was strictly passive. It was merely an incorporeal, extended container (a Cartesian box, so to speak), with no properties. For the philosopher Henry More, space was active. More agreed with the Atomists that space was both incorporeal and extended, yet “incorporeal”, for More, equated to dynamic spiritual substance, with will and teleology. For Newton, absolute space was, in effect, the incorporeal body of God, through which he instantly communicated with anything in space.

Newton, More, Space and God “...like Henry More, Newton believed God’s ubiquity was achieved by His literal presence in every part of an infinite three-dimensional space, from which it would seem to follow that God Himself is a three-dimensional being. Indeed that space must itself be an attribute or property of God, that is God’s infinite immensity. Submerged in Newton’s often unclear, ambiguous, incomplete, and frequently revised statements and shifts of nuance is a fundamental assumption that God is a three-dimensional, extended, immaterial being. This basic belief, which Newton never made explicit, follows from his conception of infinite, extended void space as God’s property, or immensity.” – Edward Grant “In several of his writings, Isaac Newton proposed that physical space is God’s ‘emanative effect’ or ‘sensorium,’ revealing something interesting about the metaphysics underlying his mathematical physics. ... Newton did

not consider God as a unitary, centralized spiritual entity transcending and overlooking all the movements of objects in physical space and time as though from a single vantage points, but as physically omnipresent and pantheistically coextensive with all of physical space. ... through this decentralized distributed model of God’s relation to physical space, Newton transformed earlier Neoplatonic ideas of physical space as God’s emanation or emanative effect and as God’s sensorium.” – Dale Jacquette “[God] is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. ... He is utterly void of all [material] body and bodily figure.” – Newton “In him are all things contained and moved, yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.” – Newton “About extension, then, it is probably expected that it is being defined either as substance or accidents or nothing at all. But by no means nothing, surely, therefore it has some mode of existence proper to itself, by of which it fits neither to substance nor to accident. It is not substance, then, because not absolute in itself, but only the productive [emanative] effect of God, and some affect must subsist in every being; because, then, it would not subsist through the modes of its proper affections which are being denominated substance, that is, through actions inasmuch as they are thinking in the mind and motions in the body.” – Newton “Space is being to the extent of being a relation. No being would exist or can exist that is not in some manner attributed to space. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere and body in the space that it fills; and whatever is neither everywhere nor somewhere, that is not. And hence it follows that space would be the productive [emanative] effect of the existence of being primarily, because by positing being anywhere space is posited. And similarities can be affirmed about duration: obviously both are affections or attributes of being which are denominated according to its quantity of existence in the individual to the extent of the amount [size] of the presence and perseverance in itself. Thus, God’s quantity of existence according to duration has been eternal, and according to the space in which he is present, infinite; and the quantity of existence of created things

according to duration has been as much as the quantity of duration from the beginning of existence, and according to the size [amount] of the presence as much as also the space in which it is present.” – Newton “[God] is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially.” – Newton What does Newton mean by “virtual” presence? Moreover, if you are present virtually, why do you have to be present substantially, or vice versa? “If ever there were not space, God would then be present nowhere, and hence he created space somewhere after he himself had not been present, or, what is not less discordant with reason, he created his own ubiquity.” – Newton Newton isn’t a clear writer. His thoughts are muddled, which no doubt explains why he “feigned no hypotheses” when it came to explaining his theory of gravity. Where Leibniz is a model of precision and clarity, it’s impossible to make sense of Newton’s philosophical musings. He seems to suggest that God is space, and yet not space; that space is the expression of God’s ubiquity, but is not itself God; yet he also seems to suggest that God without space is impossible because he would then be present nowhere, so he created space so that he would be everywhere. However, that implies that space is not part of God’s essence because he creates it out of nothing. But if the notion of God without space is absurd – because then God would be nowhere (i.e. he wouldn’t exist in scientific terms) – how could God exist in the first place in order to create space? If he could exist, then Newton has conceded immaterial, unextended, dimensionless existence, something which all of his science is at pains to deny. Moreover, how can space be created out of nothing (assuming nothing has no properties and potentialities), and what is its relation to nothing? No wonder Newton refused to engage in debate with Leibniz, just as all scientists refuse to engage in debate with philosophers. Their childish tactic is to say they are right, but then to never address their critics. They hope no one will notice that they have explained nothing at all, and no part of their model makes rational and logical sense. The whole thing is just a heuristic fiction, held together by math, to which science has no rational entitlement since mathematical rationalism completely contradicts scientific empiricism.

“Henry More defended the thesis that spirits are extended, and that God’s infinite immaterial extension was identical with space. According to More, we exist locally in portions of God’s omnipresent extension.” – David Leech “More is notable as a rationalist theologian who tried to use the details of the mechanical philosophy, as developed by René Descartes, Robert Boyle and others, to establish the existence of immaterial substance, or spirit and, therefore, God. In particular he is known for developing a concept of a Spirit of Nature, an intermediary between God and the world which was supposedly required to account for those physical phenomena which could not be explained by the mechanical philosophy, and a concept of an infinite absolute space which was also made to represent immaterial reality, and even to share a number of the attributes of God.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy “It is difficult to be sure precisely how closely More wants us to take the analogy between God and space. Clearly space and God are not one and the same, but More at the very least regards space as an instrument, or organ, through which God creates and maintains the world, and without which He could not have created it.” – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Scientific Theism Science is now all about scientific atheism. In Newton’s day, it was all about scientific theism. As in so many instances, science has made a 180 degree turn, yet never once admitted it. Science ought to become scientific pantheism or scientific deism. Theism and atheism are as absurd as each other. Each is the irrational shadow of the other!

The Spirit of Nature “The idea of an immaterial, imperceptive, and non-rational organizer of inert matter, a so-called Spirit of Nature, underwent an interesting, if relatively limited, revival in England during the second half of the 17th century. The origin of this idea, which existed in numerous allotropic forms, may be discovered primarily in Neoplatonic thought (although the influence of the Aristotelian theory of substantial from with its attendant teleology

must be taken into account), but its significance in the 17th century may best be understood if it’s viewed as a reaction against the new philosophies of the day. Apologists for religion in particular were attracted to the Spirit of Nature because they saw in it an escape from the suspected atheistic consequences of dualism, mechanism, and atomism which the writings of Bacon, Descartes and Hobbes had popularized.” – Robert A. Greene “Out of his correspondence with Descartes, [Henry More] developed the idea that everything, whether material or not, had extension, an example of the latter being space, which is infinite (Newton) and which then is correlative to the idea of God (set out in his Enchiridion Metaphysicum 1667). In developing this idea, More also introduced a causal agent between God and substance, or Nature in his Hylarchic Principle, derived from Plato’s anima mundi or world soul, and the Stoic’s pneuma, which encapsulates the laws of nature, both for inert and vital nature, and involves a sympathetic resonance between soul (psyche) and soma.” – Wikipedia “Nullus spiritus, nullus Dei [no spirit, no God].” – Henry More The Spirit of Nature is substantially the same idea as the World Soul (anima mundi). It is related to vis formatrix (the creative or formative force), and the hylarchic principle (“ruling over matter”). “Among the central themes of the ancient truth [Henry] More rediscovered and defended were the existence of a God whose leading attributes are wisdom and goodness; the immateriality and immortality of the human soul (the hope of immortality being, as More explained in the Preface to his poem Psychathanasia (1642), ‘the very nerves and sinews’ of religion); a dualism of active spirit and passive matter that differed significantly from the dualism of Descartes, despite More’s early enthusiasm for (and continuing engagement with) Cartesianism; the animation of matter by an immaterial but unthinking spirit of nature; and the existence of an infinite, substantial space, really distinct from matter, in which God is everywhere present and everywhere potentially active. ... His doctrine of infinite, substantial space was (in the opinion of some historians) an important influence on Isaac Newton. Space seems, on More’s portrayal, to be something divine...” – Kenneth P. Winkler “According to the Cambridge Platonist Henry More, souls have extension. In this respect, he departs from Descartes, who defined matter as extended

substance. For More, souls have extension no less than matter. They partake of the immanent sphere in a manner similar to that of light, which clearly inhabits the immanent sphere but is not ‘matter.’” – Daniel Calder Light is an enormous problem for science. It’s dimensionless, massless, unextended, and outside space and time, yet can interact with extended matter in space and time. When More compared light to the soul, he was bang on the money. A soul is made of light. However, it’s not extended, as he believed. It’s the flow of spacetime through the light Singularity that’s extended, not light itself. “More was afraid of the Cartesian notion that God set the universe into motion mechanistically, as he detected in it an inchoate materialism. While for Descartes, moving bodies are secondary causes, More accords such a role to a kind of ‘Spirit of Nature,’ which possesses extension, since for something to exist means that it has to exist somewhere and therefore have extension. For something to lack extension is for it to not exist at all, as a thing cannot exist ‘nowhere,’ More reasoned.” – Daniel Calder A thing can exist “nowhere” ... in the Singularity. The sensory human mind has simply never been able to conceive of an intelligible domain of mind, outside space and time. More’s whole ideology, like that of scientific materialism, is destroyed by mental singularities. “This does not mean, however, that the spirit of nature, having extension, is therefore divisible. Extension does not presuppose divisibility, for More. It is at this point that he draws on the traditional Neoplatonist metaphor of light. Light exists in the immanent realm, but, for More, it is not divisible. The ultimate source of these extended souls is, of course, God. Spirit of nature is the source of secondary causes, instead of the mechanistic interplay of atoms, as it is for Descartes. Although he is at home with Descartes’ acceptance of mechanical philosophy he believes that it is important to deny that this material mechanism is exhaustively explanatory of phenomena, since then we would succumb to Hobbes’ materialism.” – Daniel Calder “Henry More articulated his ideas concerning spiritual extension within the context of 17th century philosophical apologetics, attempting to prove the existence of God against atheists. More was an ardent admirer of both Plato and Descartes. He celebrated the metaphysics of the former and the

mechanical philosophy of the physics of the latter. Interestingly enough, however, he does not seem to have uncritically internalized the substance dualism of either. He seems to have believed that the soul was identical to the ‘animal spirits,’ which referred to the fluid which he believed was distributed throughout the brain’s ventricles, as well as throughout the rest of the body. Thus, there seems to have been some sort of latent materialism in his work.” – Daniel Calder Why has the notion of “spiritual extension” been rejected by science? It’s only because science has become increasingly atheistic and anti-mind. Science, ideologically, could not accept unextended mind, but it had no reason to reject extended mind. The whole concept of bosonic forcefields is more or less identical to More’s concept of spiritual extension. “To be sure, More regarded himself as an orthodox dualist. But it is difficult to escape the reality of this materialistic tinge in much of his thought. Indeed, More absolutely loved Descartes. Aside from Plato, he regarded Descartes’ philosophy as the best friends of the Christian theist. More, a good Cartesian, regarded matter as utterly inert and passive. Spirits, however, he regarded as active. Thus, the distinction between matter and spirit is not that one has extension and the other does not, but that one is active and the other is passive. This is quite different from the speculative metaphysics of someone like Whitehead, who regards matter as active. Indeed, More regarded the idea of inherently active matter as an enemy, and associated it with Spinoza’s pantheistic monism.” – Daniel Calder Mind is indeed the active, willing force in the universe. Matter is passive and devoid of will. Rocks – passive, with no will – do nothing. Bodies are active only while they are controlled by an active mind. When the control breaks down, the bodies turn to passive, inactive, non-willing dust. “For More, even God himself is extended. In fact, God causes matter to move precisely by literally touching it at concrete points in time. For God to be omnipresent, likewise, is for God to be extended in all things at all times. “Likewise, matter possesses a kind of ‘Spirit of Nature’ which moves matter. It is non-physical but still extended. More likewise spoke of the soul residing in the muscles, of perception being confined to a specific one of the brain’s centricles, and so on. ...

“In a certain sense, it was inevitable that More would adopt these ideas, since they are common in Neoplatonism. According to standard Neoplatonist cosmogony, there is a progressively cruder series of emanations from God. Rather than being purely immaterial, light was sometimes regarded as the thinnest and most insubstantial form of matter; an opinion shared by More. It was precisely because light was material and yet indivisible, that More thought he could demonstrate, by analogy, as we noted before, that the soul, though extended, was indivisible.” – Daniel Calder The Spirit of Nature is an unintelligent immaterial substance, serving as the intermediate between God and the World. God never interacts directly with matter. Since the World is full of errors, bungles, botches – none of which can be attributed to a perfect God – they must be caused by the actions of the unintelligent intermediatory. The Spirit of Nature can also handle forces such as gravity (without God having to get directly involved with the details and functions of the World), and can account for all phenomena that cannot be explained mechanically. The relation between the unintelligent Spirit of Nature and the intelligent Designer (God) was never addressed in any detail by More. In Newton’s system, it’s hard to see where the Spirit of Nature ends, and God begins. Science steadily got rid of God, and converted the Spirit of Nature into the abstract, unreal, quantum mechanical wavefunction. “More coined the terms ‘nullibism’ and ‘anti-nullibism.’ According to the first term, spirits are transcendent, and in the latter case, they are immanent. Thus, such individuals believe that the spirit is somehow in spacetime itself. God himself is immanent in such a way, advocates of the position hold. Thomas Aquinas held that spirits are immanent and that it is by their power and their essence that they are present. This is what is referred to as a nondimensionalist account of the spirit. In addition to this, Aquinas held to the doctrine of holenmerism, according to which ‘the spirit is whole in every part’. The doctrine of holenmerism, although not the name, originated with Plotinus. For Plotinus, the entirety of the human soul dwelt in any one part. ... More rejected holenmerism. ... Spiritual ‘extension,’ for the Thomist, simply means that the essence and the power of the spirit is there, not that it has literal dimensions in space and time.” – Daniel Calder

More referred to the Spirit of Nature as “the shadow of the divine essence”, and “the vicarious power of God”. He conceived of it as God’s agent in the world, its interface with the world, the repository of all the laws of matter and mechanics, and how to get matter to do non-mechanical things when necessary. “...More is totally committed to a dualistic belief in the existence of incorporeal substances [as well as corporeal substances]. Essentially, these incorporeal substances fall under three headings. There is God himself, of course, and there are two different kinds of ‘created spirits’. There are, on the one hand, all the immaterial souls of men, angels, and demons; and on the other hand, there is a ubiquitous ‘Spirit of Nature’ pervading even deep within the densest material body.” – J. Henry “[The Spirit of Nature is] a substance incorporeal, but without Sense and Animadversion [a critical faculty], pervading the whole Matter of the Universe, and exercising a Plastical power therein according to the sundry predispositions and occasions in the parts it works upon, raising such Phaenomena in the World, by directing the parts of the Matter and their Motion, as cannot be resolved into mere Mechanical powers.” – Henry More

***** The Spirit of Nature could be equated to the “Plastic Principle”, with plastic meaning “capable of shaping or moulding”.

Atheism “The essence of atheism for [Ralph Cudworth] was the view that matter was self-active and self-sufficient...” – Wikipedia Scientific materialism certainly doesn’t confer any activity on matter. Matter is regarded as essentially passive and inert. “Forces” acting on matter are what make matter move. Remove the forces, and there would be no movement. So, the question arises as to why we simply can’t call forces the Spirit of Nature!

Science

It truly is the case that if you knew everything about every scientific theory, you would know nothing at all. Science is not a system of knowledge, not a system of Truth. Science is a speculative, philosophical model – predicated on empiricism and materialism. Perfect “knowledge” of this model is not knowledge of reality, any more than perfect knowledge of the Koran is knowledge of reality.

Nullibists, Operationalists and Holenmerists Nullibist: from Latin nullibi “nowhere”. A Nullibist is a person who claims that spirits or incorporeal beings exist nowhere in space, hence do not exist at all according to those who believe in space and the necessity of extension, or someone who subscribes to the Cartesian position that immaterial souls can exist without extension. Cartesians deny that the soul exists in space. They advocate the principle of nullibiety or “nowhereness”. Newton, who believed that “the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere was opposed to Cartesian nullibilism, which logically means he must have considered God to be extended. God is therefore ubiquitous in an infinite extended void (space), so we must regard space either as God’s body (in which case where is God’s mind?) or as an immaterial, extended, spiritual substance that simply is God (the Holy Spirit, so to speak). As science became more atheistic, it retained Newtonian space (until the dawn of relativity and quantum mechanics), but banished God from it. God was forced to depart to nowhere at all (nonexistence!). Operationalist: One who denies that God can act at a distance by His Will rather than by His actual presence. Holenmerist: One who assumes that God is wholly in every part. “[Henry More] also dismisses the view (having previously held it himself), which he calls holenmerianism, that the immortal soul exists in its entirety in every part of the human body. This is the traditional view in Christian theology, which holds that the soul is in all parts of the body (since all parts are alive), but as the soul is indivisible it cannot be extended through the body (otherwise a severed arm might contain part of the soul, separated from the rest of the soul), but must exist everywhere as a whole (and

evidently immediately abandons Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

a

severed

limb).”

–

Stanford

***** Alicubi: somewhere. Ubiubi: wherever. Alibi: elsewhere. Nullibi: nowhere.

People of Reason People of reason use reason. People of unreason don’t. People of reason do not use their senses. People of the sensory stripe of unreason do. Why would any person of reason imagine that the non-rational senses are the route to rational truth? Are dreams the route to truth? They are sensory experiences that are wholly convincing to us while we’re experiencing them, yet are entirely make-believe.

***** If this is a rational world, it must be made of reason. If it’s intelligible, it must be made of intelligible (rational things). A rational, intelligible world cannot be made of irrational, unintelligible things, so whatever we claim is the origin of existence must be rational and intelligible in itself if we wish to defend the rationality and intelligibility of the universe. Mathematics is the root of all intelligibility and rationality. To see the truth of that, just subtract it from whatever you’re talking about, and see what’s left. Science, without math, collapses into inanity. If science relies on math, but math doesn’t rely on science, it stands to reason that ultimate reality is mathematical (rational), not sensory (scientific). Whether you like it or not, if you want to defend the existence of a comprehensible universe with an answer, you have nowhere no to go but mathematics. Nothing else is rational and intelligible. So, no matter how unpalatable it is to you, you will have to confront the reality that all life, all mind, all “matter”, are defined by mathematics and are in fact precise, analytic mathematical entities.

Sinusoids are the basis of life and thinking (which always go together), and “matter” is just an idea that minds are able to collectively project via the inverse Fourier transform.

***** Just because scientists say that something called “matter” exists doesn’t mean that it does (or at least not in the sense claimed by them). “Matter” in interpretation not any kind of fact. If “matter” can be much more rationally and intelligibly defined as a mathematical projection of mathematical minds then why would we not prefer that definition to some mystical claim that matter exists outside our minds, and would exist even if our minds didn’t. There is zero evidence or proof for such a claim. Given that we interact with the world exclusively with our minds, why would we posit something non-mental as the basis of existence? That’s utterly irrational. Why do scientists have such a problem with immaterialism, with mind as the origin of “matter” rather than the other way around? It’s because they are autistic, locked into a wholly sensory understanding of reality.

***** When scientists refer to “reason”, they always mean reason as something subordinate to their senses and empiricism. They are never referring to reason in and of itself, which is always purely mathematical. Always remember that scientists never come to reason in a pure sense, but merely regard it as an adjunct to their Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, which doesn’t rely on reason at all, and invokes no rational principles. What scientists mean by “reason”, and what reason actually is, are two radically different things. Pure reason is always analytic, deductive and tautological.

Which? Is reality emotional, hence irrational and unintelligible? Is reality mystical, hence irrational and unintelligible? Is reality sensory, hence irrational and unintelligible (unless sensory objects are treated purely as mathematical entities, with measurable mathematical properties)?

Is reality rational, hence automatically rational and intelligible? Which is the rational conclusion?

***** Will any amount of praying reveal to you the rational, intelligible answer to existence? Will any amount of meditation reveal to you the rational, intelligible answer to existence? Will any number of sensory experiments reveal to you the rational, intelligible answer to existence? Isn’t it time you woke up? Isn’t it time you faced the facts? Stop praying (emotionalising), stop meditating (mystical intuiting), stop observing (sensory experimenting). Start thinking, start reasoning.

***** Are you the enemy or ally of reason? Are you working for it or against it? Is your first instinct to turn to reason and logic, or to turn to your emotions, your senses, your experiences, your beliefs, your opinions, your interpretations, your mystical intuitions ... anything that does not involve reason?! You can’t be for reason if you always relegate it behind other things, all of which are concerned with unreason.

Tribal Scientists Science operates in tribes. Physicists say that anyone not doing physics is doing stamp collecting! It’s well known that biologists are hopeless at math, and are skeptical about the mathematical leanings of physicists. Physicists believe they are practical mathematicians, and consider actual mathematicians hopelessly impractical.

Organs for Truth Are the feelings organs for truth, i.e. do they reveal to you what is true and what is false? Are mystical intuitions organs for truth? Are your senses organs for truth? By observing the world with your senses, is the truth of reality immediately apparent to you, and are all false claims about reality equally apparent? Obviously, none of these things are organs for truth. They tell us nothing at all about the truth of ultimate reality, and they tell us nothing at all about how to identify false claims. In fact, only the intellect – operating according to pure reason – is an organ for truth. All truths are

analytic mathematical tautologies, and everything else is false! All falsehoods are misinterpretations of mathematical reality.

***** Can you construct a complete and consistent, eternal and necessary, absolute and infallible ontology and epistemology on the basis of: 1) your feelings, 2) your mystical intuitions, or 3) your unreliable, fallible human senses? Why do people imagine that these things are any possible route to truth? It’s only because they are irrational. Only pure, mathematical reason can construct an indisputable ontology and epistemology.

Brainwashing People have a real problem with interpretation. When you come across Maxwell’s classical theory of electromagnetism, or quantum mechanics, why do you immediately conclude that they concern “material” things? Why isn’t the speed of light equally the speed of mind? Why isn’t quantum mechanics about the interaction between mind and mind’s holographic projection (matter), or the interaction between direct life (mind) and indirect life (matter)? We are all brainwashed at school to go along with the ideology of scientific materialism. Why is science unable to define life and mind? It’s because it can’t connect anything from its materialist dogmatism to what life and mind must be. Life and mind aren’t bizarre, indefinable miracles. They are fully part of ontology and epistemology. They are causal agents. They are energy. They are substances. Because we have all been forced to don materialist goggles, and to think of everything in terms of concrete, phenomenal, sensory things, we have failed to understand that life and mind are noumenal, non-sensory things. Why would you imagine that life and mind are not conveyed by mathematical sinusoids? What are you expecting to use to define life and mind? Lifeless, mindless matter? Or your feelings? Or prayer? Or meditation? What about “bare awareness”, or “cosmic consciousness”? Your mystical intuitions? Philosophy? Manmade language? “God”?

Only one thing can analytically define mind and life ... math. Suck it up! You’re just going to have to use your imagination and intellectual intuition to overcome your sensory brainwashing, and start relating mind and life to mathematical energy (sinusoids). A sinusoid is a thought-in-itself, mind energy-in-itself, and mind-energy is living energy, the energy of life itself. You will never comprehend reality until you get your head around what life and mind are ... how they exist ... how they are conveyed ... how they exercise causality ... how they interact with “matter”. Stop looking at equations as dull abstractions. Start looking at them as living beings, or parts of beings, or the commands and thoughts of beings, or the will of beings. Mathematical functions are the living, mental agents that eternal souls use to enact their will. They are life in action. Nothing else is, and certainly not lifeless matter. A collection of integrated thoughts (belonging to an autonomous, complete and consistent set of sinusoids) constitutes a mind, and a mind constitutes a life. It’s impossible to rationally define life and mind any other way than mathematically, but, of course, you have to be rational to understand that. Light = life = thought = math. That’s the equation of existence. That’s why we inhabit a living, evolving cosmos (an organism) rather than a material machine, or material “accident”. Do you have the conceptual power to see thought and life in an ontological, sinusoidal wave? That capacity is what separates the Gods from the followers and the slaves. Unless you understand what life, mind and thinking are, you will never be able to master how to direct and control them. Mathematics – living mathematics – is how you expand your mind, and master the world around you. Did the Buddha understand the fundamental nature of existence? Selfevidently, he didn’t. So how could he have been “enlightened”? If anyone thinks that Buddhism contains the secret of existence, they have an absolute problem with reason and logic.

***** “Matter” (broken light) is nothing but the low-energy collective thoughts of the Cosmic Mind (the Monadic Collective). These thoughts seems very

different from our own private thoughts purely because they’re collective rather than individual, and external rather than internal. Our own thoughts are internal to us; the thoughts of the Cosmic Mind are external to us, hence have a different nature, character and quality. They are “other” rather than “self”. They have an origin outside us, hence seem alien. Collective light (i.e. light that is shared by the minds in the Monadic Collective) interacts with matter. “High mind” (“subtle” mind; light) interacts with “low mind” (“gross” mind = matter; atoms, bodies and things). Private light (light that remains strictly inside the monadic mind and is never shared) constitutes our private thoughts and dreams. Private light – very high energy light – is our individual light. Divine light is the highest possible light energy. Visible light is the primary shared light of the Monadic Collective. It can directly interact with matter in spacetime, unlike private and divine light (which act as if locked inside a black hole; they’re too energetic for the physical world). The lowest energy light “breaks” and turns into matter. Matter is simply light inside space and time. Proper light is always outside space and time. Humanity has made the catastrophic error of labelling the world inside our heads as “mental”, and the world outside as “material”, and treated them as radically different things. Scientists go as far as to deny the actual existence of true mind, making it a miraculous, inexplicable epiphenomenon of matter. In fact, the world inside our head is our individual (private) mind, and the world outside is the collective (public) Cosmic Mind. Trees, rocks, bodies, planets, stars, and so on are not physical “things” ... they are mental things (collective mental things, to be exact) that we misinterpret and mislabel as non-mental things. Go on, scientists, explain why “matter” is something different from the objective, collective thinking of the Cosmic Mind? What possible means could a scientist use to disprove this thesis, given that science has no clue whatsoever as to what a mind is, and what thoughts are. Since scientists don’t know what minds and thoughts are, how can they know what they are not? You can build subjective, “material”, sensory worlds in your dreams. Everything in your dream is thought, and nothing else. All sensory things and emotional events in your dreams arise from your mind. The mindless “matter” of science does not create the stuff of your dreams. Just as you can privately create sensory things and the illusion of matter in your dreams, so

the Cosmic Mind can create sensory things and the illusion of matter in the waking world. The waking world is nothing but a collective, objective dreamworld, which no one can alter by whim because they are confronting all of the other minds in the universe. All you can do is control your own little corner of the public dream ... your own body. This is the avatar of your mind sent into the collective dream. Have you woken up yet? You are a mind contained within a Cosmic Mind. You are private thoughts contained within collective thoughts. You imagine “thoughts” as things inside your mind. What are thoughts outside your mind? They either belong to other minds just like yours, or they belong to the Collective Mind and are known as “matter”! Until you grasp that, you will never understand reality. Science is as wrong as it can possibly be. That’s because it has no means at all to define what minds and thoughts are. That’s because it has a dysfunctional relationship with mathematics, and can’t understand what mathematical things are. It dismisses them as unreal, non-concrete and non-sensory (exactly as it dismisses mind). Scientists, locked into their senses, do not have enough reason, logic, intuition and imagination to see that all “physical” things are underpinned by mathematical things, which are actually mental things in themselves. You can never know how reality works unless you’re intelligent enough to grasp that ultimate ontology is mathematical. All the ultimate things are mathematical things and functions. There are no material things – in the scientific sense – at all! They are a fantasy, a Mythos. While you buy into the scientific fallacy, you will never comprehend the true nature of existence. If you want to change your life, read Bishop Berkeley – the great denier of matter – but replace his God with the Cosmic, Collective Mind operating mathematically. That, as it turns out, leads you to Leibniz’s Monadology. It’s shameful for humanity that these ideas (of Leibniz and Berkeley) are three hundred years old, yet still far exceed the intellectual capacities of 99.9% of the human race today. Humanity has failed to evolve. Forget science, Buddhism, New Ageism and spiritualism. Get your head round the fact that you are an individual mind (soul) existing inside a collective mind (World Soul = Cosmic Mind). You are not in an external world of matter, you are in a world of external thoughts (the thoughts of the Cosmic Mind rather than your own thoughts), wrongly labelled as “matter”.

Come on, scientists, prove us wrong. Where would you even begin? What ontology and epistemology would you rely on? Would you try to use reason and logic to attack our hyperrationalist position? Good luck with that! Do you think the scientific method refutes us? Dream on. Nothing at all in the scientific method addresses what things actually are. Materialism is simply a hypothesis – a model, a simulation – used by scientists. There is nothing at all to stop scientists understanding “matter” as shorthand for “collective thoughts resulting from interacting mathematical monads”, i.e. to switch from scientific materialism, empiricism and localism to scientific idealism, rationalism and non-localism. There is only one way to understand quantum mechanics ... as the interaction of the Cosmic Mind (a frequency Singularity) with its own holographic, low-energy, spacetime construct (the “material” world). All of the baffling mysteries of QM vanish as soon as you identify the correct ontology and epistemology ... that of noumenal mathematics. Get with the program!

Time To Doubt “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” – Descartes You have doubted everything that mainstream religion has told you. Now you must doubt everything that scientific materialism tells you. Science has led you down a different path from religion, but not a truer path. The only truth in science in math! And math isn’t science. Math, not “God”, not “matter”, and not randomness, is the truth of reality.

***** “So blind is the curiosity by which mortals are possessed, that they often conduct their minds along unexplored routes, having no reason to hope for success, but merely being willing to risk the experiment of finding whether the truth they seek lies there.” – Descartes Scientists are incredibly incurious. They irrationally refuse to contemplate a reality beyond undefined “matter”. They dogmatically insist that materialism is true even though they are as clueless about what matter is as they are about what mind is. Scientists don’t do ontological definitions.

They don’t do eternal, necessary epistemology. That’s exactly why they are wrong and deluded. They have no idea what they’re talking about. They are the enemies of reason, just as the people of faith are. “Rules for the Direction of the Mind: The entire method consists in the order and arrangement of the things to which the mind’s eye must turn so that we can discover some truth.” – Descartes “In my opinion, all things in nature occur mathematically.” – Descartes

***** “The whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards.” – Walter Bagehot Science was invaluable once, and now is killing off human progress. It has locked us into a bizarre paradigm predicated on meaninglessness and purposelessness. It has rejected the most fundamental thing of all: our own mind ... our own soul.

The Enemies of Reason “There seems to me to exist a sort of rationalism which, by not recognizing these limits of the powers of individual reason, in fact tends to make human reason a less effective instrument than it could be. ... This sort of rationalism is a comparatively new phenomenon, though its roots go back to ancient Greek philosophy. Its modern influence, however, begins only in the sixteenth and seventeenth century and particularly with the formulation of its main tenets by the French philosopher, René Descartes.” – Friedrich Hayek, Kinds of Rationalism “Descartes was an eminent mathematician, and it would seem that the bent of his mind led him to overestimate the value of deductive reasoning from general principles, as much as Bacon had underestimated it.” – Thomas Henry Huxley Empiricists always put down rationalism, always try to subordinate it to the senses. They always snipe at it, and claim it falls into error when it strays from the sensory world. That’s why Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason. Pure reason is in fact the only thing that can’t be critiqued!

***** Expand your mind. Change your perceptions. Free yourself of your illusions and delusions, especially those concerning the sensory world of matter. It’s impossible to sense so-called matter. The only things you can sense are the thoughts of the Monadic Collective. Every experience you have is either internal to you, or internal to the Cosmic Mind. But all things internal to the Cosmic Mind that are not internal to you are ipso facto external to you. You call them “matter”. You should in fact call them “collective thoughts”. Collective thoughts – external, objective thoughts – have a different quality and character from internal thoughts, but they do not belong to a different order of existence. They are simply collective, rather than individual, mind in action. That’s the sole difference. When you study the “material” world, you are actually studying the thoughts of the collective mind, rather than the thoughts of the individual mind. Open your eyes! For the first time ever, see. The light of reason reveals all.

Don’t Forget Reason is under attack from two directions: faith (feelings) and science (senses). Science is more successful than faith only because it uses mathematical rationalism (invalidly, given its empiricist philosophy, and inconsistently, given that it uses only the mathematics that suits its ideology). Never associate reason with science, only with math. Reason appears in science only because math does. Without math, there would be no more reason in science than there was in medieval alchemy. Scientists just don’t get this. They’re not rational enough. Scientists are irrational sensing types. They are mere collectors of data. They don’t understand how to rationally evaluate and understand it.

Measurement The ideology of science can be reduced to nothing more sophisticated than the gospel of measurement. Science regards measurable entities as existents and calls them “matter”. It says that all non-measurables are ipso facto nonexistents. Mind, free will, the conscious, unconscious, meaning, purpose, the soul, God, the afterlife, and so on, are all dismissed by science because

none of them is amenable to measurement. Of course, everything contained within a singularity cannot be scientifically measured, but that doesn’t mean it’s not numerical, analytic and rational. It doesn’t mean it’s not capable of being measured (by God or the Cosmic Mind itself). It’s pure blind, irrational prejudice that makes science dismiss measurables that it can’t measure via its sensory method. There are infinite measurable things that science can’t measure: all the stuff of ontological mathematics! No ontological, noumenal sinusoids can be scientifically measured, yet they are precise, numerical entities with analytic, exact measurements. A human limitation – the human inability to peer inside singularities – should never be allowed to determine what exists and what doesn’t. The Sophist Protagoras – the great enemy of philosophy – said that man is the measure of all things. This is exactly what science says too. Philosophers and ontological mathematicians know differently. Reality, not humanity, decides what exists and what doesn’t. Align yourself with rational, intelligible reality not with temporal, contingent, sensory human beings. Science itself is pure sophistry, while math is pure philosophy (metaphysics). You must stand with science or against it, just as you must stand with mainstream religion or against it. You can’t be a bit on the side of science and a bit against it. That’s to be insincere and to live in bad faith. It’s also to be irrational. Science is not your friend, it’s your enemy. It’s blocking the path to the truth with all of its irrational, sensory fallacies regarding an undefined things called “matter” (which doesn’t exist).

Game of Thrones OK, you will put down your math book to watch the latest episode of Game of Thrones. Well, everyone needs entertainment. The trouble is that almost all of humanity will put down their math book for anything at all, i.e. any activity “X” is preferable to studying math. Humans just can’t conceive of math as the real, concrete entity that defines everything about them, and provides the meaning and purpose of their life. Why are human beings so curious and always seeking answers? – it’s precisely because they are self-optimising, self-solving mathematical

entities, compelled to solve their own equation, to find out what the answer is to their existence.

The Art of Science Science is the art of fudge. Fudge means “to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead.” Scientists are expert fudge makers. Every scientific theory is a fudge.

Faith You can have faith in your feelings, your mystical intuitions, your senses. You cannot have faith in analytic, eternal, necessary, complete and consistent, tautological reason!

Hindus Hindus say, “In the beginning was neither existence nor non-existence.” Such sentiments are meaningless gibberish. Eastern religion is full of this kind of irrational nonsense.

The Bog When he fell in a bog and became stuck, David Hume asked a passing woman to pull him out. She said she would do so only if he recited the Lord’s Prayer to prove he was a God-fearing man. Hume later described her as the best theologian he ever met. Why is religion always about holding a gun to a person’s head to force them to believe?

The Ancient Multiverse The ancients had a version of the Multiverse. Some of them speculated that this universe might be just one of many universes, a rejected prototype left on the shelf by an amateur God. There might be many such test runs ... failed experiments. The Gnostics said that the Demiurge (Jehovah/Allah) was a bungling, blundering fool whose created world was a stupendous error and nightmare. According to Leibniz, God calculated the best possible world and actualised only that one, mentally discarding all of the sub-optimal universes (which remained as mere thought experiments). In the ancient

view, the gods actually built all of the error-strewn worlds, and poor souls found themselves trapped in them. In terms of mathematics, it’s impossible to create a universe containing any rational, logical errors at the foundational level of existence. Any errors or contradictions, even if they were possible (which they aren’t), would instantly tear the universe to pieces and annihilate it. Modern scientific Multiverse theory gives no consideration whatsoever to the stability of the infinite universes it proposes.

The Origin Where does God come from? Everything must come from a more basic reality, and the most basic reality of all must be uncreated and uncaused. Whatever lies at the foundation of existence must be radically different from everything that we know in the temporal, contingent world. It must have an entirely different essence. Only mathematics qualifies. Humans traditionally labelled the foundational reality “God” or the “Oneness”, and acknowledged how unique it was. Reason reveals it to be mathematics ... the thing most alien to the average human. “God” isn’t alien to humanity. In fact, God is just humanity writ large. It’s us projected onto a cosmic background. We are even said to be made in God’s image. No average human being says we are made in the image of mathematics, and have our most intimate relationship with mathematics. Humans have an ineradicable tendency to reduce the cosmos to human terms, whether it be their senses (science) or feelings and mystical intuitions (religion). They want to personalise the secrets of existence, or anthropomorphise them, or reduce them to the human scale and capacity for understanding. Mathematics, via zero and infinity, is beyond human understanding – which is why humans can’t find the answer to existence. But reason isn’t human. Aristotle said that the nous – the rational part of the soul – belongs to God. In fact, it belongs to math. Through math, we transcend our humanity and reach the cosmic Truth, the answer to everything. The Final Truth is the most difficult thing to attain because humans are so resistant to leaving behind their human limits. They’re too scared to become Gods ... to have infinite horizons and infinite power.

Science is a limited, human undertaking. Mathematics is an unlimited, divine enterprise.

Concreteness Emotionalists are driven by the concreteness of their feelings. Mystics are driven by the concreteness of their intuitions. Empiricists are driven by the concreteness of their sensory experiences. All of them regard mathematics as an unreal abstraction. Only rationalists can grasp that mathematical things are the concrete from which the whole of existence is built. Mathematics, and nothing else, is the fibre and fabric of existence. Behind everything stands math. Under everything, propping it up, is math. Math is found at the end of all roads. If you had a powerful enough microscope, a magical microscope that could penetrate through phenomena to noumena, you would discover mathematical sinusoids. But we don’t need a sensory microscope. The most powerful instrument you can possibly possess is reason.

The Liberation The world must be liberated from the long, unendurable darkness. This benighted world must be illuminated, so that it can fulfil the greatest of all destinies.

The Fourier Universe We experience the Fourier frequency domain as mind. We experience the Fourier frequency domain as matter. Only reason reveals the underlying Fourier mathematical truth.

The Truth “We are under an invincible blindness as to the true and real nature of things.” – Bishop Berkeley What could be harder for humanity to embrace than the subject it most fears and dreads ... math. The cosmic joke is to hide the answer to everything in the subject that humans most avoid, and find most unreal.

The Divine Suicide of the Stoics

“The cosmos is spherical and surrounded by an unlimited void. Given that its size is variable, there is need for a place into which the cosmos might expand. The reason the size of the cosmos varies is that the cosmos itself is subject to periodic generation and destruction. The argument for this claim shows again the heavy reliance by the Stoics on analogy: ‘in the case of things conceived by sense-perception, that whose parts are destructible is also destructible as a whole; but the parts of the cosmos are destructible, since they change into one another; therefore, the cosmos is destructible’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 7.140). The destruction of the cosmos is not an annihilation or return to nothingness, but rather a massive transformation, on the model of the way objects of senseperception change into one another. ... “The abstract description of the universe as having an active and a passive principle needs to be supplemented by a description of the kinds of bodies which make up the world. It is the elements which have form and which are subject to generation and destruction. The four elements acknowledge by the Stoics are fire (which is pre-eminent), air, water and earth. Fire is the pre-eminent element in the sense that all the other elements are generated from it. It has already been mentioned that the cosmos is subject to periodic destruction. The Stoic model of destruction is conflagration, and they held that the universe periodically burns itself up, changing everything to fire. This notion comes from the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, who is quoted as having stated that ‘This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be, an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures.’” – http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi143/stoaphys.htm There is no “conflagration”. Rather, the world begins from mental energy (mental fire, so to speak) at the Big Bang, and returns to mental energy at the end, at the Big Crunch. S. E. Frost, Jr. wrote, “All the forces in the universe form a force which is in everything, a sort of fire which is the active soul of the universe. The Stoics thought of this world soul as fire because they believed that heat produced everything and moved everything. Heat, for them, is the giver of life. Consequently, fire is the basic principle of the universe.” In fact, this “fire” is not a material substance, of the kind scientific materialists would

approve, but mental energy. Mind energy produces everything, moves everything and finally consumes everything. Mind energy – contained in the Singularity – is the World Soul, the active soul of the cosmos. Mind energy is the giver of life. It’s the basic principle of the universe, and is pure life. It flows through every object in the physical universe, making it alive, or intimately connecting it with life so that life can be expressed through it. Frost said, “[The Stoics’] principle of force was alive, and the universe which came into being was also alive.” The principle of living force must be associated with mind, not matter. Fire – the finest fire of all – ceases to be dimensional and becomes dimensionless. Exactly this is what constitutes mental energy.

The Swerve To account for human free will, it’s necessary for any classical materialist to provide a means to break the relentless network of inescapable scientific cause and effect in which everything seems trapped. Epicurus, the Atomist, proposed that atoms occasionally and randomly “swerve” to “break the bonds of fate” as Lucretius, another Atomist, said. If the laws of atomic motion are absolutely deterministic, human free will must be impossible. However, all that Epicurus actually did was introduce atomic indeterminism, which is no good for human freedom either. If the atoms of your body suddenly and randomly “swerved”, you would find your body doing bizarre things that you never intended. Far from being free, you’d be a random behaviour generator. In fact, if your atoms moved randomly, your body wouldn’t even be able to hold together. You’d soon disintegrate. Freedom has nothing to do with indeterminism. What freedom requires is for a person to determine his own behaviour, not to have it determined for him, and not for him to be subject to indeterminism. At least Epicurus made an attempt to explain human free will. Modern atomists don’t bother, or they appeal to the quantum world. However, that’s no use either since in the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum behaviour is random, i.e. indeterministic, which simply brings us right back to a modern version of the Epicurean “swerve”. That does nothing to explain human free will.

Psychopyrism “For Richard Baxter spirit is the means by which the soul acts on the body and thus not the same thing as the soul; he compares it to fire, which led Henry More to call him a ‘psychopyrist’...” – Ann Thomson Psychopyrists are those for whom fire is the essence or substance of Spirit. Psychohylists are those for whom the soul is never without a material aspect. Psychohylism is the view that the soul is expressed through a fine material substance (probably fiery or aetherial).

Indeterminacy, Indeterminate, Indeterminism Indeterminacy: “Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to Nietzsche’s criticism of the Kantian noumenon. ... Uncertainty and indeterminacy are words for essentially the same concept in quantum mechanics. Unquantifiability, and undefinability (or indefinability), can also sometimes be synonymous with indeterminacy. In science, indeterminacy can sometimes be interchangeable with unprovability or unpredictability. Also, anything entirely unobservable can be said to be indeterminate in that it cannot be precisely characterized. [MH: This last sentence reflects the scientific empiricist fallacy that only observables can be precisely characterised. In fact, only entirely unobservable mathematics can be precisely characterised, i.e. only rationalism, not empiricism, provides clarity, precision and determination. A mathematical sinusoid is more precisely defined than anything at all in science could ever hope to be. Only those things observable by the inner eye of reason, and not the outer eyes of the senses, can be precisely characterised. Only mathematics makes things determinate. Science does not.]” – Wikipedia Indeterminate: not exactly known, established, or defined; undetermined, uncertain, unknown, unspecified, unstipulated, indefinite, unfixed, vague, indefinite, unspecific, unclear, nebulous, indistinct, amorphous, shapeless, formless, hazy, faint, fuzzy, shadowy, dim, having no definite or definable value.

Indeterminism: the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes; the state of being uncertain or undecided. Modern science is afflicted by the strange worship of indeterminism, indeterminacy, and the indeterminate. Why does science reject logic, precision, certainty, the infallible, the absolute, the principle of sufficient reason? It’s because all of the latter lead to God, Mind or Math as the basis of reality, and that’s unacceptable to scientific materialists. By smothering everything in uncertainty, you kill God, and you allow randomness, accident, chance, probability and statistics to rule everything. You can, with a straight face, claim that existence itself jumped out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism ... all because “non-existence” is supposedly shrouded in indeterminacy. Of course, to say that non-existence can support uncertainty is to assign a property to non-existence, but non-existence is exactly that to which no properties at all can be assigned, by definition. “Uncertain” non-existence is not non-existence, but something else, namely eternal existence with the properties of vagueness, indeterminism, indeterminacy, acausation, chance, accident, randomness, i.e. all the things required for the universe to be inherently opposed to meaning, purpose, God, Mind, Mathematics, logic, reason, certainty, absolute knowledge, infallible knowledge, Platonism, explanation. What kind of person favours the former list – the list of anti-knowledge and non-explanation – over the latter list of knowledge and explanation? It’s scandalous that scientists – supposedly people of “knowledge” – do everything in their power to undermine any possibility of real, incontestable knowledge. They ultimately believe in eternal Chaos. They believe in anything. They believe in the “Multiverse” where anything that can happen does happen, i.e. everything possible happens, which means that there is never any reason for anything bar the mere fact of its possibility. However, even to define what is possible and what is impossible requires rational, eternal criteria (rather than miraculous, magical, irrational and temporal criteria), and these are exactly what are denied by science. Science has dissolved into total unreason. It’s the absolute enemy of logic, knowledge and explanation. It’s perhaps now time for the discredited word “science” to be abandoned, and replaced by gnosis. We should all be Gnostics, rather than scientists, pursuing true knowledge rather than uncertainty, accident, chance, randomness, chaos and meaninglessness.

A world of mindless matter plainly has no objectives, and there is never any reason for anything at all. A world of mind, on the other hand, is defined by objectives, since all minds are goal-oriented entities, and everything they do is for a reason. Science does not need to be linked to materialism and empiricism. It could and should be linked to idealism and rationalism, a world of purposeful, meaning-driven minds, doing things for reasons (and not randomly). Science not only killed God, it killed reason, logic, math and, above all, Mind. Science is nothing but the pathological hatred of mind by people with diseased minds (people who are on the autistic spectrum and suffer from sensory mania and the inability to conceive of mental reality beyond matter). Science is a mental illness, not a way of understanding reality. You would literally need to be insane to champion the cause of meaninglessness, purposelessness, chance, accident, indeterminism, miraculous emergence, uncertainty, acausation, randomness, statistics, probability, chaos the principle of unreason (things happening for no reason, via no mechanism). What, exactly, is it that scientists believe they are explaining? Their ideology is precisely that of non-explanation and antiexplanation. Things just happen because they are possible (according to some unknown and undefined criterion of what constitutes “possible”). Right now, says science, you are not choosing to do this rather than that. Instead, there are infinite versions of you in infinite parallel universes in the Multiverse, and the infinite clones of you are randomly doing all the things that it’s possible for “you” to do. It has been said that the world paid severely for the lack of mental asylums in the ancient Middle East (where all the “prophets” and “messiahs” could have been locked up). It is now paying severely for the lack of mental asylums next to scientific “laboratories”. Science has produced the worst ever, the most irrational, “explanation” of reality. Only lunatics can now take seriously the claims of science regarding why and how we exist. There is no rational basis whatsoever to science. Rationalism is exactly what science denies. The only thing that prevents scientific materialism from being the maddest ideology ever invented is its use of math, the most rational subject you can possibly get. To glimpse how close science is to the abyss, just imagine it without math.

Science – as unashamed empiricism – has no right to use rationalist mathematics. But, of course, you need to be rational to understand that. Scientists are irrationalists, campaigning against reason, logic, precision, determinism, causation and certainty. How can any rational person be on the side of science?

***** Rational mathematics supports determinacy, the determinate and determinism. Empirical science supports indeterminacy, the indeterminate, and indeterminism. These are therefore opposite worldviews. It’s preposterous that science should use mathematics, its rational nemesis. Nothing in science makes any rational sense, especially its reliance on mathematics, which opposes everything science ideologically stands for. It’s precisely because mathematics is the functional opposite of science that mathematics supports a religious and spiritual worldview, rather than the atheism of science. Mathematics stands for idealism and rationalism, science for materialism and empiricism. Mathematics stands for reason, and science for the senses. Mathematics and science cannot logically be combined.

Wrong Science goes wrong instantly ... at the point at which any scientific hypothesis is formulated. Any such hypothesis assumes the correctness of materialism and empiricism, hence rejects idealism and rationalism (math). Immediately, all hidden variables and rational unobservables – i.e. all the unperceivable, noumenal factors necessary for rational, logical, causal explanations – are dismissed, meaning that whatever comes out at the other end is bound to be irrational, illogical, and have no explanatory value whatsoever. Does anyone seriously believe that “random mutation” is an explanation of evolution, that wavefunction collapse into random outcomes is an explanation of quantum mechanics, that the universe randomly jumping out of non-existence is an explanation of why we are here, that infinite clones of us doing things at random is an explanation of our behaviour, that the random organisation of lifeless atoms is the origin of life, and the random organisation of mindless atoms is the origin of mind? How can these be called explanations at all, yet this is exactly where science has led us.

Our free will, consciousness, meaning, purpose, and so on, are all written off as random epiphenomena. Are you buying it? You can be certain that any scientific “explanation” will demand that you put randomness at the root of it. Science killed God then put Randomness in his place. Do you believe that’s an improvement? Do you believe that’s more rational, more explanatory? The fact is that all human explanations are unmitigated drivel ... pure Mythos. Only eternal, necessary mathematics can explain anything. Math is pure Logos, unlike science.

The Tripartite Soul Plato’s tripartite theory of soul is perhaps the first example in history of personality typing. Plato asserted that the soul comprises three parts: 1) logical (the head), 2) spirited (the heart), and 3) appetitive (the gut). Immediately, we can talk of three distinct types of people: those guided by their logic (reason), those by their emotions, and those by their senses and desires. Using two of the three ingredients in different combinations, we can produce six different personality types: 1) Logical-spirited. 2) Logical-appetitive. 3) Spirited-appetitive. 4) Spirited-logical. 5) Appetitive-logical. 6) Appetitive-spirited. The combination and order in each case produces a radically different personality type. A logical-appetitive person lusts after logic and reason. Appetite is used in the service of reason and logic. An appetitive-logical person, on the other hand, is consumed by his sensory and emotional appetites, and uses his logic and reason in the service of these appetites. He’s the opposite of the previous type. According to Plato, the constitution of the soul didn’t apply just to the individual, but to the entire State (the collection of all individuals). The three parts of the soul were transformed into the three social classes: 1) the

wise, just, logical rulers, 2) the spirited, courageous soldiers, and 3) the ordinary people driven by satisfying their appetites, by their pursuit of comfort, safety, pleasure and happiness. In Plato’s rational worldview, justice and good order rely on each class doing its job properly, not attempting to do any task to which it’s not suited, and not interfering in the functions of the others. This is therefore a meritocracy, and most certainly not a democracy. Above all, for Plato, if you wish to have a sane and rational society, you must have the sane, rational, intellectual class in charge ... the people who understand the eternal Forms of existence. The appetitive class is about producing and seeking pleasure, and is driven by the love of money (since money is what allows the desires and appetites to be satisfied most easily). The tragedy for the modern world is that these people – the capitalists – have been allowed to run the world, thus creating immense stupidity, injustice and downright insanity. The function of intellectuals is to rule according to rational principles and laws enshrined in a logical Constitution. Intellectuals are driven by love of learning and knowledge, and have no interest in money. Such a class has never ruled the world! That’s why we all live in hell. We’re ruled by the people least suited to rule, and we ignore those best suited. The function of the military is to obey the policies set down by the intelligentsia for the sake of the State. They must defend the State from both external invasion and internal disorder, according to the requirements of the Constitution (and not the personal whims of here-today-and-gonetomorrow, opportunist politicians). Plato claimed that the intelligentsia were people of gold, the soldiers people of silver, and the farmers and merchant class people of bronze and iron.

***** “The logical or logistikon (from logos) is the thinking part of the soul which loves the truth and seeks to learn it. Plato makes the point that the logistikon would be the smallest part of the soul (as the guardians would be the smallest population within the Republic), but that, nevertheless, a soul can be declared just only if all three parts agree that the logistikon should rule.” – Wikipedia

We have never lived in a world where the thinkers have been in charge. They have always been a fringe minority, an outsider class, advising the rich, powerful and religious forces that have dominated our world. “According to Plato, the spirited or thymoeides (from thymos) is the part of the soul by which we are angry or get into a temper. In the just soul, the spirited aligns with the logistikon and resists the desires of the appetitive, becoming manifested as ‘indignation’ and in general the courage to be good. In the unjust soul, the spirited ignores the logistikon and aligns with the desires of the appetitive, manifesting as the demand for the pleasures of the body.” – Wikipedia Spirit is something that needs to be carefully nurtured and harnessed. If it is too Dionysian and insufficiently Apollonian, chaos ensues. If done properly, we can have the best of the two worlds of work and play (Logos and Mythos). “The appetitive or epithymetikon (from epithymia) is the part of the soul by which we experience carnal erotic love, hunger, thirst and in general the desires opposed to the logistikon. (The appetitive is in fact labelled as being ‘a-logical’.)” – Wikipedia Capitalism is all about serving the appetites. Capitalism is primordial, always appealing to basic instincts, and to nothing high and noble. It’s always about the lowest common denominator, and the race to the bottom (where the maximum profits are to be had).

***** “Plato identifies a natural hierarchy in human desires. In ascending order: the appetitive part is concerned with satisfying the most basic needs; the spirited part with achieving honour; and the rational part with truth and knowledge. He explains that society ought to mirror the hierarchy of the soul, with reason ruling the others.” – EC Exactly so.

Primary You have four choices regarding what to consider as the primary means of relating to and understanding the world:

1) Religion (historically, the first “explanatory” system ... all about Mythos). 2) Philosophy (humanity encounters Logos for the first time; the ancient Greeks were the first philosophical people). 3) Mathematics (humanity encounters pure Logos, but regards it as unreal and abstract, except in the case of Pythagoras, who saw that it was reality itself). 4) Science (the sensory Mythos of empiricism, as opposed to the emotional Mythos of religion; its success is entirely due to the math it uses, although it can offer no explanation for what math is and why it must use math to get the results it wants).

Dialectics Dialectics, Engels said, are the laws of motion applying to nature, human society and human thought, i.e. they are the all-embracing laws of existence, explaining every aspect of existence, unlike those of scientific materialism that would never attempt to comment on society, history, economics, politics and consciousness. Dialectics are a philosophy of action, unlike the passive, sterile, laws of science, which lack all fire.

What Is Blue? No one can describe the colour blue. All they can do is point to things that are blue and say it’s like that. That’s not telling us what the colour is. They’re merely telling us what things have the colour. That’s why no one can ever explain to a blind person what the colour blue is. Exactly the same goes for “matter”. Scientists can point to material things, but they can no more explain what matter is than what blue is. This is true of all empirical, sensory things. Only mathematical, rational things can be defined.

The Broken Brain The structure and operations of the brain reflect the structure and operations of the mind, given that the brain is the means through which the mind expresses itself. Damaging the brain does not damage the mind, but it does

prevent the mind from properly expressing itself, rather as damaging a TV set does not damage a TV broadcast, but does prevent the broadcast from being properly watched and appreciated.

The Thought Experiments Consider two thought experiments: 1) Let’s ban scientists from using math, but leave fully intact their experimental method. Would science be of any use? 2) Science is reliant on math for its efficacy. Why not simply replace science with math? What would we lose, other than the unprovable, fallacious ideology of materialism and empiricism? Science is destroyed by the removal of math. Math is unaffected by the removal of science. So, who needs science? What does science bring to the party other than a faith in the senses, and a philosophy of the senses? Ultimate reality isn’t sensory, so science is wholly useless for addressing it.

Motion “...there is more to bodily things than extension – indeed there is in them something prior to [= ‘more basic than’] extension, namely the force of nature that God has given to everything. This force isn’t a mere faculty or ability of the kind the Aristotelians seem to be satisfied with; rather, is equipped with a striving [conatus] or effort [nisus] such that the force will have its full effect unless it is blocked by some contrary striving. We are often sensorily aware of this effort, and reason shows – I maintain – that it is everywhere in matter, even when the senses don’t detect it. We shouldn’t attribute this force [vis] to God’s miraculous action (i.e. to his pushing around of bodies that in themselves are inert); so it is clear that he must have put it into the bodies themselves – indeed, that it constitutes the inmost nature of bodies. For what makes a substance a substance is that it acts. Mere extension doesn’t make something a substance; indeed extension presupposes a substance, one that exerts effort and resistance; extension is merely the continuation or spreading-out of that substance.” – Leibniz

According to the logic of science, an atom entirely on its own (in a universe exclusively devoted to it) would do nothing at all. It would not be subject to any forces, it would not move, and (given the standard interpretation of QM), it would exhibit no life, no mind, and it would in fact never be real (it would forever be an unreal potentiality wavefunction in an indefinable space, futilely waiting to be “collapsed”). This demonstrates how absurd science is. In ontological mathematics, in a universe comprising just one monad, that monad would be real, full of energy (mental movement = thinking), full of activity, and would be engaged in the self-optimising, self-solving striving that characterises all monads. It would be a living, thinking entelechy. The question of the ultimate source of motion is one of the most profound of all. Aristotle proposed “God” as the stationary source of motion: the Prime Mover, the First Mover. Of the Prime Mover, the Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy says, “The origin of all motion in the Universe, an origin that is itself unmoved. The idea was introduced by Aristotle and developed by philosopher-theologians in all the three traditions of Mosaic theism – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” There’s already a problem with this unmoved First Mover concept. If “God” is the Prime Mover, then it must be moving (not physically of course, but certainly mentally). Without movement, there’s nothing at all. Non-existence is non-movement. All movement is associated with energy. Anything without motion has no energy, and anything without energy does not exist. What causes God’s mental motion? How did God come to possess energy? If you discount God, what then is the origin of motion? Does motion come built into everything, or is everything set in motion, and kept in motion, by some mysterious force external to them? In science, motion is generated by forces with no defined origin, and is not deemed to be inherent in matter (which, in its own right, is viewed as wholly inert). So, does motion belong to things, or is it imposed on things? If the latter – the scientific view – we cannot assign any life, striving or teleology to things, since they have no activity of their own, and are the puppets of the forces acting on them. These forces, according to science, are equally

devoid of any agency and teleology. They act for no reason, with no purpose. They just are (miraculously). As soon as you give things their own internal motion, separate from everything else, you have immediately constructed the scope for them to be immortal, indestructible souls, with their own purposes and agency (that can manifest free will). Internal motion is always mental motion. Motion through an external environment is always physical. Science claims that motion, like everything else in science, jumps out of nothing at all. “...motion, when we analyse it, doesn’t really exist... all that is real in motion is a momentary state that must be produced by a force that strives for change. That is all there is to bodily nature: extension (the set of properties that are the subject of geometry) and this force.” – Leibniz The “force that strives for change” is nothing other than mathematical causality, the sufficient reason that makes a particular state succeed its preceding state. Causality itself is motion. Causality is energy. Causality is continuous action. The universe consists of a single force – causality; the force of sufficient reason. “This theory at last does justice both to the truth and to the teaching of the ancients. Just as our age has already rescued from scorn Democritus’s atoms, Plato’s ideas, and the Stoics’ tranquillity about the best possible arrangement of things, so we can restore the Aristotelian doctrine of forms or ‘entelechies’ to the ranks of intelligible notions, though it has rightly struck people as puzzling, and wasn’t understood properly even by its own inventors. This philosophy of forms, it seems to me, shouldn’t be tossed aside after having been accepted for so many centuries; rather, it should be explained in such a way as to make it self-consistent (where possible), and should be extended and illustrated with new truths.” – Leibniz This is exactly the sort of exercise at which Leibniz was so brilliant, and modern science so dismally hopeless. It’s a crime against intelligence that science is so disdainful of philosophy. Only morons would sneer at something of which they have next to no understanding, and which would radically improve the quality of their theories if they did.

“Active force (which some not unreasonably call ‘power ‘) is of two kinds. There is basic active force and derivative active force. Basic active force is present in all bodily substance, just because it is bodily substance; it would be contrary to the nature of things for there to be a body that was wholly at rest, which a body would be if it had no inherent active force. Derivative active force is what becomes of basic force when bodies collide with one another. ... Basic force – which is no other than the ‘first entelechy’ that Aristotle theorized about – corresponds to the soul or substantial form; but just for that reason it relates only to general causes, which aren’t enough to explain specific kinds of phenomena. So I agree with those who say that we shouldn’t appeal to ‘forms’ in explaining the causes of things that we experience. I need to point this out, so that when I try to restore to ‘forms’ their lost right to be counted among the ultimate causes of things I don’t seem to be also trying to revive the verbal disputes of the second-rate Aristotelians. But some knowledge of forms is necessary for doing philosophy and science properly.” – Leibniz It’s essential for the concept of substantial form to become central to science. Mathematics can easily provide a rational treatment of form, fully compatible with science. Scientists need a crash course in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Substantial form is the “hidden variable” that makes quantum mechanics rational and intelligible (rather than irrational and unintelligible as it is now in the absence of such a concept). “No-one can claim to have properly understood the nature of body unless he has thought about such things, and has understood what is incomplete and false in a certain crude notion of bodily substance. The one I mean is based entirely on sensory ideas, and was rashly introduced into the corpuscular philosophy – which in itself is most excellent and true – some years ago. This – its inadequacy – is shown by the fact that it can’t rule out matter’s being completely inactive or at rest, and can’t explain the laws of nature that govern derivative force.” – Leibniz Leibniz’s genius is so vast that it’s hardly surprising that he left everyone else trailing in his intellectual wake. Virtually everything he says is amongst the most profound things ever said by any human being. Modern science is exactly “the incomplete and false ... crude notion of bodily substance ... based entirely on sensory ideas.” Science is wholly lacking in subtlety and precision of thought. Everything is half-baked, ad hoc, provisional, arbitrary

and heuristic. Absolutely nothing in science is rationally tenable ... because nothing in science relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Everything in science is about crude sensory experiments. Science is ferociously antiintellectual, as is inevitable when the senses and experiments are privileged over reason and logic. “Passive force is similarly of two kinds, basic and derivative. When the Aristotelians write about ‘primary matter’, they make best sense when understood to be referring to the basic force of being acted on –the basic force of resistance. It explains the following three facts: Bodies, rather than interpenetrating so that two bodies occupy the same place at the same time, block one another. Bodies have a certain laziness, as it were – a reluctance to move. No body will allow itself to be set in motion in a collision without somewhat lessening the force of the body acting on it. The derivative force of being acted on shows up after that in various ways, in what the Aristotelians have called secondary matter.” – Leibniz Science is all about secondary matter and secondary force, and ignores primary matter and primary force, which are mental. In fact, science regards the secondary as the primary. Primary matter and force are mathematical hidden variables (rational unobservables), which are ideologically banned from science. It’s incredible that science is willing to invoke unobservable universes on an infinite scale (in the notion of the Multiverse), but won’t accept mathematical rational unobservables that would render science deterministic rather than indeterministic. Montaigne said, “Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.” When it comes to science, scientists make entire universes by countless dozens, but can’t even explain what math is, and why mathematical unobservables are unacceptable in science. Science very much picks and chooses which “unobservables” it admits into its theories. There is never any rational explanation for why some are relied upon, and others forbidden, and any discussion of the subject is outlawed (because it would constitute “philosophy”). Isn’t it remarkable that science says, “Anything not forbidden is compulsory” and “Anything that can happen will happen”, yet it dogmatically forbids mathematical rational unobservables even though they aren’t forbidden and there’s nothing to stop them from occurring.

Science makes it up as it goes along. It’s a Mythos religion, not a serious Logos discipline. It despises intellectual rigour, and always comes back to a celebration of the fallible, unreliable, delusional, evolutionary human sense organs (which did not evolve as organs for truth). Science has been destroyed by its method. Its experimental method is sensory, not rational, and everything goes downhill from there. “From these basic, general points we learn that all bodies always act by virtue of their form, and are always acted upon and resist because of their matter. Having expounded this, I must push on into the doctrine of derivative powers and resistances, showing how bodies act on and resist each other to differing extents according to their different levels of effort. These things are covered by the laws of action – laws that are not only understood through reason but also confirmed by experience of the phenomena.” – Leibniz Scientists should be forced to express their theories using Leibnizian rationalism, and their theories should not be peer reviewed by other scientists (their cosy little club of mutually back-sapping cronies), but by philosophers. Intellectual rigour must be injected into slap-dash science. “By ‘derivative force’ – the force by which bodies actually act and are acted on by each other – I mean here just the force that is involved in motion and which in turn tends to produce further motion. (Here and throughout, I mean local motion, of course; that is, motion from place to place, not the mere alterations that some philosophers have called ‘(nonlocal) motion’.) For I realize that all other phenomena involving matter can be explained in terms of local motion. Motion is continuous change of place, and so requires time. But while it is through time that a movable thing moves, it is at individual moments that it has a velocity, the velocity being greater as the thing covers more space in less time. Two technical terms have to be introduced here. Conatus [= ‘striving’] is velocity taken together with direction. Impetus is the product of the bulk of a body and its velocity. ...we must accept something metaphysical that is perceptible only to the mind and not through the senses; and that in addition to material mass we must add some higher kind of principle that might be called formal. For not all truths about bodily things can be derived from logical and geometrical axioms alone, that is, from those pertaining to large and small, whole and part, shape, and position. To explain the order of things properly we have to

bring in other notions involving cause and effect, and activity and passivity. It doesn’t matter whether we call this principle ‘form’, or ‘entelechy’, or ‘force’, provided we remember that it can be intelligibly explained only through the concept of force.” – Leibniz It’s not in fact philosophical metaphysics that is required to underpin science in order to make it rationally sound, but mathematical metaphysics. By “mathematical metaphysics” we mean that all the traditional questions of philosophical metaphysics should be addressed mathematically, and that only mathematics can properly define traditional metaphysical concepts. All concepts such as space, time, matter, mass, energy, speed, mind, light, thought, life, eternity, indestructibility, conservation laws, form, substance, potentiality, actuality, and so on, must be given an exact mathematical meaning, as we have demonstrated throughout the God Series. Above all, humanity must accept that science is founded on “something metaphysical that is perceptible only to the mind and not through the senses”. That thing is of course ontological mathematics.

What Science Opposes In the final analysis, what science opposes is an eternal, necessary, rational, logical, complete and consistent (i.e. mathematical) ground of reality. It rejects it because it misidentifies it as religion (“God”), or speculative metaphysics. Science’s real problem has always been with math, the true basis of religion and metaphysics, and indeed of science itself. The fundamental order of existence is mathematical, not scientific.

Hard Atoms People can easily imagine little hard atoms whizzing around through empty space. Yet what are “atoms” these days according to scientific materialism? They’re almost entirely empty space (whatever that is!), and they have lots of subatomic bits and pieces that do not simultaneously have a definite position and momentum, hence are probabilistic, fuzzy, blurry and indeterminate. So, “atom” no longer means anything materially coherent. Scientists engage in Orwellian doublethink when they talk of atoms. They still have in mind the ancient Greek picture of solid atoms, and even talk of being able to “see” atoms, take pictures of them, and so on. This is absurd. How can you photograph anything uncertain, anything without a

simultaneous position and momentum? Scientists are living in a fantasy world. Werner Heisenberg, one of the great champions of quantum mechanics, specifically warned against anyone trying to “picture” atoms, and yet that’s exactly what scientists continue to do. They still regard atoms as material, empirical objects. They’re not! True atoms are mathematical functions that can be described in terms of mathematical matrices, or mathematical wave theory. They are not enduring “things”. They are calculated on an instantby-instant basis, in accordance with the tensed theory of time whereby only “now” has ontological reality, and not the past or the future. Atoms are mental, not physical. They are produced by the collective cosmic mind (Monadic Collective), and the energy for them comes from monadic minds. The whole notion of atoms as solid, enduring things is preposterous. People will always think wrongly about the world while they have this picture in their minds of little things whizzing around. Instead, you must conceive of a vast, interconnected, cosmic mathematical calculation taking place, instant by instant, which we perceive as a slowly changing phenomenal world in time. The atoms of science are simply heuristic fictions invented by sensing types to give them something to picture because they can’t picture cosmic mathematical calculations involving complex-numbered wavefunctions.

Reason Reason is the greatest resource in the universe, and it’s entirely free. No one can take your reason away from you. Reason, in the end, conquers all. Reason is divinity itself.

Objective and Subjective Knowledge “Leibniz claimed that we could have objective knowledge of the world uncontaminated by the point of view of any observer. Hume claimed ... that we could have objective knowledge of nothing. ... The Leibnizian system had met with official censure during Kant’s youth, since it made such claims for reason as to threaten those of faith... But the system was restored to favour under Frederick the Great, and became the orthodox metaphysics of the German Enlightenment. ... Rationalism derives all knowledge from the exercise of reason, and purports to give an absolute description of the world, uncontaminated by the experience of any observer. Empiricism

argues that knowledge comes through experience alone; there is therefore no possibility of separating knowledge from the subjective condition of the knower. Kant wished to give an answer to the question of objective knowledge that was neither as absolute as Leibniz’s nor as subjective as Hume’s. ... Reality itself [for Leibniz] is accessible to reason alone, since only reason can rise above the individual point of view and participate in the vision of ultimate necessities, which is also God’s. Hence reason must operate through ‘innate’ ideas. These are ideas which have been acquired through no experience and which belong to all thinking beings. ... Hume’s position is in some measure the opposite of Leibniz’s. He denies the possibility of knowledge through reason, since reason cannot operate without ideas, and ideas are acquired only through the senses. ... Hume took his scepticism so far as to cast doubt upon the existence of the self (that entity which has provided the model for Leibniz’s monad), saying that neither is there a perceivable object that goes by this name, nor is there any experience that would give rise to the idea of it.” – Roger Scruton, Kant Leibniz (an über rationalist) versus Hume (an ultra empiricist) is the philosophical equivalent of Leibniz versus Newton in science. The central claim of rationalism is that there’s a unique, eternal perspective of reason and logic that transcends the senses and all experiences, perceptions, beliefs, opinions, conjectures, Mythos, and interpretations. It has absolutely nothing to do with subjective (empirical) perspectives, and is all about a rational, objective perspective (typically associated with “God”, or the view from eternity). It’s instructive that the Leibnizian system met with resistance because, by championing the cause of reason to the nth degree, it radically subverted religious faith. Rationalism compels God himself to bow to reason. The German Enlightenment was based on Leibnizian rationalist, idealist metaphysics. This is exactly why the Germans became the most intelligent nation on earth. They stood against the British “Enlightenment”, which was based on empiricism and materialism, and gave the world those two ugly sisters: scientific materialism and capitalist materialism. The British are the quintessential anti-spiritual people, the people most alienated from the soul. They are soulless zombies. America is their undead miscarriage. Only reason and logic can reveal absolute, infallible, objective knowledge. Empiricism emphatically can’t. Empiricism is mired in subjectivity. Only reason and logic are consistent with God’s absolute

perspective, the view from eternity and necessity. The world revealed by reason and logic is that of pure noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics ... the eternal, necessary world of God, or, rather, the God Equation. Reality in itself – naked reality, shorn of all appearances – is accessible to reason alone, since only reason can transcend subjective opinion, experience, belief and interpretation. Reason operates through the innate ideas of mathematics and logic, which have been acquired through no experience, and which belong intrinsically to all thinking beings. Scientists take the side of Hume by denying the possibility of attaining knowledge through reason, insisting that “knowledge” comes exclusively via sensory experience. Science is therefore profoundly anti-rationalist, contrary to its propaganda regarding itself. Science is a dishonest application of Hume’s skeptical empiricism, lacking in Hume’s intellectual integrity. Hume was skeptical not only towards the self and soul, but also the material world, induction and causation, hence he was opposed to the whole of classical science. With the dawn of quantum mechanics, science has drawn far closer to Hume. It has become indeterministic, and acknowledges no formal material reality, claiming instead that actuality is somehow snatched from unreal mathematical potentiality via observations. Like Hume, modern science regards observations and experiences as the be-alland-end-all. Objective reason, the eternal truths of reason, the principle of sufficient reason ... these all transcend experience. Why? Because they are all about ontological mathematics. They are innate to the universe. Hume’s views would be absolutely right if we lived in a temporal, contingent scientific universe (one of “truths of fact”). Luckily, we live in an eternal, necessary mathematical universe (one of truths of reason). “Kant came to think as follows: Neither experience nor reason are able to provide knowledge. The first provides content without form, the second form without content. Only in their synthesis is knowledge possible; hence there is no knowledge that does not bear the marks of reason and experience together. Such knowledge is, however, genuine and objective. It transcends the point of view of the man who possesses it, and makes legitimate claims about an independent world. Nevertheless, it is impossible to know the

world ‘as it is in itself’, independent of all perspective.” – Roger Scruton, Kant Kant failed to grasp that only reason provides knowledge, while experience provides interpretation. As Nietzsche said, “There are no [empirical] facts, only interpretations.” There are, however, rational facts. Kant said you cannot have content without form (which would constitute pure empiricism), or form without content (which would constitute pure rationalism). He proposed that some synthesis must be achieved, and he believed his philosophy accomplished it. His was a philosophy where “pure” reason was explicitly critiqued, and pure empiricism regarded as impossible. Aristotle proposed a world of matter-form hybrids (the doctrine of hylomorphism), bounded by prime matter (formless matter), and God (matterless form). With Kant, prime matter was turned into unknowable noumena, while “God”, the soul and free will were equally turned into unknowable noumena. For Kant, everything that knowably existed comprised content-form hybrids (empirical-rational hybrids). In effect, Kant turned the bookends of Aristotle’s hylomorphic philosophy into unknowable noumena, but retained all the rest (all the empirical hylomorphic substances). Illuminism corrects Kant’s philosophy by combining Form and Content into ontological mathematics waves. The Form part of the waves is addressed by rationalism. The Content part of the waves is addressed by empiricism. Every wave has a mathematical form, but also a content that we experience as non-mathematical. It’s the power, immediacy and concreteness of our non-mathematical experiences that persuade us we are not living in a mathematical universe. The average person has utterly failed to grasp that all experiences are information, and all information has to be conveyed by an information carrier. That carrier is mathematics. We experience the information carried, and, by that very fact, the information carrier is hidden from our experience, but not from out reason. Reason, which transcends our experiences, leads us to the mathematical truth of the universe. The whole empirical, phenomenal, sensory, scientific world of Content is supported by a rational, noumenal, non-sensory, mathematical world of Form. Science rejects this ontology because it refuses to acknowledge any non-empirical, non-sensory, noumenal, hidden variables. Since reason is

itself a hidden variable, science rejects reason. Science worships the senses, and is in fact the Church of the Senses. Leibniz, a far superior thinker to Kant, and one whose philosophical genius has never been sufficiently recognized, understood that nothing was more important than the definition of substance, matter and form. With the right definitions, we could proceed to know everything that rationally flowed from them, and thus know the whole world. Kant, on the other hand, decided that we must start with the experiential capabilities of mind. With Leibniz, we begin with eternal rational verities, and work our way forward towards an understanding of consciousness. With Kant, we start with consciousness and work backwards to grasp what the world must be like, only to discover (in Kant’s view) that we can never know anything independent of experiential mind. We can know only the mind’s interpretations of things (phenomena), and never things in themselves (noumena). For some peculiar reason, this was regarded as a philosophical tour de force even though it placed irreducible, inescapable ignorance at the heart of philosophy. Fichte, Schelling, and, especially, Hegel promptly set out to demolish Kant’s concept of the unknowable noumenon, independent of mind. The mind is itself a knowable noumenon, exactly as Leibniz said in his Monadology. Kant is revered because of a Mythos that grew up around him – championed by himself (!) – that he had resolved the bitter conflict between rationalism and empiricism. His attempted solution was entirely bogus. Rather than have Form and Content as two sides of one coin, he said that in the mind there reside mysterious, unexplained “faculties” that impose a phenomenal world on noumenal unknowables. In other words, his solution involves nothing but his arbitrary decree. Kant is like a modern M-theory scientist who attempts to reconcile Einsteinian relativity with quantum mechanics, even though they reflect two different paradigms that have nothing at all in common at the fundamental level. Rather than get to the bottom of the rational fallacies of the respective theories, a Kantian type of thinker imposes ad hoc decrees and heuristic fictions to get some sort of clunky synthesis. Today’s scientists shouldn’t go down the Kantian road. They should be engaged in conclusively refuting the core principles of either relativity or

quantum mechanics (or indeed both), not trying to force them into a Procrustean bed. Rationalism is either absolutely true or absolutely false. The world can’t be a bit rational and a bit irrational (which would be a version of Cartesian dualism). If rationalism is false, we would ipso facto be living in a world of irrationalism and chaos. Plainly, we’re not. Hume’s philosophy, if taken to its extreme, destroys knowledge and, indeed, the very possibility of knowledge. In fact, if the universe weren’t grounded in rationalism and eternal rational principles, we wouldn’t even be in a position to have interpretations. There would be either total nothingness, or a total, incomprehensible blur of chaos where no kind of order or organization could ever appear. Kant came up with an ingenious but preposterous way of linking empiricism and rationalism via his fallacious concept of the synthetic a priori (a logical contradiction in terms). In Leibniz’s system, all truths of reason are analytic a priori. All a priori truths must be analytic. Kant beguiled philosophy by inventing a non-existent category that served the desired end – of reaching a compromise between rationalism and empiricism, of seemingly providing an answer to their otherwise intractable dispute. The world consists of two types of knowledge: objective and subjective. Objective knowledge is analytic a priori (rationalist), while subjective knowledge is synthetic a posteriori (empiricist; interpretative). The possibility of subjective knowledge doesn’t exist until you have an objective universe based on eternal rational verities. Every mind, in its subjective aspect, can experience the world from its own perspective. However, every mind – via reason – is capable of transcending subjectivity and grasping the objective truths of reality.

***** Aristotle regarded the human soul of the passions and senses as mortal, but he maintained that the rational part of the human soul (nous) was immortal and didn’t belong to humans at all, but to God. God has a universal perspective. When we use reason, we are thinking universally, not from our particular, narrow, limited, subjective perspective. Our rational capacity is precisely our escape route from subjectivity to objectivity. Reason is about universals rather than particulars. Rationalism

is all about discovering what the universals are. Empiricism is effectively a denial of the existence of universals, and an insistence on particulars being the sole reality. Rationalism accepts innate ideas. These are our link to the universal, transcendent, unobservable, unempirical, analytic a priori eternal order of mathematics. Empiricism denies innate ideas, hence denies that we live in an eternal world of immutable, rational principles. It denies the existence of anything that cannot be brought into sensory experience. This doctrine has become the bedrock of science. Bizarrely, however, science seeks universal laws, yet these, by the logic of David Hume – the champion of the empiricists – are by definition impossible, because, like the law of causation, they can never be perceived, only invalidly inferred. Science has never explained why it reveres empiricism (via its obsession with experimentation), yet is all about reaching universal, eternalist conclusions, and determining the laws of existence (which are the province of rationalism). Science hates philosophy, and avoids all awkward philosophical questions. Science is pragmatic and instrumentalist, and has nothing to do with truth. It’s all about producing a useful model of reality, not about revealing the unfalsifiable truth of reality (which is what rationalism seeks). Science uses rationalist mathematics without any comment on why it does so, beyond the anti-intellectual statement that it works. Rationalism is that aspect of our thinking which transcends the human condition and applies to the entire universe. Any alien species anywhere in the universe can evolve the capacity to be rational. Each species has its own subjective, interpretational view of the world (its own beliefs, myths, legends, religions, gods, and even its own science), but there’s only one rational answer to existence, the same for everyone. Do you think intelligent creatures in a solar system far away worship Jesus Christ, or have a copy of the Koran, or believe that Moses encountered a talking bush? You must be joking. These are localist systems of belief peculiar to our world. A concept such as karma could well be accepted on other planets since it has a quasi-universal character. However, only mathematics is actually universal. It’s precisely this universality that makes it self-evidently the true foundation of reality.

Science is simply a human take on reality. There’s nothing universal about it. Aliens with very different senses from us would perceive the world entirely differently from us, and have their own science to reflect their unique sensory take on the world. However, no alien species could dispute that 1 + 1 = 2. This has nothing to do with experience or experiments. Mathematics is what constitutes “innate ideas”. You must first have a rationalist, objective, analytic, a priori, necessary, eternal world before you can have an empiricist, subjective, synthetic, a posteriori, contingent, temporal world. To contend otherwise compels you to invent a logically impossible synthetic a priori category, as Kant did, or to regard the universe as a bizarre fantasy, a stream of consciousness with no meaning (which is where Hume’s philosophy leads), or to ignore all awkward philosophical considerations and concentrate simply on what works, which is what science does. If existence did not have rational foundations, science would be absurd. It’s no accident that mathematics is at the core of science, and all scientific laws are stated as mathematical equations, functions, theorems, formulae and identities. Science, without mathematics, is augury, astrology and soothsaying – nothing but Mythos and subjectivity. Science, with mathematics, tacitly acknowledges that rationalism is at the foundation of reality. Without rationalism, there could be no ordered world – no “cosmos”. There would simply be chaos. No mind could function in such an environment. Even if it could, it would experience nothing but subjective fantasy and nonsense. It would be the silliest, most basic kind of dream. Humans dream subjectively. That, effectively, corresponds to the empiricist take on reality, and to the epistemology and ontology of empiricism (i.e. we can be sure of nothing but what we observe and experience). However, we also have a waking state where we are in an objective reality with definite, discernible rules. This is the objective, rationalist domain. Empiricism = a subjective, dreamworld of experiences, no objective rules, and no “innate” laws. Rationalism = an objective waking world of objective, innate laws that can be rationally discovered via our universal, Godlike reason that transcends our human condition ... just as Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus insisted so long ago.

The debate isn’t about rationalism versus empiricism at all. It’s about objectivity versus subjectivity. If you make experience the central criterion for grasping reality, you commit yourself to subjectivity. Rationalism allows you to transcend subjectivity and know an objective world. Kant claimed that we could have full knowledge of a world of appearances (phenomena), and none at all of a world of things in themselves (noumena). This is subjective nonsense purporting to be objective. If we can’t know noumena, we can’t know anything at all. Everything else is pure interpretation. Science equally absurdly claims to arrive at eternal truths and laws of existence via contingent, temporal, sensory, ad hoc and arbitrary experiments and hypotheses. Science, intellectually, is embarrassing. What it’s good at is producing working models – like Hollywood set designers. No matter how good a representation of reality it is, it’s not reality (just as no Hollywood set is). Reality and its representation are two wholly different things, as Plato pointed out so long ago. A photograph of an apple isn’t an apple. Equally, science’s picture of reality isn’t reality, no matter how much like the real thing it might seem. It’s always a simulacrum. To understand reality, you must engage with the actual stuff of reality, and that’s mathematics. Mathematics isn’t a representation of reality, it is reality. Mathematics is ontological. Existence is 100% mathematical. Reason and rational intuition alone give us access to mathematical truth. Experience, observations, experiments, measurements, beliefs, stories, faith, feelings, and so on, help us not one jot. Reality – ultimate, absolute, incontestable reality – is all about mathematics, and mathematics is nothing but ontological reason: reason as a thing, an oceanic, rational substance in which we are all immersed. The “Holy Spirit” is actually Holy Mathematics. What is the classic definition of a substance? It’s something that requires nothing else for its existence. Well, reason is the true substance of existence. It requires nothing else for its existence. Reason is uncreated and uncaused. Reason is the Prime Mover. The laws of reason are eternal, and that means that reason itself is eternal. Reason has always existed and always will. The more you exercise reason, the more “eternal” you are, the closer you resemble God.

What is God? God is simply objective reason, furnishing the most independent, generalised, universal perspective of existence you can get. God, in the ultimate, objective sense, is reason objectively pondering itself. This is the Logos God of Aristotle. Reason, in itself, is not free. It’s not free to make mistakes. We are free, and that means we can mistakes. That’s the trade off. We make mistakes because we live as empirical beings (Content beings) not as rational beings (Form beings). Form is never wrong; Content is never right (it’s always interpretive). All wrong Content has a valid rational form (i.e. consistent with the laws of mathematics). Imagine a perfect language in which to write books. Even though the language (grammar, syntax, spelling, and so on) is perfect, users of the language can use it wrongly: they can get the grammar wrong, use the wrong syntax, and misspell words. The perfection of the language never alters, but it is invariably used imperfectly. So it is with math. What would you rather be – perfect and imprisoned by your flawless perfection, or imperfect and free to make mistakes? Whether you like it or not, we will, in the end, all enter the Prison of Perfection, and do everything flawlessly, without error, without even one mistake. We will all be Gods. As Leibniz said, “Our chief task is to make perpetual progress toward the ideal of divine nature, for each of us is like a little divinity in the City of God.”

We Love Math Mathematics doesn’t permit any New Age bullshit about love and peace, man. It’s impossible to associate feelings with truth. As soon as someone brings feelings into it, you know you’re not getting any truth sustenance.

The Barbarians “Barbarian” from the ancient Greek barbaros (meaning “foreign, strange, ignorant, of the unintelligible speech of foreigners”) originally designated all non-Greeks. Given that the Greeks regarded themselves as the cultural elite, barbarians were therefore less crude, uncouth, rude, wild, brutish, unsophisticated, and unintelligent.

There will come a time when all those that can’t speak math will be called barbarians, and will be regarded as dunces and village idiots.

How Cooking Made Us Human Chimps can’t cook ... and that’s why they’re not human. What a brilliant theory. To cook, you need fire, and only humans know how to generate and use fire. It takes intelligence to control fire, and only humans have this type of intelligence. Since champs can’t cook food, they have to spend most of their time chewing through a daily mountain of fruit and vegetables to get enough calories to survive ... and that’s stopping them from getting on with being smart. Cooking literally allows us to have bigger brains. Meat is a much more concentrated form of energy than fruit and vegetables. Since humans could cook it and digest it with ease, they could take on board a lot of calories highly efficiently, without devoting all their time to foraging for food, and then chewing the food. Humans used that extra time to develop social structures, engage in advanced communication, and get smarter and smarter. Harvard Professor Richard Wrangham said, “I think cooking is arguably the biggest increase in the quality of the diet in the whole of the history of life. Our ancestors most probably dropped food in fire accidently. They would have found it was delicious and that set us off on a whole new direction.” So, how we prepare food is as crucial as the food itself. Efficient food preparation leads to accelerated evolution. Humans, unlike chimps, could leave behind the trees and venture onto the African savannah, and eat the animals that grazed there. We were able to change our habitat, lifestyle and diet, and this gave us enormously more flexibility, prompting major changes in our anatomy. We acquired smaller jaws and smaller, sharper teeth. Above all, we walked upright (with the accompanying ability to run fast), and acquired bigger brains. (When we are doing nothing but sitting, the brain consumes 20% of our energy.) Our arms shortened, our legs elongated, and we dispensed with a large vegetable-processing gut. Professor Wrangham said, “Cooking made our guts smaller. Once we cooked our food, we didn’t need big guts. They’re costly in terms of energy. Individuals that were born with small guts were able to save energy, have more babies and survive better.”

Cooking made us faster, cleverer, more versatile, and more adventurous. Changes in our digestive system directly led to our brains getting larger, and our intelligence rising. The birth of modern consciousness may have arisen as a direct consequence of farming, including breeding animals for meat. We could make our own food, and no longer had to rely on the “gods” to provide for us. With cooked food began heresy and disbelief!

Cooking up Bigger Brains Cooking food breaks down the food. Our stomachs need to do less work to liberate the nutrients our bodies need. Cooked food releases more energy, and the body uses less energy in digesting it. Energy transfer is thus much more efficient. This extra energy, so the theory goes, was then able to fuel the growth of the brain, and power a higher intelligence. The brain grew as the gut shrank, both by 20% according to some researchers. Being human is therefore nothing but a matter of energy efficiency. If we just took pills containing our entire calorie intake, could we then evolve the brains of Gods?

***** Cooking can be regarded as a process of pre-digestion, freeing up energy to be transferred from our guts to our brains. Humanity – the cleverest species on earth – is the only species that cooks. Go figure. Our brains are large, calorie-hungry organs, and eating raw food wouldn’t power them sufficiently. Cooking – which has nothing to do with genes – is therefore the key to evolution. So much for neo-Darwinism! How does evolution “know” that we have become able to cook in order to produce the genetic variations that lead to smaller jaws and teeth, and bigger brains? Screw selfish genes, and get out your cooking pots and frying pans. Cook your way to divinity!!! Napoleon said, “An army marches on its stomach.” Humanity, it turns out, evolves on its stomach.

The Right Time and Place

How could you convince any modern, intelligent adult to believe in Christianity, assuming they knew nothing about Christianity, hence weren’t primed to be receptive towards it? Imagine that a new Jesus Christ (some new Jewish rabbi calling himself the Messiah) appeared in the world today ... would a single person take him seriously? All religions are products of a time and place. Afterwards, it’s generational brainwashing that sustains them. End the brainwashing and you end the religions. That’s exactly why religions hate the State, and don’t want it to intervene in religious matters. We don’t want the separation of religion and the State. We want the State to actively abolish all old, decrepit, false, irrational, fanatical, intolerant religions. They are a direct threat to the State. They permanently undermine it.

The Opposite “How could something originate in its antithesis? Truth in error, for example.” – Nietzsche. How could existence originate in non-existence, as science claims? In order to be a scientist, you must be a person of blind faith in the miraculous and magical ability of non-existence to spawn existence for no reason, via no mechanism. Science is the most egregious religious faith you can possibly get. It’s the religion most reliant on irrational, inexplicable miracles. Science is the religion of anti-meaning, anti-purpose and anti-reason.

Leibniz’s Last Hours The doctor who attended Leibniz as he neared the end of his life noted, “The patient’s story ... was a feverish fantasy about making gold.” In fact, Leibniz was asserting that he had alchemically transmuted himself into gold and was now ready for the divine afterlife. When Leibniz was asked if he wanted the Christian last sacraments, he said, “Fool, what should I confess? I have stolen or taken from no one.” Throughout his life, Leibniz was noted for never going to church. He was buried with little ceremony in an unmarked grave. Such was the fate of the greatest genius of all time. It’s rather appropriate, given human history.

A Scottish acquaintance who attended the funeral said, “You would have thought it was a felon they were burying, instead of a man who had been an ornament to his country.” All geniuses are criminals. Genius is an offence to the masses.

***** Of course, the Illuminati held their own secret ceremony to mark the passing of this towering Grand Master of the Order.

Real World Testing? Scientists talk about “real world testing”. What does that even mean? If the real world is mental rather than material, science’s conception of reality is totally false. If “real world testing” leads to absolute fallacies, of what value is it? If you stake everything on scientific materialism and atheism, and the universe is the opposite of that, you have wasted your entire life and understood nothing. Theory must always proceed testing, or you won’t know what it is you’re testing. Augurs and alchemists did a great deal of “real world testing”. So what?! Forget empiricism. Embrace rationalism. Do mathematical world testing.

The Voice of Reason The voice of reason must be a rationalist voice, not that of an empiricist. It’s nauseating when empiricists who totally reject rationalism say they are defending reason. Empiricists are one step up from people of faith, and that’s not saying much. No empiricist or person of faith can be an Illuminist. That would constitute a contradiction in terms. Many people call themselves “Illuminists”. Few are genuine Illuminists. Charlatans, impostors and frauds always outnumber the authentic seekers of the Truth.

Mental Illness Faith, empiricism, materialism, and atheism are all mental disorders. People who subscribe to these positions are mentally ill. They have rejected reason, and only the mad do that.

Ultimate Reality

Ultimate reality consists of individual substances (monads) and their properties. Everything is about souls and their behaviour.

Dr Pangloss Dr Pangloss, in Voltaire’s Candide, puts a gloss on everything. He’s the eternal optimist, believing that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Science is Dr Pangloss. It presents lots of measurements and instrumental definitions, but it glosses over all of the critical details of what things actually are (their ontology).

Two Realms We inhabit two realms. One is the Realm of Nature, of science, of phenomena, of empiricism, of “truths of fact”. The other is the Realm of Reason, of mathematics, of noumena, of rationalism, of “truths of reason”. The first realm is subjective, empirical, sensory, temporal, evolutionary and dialectical. The latter is objective, rational, intelligible, eternal and concerned with Aristotelian logic. Humanity’s problem is that it’s forever getting the two realms mixed up, and applying the wrong considerations to each, producing category errors. If you want objective truths, only the Realm of Reason can furnish them. They are available only to rational thought, not to sensory experiences and observations. All other “truths” are contingent interpretations with no rational necessity. The sensory “facts” of the world are not eternal facts of existence. Countless different Realms of Nature, or countless different interpretations of Nature via different sensory organs and capacities, are conceivable. But, in all possible worlds, the truths of reason must be the same. Scientists like to propose a Multiverse in which all conceivable universal constants are explored in the infinite universes of the Multiverse. However, if the universal constants are in fact derived from truths of reason, they must be the same in every possible universe. This is fatal to scientists’ attempts to explain away the fact that the universal constants of our universe are so staggeringly and improbably (in materialist terms) wellsuited to the evolution of intelligent life. Of course, there’s no mystery

regarding why these universal constants accommodate life so well ... if in fact the universe is inherently alive rather than a dead machine!

Being and Nothing Given that all monads are both something (mathematical energy systems) and nothing (the net sum of a monad’s energy is necessarily zero), they are Hegelian systems of being and nothing, which produce the dialectical synthesis of becoming. All monads are thus eternal becomings, and what they are becoming are Gods!

Final (Teleological) and Efficient (Scientific) Causes We are all subject to two types of causality. When we choose to do something, it’s because we have a final cause (a purposeful objective) in mind. Science, however, rejects all teleological explanations, which means it denies we have any purposes. According to science, we are subject to efficient causes alone. In fact, our bodies are subject to efficient causes (“hows”), while our minds are subject to final causes (“whys”). In science, there are no whys, only hows. That’s why science is full of instrumental definitions, but can’t actually explain what anything is and why anything happens at all.

No Objects, Just Perspectives Imagine an enormous multi-player computer game, in which everyone in the world is participating. Everyone has a different avatar and they all move through the virtual game world in their own way unique way. All of the players share the same game world and have their own sensory experience of it, but in no case are any actual objects in that world real, autonomous, things in their own right. They are all mathematical calculations. Who needs a material world when you can have a calculated world instead? How would you ever be able to tell the difference between real objects and calculated objects if your senses have evolved to delude you that calculated objects are persistent things rather than things calculated in the last instant? Isn’t the true meaning of quantum mechanics that the world is calculated anew at each and every instant? Isn’t that what it means to say that particles do not simultaneously have a position and momentum, hence aren’t actual things that can be individually tracked forever?

We are not bodies that have existed for twenty, thirty or forty years, or whatever our specific age is. Rather, we are all calculations performed in the present instant, reflecting the information accumulated in the x years of our lives. It’s the information that “ages”, not objects. There are no objects.

The Senses (Science) versus Reason (Math) If you are on the side of reason, you accept an eternal, rational order as the ground of existence ... a mathematical order. If you are against reason, as scientists are, you reject an eternal, rational order, and look instead to a random, indeterministic, acausal, uncertain order of chance and accident, i.e. all the things incompatible with reason, and which render a rational answer to existence impossible. The ultimate claim of math is that the fundamental components of existence have existed forever, and can be analysed rationally without any reference to experiments. The ultimate claim of scientific materialism, on the other hand, is that the there are no fundamental components of existence, and that existents miraculously and randomly jump out of nonexistence for no reason. Any system – such as science – that cites things happening for no reason (i.e. the principle of sufficient reason is formally rejected) is by definition against reason. All scientists are anti-rationalists who support miraculous and magical processes that happen for no reason, i.e. scientists are people of faith. They believe in an irrational order. They are followers of the illogical Church of Science and they oppose the logical Church of Mathematics. They are supporters of sensory Mythos against rational Logos.

Taking the Piss An old alchemical theory hinted that the long-sought Philosopher’s Stone could be found in the waste of the human body. Saliva, urine, semen, excrement, dead skin and hair, and so on, all contained traces of the magic substance, so it was thought. One alchemist – Heinrich Brand – distilled his urine and thus discovered the element phosphorus. You see – taking the piss can have important consequences!

No Flies On Leibniz A Duchess once remarked to Leibniz, “It’s so rare for intellectuals to be smartly dressed, and not to smell, and to understand jokes.” It’s much rarer

still for any Duchess to understand calculus.

Galileo Galileo argued that objects conserve their motion unless acted upon by a force. However, this has the most radical implication that never receives due attention. A moving Galilean object, in a universe on its own, and subject to no forces, would travel forever in a straight line at constant speed. So, where does the energy for its motion come from, and why does it never lose energy? It can’t come from anywhere outside itself, hence it must be caused by energy inside itself. Moreover, this energy can never be exhausted (or the object would come to a halt). Thus, every object is inherently a perpetual motion machine with an internal energy supply that goes on forever. If objects have an infinite inner energy (to enable them to travel forever), how come this infinite energy does not equate to infinite mass, as per Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and thus infinite gravitational force? If they do not have inner energy, how do they move at all, and if they have only a finite amount of energy, why don’t they come to a halt when their energy runs out? There’s only one way out of this labyrinth. Objects have infinite internal energy, but it’s energy that always balances overall to zero, i.e. it’s dimensionless energy. But that contradicts science!

Force? Newton said that Force = mass times acceleration. However, this means that masses and accelerations constitute the primary reality, not “force”, which is merely a label attached to the product of the two primary quantities. What, then, do “forces” add to the description of reality that isn’t already provided by masses and acceleration? They seem to be empty of real content, and incapable on their own of explaining anything at all.

The Myth There’s no greater myth than that science is on the side of reason. Science is on the side of the senses, and the senses have nothing to do with reason. The senses are all about interpretation. True reason concerns infallible, eternal, necessary truths of reason. When reason is applied to anything else – such as the fallible, temporal,

contingent senses – it becomes mere opinion, interpretation, conjecture or belief. Only rationalists are on the side of reason. If you’re an empiricist, or a person of faith, you are opposed to reason. If you do not accept the principle of sufficient reason as the cornerstone of existence, you are against reason. Science formally repudiates the principle of sufficient reason.

Ultimate Existents Ultimately, the only things that exist are sinusoidal monads, and from them everything else is derived. Space and time are potentialities of monads, not independent things. Ontological mathematics studies the primary existents. Science studies the secondary, phenomenal existents derived from them, but erroneously regards them as primary.

Dream Memories Most people, most of the time, remember nothing of their dreams. Every now and again, a particularly vivid dream is recalled. So, why is it that we remember some dreams but not others? The fact that we are capable of remembering a dream at all means that its contents are being stored somewhere – but where? There must be two memory storage systems. Our dreams store their memories in one place, and our waking consciousness stores them somewhere else. Only occasionally do the dream memories get redirected into conscious memory. As for waking conscious memories, these must be available to our dream mind since they provide the vast bulk of the content of our dreams. So, the conscious memory and dream memory systems must be closely linked, but also carefully separated. Imagine the catastrophe that would occur if dream memories were routinely passed into the waking consciousness memory system. How would our minds tell the difference between dream and real memories if both were located in the same storage area and seemed equally valid? This might well be the source of madness, of conditions such as schizophrenia.

It’s likely that waking conscious memories are associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, while dream memories are associated with the right hemisphere of the brain (the hemisphere associated with the unconscious mind). The right hemisphere always has access to the left hemisphere memories (since these provide the typical content of our dreams, albeit grotesquely distorted into fantasies and nightmares), but the left hemisphere only rarely gets access to right hemisphere memories. These are the dreams we actually remember. The intriguing and suggestive question is this – do we actually have two consciousnesses, one in the left hemisphere and one in the right? In this case, what we call the “unconscious” isn’t unconscious at all. Rather, it’s differently conscious (so conscious = “consciousness 1”, and unconscious = “consciousness 2”). We have to shut off our waking consciousness (by going to sleep) before we can access this other consciousness, which is outside space and time. When we awake, this other consciousness is still there, still functioning – we just don’t have direct access to it. It’s not unconscious at all ... it’s a second consciousness that we can’t access if our first consciousness is active, and vice versa. We don’t have a conscious mind and unconscious mind, but rather two conscious minds that we toggle between depending on whether we are waking or dreaming. If the two consciousnesses are accessible and fully operational at the same time, we exhibit insanity because different types of content are now fully mixing, and we can’t tell the difference between them. Each version of consciousness is unconscious to the other, i.e. when we are in one mode, we’re automatically shut off from the other, hence are not aware of what’s going on there. When we’re dreaming, we have no idea what our body is doing as it lies in bed. When we’re awake, we’re fully aware of what our body is doing. The remarkable fact is that when we die, our second consciousness doesn’t die with us ... because it’s outside space and time. Moreover, because it has always had access to the memory storage area of our waking consciousness, all of these memories are saved even when we die. Death transfers our primary consciousness from our “first” consciousness (in the waking world) to our “second” consciousness (in the dream world), and reincarnation provides us with a brand new “first” consciousness linked to a new waking body. We might infer that this new first consciousness is actually constructed from information supplied by the second

consciousness, i.e. our second consciousness is what allows the generation of our conscious ego.

***** In terms of Freudian psychology, the ego is our left brain consciousness obeying the reality principle. Our id is our right brain consciousness obeying the pleasure and pain principle, i.e. it desires pleasure and is terrified of pain, hence is the source of both fantasies and nightmares. The Freudian superego is a conscious construct that develops as a result of our interactions with parents, adults and others, and is all about our social and moral dealings with others. The superego appears to the id consciousness as a source of fear – since it can punish and persecute us. That’s why so many dreams involve unpleasant encounters with figures of authority, and with being humiliated in front of others. The “other” is a potentially terrifying thing, especially when it has power over us. Even though our conscious ego is not directly aware of our id, our id is in operation at all times, heavily influencing our behaviour. Our ego then has to rationalize whatever our id causes us to do. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is such a classic story because it goes to the heart of a human being’s double nature. Dr Jekyll is the rational ego and Mr Hyde is the liberated id.

***** In Jungian psychology, our ego and persona belong to our left brain consciousness. Our shadow, anima/animus and Self belong to our right brain consciousness. In short, we have separate psychic components all involved in a complex interaction. We have two centres of consciousness, one linked to space and time, hence mortal, and the other outside space and time, hence immortal. Our sensing and reasoning capacities are in space and time (left hemisphere capabilities), our intuitions and feelings are outside space and time (right hemisphere capabilities). Gnosis occurs when a soul is able to transfer reason from inside space and time to outside space and time, to fuse it with intuition and thus achieve super thinking and God consciousness.

*****

Why do we live in a Mythos rather than Logos world? Because most people live in a right-brain fantasy world of stories and feelings, not all that different from a dream world. Given how weird dreams are, is it any wonder that so many people are willing to believe that Moses went up a mountain and spoke to God, or that the Creator of the Universe was born to a Jewish virgin in a stable, or that an Arab tribesman went into a cave and encountered the Angel Gabriel? These are clearly dream-like accounts and they make sense to people who spend their lives in a kind of dream because they lack the ability to impose reason on the world via philosophy, science and mathematics. People of faith have never truly woken up. The bicameral theory of what the human mind was like before consciousness developed is essentially one of the fusion of waking and dreaming states. People were constantly hallucinating. They were more or less all schizophrenic. Schizophrenia isn’t a mental illness, but, rather, the default mode of the human mind. It isn’t a question of schizophrenics being sane people who became insane. In fact, insanity is the default mode of the human condition and it’s the evolution of reason (Logos) that cures us and makes us sane. Those people who never become fully rational remain more or less insane – which explains why the world is such a madhouse. What real difference is there between those who pray to invisible Gods and think they are having a conversation with them, and schizophrenics who hear voices? They are on a continuum. People of faith are just one notch above full-blown schizophrenia. In the ancient days, all humans were insane and hearing voices all the time! So, we have two centres of consciousness, one in the left brain and one in the right brain. The right brain consciousness – associated with dreams, hallucinations, fantasies, intuitions, psychic abilities, internal emotional preoccupations, internal teleology, and so on – was once dominant, but now left brain consciousness has taken over. The more rational you are, the more left-brain dominant you are. Philosophers, scientists and mathematicians are left-brain dominant. All people of faith are right-brain dominant, and only have a veneer of left-brain consciousness. The left-brain seat of consciousness is concerned with thinking, sensing and extraversion, while the right-brain seat of consciousness is concerned with feelings, intuitions and introversion. Scientists, although they may seem introverted socially, are extraverts since they always look to the outside world for answers, and in fact reject

the concept of an independent, inner mental world. Philosophers and mathematicians are often thinking intuitive introverts, meaning they have good hemispheric balance. Most ordinary people are feeling sensing extraverts. Their left-brain “consciousness” is not based on reason but on sensing and extraversion, hence is not rationally grounded. That’s why such people are so prone to Mythos, and to “visions”, and so on. The “great work” is to make left brain reason consciously accessible to the right brain. Only then can the immortal soul outside space and time become truly and fully conscious locally as well as non-locally. Each centre of consciousness is concerned with both the self and with others. The left-brain Jungian ego constructs a “persona” to handle its relations with others. The right-brain Jungian Self constructs an anima/animus for comprehending and dealing with members of the opposite sex, and a shadow where it can explore total selfishness. The Freudian superego is, if understood properly, the same as the Jungian persona. It’s the social mask we don to be acceptable to others. The persona, not the ego, carries our morality and social awareness. Our ego is far more cynical, skeptical and rationalist. The persona is the ego’s means of deceiving the world as to our true identity and thoughts. The Freudian id is more or less the Jungian shadow. As for the Jungian anima/animus, this is the magical psychic component that allows us to fall in love. The anima/animus is our internal representation of what our perfect lover should be like. Anyone we meet in reality who resembles our anima/animus will instantly make our heart skip a beat. If we resemble their anima/animus too then we immediately have “chemistry”.

Experiential Religions Eastern religions are experiential religions that seek to achieve specific states of experience. They are empirical, not rational. They are nothing to do with reason, logic, mathematics, science, metaphysics, knowledge and understanding. They have no connection with gnosis – which is all about acquiring the divine knowledge of existence. You can never achieve gnosis through an anti-intellectual exercise such as meditation or chanting. Put away your orange robes and incense sticks and pick up a book on Fourier mathematics ... the true path to enlightenment.

***** Eastern religions are to true religion as scientific materialism is to mathematics. They are empiricist rather than rationalist, and appeal to those who turn away from reason and logic. If you want experiential states ... take drugs! Fuck Eastern religion!!!

The Question “Would not free will put us on a par with God?” – anonymous Exactly so. Every free, rational, immortal soul can evolve towards divinity.

No Vacuum Descartes argued that all extended things are material. Given that “space” is extended, it must be material too. In other words, Descartes denied the existence of the vacuum: space is full, not empty. For Atomists, the universe consists of atoms and the void in which they move. What, then, is void? What’s it made of? How does it exist at all? If it’s absolute nothingness (non-existence) then it’s not there. If it’s not absolute nothingness then it’s something, but for atomists only atoms constitute “something”, and the void is precisely that which atoms are not. This is a totally illogical system. For Descartes, the “void” was in fact composed of tiny corpuscles, providing an all-pervading ether.

No Physical Things At All There are no such things as material particles (enduring “things”). There are no forces in the sense of things that can be transferred from one thing to another. What actually exists is information. This is defined mathematically. Information is intelligible; “things” are sensible. The evolving cosmic wavefunction is an information wavefunction. It’s made of mathematical information. Every part of it reflects information. It’s this information that is mathematically interpreted by minds as matter, force, energy, sensory things, and so on. Because humans interpret information nonmathematically (i.e. empirically, not rationally), they are astounded by the assertion that the universe is entirely mathematical. Our own interpretations are what conceal the Truth from us. We must transcend our empirical viewpoint if we ever wish to attain the divine – rational – perspective.

Science, as pure empiricism, is anti-divinity. It locks us into human sensory delusion. Mathematics frees us.

Inner Action and Interaction All monads have inner activity (their “free” activity, i.e. self-determined activity and not imposed from outside), and also interaction (outer activity) with other monads, which involves deterministic, causal laws. A monad is active when self-determining, and passive when being causally determined by other monads.

Three Souls Aristotle said that plants had a “vegetative soul” – the principle of organic life. Animals had both a vegetative soul and a “sensitive” soul (i.e. a soul with the capacity to sense and cause movement). A human had a vegetative soul, a sensitive soul, and a rational soul (a soul with the capacity to reason). So, the more rational you are, the more human you are. The more sensory (empirical) you are, the closer you are to animals. Scientists, with their obsession with their senses and experiences, are animal-like. Philosophers and mathematicians, with their obsession with reason, logic, abstraction and analysis, are enormously more human than bestial scientists. The most superlatively rational human beings are those that resemble the Gods! Logos humans have a predominantly rational soul, and Mythos humans a predominantly sensitive and feeling soul.

Energy Energy = Becoming. Energy is expressed – actualized – only through motion. Motion is pure becoming. Motion is mathematical information.

The Senses The senses are the most deceptive thing there could possibly be. They are phenomenological, not ontological. They are not “organs for truth”. Only our reason – revealing the truths of reason – is an organ for truth. The senses are nothing but interpreters ... misinterpreters. How do you know when you are engaged in interpretation, and when in misinterpretation? What’s the difference? All interpretation is in fact misinterpretation. The truth – as pure analytic tautology – can never be misinterpreted.

The Location Where is the mind? Where is the body? If there is nothing but an infinity of minds then “material” bodies are to be found inside minds (inside the Collective Mind, to be exact), not minds inside bodies.

The Enigma of Zero If zero is non-existence, nothing can come from it. If zero is existence, everything can come from it. Zero logically contains everything up to infinity, where everything up to “positive” infinity is exactly balanced by everything up to “negative” infinity, leaving a net result of zero. Zero, as non-existence, has no properties, attributes, qualities or consequences, hence has no effects. Zero, as existence, has properties, attributes, qualities and causes and effects to an infinite extent. Science rejects zero as a real container for an immense system of balanced mathematical information obeying exact conservation laws. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, treats the zero container as pure, infinite existence. To be infinite means to contain all possible numbers. The monad is zero as the logical container for myriad balanced existents (numbers; sinusoids). Zero is not the symbol for non-existence, and is not itself a true number. Nothing can correspond to zero as a number in itself. There is no such thing as a zero sinusoid. When you look at the Cartesian number line, you are misled into believing that zero is a number like any other, sitting exactly between one and minus one. Zero is in fact the sum of one and minus one, and of any number and its negative. Zero, in other words, inherently reflects a mathematical operation (addition, or, alternatively, subtraction), while no other Cartesian number does. Zero is a “container” number (i.e. it is necessarily composed of other numbers, to which an operation has been applied), and is not a number in itself. It’s precisely because zero is not a number like all other numbers that traditional (abstract) mathematics has so much difficulty with it. Invalid operations are carried out whenever zero is treated as a number in itself, and not as a container number.

Division by zero is not division by nothing but by everything, i.e. infinity is built into the concept of zero. To divide one by zero is in fact to divide one by all possible numbers. Such an operation does not make any sense. You cannot divide a number by a container. That’s a category error. The world of zero and infinity belongs to a separate category from the world of all finite, dimensional numbers. The zero/infinity world of mathematics is implicate (mental), while the world of finite, dimensional numbers is explicate (material). Dimensional numbers can be collapsed into dimensionless numbers, at which point they can logically exist inside the zero/infinity world of singularities. In other words, the Cartesian number line reflects dimensional numbers (spacetime numbers). At zero, dimensionality ceases, and all numbers then become dimensionless, and exist inside zero. At this point, all numbers are frequencies rather than spacetime entities. This is the ontological basis of Fourier mathematics, and of the interaction between frequency and spacetime functions (between mind and mater). Zero, on the Cartesian number line, is actually a portal to a different domain ... that of dimensionless, mental frequencies. So, the Cartesian number line is disguising a critical mathematical truth ... it contains a dimensionality phase change at zero, which is never acknowledged by conventional mathematicians, or by scientists. This phase change is the one critical for the Big Bang, the Big Crunch, black hole singularities and photonic singularities. The Big Bang is actually present in the Cartesian number line ... as zero, the Origin (!). The Big Bang is simply where dimensionless numbers are made dimensional, thanks to a mathematical operation involving symmetry breaking and phase. You cannot understand reality unless you understand the ontology of the Cartesian number line, and realise that the Monadic Singularity (the Cosmic Mind) is none other than the Cartesian Origin (zero). It sits at the centre of everything and controls everything. The frequency Mind of the universe exists at the centre of the spacetime world. It controls matter, gravity and quantum mechanics. Science has never understood this, and abstract mathematics has treated zero as a number and not as a portal to a dimensionless (frequency) domain, containing all numbers in their dimensionless aspect.

You can never get anything right unless you get your ontology right. Descartes was a genius, but his number line – so astoundingly valuable – was also a means of obscuring the ontological truth ... because it treated zero as an ordinary, positional number, and not as a portal to a second number line (that of frequency). Both number lines must always be considered together. They can never be treated as wholly separate things, as they are in science and conventional mathematics. All of the secrets of calculus are reliant on it being understood that the dimensional aspect of calculus is entirely intertwined with the dimensionless (singularity) aspect. Leibniz intuited this, and was 100% right. The mainstream mathematics community declared Leibniz wrong and became obsessed with the ideology of the limits of finite quantities (an empiricist, materialist concept). D′Alembert said, “The theory of limits is the true metaphysics of the calculus. ... It is never a question of infinitesimal quantities in the differential calculus: it is uniquely a question of limits of finite quantities. Thus the metaphysics of the infinite and infinitely small quantities, larger or smaller than one another, is totally useless to the differential calculus.” Mainstream mathematics has no understanding whatsoever of the ontology of calculus, and has catastrophically misinterpreted what calculus is and does. Calculus is the bridge between mind and matter, but mathematicians and scientists have treated it in exclusively materialist terms. That’s why information can go “missing” in conventional calculus. In reality, it doesn’t go missing at all. It simply transfers from the material to the mental domain. However, if the mental domain is denied, then it has nowhere to go and must just vanish into thin air ... like magic. Any rational person should see immediately that it’s impossible for mathematical information to become lost, hence the version of calculus taught by mainstream mathematics and science must be false. The mathematics establishment has committed a disastrous intellectual sin, which must be rectified as soon as possible. The calculus of empirical “limits” must be replaced by the calculus of rational Leibnizian monadic singularities.

Noosphere and Psychosphere Mind/Spirit = intuitive thinking = noosphere. Soul = discursive thinking = psychosphere.

You must master the psychosphere before you can reach the noosphere of the Gods, where you will understand everything instantly, and think perfectly ... where your mind and absolute knowledge will become one.

The Ancients Leibniz’s work was based on the work of Pythagoras, Plato, Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. He passed these foundations through three filters: Aristotelian Scholasticism (Roman Catholic philosophy, so to speak), the modern rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza, and the new mechanistic ideas of science and applied mathematics. At all times, Leibniz remained true to reason, logic, mathematics and metaphysical principles. He certainly saw a role for scientific experimentation, but as an aid to rationalism, not as the main action. Newton, with his convenient and complacent doctrine of “I do not feign hypotheses” – which allowed him to present his successful laws of physics without having to explain how they actually worked and how they made any rational sense – became such a God in the scientific world that Leibniz’s approach was soon held in contempt and ignored by the scientific community. It remains so to this day. Illuminism, unlike science, persevered with Leibniz’s approach, and, rather going down the route of ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent scientific hypotheses, whose “truth” can never be definitively established, focused on analytic mathematics, whose truth can be proved beyond any question. Mathematics offers absolute truth. However, to most people, it seems abstract and not directly related to the “real” world. It seems to point to some beautiful but impossible Platonic realm – a transcendent rational paradise that can never actually be attained, but which provides a glorious ideal to contemplate. To perform analytic mathematics, you don’t have to look at the world at all. Science, on the other hand, is grubby, inelegant and unconnected with absolute truth. Science’s “laws” can never be proved. Experiments can provide a sanity check of sorts for scientific hypotheses. Experiments can, to a limited degree, verify and validate hypotheses, but these same experiments, when they become more sophisticated, can falsify hypotheses they once vindicated, which then have to be refined or even replaced. At no stage, even in principle, is it ever possible to reach a formal end to science and establish a final and definitive scientific truth.

While science remains tied to the scientific method, it can never escape the simple fact that experiments never “prove” anything, as testified by the fact that countless scientific hypotheses that were once experimentally verified were later overturned when new experiments came along that no longer verified them. Even if science one day presented a Grand Unified, Final Theory of Everything, there wouldn’t be a single reason to expect it to be definitively true. It simply isn’t within the gift of science’s methodology to offer absolute truth. Experiments are not means of establishing unarguable truth. They are concerned with “truths of fact”, which are interpretations, and not with “truths of reason”, which are analytic and whose truth cannot be contested. If you want the final answers to existence, science is not the subject you’d go to. Science is an instrumental subject. It’s practical and useful, but what it certainly isn’t is a vehicle of indisputable truth. Science is powerful because it’s successful, not because it’s true. In fact, it’s not true at all. More or less every scientific claim is formally false. The “real” world has no resemblance whatsoever to the type of spacetime model science furnishes. In reality, there’s no such thing as “matter”. There are no tiny, enduring “atoms”. Reality is not based on “real” numbers, but on complex numbers. Science rejects a non-local, dimensionless domain of mind, yet this is the true foundation of reality. Reality could not exist if it did not have adamantine foundations associated with 100% certainty. Only analytic mathematics provides eternal, incontestable truth and certainty. Although mathematics (which performs no experiments on the world and has no need of experiments, hence seems to have nothing to do with the world) appears abstract and otherworldly, while science (which does perform experiments on the world, hence seems to be all about the world) appears concrete and thisworldly, it is actually mathematics, not science, in which reality is embedded, and by which it is defined. It’s no accident that mathematics is the engine of science, something inexplicable if mathematics has nothing to do with reality. So, there you have it. The ultimate choice everyone must make is between mathematics and science. Leibniz chose mathematics and Newton chose science. The world followed Newton, but it’s Leibniz who will be

proved right in the end. Science does not answer the mystery of existence, and never can. Mathematics can and does explain the mystery of existence, but not through experiments and the senses ... through reason and intellect. Science claims that we inhabit a “sensible” world, to be grasped by experiments that necessarily involve the senses and direct interaction with sensory observables. Mathematics asserts that we inhabit an “intelligible” world, to be grasped by reason, logic and, of course, mathematics itself. Eastern religion claims that we inhabit an “intuitive” world, to be grasped intuitively via meditation, contemplation, reflection and “higher” mental states, where we have transcended our physical bodies. There is no formal, repeatable, reliable method here, and no knowledge. Science uses the scientific method, mathematics uses mathematical proof, but Eastern religion is essentially mystical and full of wishful thinking. That’s why it’s impossible to meaningfully engage with New Agers, hippies, psychonauts, theosophists, anthroposophists, and members of Eastern religions. In the end, they say, “I’m right because I feel it, because I intuit it, because it’s my experience – and I won’t listen to you no matter what you say.” You can’t reason with people unless you all share an agreed, objective, neutral platform. Scientific experiments are repeatable, hence objective. Mathematical proofs can be followed by any mathematically-minded person and are wholly objective. Mystical intuitions, on the other hand, merge with beliefs, opinions, feelings, faith, conjecture and interpretation. These are subjective, not objective. Mystical intuition does not provide any reliable, objective way forward. Abrahamic religion is about faith and feelings. The sole “method” of Abrahamism is to accept as absolutely true the revealed “holy” texts of Abrahamism. Abrahamists ignore any criticism of their holy texts, since to doubt any part of them is to doubt their entirety, hence to no longer believe that they originate with God. The Koran is particularly extreme in this regard since it claims to be the literal Word of God, completely unmediated since it was (allegedly) directly dictated to the prophet Mohammed by a divine messenger, perfectly relaying the thoughts of Allah. If you reject even one word of the Koran, you are stating that “God” is wrong, hence cannot be God. Science (empiricist materialism) and mathematics (rationalist idealism) offer the only two sane choices when approaching the nature of reality.

Mainstream religion is ludicrous. It’s devoid of any meaningful truth content. Every word of the Koran is false. It has nothing valuable to say about anything at all. It’s literally a brainwashing manual for credulous, gullible, superstitious, irrational, terrified submissives. Islam actually means “submission”.

The One The Platonic Form of the Good (the supreme Form, the apex of all Forms) = the Pythagorean Monad (the source of all monads and thus numbers) = the Neoplatonic One (the origin of all) = the Illuminist Singularity, the origin of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Rupert Sheldrake claims that the Big Bang implies a temporal and evolutionary universe rather than an eternal, immutable universe. He fails to address the concept of an eternal succession of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches, producing an eternally oscillating universe; an eternal procession of involution and evolution. Sheldrake then argues that scientific laws and “constants” evolve, through the establishment of “habits”. However, he makes no attempt to explain what habit the Big Bang – as a hypothetical one-off – was reflecting. What caused the Big Bang? Sheldrake has no answer. So, here we have a version of Cartesian dualism. Why should some things be habitual and other things not? You can’t have a mixture of the habitual and non-habitual if the habitual is the essence of your system. Sheldrake has to rely on magic acts to get things going, before cosmic “habits” then take over. In Illuminism, there are eternal Forms, and temporal Forms directly derived from them. The eternal Forms are the laws of mathematics, and these underpin the functioning of the universe. They provide the perfect foundations. Temporal Forms evolve dialectically, and reach an end-point, at which they become essentially fixed. For example, the biological Form of a human being is now more or less fixed. To the extent that humans are still evolving, it’s mentally rather than physically. Sheldrake talks of rats in one part of the world learning a trick faster as a result of other rats in another part of the world having previously learned it. He proposes that a habit has been established by the first group of rats,

which is then transmitted non-locally, by morphic resonance, to the second group, or is available for the other group to tune into. In Illuminism, the solution to the rat trick is a dynamic Platonic Form, non-locally (holographically) available to all rats. Each rat can tune into this form and also feed back to it and further refine it, until it reaches a point where it’s essentially fixed and is now available as an “instinct” to the whole rat species. This view is close to Jung’s notion of archetypes in the collective unconscious – which is a far more productive notion than Sheldrake’s morphic resonance. Sheldrake’s “habits” (or morphic resonance fields) are just his version of Jungian archetypes, except he has no organised, mental, universal, nonlocal entity akin to Jung’s Collective Unconscious (or the Neoplatonic Nous or Higher Psyche) in which to place these fields.

Averroës The Muslim philosopher Averroës believed that the soul is divided into two parts, one belonging to the individual, and the other to God. The latter part is immortal and the former mortal. The immortal part is active intellect and belongs to the single intellect of God, with which it’s reunited when a person dies. (This stance is directly taken from Aristotle.) So, our highest reason belongs not to us but to God, hence the more we use our higher reason, the closer we are to divinity. Philosophers and mathematicians are therefore the most Godly people!

Freedom What does it mean to be free? It means your behaviour cannot be caused by anything outside you. In classical scientific materialism, your behaviour is caused by atoms, and every atom belongs to an inexorable causal chain taking into account the whole universe, and you have no capacity to alter this causal chain, hence you are not free but merely an ingenious robot suffering from a peculiar delusion that you are free. We can be free only if a Singularity of monads exists, outside space and time, where each monad can act autonomously, for its own inner reasons rather than for outer reasons forced on it.

The Best World

Leibniz asserted that if God created the world then it must be the best of all possible worlds since, if it wasn’t, it would mean that God had perversely chosen to create a worse world than he might have created, and this of course would be incompatible with his perfection and goodness. It would contradict the definition of God. If you believe in a perfect Creator God, you must agree with Leibniz’s argument. The ancient Gnostic position was that this is the worst of all possible worlds since its Creator is in fact the Devil (Jehovah/Christ/Allah).

The Language Mystery Once upon a time, the right and left hemispheres of the brain both had language skills. The right hemisphere spoke and the left hemisphere listened and obeyed. The left hemisphere interpreted the voice of the right hemisphere to be an alien voice ... the voice of a God! (We could regard this mechanism as corresponding to the unconscious directly talking to the proto-consciousness, or the Higher Self talking to the Lower Ego.) All human beings once had what we would now recognize as a “split brain”. In modern times, split brains are generated when epileptics have their corpus callosum (the band of tissue between the two brain hemispheres) severed, to reduce the severity of their fits. The two hemispheres thus become capable of independent action. In some cases, “alien hand” syndrome occurs, whereby the left hand, controlled by the right hemisphere, starts behaving autonomously, under no conscious control (it’s the unconscious mind that tells it what to do). As consciousness developed, language became solely located in the left hemisphere, while the right hemisphere fell silent. It’s essential for proper consciousness for only one “voice” to be heard. Otherwise, which voice would perform our conscious decision-making? We would have two consciousnesses fighting it out, and we would all be mad. In our dreams, consciousness in the left hemisphere is presented with an alien world made for it by the right hemisphere. The right hemisphere tries to communicate with the left, but it has no language skills, so has to use images, symbols and codes. The right hemisphere is simply our unconscious mind. Alternatively, we could say that the consciousness in the left hemisphere has a world presented to it by the external senses, while the consciousness

in the right hemisphere (which is unconscious relative to the consciousness in the left hemisphere, and vice versa, since neither consciousness is aware of the other) has a world presented to it by internal intuition and emotion.

Discovery versus Invention We discover the properties of mathematical objects such as triangles. We don’t invent them. This is a crucial point. If we invented the properties of triangles, they would be temporal, contingent entities, subject to incompleteness and inconsistency, and all of our manmade fallacies and errors. In fact, the properties of triangles are the same whether human beings exist or not, and, moreover, these properties are eternally true. Nothing is more astounding than the idea of eternal truths because such truths prove conclusively that mathematics has existed forever, that it’s uncreated and uncaused. Nothing gave rise to mathematics because, in order to do so, it would have to be older than mathematics, and nothing can be older than eternity. Of only one thing can we be sure: eternal things are mathematical things, and not any other kind of thing. “God” would be eternal only if he were mathematical!

The Argument Against God’s Goodness If God is compelled to be good, he is not free. Moreover, if he is under a compulsion, he is not a moral agent because he can never choose. He must do good rather than choose to do good. If God is perfectly good, he cannot be omnipotent ... given that he is powerless to do bad things. If God is subject to concepts of goodness and justice that exist externally to him then a) he is their slave, and b) there are eternal things other than God, or even things that preceded God. In either case, God did not create or cause them, hence God is not everything, and did not make everything. Whatever way you look at it, the conventional definition of God is one that leads to insurmountable contradictions, and anything that’s full of contradictions cannot exist as an eternal truth. Abrahamism defines “goodness” as “whatever God wants”, so it’s therefore “good”, for example, for God to order a father to murder his son (as God ordered Abraham to murder Isaac). Of course, this is actually evil

and immoral, but if we subject God to Platonic standards outside God then, clearly, we do not believe in God but in those Platonic standards, and we think there’s a higher authority and more fundamental entity than God ... the Form of the Good. Could we praise God for being “good” for ordering a father to kill his son, or for exterminating humanity bar Noah and his family? What on earth do we mean by God’s “goodness” in these situations? Abrahamists have never worked out if they worship God for being loving and morally perfect, or for being infinitely powerful and not moral at all. In other words, there’s nothing inherently in the nature of the Abrahamic God that would allow us to know whether he’s good or evil, God or Devil! And that means he’s definitely not God. If it’s “good” to slaughter apostates, infidels and heretics, is anyone who fails to slaughter apostates, infidels and heretics therefore “bad” and deserving of hell? What kind of morality is that? What kind of justice is that? What kind of goodness is that? Religion is a system of power, not of morals. It has nothing to do with morals. “God” is pure power, hence is both God and Devil. Humans, when they think of “God”, engage in the most incredible doublethink. Christians are especially bad. They believe in the Jewish Old Testament God who behaves like the Devil, and they also believe in the New Testament Jesus who is frequently portrayed as a loving, compassionate, peace-loving hippie, the complete opposite of Jehovah. Would Jesus have exterminated the human race, or ordered Abraham to murder Isaac? No? Yet he did ... because there’s only one God in Christianity! Christianity is a monotheism.

***** If God were infinitely good, could he even comprehend evil? Mathematical reason cannot comprehend unreason. Pure reason can never err.

***** If God is not subject to absolute moral standards, he is not subject to any moral standards, hence cannot be distinguished from the Devil. If he is subject to absolute moral standards, he is not God since he is not a free agent!

Leibniz said if God were not subject to morality then: “There is nothing to prevent such a God from behaving as a tyrant and an enemy of honest folk, and from taking pleasure in that which we call evil. Why should he not, then, just as well be the evil principle of the Manicheans as the single good principle of the orthodox? At least he would be neutral and, as it were, suspended between the two, or even sometimes the one and sometimes the other.” Such considerations make God subject to moral constraint, and make morality a higher power than God. God is powerless to disobey morality.

Entelechy Entelechy: “(In Aristotelian philosophy) ... The complete realisation and final form of some potential concept or function; the conditions under which a potential thing becomes actualised.” – Wiktionary Entelechy: from ancient Greek entelécheia (en “in” + telos “goal, perfection, completion” + ekhein “to have”) ... to have perfection in oneself; to have the ability to attain completion, completeness, perfection, wholeness. We are all entelechies ... self-solving, self-optimising mathematical entities.

The Thoughts of Einstein “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details.” – Einstein Well, read a math book! “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.” – Einstein This is the gospel of meritocracy. “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” – Einstein Be careful what you wish for. Imagination isn’t knowledge. Mainstream religions are highly imaginative but contain no knowledge at all. Knowledge is infinitely more important than imagination when it comes to the truth. Knowledge encircles the universe. The highest imagination is that

which transcends humanity, which breaks free from humanity, and reaches the reality beyond. Only the people of the highest knowledge can exercise that kind of divine imagination. “A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” – Einstein Einstein ... the New Age hippie! “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” – Einstein Well, give up scientific materialism then ... the ideology of machines! Science denies meaning, purpose, free will and consciousness. It exterminates everything mysterious. The whole of science is a stranger to mystery, and refuses to contemplate it. Science is a dead subject, for the dead. All scientists have their eyes closed to the non-sensory, noumenal world that defines reality. “Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.” – Einstein True. People see through others’ eyes, and feel with others’ hearts. They are fake and inauthentic. They live through others. “Science is the century-old endeavour to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualisation. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgements of all kinds remain necessary.” – Einstein

The trouble is science isn’t systematic (rationally complete and consistent), and true reality isn’t perceptible or sensible but intelligible. We need an a priori approach, not a posteriori. In other words, we need math, not science. Science doesn’t ascertain what is. It interprets what’s observable, and interprets badly and wrongly. “I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research.” – Einstein Hippie! Reason certainly plays no part in scientific research. “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.” – Einstein So much for the cosmic religiousness that he previously espoused! Anyway, science no longer acknowledges any laws. It’s all about probabilities, statistics, uncertainties, indeterminacies, accidents, chance, randomness, and so on. None of that has anything to do with rational, logical, analytic, eternal, necessary, deterministic laws. “When a blind beetle crawls over the surface of the globe, he doesn’t realize that the track he has covered is curved. I was lucky enough to have spotted it.” – Einstein Einstein, the Beetle Man! “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvellous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” – Einstein So, now you’ve abandoned your New Age religious sentiments and embraced rationalism. If Reason manifests itself in Nature then Nature must be 100% rational, since it can’t be a Cartesian dualism of rationalism and

irrationalism (which would by definition be incapable of interacting with each other). “We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.” – Einstein Well, what “God” are you recommending? – that of the non-intellect but with a great personality? One moment Einstein is advocating reason, the next he’s completely against it. That’s scientists for you ... irrational empiricists, trying to have their cake and eat it. “Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.” – Einstein Back to mystical religion again. Make up your mind, Albert. Are you for intellect and reason or against them?! “The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.” – Einstein Theosophists and spiritualists don’t deny bodies; they deny scientific materialist bodies! They blabber on all the time about spirit bodies and astral bodies. The concept of a dimensionless mathematical soul without a body, far from being devoid of meaning, is the quintessence of meaning. The notion of a scientific materialist universe that jumped out of nothing for no reason, with no purpose, on the other hand, is utterly empty and devoid of meaning. “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Einstein

Nope, that’s not religious in the slightest. So, why do you keep mentioning your religious feelings and thoughts? Einstein believed in an impersonal, deistic God, or the pantheistic God of Spinoza. It’s not science that reveals the structure of the world. Why would it be? Science is simply about the human senses. To explain reality, you must be able to explain what it was like before there were any human senses, so science is 100% redundant. Mathematics reveals the structure of the universe, and mathematics is the structure of the universe. Mathematics is the fibre and fabric of existence. It’s what everything is made of. Math is God! Math is not a theistic (personal) God, and nor is it atheistic. Math can be considered in both pantheistic and deistic terms. “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [Einstein was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.” – Einstein Oops, that sounds remarkably like a New Age religious guru. The only “infinitely superior spirit” is math, which no New Age guru ever cites. “During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people’s education, must serve that end exclusively.” – Einstein And your point is, caller? What’s wrong with getting rid of belief? Humanity won’t progress until it does. What we mustn’t do is replace the emotional “knowledge” of religion with the sensory “knowledge” of science. We must turn to the rational, eternal, necessary knowledge of math.

“Two things inspire me to awe – the starry heavens above and the moral universe within.” – Einstein And what morality is that? Have you never read Nietzsche? How can a scientific materialist believe in a moral universe within? Science, predicated on lifeless, mindless atoms, can have no conceivable relation to morality. Science, whether deterministic or indeterministic, is a morality free zone. “It is a magnificent feeling to recognize the unity of complex phenomena which appear to be things quite apart from the direct visible truth.” – Einstein Indeed! And what is superior to math in providing the supreme and ultimate, complete and consistent, unity? Math is the subject that deals with the hidden variables and rational unobservables denied by science.

Reason If you think that science (empiricism; anti-rationalism) is on the side of reason, you have no idea what reason is. Reason exists in its own right, entirely independently of the senses. For empiricists, all knowledge comes from sensory experiences, there are no innate ideas (i.e. no reason in itself), and reason must only be applied to sensory experiences, and is otherwise absurd. This makes reason an adjunct of the senses, and is a repudiation of reason as the defining “force” in existence. If reason is not what defines existence, the universe cannot be rational and intelligible. A sensory universe can never be rational and intelligible. This is implicitly acknowledged by science since all empirical scientific observations are expressed in terms of general mathematical formulae, and, of course, mathematics has nothing to do with observations, experiments and experiences. Science refuses to confront what this implies ... that a rational, noumenal, hidden order of pure reason (mathematics) supports the phenomenal, revealed order of the sensory world. Science, perversely, continues to regard the phenomenal as the true reality, and to deny any noumenal order of existence. It refuses to address why science uses math, what math is ontologically, and what math implies for science. Rationalism says that all knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction. It says that innate ideas (reason in itself) form the only secure

basis of knowledge. What rationalism and empiricism are doing is pointing to two totally distinct levels of existence, two sides of one ontological coin. Rationalism is about a world of pure reason and logic, of eternal necessity, of perfect analytic completeness and consistency. This is a world of pure mathematics. This is the world that actually defines existence. It’s entirely noumenal and non-sensory. We access this foundational reality exclusively via reason, logic and intellectual intuition. Empiricism is about a phenomenal world of objects that we encounter with our senses and feelings. It has precisely zero to do with ultimate, eternal, necessary reality. It’s all about temporality and contingency. We can imagine an infinite number of different sensory worlds, worlds of contingency and temporality, but there can be only one world of eternal necessity ... the world of ontological mathematics. If you can’t grasp this, it’s because you’re not intelligent enough. Not a single scientist is sufficiently intelligent to understand ultimate reality. They are all prisoners of their senses, of the provisional, the temporal, the contingent, the verifiable and falsifiable. They have no concept of an infallible, perfect, absolute, analytic, eternal, immutable, necessary, complete and consistent, experimentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable mathematical world. Only such a world can be associated with knowledge. Everything else, including science and religion, is pure belief, opinion, hypothesis, conjecture, interpretation and Mythos. A scientist is as unable to prove anything about ultimate existence as a religious believer is. But an ontological mathematician – using reason, logic and intellectual intuition – can infallibly prove every statement of ontological mathematics given that it’s nothing but a system of absolute, relentless tautology flowing from the single mathematical formula (the God Equation) that defines existence. Mathematics is the quintessence of reality and concreteness ... yet humanity, and especially scientists, regard it as unreal abstraction, divorced from the world we encounter. This is the biggest intellectual error – crime – sin – of all time. Scientists have looked at the truth, then turned away from it. They would accept anything else as the truth. The Truth is the one thing they refuse to accept as the Truth. So it goes. The Truth is hidden in plain sight. It’s mathematics. Yet, with the sole exception of the Illuminati, no one has grasped this.

It’s not a question of people questing for the Truth. After all, the Truth is right there in front of us. It’s a question of recognising the Truth, and that turns out to be the most difficult thing of all for the emotional, irrational, illogical, senses-obsessed human mind. How can you discover the Truth unless you know which tool to use? Will irrational faith help you? Will getting on your knees to pray help you? Will your senses help you (what makes you think ultimate reality is sensory)? Will experiments help you (what makes you think the state prior to the Big Bang can be experimented upon)? Will your feelings help you? Will chanting help you? Will sitting cross-legged under a tree in meditation help you? Will snorting cocaine help you? Will stories (Mythos) help you? Unless you grasp that reason, logic and intellectual intuition alone are the only tools that can help you, you will never recognise the Truth. You are using the wrong tools. Science has staked everything on sensory experiments being the path to the Truth, but this tool is disastrously wrong if there’s anything at all nonsensory, hence cannot be experimented upon. Mathematics itself – upon which science is dependent – is non-experimental, hence falsifies science. Abrahamism relies on prayers, faith, prophets, revelations, and “holy” texts. If reality has nothing to do with the Abrahamic “God” then Abrahamism is 100% false. Eastern religion is based on chanting, meditation, fasting, self-denial, gurus, “sacred” scriptures and mysticism. On what possible basis can any of these things be linked to consciously knowing the eternal, necessary Truth? They are the opposite of knowledge. They are about experiential states, not rational states. They are about subjective experiences and have no connection to objective knowledge.

Something and Nothing If you don’t know why there is something rather than nothing, how can you claim to know anything at all? Everything you say is speculation because you don’t understand the underlying reason for everything.

Backwards and Forwards

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” – Soren Kierkegaard Kierkegaard was an empiricist. His viewpoint is that of the empirical, synthetic a posteriori, leading to understanding (interpreting) the world backwards. Had he been a rationalist, he would have understood that life can be understood forwards – if you adopt a rational, analytic a priori worldview. Life can only be understood forwards (rationally), but it must be lived instant by instant (empirically), and empiricists can only interpret reality backwards (and wrongly).

Some of Kierkegaard’s Works On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates Either/Or Fear and Trembling Repetition The Concept of Anxiety Stages on Life’s Way Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments Edifying Discourses in Diverse Spirits Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing Works of Love The Point of View of My Work as an Author The Sickness Unto Death Three Discourses at the Communion on Fridays

Light = Life = Mind Light is massless, unextended, dimensionless, indestructible and outside space and time (i.e. eternal). If light = life = mind, then they have exactly

the same properties: they are immortal and indestructible. They have always existed.

Strange Scientists are strange people. They believe they are on the side of reason, when in fact they are on the side of the senses, and always privilege the senses and empiricism over reason and rationalism, hence are enemies of reason. They are much closer to religious believers (who also oppose reason) than to rationalists. Scientists are inauthentic and insincere. They lay claim to something (reason), to which they are relentlessly opposed. They are on the side of information gatherers (the senses) rather than the information analyser, processor and evaluator (the intellect, based on reason). They deny there’s an information source – pure mathematics – independent of the senses. Scientists are in denial. They do not understand themselves. You cannot be on the side of the senses and reason. Choose.

Disinformation When conspiracy theorists don’t like what you say (when you disagree with their conspiracy theories), they call you a disinformation agent. The implication is that they are information agents, and you are seeking to prevent their information from getting out there. Of course, they are the disinformation agents, obstructing the rational Truth of ontological mathematics. We don’t ask anyone to believe a single thing we say. We despise belief. We put forward rational arguments, and if you seek to defeat us in argument, you had better be more rational than we are (good luck with that!). Rational arguments can never constitute disinformation. But preposterous, speculative conspiracy theories – based on nothing but hysterical emotion – are the purest disinformation you can get. The first person to consider as a disinformation agent is yourself! Are you on the side of reason (information; Logos), or against reason (disinformation; Mythos).

Form and Content It’s easy to grasp the difference between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism deals with eternal, necessary Form. Empiricism deals with

temporal, contingent Content. The universe is made of mathematical waves, and every wave has both a Form (its mathematical properties), and Content (its empirical properties). With our reason, logic and intellectual intuition, we access mathematical Form. With our senses, feelings, and mystical intuitions, we access empirical Content. Abrahamism uses feelings to “understand” Content. Eastern religion uses mystical intuition. Science uses the senses, but then expresses everything in mathematical terms, which have nothing to do with the senses. Scientists – philosophical ignoramuses with no intellectual integrity – ignore this contradiction. Scientists use a method – the experimental method – to probe “reality”. They do not use reason and logic. These play no formal role in science.

***** Empiricism is about synthetic propositions, a posteriori knowledge, “truths” of fact, and induction. Empiricism is about temporality and contingency. All a posteriori “knowledge” comes from experience. Rationalism is about analytic propositions, a priori knowledge, truths of reason, and deduction. Rationalism is about eternity and necessity. All a priori knowledge comes purely from reasoning and logic, and is independent of experience. Rationalism deals with Form, and empiricism with Content. Rationalism deals with signifiers, and empiricism with the signified. Rationalism deals with information carriers, and empiricism with the information carried. Rationalism deals with noumena, and empiricism with phenomena. Rationalism deals with the metaphysical (what comes after the physical), and empiricism with the physical. Rationalism deals with the objective, and empiricism with the subjective.

The Methods Physics is based on the experimental method of the senses. Metaphysics – true metaphysics – is based on the mathematical method of reason and

logic. Improper metaphysics is based on religious, philosophical and mystical speculation, disconnected from the analytic system of mathematics. Kant asked if metaphysics could exist as a science. The answer is yes, if metaphysics is strictly founded on mathematics. Kant himself disastrously concluded, “The genuine method of metaphysics is fundamentally of the same kind which Newton introduced into natural science and which was there so fruitful.” Metaphysics – that which comes after physics – has nothing to do with Newton, natural science, observations, experiences and experiments. Instantly, Kant committed a fatal conceptual error. His problem was that he tried to tie knowledge to the senses, as in science, rather than to nonsensory reason and logic, as in mathematics. Kant had such a problem with reason and logic that his main work was called the Critique of Pure Reason. Pure reason is of course pure mathematics, and cannot be critiqued. It’s infallible, unerring, absolute, eternal, necessary, complete and consistent.

***** Kant rightly sought a solid basis for philosophy, just as the experimental method formed a solid basis for empirical, phenomenal science. The answer he was looking for was analytic a priori mathematics, but he found a completely bogus answer, that of synthetic a priori philosophical judgments. Nietzsche demolished Kantian philosophy in one paragraph when he wrote, “It seems to me that there is everywhere an attempt at present to divert attention from the actual influence which Kant exercised on German philosophy, and especially to ignore prudently the value which he set upon himself. Kant was first and foremost proud of his Table of Categories; with it in his hand he said: ‘This is the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics.’ Let us only understand this ‘could be’! He was proud of having discovered a new faculty in man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori. Granting that he deceived himself in this matter; the development and rapid flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his pride, and on the eager rivalry of the younger generation to discover if possible something – at all events ‘new faculties’ – of which to be still prouder! But let us reflect for a moment – it is high time

to do so. ‘How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?’ Kant asks himself – and what is really his answer? ‘By means of a means (faculty)’ – but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such an answer. People were beside themselves with delight over this new faculty, and the jubilation reached its climax when Kant further discovered a moral faculty in man – for at that time Germans were still moral, not yet dabbling in the ‘Politics of hard fact.’ Then came the honeymoon of German philosophy. All the young theologians of the Tubingen institution went immediately into the groves – all seeking for ‘faculties.’ And what did they not find – in that innocent, rich, and still youthful period of the German spirit, to which Romanticism, the malicious fairy, piped and sang, when one could not yet distinguish between ‘finding’ and ‘inventing’! Above all a faculty for the ‘transcendental’; Schelling christened it intellectual intuition, and thereby gratified the most earnest longings of the naturally pious-inclined Germans. One can do no greater wrong to the whole of this exuberant and eccentric movement (which was really youthfulness, notwithstanding that it disguised itself so boldly, in hoary and senile conceptions), than to take it seriously, or even treat it with moral indignation. Enough, however – the world grew older, and the dream vanished. A time came when people rubbed their foreheads, and they still rub them today. People had been dreaming, and first and foremost – old Kant. ‘By means of a means (faculty)’ – he had said, or at least meant to say. But, is that – an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? ‘By means of a means (faculty),’ namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliere.” What Kant did, in effect, was to claim that “faculties” rather than mathematics were the true basis of metaphysics. By simply inventing faculties, he believed he had solved all of the problems of epistemology. In fact, he hadn’t solved anything at all – as Nietzsche demonstrated – and his ontology became that of formally unknowable noumena. In other words, what Kant concluded was that we can’t know reality in itself. All we can know are what the faculties he invented by arbitrary decree allow us to know. As Nietzsche so cuttingly said, “But answers like that belong in comedy...”

Kant invented a set of faculties, which he then claimed were the basis of knowledge, but, of course, if the faculties are inexplicable then so is all “knowledge” derived from them. Kant’s answer is no different in kind from defining God in some human way and then claiming that all knowledge derives from this definition of God. Kant has simply replaced an inexplicable God with inexplicable faculties. Mathematics – not anything invented by humans – is the only conceivable basis of authentic knowledge. Metaphysics cannot exist as any version of natural science. It can exist only as ontological mathematics. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant sought to discover the true capacities of thought ... and failed. He invented bogus faculties rather than recognising mathematics as the true basis of existence.

Metaphysics Metaphysics is the attempt to understand the whole world, the universe in totality ... something that no experiment could ever accomplish. The only valid metaphysical system is one that is complete and consistent, and only ontological mathematics qualifies. Metaphysics goes beyond science, beyond science’s separate facts, to construct a fully integrated explanation of everything, a grand unified, final theory of everything. Such a theory can only be metaphysical. It can never be scientific. It cannot be a theory that is falsifiable (as all scientific theories are), and nor can it be experimentally verifiable (as all scientific theories are). It must rely on reason and logic alone. It can contain exactly zero contradictions. David Hume, a skeptical empiricist, considered metaphysics impossible. It would be were it not mathematical. Kant was depressed that Newtonian science had become so successful, and that philosophy seemed increasingly like speculation, with no evidence to support it. Disastrously, he looked to the Newtonian methodology to save philosophy, without realising that Newton was successful only because he applied math to observations. It was the math, not the observations, that lay behind the success of science. Had Kant realised this, his philosophy would have been based on rationalist mathematics, not on empiricist science. Metaphysics can never rely on the sensory evidence of science. It must always rely on the rational proof of mathematics. It must reflect the

mathematical method, not the scientific method. Kant’s philosophy becomes ontological mathematics as soon as it’s converted from its scientific leanings to mathematics.

The Four Ways There are four ways to understand reality: 1) religiously, 2) philosophically, 3) scientifically, and 4) mathematically. Philosophy is the bridge between religion and science. Science is the bridge between philosophy and mathematics. When humans first contemplated explanations of the world, they thought of unseen Gods and spirits ... superbeing versions of themselves. With philosophy, clever humans started to contemplate rational laws and principles rather than irrational deities. One branch of philosophy was “natural” philosophy: trying to work out reality purely from observations of Nature (and ignoring the invisible “supernatural”). This was the prototype of science. Then came mathematics, which seemed abstract and unreal to everyone other than Pythagoras, who regarded it as ontological. With Newton, mathematics was irrevocably allied with natural philosophy, to form what we now know as science. Science, despite what it believes about itself, is merely a philosophy, one that is successful because it uses math. For metaphysics to become successful too, it must use nothing but mathematics ... ontological mathematics, the mathematics of existence.

***** New Ageism is a new, fifth way of understanding reality. Like the most voracious magpies, New Age gurus (with Ken Wilber as a prime offender) indiscriminately steal from religion, philosophy, science and mathematics, to suit whatever argument they’re currently making. New Age thinking mixes and matches elements from everywhere, with total disregard for logic and reason, completeness and consistency. Yet gurus see this promiscuous theft of ideas as the way forward. Wilber calls his system “integral”. Wikipedia says, “Integral theory is Ken Wilber’s attempt to place a wide diversity of theories and thinkers into one single framework. It is portrayed as a ‘theory of everything’ trying ‘to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching.’” The trouble is it has no intellectual integrity and is just one giant Mythos. Its

purpose is to try to appeal to everyone, and offend no one by telling them they’re wrong, hence it reflects relativism and political correctness. Anything that’s not offensive and shocking to the majority can’t be true!

The Supernatural? Science has committed the most catastrophic blunder in conceiving of anything outside “Nature” (i.e. the observable world) as “supernatural” (i.e. spooky, spiritual, religious, superstitious, absurd). Science has never understood the point Kant made so clearly: that there are phenomenal things (appearances), and noumenal things (things in themselves, without an appearance). The noumena are the phenomena stripped of the appearances (which have been projected onto them by our minds acting empirically). In other words, what lies beyond nature isn’t the absurd supernatural. Rather, what lies beyond the phenomenal world of science is the noumenal world of mathematics. There’s nothing spooky or religious about it. The world beyond science isn’t that of faith and speculation but of pure reason and logic. The world beyond empirical Content is that of rational Form. It’s time for the idiotic notion that anything that cannot be verified via sensory experiments cannot therefore exist to be smashed to smithereens, to be exposed for the crazy superstition it is. It’s not the noumenal world that’s “religious”, it’s the phenomenal world of science with its puerile, antirational belief in the senses. Science is an expression of the prejudice of sensing types that nothing non-sensory can exist. This has no rational basis. The only thing that saves science from being a religious superstition is non-sensory mathematics! Go figure.

***** Metaphysics is regarded as speculative. It’s not. It’s hyperrationalist, hyperlogical ontological mathematics. Kant believed metaphysics should follow a rigorously defined procedure to prevent it going astray. This is guaranteed as soon as metaphysics is defined as ontological mathematics. Kant believed that empirical knowledge is the solid basis for metaphysics. No, it’s not. Rational knowledge is the proper basis of metaphysics. Metaphysics should not follow the scientific method, but the

mathematical method. Kant believed that experiences should be unified via abstract concepts. In fact, they should be unified by noumenal, ontological mathematics.

Experience How many people have experienced being a genius? So, what’s the value of experience? How does experience teach you the secrets of ultimate existence? There are infinite experiences you haven’t had, so how can this narrow, stunted, limited, reducing-valve system of your personal experience be of any value whatsoever in understanding reality? It nauseates us when we hear people saying that their subjective experiences trump objective reason. They are narcissists and egotists. Your experiences are more or less valueless as far as Truth goes. Luckily, we all have access to the objective, universal language that explains existence – ontological mathematics – so we have no reason to look to our experiences for any “knowledge” of existence.

Anti-Leibniz Science is ferociously anti-Leibnizian, and always has been. No science paper has ever been written using Leibnizian rationalism and logic. No science paper has ever invoked rational and logical principles, such as those Leibniz formulated and relied on. Science at no time respects or uses the principle of sufficient reason, the defining principle of existence. The whole way in which science is taught and conducted needs to radically change. Science must become rational, not empirical. Science and mathematics must merge, and that’s exactly what ontological mathematics accomplishes. In fact, ontological mathematics unifies mathematics, science, metaphysics, religion and psychology. Leibniz is the antidote to science. We need a new breed of scientists: rationalists like Leibniz, and not empiricists like Newton. Science is a failed project. Its anti-rationalism has destroyed it. Reason and logic must become its core. This can be achieved instantly by grounding science in mathematics, thus explaining why science is so reliant on mathematics for its efficacy.

Judgment

Kant said that in metaphysics, as in science, humans start off with data, which they then work on to produce judgements. In science, sensory data is the raw material. What’s the raw material of metaphysics? Kant produced a host of elaborate speculations, dubious philosophical manoeuvres, “faculties”, and so on. In fact, the true facts of metaphysics are the facts of mathematics. You can’t have a moral metaphysics, since there are no moral facts whatsoever, as Nietzsche highlighted.

Knowledge Kant believed that “knowledge” came from a synthesis of sensory experiences and intellectual concepts. He said, “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.” Without the senses, Kant said, we wouldn’t be aware of any object. Without the understanding, we couldn’t form any conception of it. Kant’s fundamental error was in believing that only sensory facts are “real”, and all other facts are “unreal”. In other words, he fell for the scientists’ worldview. The most real facts of all are actually the facts of mathematics. These are eternal, necessary, immutable, Platonic facts. Kant linked pure thought and sensory intuitions. Pure thought can in fact be linked only to intellectual intuitions. Just as science fraudulently mixed rationalism (mathematics) and empiricism (science), Kant fraudulently mixed intellectual concepts with non-intellectual sensory experiences. Science and Kant are both guilty of category errors. Rationalist, intellectual concepts cannot validly be mixed and matched with non-intellectual observations, intuitions, experiences and Content. Form carries Content. Form isn’t Content, and Content isn’t Form. Unless you understand the ontological difference between Form and Content, you will never understand reality.

***** Rather than ontologically define space and time via mathematical means, Kant simply decreed that they were “a priori pure intuitions”, given to everyone. He might as well have said that everyone comes equipped with space and time spectacles. Does that explain space and time, or just explain them away by use of an unexplained and inexplicable “faculty”, which in fact explains nothing at all.

According to Kant, our space and time intuitions are absolute, independent of, and precede all sense impressions. They frame all possible sensory experiences, and without them we wouldn’t have any sensory experiences. Anything that cannot be framed in this way cannot be an object of knowledge for us. This includes God, the soul and free will. In fact, an entire world of things exists outside space and time ... the immaterial, dimensionless world of autonomous Fourier frequency domains (singularities). Once this domain is granted, Kant’s entire philosophy disintegrates. Kant failed because he wasn’t sufficiently mathematical literate. The whole of philosophy fails for exactly the same reason, and the whole of science too.

***** Kant proposed that categories of thought structure the way we grasp reality. Again, these are nothing but faculties that Kant has arbitrarily decreed. They have no basis in ontology and epistemology. Kant defined a basic conceptual apparatus – a set of faculties – through which we make sense of the world. He made no attempt to explain where this extremely convenient apparatus originated. Take it away and Kant’s philosophy falls apart. What Kant actually needed in order to support his system was ontological mathematics.

The Apeiron “The apeiron is central to the cosmological theory created by Anaximander in the 6th century BC. Anaximander’s work is mostly lost. From the few existing fragments, we learn that he believed the beginning or ultimate reality (arche) is eternal and infinite, or boundless (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived. Apeiron generated the opposites, hot-cold, wet-dry etc., which acted on the creation of the world. Everything is generated from apeiron and then it is destroyed by going back to apeiron, according to necessity. He believed that infinite worlds are generated from apeiron and then they are destroyed there again.” – Wikipedia Anaximander contended that the ultimate element had no determinate material properties, such as the wetness of water, or the heat of fire. In fact,

his apeiron is none other than immaterial ontological mathematics, from which all determinate material things are derived.

Spirit versus Mind The pneumatics – the people of the spirit – believed that an intelligent spiritual substance permeated the universe. The psychics – the people of the mind – argued that an immaterial Cosmic Mind (Nous), outside space and time, ordered, controlled and directed the universe. For the pneumatics, the intelligent spirit was present throughout the physical universe (i.e. it was immanent); for the psychics, the intelligent mind stood outside the physical universe (i.e. it was transcendent). The spirit might be seen as a kind of intelligent cosmic fire energising and animating the universe. The mind might be regarded as a kind of invisible cosmic sun at the centre of existence. Heraclitus said, “The cosmic order, which is the same for all, no god nor man has made it, but it has always existed, does exist, and will exist; everliving fire, being kindled in measures and being quenched in measures.”

Parmenides Parmenides of Elea raised a crucial philosophical problem: if to know something is to mentally grasp its identity, we can’t know it if its identity is always changing. So, if everything is changing, we can know nothing. We can know only those things that never change. Plato took up this theme. His transcendent domain of Forms was the unchanging intelligible world. The sensible world was that of beliefs and opinions, where nothing could be truly known. In Illuminism, mathematics is the intelligible world reflecting the eternal, necessary, immutable truths of reason; science is the sensible world reflecting the temporal, contingent, mutable “truths” of fact. Parmenides said, in The Way of Truth, “Come now, I shall speak, and you must hear and receive my word. These are the only roads of inquiry that exist for the thinking mind: that ‘it is’, and that ‘it cannot not be’ is the path of Persuasion, for Truth attends it. Another road, that ‘it is not’, and that ‘it must be non-existent’ is a road that I declare to be totally indiscernible. For you could neither know what is non-existent, for that is unattainable, nor could you describe it. For it is the same thing which is for thinking and for being.”

When thinking is equated to light then thinking and being are one and the same thing.

Pythagoras Pythagoras’s mystery school – the basis of Illuminism – was founded on the notion that a rule for life must be derived from a systematic understanding of the world, i.e. if you don’t know what existence is you won’t be able to lead a proper life. Pythagoras asserted that only through mathematics can we understand the world. This was the foundational insight of ontological mathematics. Humanity’s great tragedy was, firstly, that it went down the religious route rather than follow Pythagoras’s mathematico-metaphysical system, and secondly, that it went down the scientific route in preference to mathematical metaphysics. Scientists stress the properties of matter as being the key to physical explanations. This is a stance based on sensory Content. Mathematicians insist that rational Form, not empirical Content, is the ground of true explanation. Rational Form tells us about the eternal order of existence, experienced Content about the temporal order.

The Anti-Mathematician Aristotle rejected the Platonic emphasis on the imperfections of matter and the perfection of an otherworldly realm. Aristotle was thus the first recognisable scientist, rejecting the unseen, perfect world of math.

The Folly Science ... in praise of folly. Science is the most successful folly thus far produced by humanity. Beyond this final folly lies the actual truth: mathematics.

Universals And Particulars “Universals, in philosophy, are the features or qualities which many objects may share. Redness and squareness are both universals, since they are features or qualities which many objects share: all red objects possess the former universal, all square objects possess the latter.

“Particulars are the things or objects which possess universals. This pillar box is a particular and so is that scarf, and they both possess the universal redness: they are both instances of the universal redness. “Realists about universals hold that universals have a reality distinct from their instances that universals exist distinct from the particulars which possess them. Platonists treat universals as having an existence independent from their instances: not merely are there things which possess the quality of being red, but the universal redness also exists. Advocates of this view can thus hold that those universals of which there are no instances nevertheless exist. The universal leprechaunhood exists, even though there is no particular individual which possesses it, even though there are no leprechauns. “Conceptualists hold that universals are in the first instance ideas or concepts in the mind. Unlike realists, they hold that universals have no reality or existence independent of the mind. We have an idea or concept of redness and any object which resembles our idea, or satisfies our concept of redness, has the universal redness. One problem here is that it is seemingly arbitrary which ideas or concepts minds form in the first place. We group together certain objects as red because they resemble our idea or satisfy our concept of redness, but the concept we form is not constrained by any universals existing independently of particulars or by any resemblances between particulars. “Nominalists claim that objects which possess the same universal do resemble each other. Universals do not exist independently of their instances. But it is not simply arbitrary that we group certain things together as being red. Rather, we group certain things together as being red because they resemble each other in respect of their colour.” – AJ In fact, all the true “universals” are the laws of mathematics, and they are expressed through countless particularisations of those laws (i.e. monads). The ultimate universal is the defining cosmic formula – the God Equation – and it is expressed and conveyed through countless particulars (the individual monadic minds that comprise ontological mathematics). There really is a universal red ... it corresponds to a particular mathematical frequency. All things that share or manifest this frequency will be red. Every mathematical frequency is a universal Form that is associated with a universal Content (a particular experience that must accompany that frequency.)

There are eternal, necessary Forms and accompanying Contents, but life is all about the temporal, contingent combinations of those Forms and their Contents.

The Monadic Big Bang The state that precedes the Big Bang is a state of perfect monadic clarity and actualisation, i.e. a God state. As soon as the Big Bang happens, actuality turns to potentiality, and perfect clarity turns to total unclarity. Involution has taken place. Then the long process of evolution begins, which culminates with the restoration of the lost God state. Then we begin all over again. The universe cycles on like this forever ... gaining and losing perfection infinite times.

The Limits Kant said that traditional metaphysics went beyond the limits of reason. This is true solely if you fail to define metaphysics mathematically. It’s not that you go “beyond” the limits of reason. It’s that that you apply reason to the wrong categories, hence it will automatically fail. Kant claimed that reason’s legitimate employment is in knowing the world, and in its practical rather than theoretical use. In fact, reason can be legitimately applied only to the world of pure math, which is the world of pure reason and logic. Any other use is a distortion and misapplication of reason, frequently resulting in category errors.

The Ether “And when, after having divested yourself of your mortal body, you arrive at the most pure ether, you shall be a God.” – Pythagoras The five Platonic solids correspond to the four terrestrial elements (earth = cube; water = icosahedron; air = octahedron; fire = tetrahedron), and the heavenly element (ether = dodecahedron). Ether is the divine element that’s the source of all things that arise in space and time. The heavenly element produces and controls the terrestrial elements.

Changing Perspective “If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed.

It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius Rational people have a unique gift. People of faith find it almost impossible to change their beliefs. People with mystical beliefs won’t abandon their mysticism. Sensory people (scientists) won’t lose faith in their senses. Rationalists alone can change their entire perspective almost instantly as soon as they encounter a superior rational argument. This makes them the most open-minded, flexible and adaptable people in their world. They are destined to rule the world and the universe.

***** People either change their entire perspective when exposed to a powerful new idea, or don’t change their perspective at all. If they don’t change, they will resist the new idea to the bitter end. Just look at Muslims, Jews and Christians. Just look at the hostility toward us.

The Science of the Will “In magic, there is neither good nor evil. It is merely a science. The science of causing change to occur by means of one’s will. The sinister reputation attached to it is entirely groundless and is based on superstition, rather than objective observation. The power of the will is something that people do not understand, attributing to it mysterious qualities that it does not possess. Being simply the power of ‘mind over matter’. Or, in the greater number of cases, the power of mind over mind. As your mind now is succumbing to mine...” – Mocata, The Devil Rides Out

Definition of Insanity The definition of insanity: rejecting your reason and logic in favour of your feelings, faith, mysticism or senses.

***** “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein In fact, given David Hume’s arguments against induction and causation, it’s insane for any empiricist to do something over and over again and expect

the same results! In other words, the whole basis of science is insane ... because it’s not based on reason, logic and deduction.

Kant Philosophers were keen to combine rationalism and empiricism. There’s only one valid way to do this: as the opposite sides of one ontological mathematical coin. Hume, the supreme skeptic, denied that rationalism and empiricism could ever be combined. Kant set out to prove him wrong. Given that rationalism is about the analytic a priori, and empiricism about the synthetic a posteriori, Kant concluded that they could be combined via the synthetic a priori category. However, no such logical category exists, just as no such category as the analytic a posteriori exists. Kant’s philosophy is based on an ingenious error, just as Einsteinian physics is. The “ingenious error” – the “irrefutable error”, as Nietzsche put it – is one of the most dominant themes in intellectual history. Countless people have been intellectually led astray by arguments that seem highly plausible and even impregnable, yet turn out to be based on catastrophically false assumptions.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason It couldn’t be simpler. You support reason if you accept the principle of sufficient reason as the defining principle of existence. If you don’t – and scientists and people of faith and mysticism don’t – then you are an enemy of reason. It’s sickening when scientists claim to be rational. They fundamentally oppose reason.

The Zombie Argument A person, when sleepwalking, can do many of the same things that he can accomplish when he’s awake. Yet, when he’s awake he’s conscious, and when he’s sleepwalking he’s unconscious. This is the proof that human “zombies” are possible, i.e. people who do things without consciousness. These zombies have minds, but they are unconscious rather than conscious minds. There’s no logical obstacle to all of humanity existing in a sleepwalking mode where consciousness never exists. This immediately raises the

question of why human beings are conscious at all. It also deals a shattering blow to the “anti-zombie” arguments of scientific materialists who insist that certain brain states automatically generate corresponding mental states. Plainly, a sleepwalker doing exactly the same tasks that he performs when awake and functioning normally, has the same physical brain states in each situation, but very different mental states. In one case, he’s unconscious and in the other he’s conscious. Consciousness, therefore, is more than just a particular brain state. Just as an out-of-body experience involves the body going to sleep (entering private mode), yet with the mind remaining linked to the “collective dream” (i.e. still in public mode), so sleepwalking achieves the opposite: the body remains linked to the collective dream (public mode), but the conscious mind goes into private mode.

Leibniz on Matter Leibniz’s thoughts regarding matter went through three stages. His first theory was “corporeal substance realism.” In essence, he conceived of indivisible hylomorphic atomic unities that were part matter and part mind (living atoms, in other words). So, everything was made from these animated atoms rather than from the inanimate atoms of scientific materialism. Leibniz advocated hylomorphic atoms while scientists advocated hylic atoms. Leibniz saw no reason why extended hylic atoms should not be further divisible. Extended hylomorphic atoms, on the other hand, were extended but indivisible by virtue of their hylic part being defined by their unitary morphic part (their “substantial form”, their soul). You cannot divide a soul, so you cannot divide atoms that have souls. As his thinking matured, Leibniz abandoned the idea of hylomorphic atoms said to have a real material part. His new hylomorphic atoms (“monads”) were purely mental, and their hylic part resulted from mental properties. In Leibniz’s monadic universe, there was simply nothing at all corresponding to the conventional notion of matter. Matter had no reality in itself; it was a monadic phenomenon – mere appearance. In the monadic universe, there were only perceivers and their perceptions. Commentators have split Leibniz’s later thinking into two distinct views, although the difference is rather subtle. On the one hand, they say that Leibniz proposed a system of perfect harmony between the perceptions of

immaterial monads, giving rise to a consistent appearance (phenomenon) of matter across all monads. This is pure phenomenalism. There’s no one-toone mapping between material data and mental data. Rather, any item of material data exists in all minds. No material object has one monad or a set of monads corresponding to it. The whole Monadic Collective is always involved. On the other hand, they say Leibniz proposed a “monadic aggregate” theory, according to which any material object is the product of a particular collection of monads. According to the former theory, a particular table, for example, is a thought in all minds, each viewing the table from its own unique perspective. There is no table except the one in all minds. According to the latter theory, a particular table is made of monads (or their perceptions), and some monads make a much larger contribution than others. So, the former theory provides a kind of monadic symmetry, with all objects belonging to all monadic minds, but each mind having its own perspective, while the latter theory provides a monadic asymmetry with some objects belonging more to some monadic minds than to others. In this context, Leibniz wrote with a certain degree of ambiguity. For example, he said, “Properly speaking, matter isn’t composed of constitutive unities, but results from them, since matter ... is only a phenomenon grounded in things, like a rainbow ... and all reality belongs only to unities. ... Substantial unities [monads] aren’t really parts but the foundations of phenomena.” This does not clearly distinguish between the two proposed theories. Any statement that matter “results” from monads or is a phenomenon “well-grounded” in monads doesn’t make it explicit how matter results from monads, or how matter is grounded in them. The question is this – are all “material” objects held equally in all minds, or unequally, with some objects being more closely related to some monads than to others? Leibniz scholar Lloyd Strickland wrote, “The matter of our day-to-day experience is thus a phenomenon, in the sense that it is an object of perception and nothing more, which means that it has reality only insofar as substances perceive it to have reality. But it is what Leibniz calls a ‘wellordered and exact phenomenon’, in that its properties are grounded in the properties of the substances that give rise to it.”

Reconciliation

Descartes, by defining two completely different substances (mind and matter), allowed the separation of religion and science. Cartesian mind was the sphere of the soul (religion), and Cartesian matter was the domain of pure science, where mind, soul, God and religion could be ignored. The Cartesian model, being unable to account for how mind and matter interact, is definitely wrong, yet most people are undeclared Cartesians insofar as they see their mind and body as two distinct things, and all religious types believe that some mental component survives bodily death. Leibniz’s aim was to reconcile science, religion and reason in a single system that explained everything (a grand unified theory). Science believes it can create an exclusively scientific grand unified theory of everything. Yet this theory – if it ever arrives (which it won’t!) – will exclude religion, mind, life, free will, consciousness, the unconscious, teleology, mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. So, whatever it is, it certainly won’t be an explanation of everything. It’s remarkable that so many scientists believe it will be. It shows how deluded they are. Not a single investigation of quantum gravity will help to explain free will or shed any light on the big questions of life. Anyone who wants the answer to existence must follow Leibniz’s path, not that of the Newtonian scientific establishment.

Perception Leibniz asserted that many or indeed most of our perceptions are never recognised or understood. These generate our instincts and habits ... all the things we do without any awareness. They form our autopilot mode. A sleepwalker can do many complex tasks without any awareness at all. Given that a sleepwalker has no moral dimension, and cannot be held accountable for his actions, it could almost be said that sleepwalking involves a temporary absence of the soul. Leibniz said that some of our perceptions are recognised but not clearly understood, and these give rise to our emotions and appetites. Finally, some of our perceptions are both recognised and understood, and these are the ones that produce our deliberate, planned, rational actions and choices. So, at all times we have three levels of mental activity: 1) not recognised and not understood (the unconscious).

2) recognised but not understood (pre-consciousness and primitive consciousness – Mythos). 3) recognised and understood (proper consciousness – Logos). All humans have level 1 in common. Most humans operate at level 2, and only the rational minority reach level 3. The future of humanity lies with level 3.

The Perceptive “Force” Leibniz defined “appetition” as the force driving the process of converting one perception into the next. Just as there is a first law of physical motion, whereby objects will travel in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by a force, so there’s a first law of mental motion whereby thoughts will proceed in sequence at constant speed unless acted upon by a “perceptive force” (i.e. something else captures our attention). Mentally, we are constantly changing our “motion”. It’s extremely hard for people to maintain focus on one thing, and the modern technological age – which provides us with constant diversions – is now making it almost impossible. All thoughts are actions. All thoughts are energy. The laws of energy apply to thinking as much as they do to walking. All thoughts exert a mental force, all thoughts exhibit causality. Even unconscious thoughts are exerting force and causality (this is the basis of Freudian psychoanalysis and Jungian analytical psychology). Our minds involve a complex network of forces and causality involving the unconscious, pre-conscious, primitive conscious and advanced conscious – which is why human behaviour is often so odd and seemingly irrational. A strictly unconscious mind will never recognise or understand its own thoughts, hence will act robotically – like a scientific machine. Therefore, a universe acting unconsciously will look more or less like a mindless machine world, such as the one scientists believe in. Leibniz argues that the more unconscious a thought or perception is, the more it’s blind, “mechanical” and instinctive, while the more conscious a thought or perception is, the more it resembles a rational exercise of choice and free will. Unconscious thoughts and perceptions are “confused”, hence fall back into a default mode of passive, mechanistic, material behaviour (matter dominates, and mind follows). Conscious thoughts and perceptions

are “clear and distinct”, hence permit active, free, mental behaviour (mind dominates and matter follows). In animals, their instincts rule; in philosophers, their reason rules. The more conscious a mind is, the more teleological it is. Unconscious minds exhibit very little teleology, hence resemble scientific materialist systems. They cannot form plans and set clear goals and objectives.

Innate Ideas Leibniz argued that truths of reason correspond to the thoughts of God. They are eternal and can involve no contradictions or errors. Only a God of Mathematics can function in this way. It’s vital to understand that no contradictions are ontological. If contradictions and errors were permitted ontologically, the universe would unravel into nothingness or chaos. Order, organisation and pattern are possible purely because there are no errors or contradictions in the foundations of reality. All innate ideas are true. They cannot be false under any circumstances. Experience gives us only contingent truths and facts – interpretations. It never gives us eternal and necessary truths. Interpretations are full of errors. They are Mythos, not Logos. They are manmade, not natural.

Dreams As Descartes noted, even dreamworlds are mathematical worlds. You could not dream without math. Our reason belongs to, and derives from, mathematics. When we reflect on the eternal truths of mathematics, we are proving that we are mathematical beings. In us, mathematics becomes self-conscious. Only then do we understand who we are, where we came from, and how we are possible in the first place. Moreover, we understand the full power of mathematics – how it’s the power of God himself. And now we can rationally plan to use it to make ourselves Gods. You have to ask yourself a simple question. Who has the key to understanding reality? – a Muslim holding the Koran or a mathematician holding a book outlining the whole of mathematics, the mathematical proof of absolutely every mathematical conjecture and hypothesis? One person

holds an absurd Mythos in his hand that doesn’t tell him a single thing about reality, while the other holds the Logos key to everything. Which book would you rather have? Tragically, the average human being much prefers Mythos. The supreme joke of the universe is that mathematics is the answer to everything and yet it’s the most feared and loathed subject of all. If you deliberately wanted to hide the ultimate answer from the eyes of the unworthy, you’d place it right in the middle of mathematics, in plain view of everyone, knowing that only geniuses would ever see it. Nicolas Malebranche asserted that eternal and necessary truths are never in our own minds, but only in God’s mind (much the same was said by Aristotle). Therefore, when we are contemplating eternal and necessary truths, we are accessing the Mind of God, we are communing with the divine. Mathematics, and mathematics alone – not faith or revelation or mysticism – is the language of God. If God were ever to use an angel to provide a divine book to a prophet, it would be a book of mathematics ... and nothing else. And that would be the one, true answer to everything. Mathematics takes you closer to God. Anything else takes you away from God. That’s bad news for the billions that despise mathematics, but, hey, the truth isn’t for everyone. Everyone has an equal opportunity to find the truth, but there are no equal outcomes in this great and holy quest. Only the true Grail Knights – the mathematikoi – ever find the Holy Grail. What is the Mind of God? It’s pure math. It’s eternal and perfect. It contains not one flaw or error. Every one of God’s thoughts is perfect. Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, and Leibniz are the four greatest champions of mathematical ontology, of linking mathematics to the Mind of God. The domain of mathematics constitutes Plato’s domain of perfect Forms, and functions as God’s mind. Through that mind, all things are made. In the objective sense, all things are perfect. It’s via subjectivity that delusion, illusion, error, irrationality, insanity, fantasy and Mythos enter the universe. As Gödel said, “Every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” It’s only through our attainment of objectivity that we transcend our subjective delusions about the nature of reality. Books such as the Torah,

Bible and Koran are pure Mythos from beginning to end. They contain no objective truth. They are the subjective ravings of lunatics. Each monad expresses the entire universe. It expresses an infinitely detailed objective universe from a subjective, finite perspective. Given that we are obviously unaware of this, the vast majority of our perceptions are therefore unconscious. Our consciousness is a “reducing valve”, filtering the infinite. Leibniz said, “I have already shown more than once that the soul does many things without knowing how it does them – when it does them by means of confused perceptions and unconscious inclinations or appetites, of which there are always an extremely large number, so that it is impossible for the soul to be conscious of them, or to distinguish them clearly.”

Simulation You can’t simulate consciousness. You either have consciousness, or you don’t. No machine will ever have consciousness via Artificial Intelligence techniques. Machines will mimic aspects of consciousness, while having no consciousness, just as parrots can mimic human speech without having human speech, and without having any concept of what sounds they are making. No matter how intelligent a machine may seem, it will always be a thing without any intelligence at all. It will be an elaborate autistic savant, a sophisticated calculator, and nothing else.

Contingency “...however many instances confirm a general truth, they do not suffice to establish its universal necessity; for it does not follow that what has happened will always happen in the same way.” – Leibniz This is essentially David Hume’s philosophy in a nutshell, presented before Hume was even born. No amount of extra knowledge of the contingent world (such as science provides) can ever reveal the secrets of the eternal, necessary world. No experiment can have any use in relation to eternal, necessary truths. It’s a category error to believe it can. Reason and intuition alone take us to this ultimate world of absolute truth, and the answers to everything. Induction – which is what science is based on – can never reveal the supreme truths. Only rational deduction can help us.

The Unconscious Leibniz has a subtle take on the nature of the unconscious. Strictly speaking, he doesn’t advocate an unconscious at all. What he describes are minute perceptions, i.e. perceptions so faint that they are not recognised in consciousness. They are in consciousness but not consciously registered, hence functionally act as an unconscious. They are below the consciousness threshold, as all unconscious things are. The empiricist John Locke insisted that anything that has to be learned cannot be innate; learning involves bringing an idea into conscious awareness, and if we are not already conscious of something then it must be outside, not inside, our mind. In actual fact, innate knowledge is simply unconscious (or below the consciousness threshold), and what we are doing with “learning” in relation to such knowledge is bringing it from the unconscious into the conscious. It is indeed innate, but, crucially, not consciously innate, which is the catastrophic mistake empiricists have always made. Empiricists have never grasped the concept of the unconscious mind, and it would in any case prove fatal to their ideology. To say, as empiricists do, that all knowledge starts with experience, implies that all of this experience is conscious. If you were in fact absorbing knowledge unconsciously then such knowledge would form no part of your conscious experience and you would have a source of knowledge outside what you thought you had done and experienced. If unconscious knowledge – whether innate or absorbed from the environment without any awareness – is real, empiricism is automatically refuted. Empiricism characterises the mind as a blank slate (tabula rasa) upon which experiences are consciously written. If experiences are also written unconsciously on our minds, then we can know and access things we don’t think we know. (As Donald Rumsfeld said, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”) It then becomes impossible to know if knowledge is based on conscious experience, unconscious experience or even innate knowledge, and the whole ideology of empiricism unravels.

An entire sphere of mental activity can exist about which conscious experience tells us precisely zero. It thus becomes impossible to sustain the argument that all of our knowledge derives from experience since we can’t comment on experiences we don’t know we’ve had, given that they happened outside our awareness. Locke explicitly wrote, “To say a Notion is imprinted on the mind, and yet at the same time to say that the mind is ignorant of it, and never yet took notice of it is to make this Impression nothing. No Proposition can be said to be in the mind, which it never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious of.” This is to fundamentally deny the existence of the unconscious. Descartes thought that all mental content must be conscious. Locke agreed with him about this, and argued that all mental content must therefore originally come from outside rather inside the mind because otherwise we would have been consciously aware of all this innate knowledge from the outset. This argument falls apart as soon as it is recognised that an unconscious mind can exist. Rationalism has no problems dealing with the unconscious. In fact, it relies on it, assuming that all innate knowledge begins as unconscious and has to be brought into consciousness. Intuition – by which knowledge suddenly leaps into our minds seemingly from nowhere – is none other than how unconscious innate knowledge finds its way into our consciousness. Consider a memory. How can we forget something? How can it suddenly vanish? Where does it go? Moreover, how can it then be remembered and come back? The obvious answer is that the forgotten memory gets absorbed by the unconscious mind, and is later retrieved from there.

Minds Alone For Leibniz, reality consists of only one thing – mental substances called monads. All material bodies are phenomena of mind, yet well-grounded phenomena. They are not independently real (as science claims they are). Leibniz was concerned with minds that exhibit different degrees of consciousness. Primitive minds aren’t conscious, while the highest minds are those that are most rational and most concerned with eternal, necessary truths. Such minds reflect the Mind of God, who is perfect consciousness.

Theology Religion and science are usually seen as being in bitter conflict. Leibniz saw only bad religion and bad science as being in conflict. True religion and true science must be in perfect harmony. Leibniz was the supreme champion of coherence, rationalism, integration, holism and harmony. He hated Newton for peddling mad physics, even writing an essay called Against Barbaric Physics. Gravity (Newton’s most glorious scientific achievement) attracted Leibniz’s particular ire. To Leibniz, gravity was every bit as absurd and laughable as extra-sensory perception, telekinesis and all paranormal phenomena are now to physicists. It’s with the most astounding irony that these same physicists are wholly uncritical of Newton’s preposterous theory of gravitational effects being instantaneously transmitted across completely empty space – what, like magic, like mind reading, like poltergeist phenomena?!!! How, given scientific materialism, can there be “spooky action at a distance”? How can two things that have no way of knowing about the existence of the other be gravitationally attracted to each other, as per Newton’s theory? To Leibniz it was insane that such a bizarre theory should become the cornerstone of physics, equivalent to physics being grounded in the paranormal. You’ll always hear modern physicists scoffing at the paranormal while declaring their unswerving devotion to Newton’s “genius”. Newton was simply a magician who knew he didn’t have a leg to stand on, which is why he hid behind the mantra of, “I feign no hypotheses.” That’s because he couldn’t think of any hypothesis – beyond divine magic (which is what he actually believed in!) – to account for his famous theory. Even today, we are all expected to be in awe of Newton even though, in terms of explaining gravity, his theory contributed zero. Newton gave no explanation at all of what gravity actually is. What he furnished was a useful, pragmatic, instrumental formula that accorded with experimental observations. Ever since, science has eschewed sane, rational explanations and lusted after useful equations, no matter how inexplicable. Quantum mechanics is the basis of modern science and yet not a single scientist on Earth understands it! Nothing has changed. It’s Newton all over again.

But Leibniz’s day will come and intelligent people will seek intelligent, rational explanations rather than successful equations that explain nothing but merely fit experimental data. Einstein was famously shot down and ridiculed for asking perfectly valid questions about quantum mechanics. In this regard at least, Einstein reflected Leibniz, the infinitely greater genius.

The True Dualism Descartes proposed a fundamental mind-body dichotomy. In fact, the true dualism (or, more accurately, dual-aspect monism) is between objective (form) and subjective (content) mathematics, between single-node and multi-node mathematics (private and public mathematics), and between the “withinness” and “withoutness” of mathematics (its interiority and exteriority, its dimensionlessness and dimensionality). What are the human senses? They are means of detecting various types of information, which we then assess emotionally (do we like or dislike the information, or are we indifferent to it?). So, with our eyes, we gather visual information with which we judge beauty versus ugliness, usefulness versus uselessness, danger versus safety, excitement versus boredom, and so on. With our ears, we judge dangerous sounds versus safe sounds, we listen to music and like it or dislike it, we listen to the tone of people’s voices and gauge layers of meaning. With our tongue, we judge healthy tastes versus unhealthy tastes, desirable tastes and undesirable tastes, the five different types of taste: sweetness, sourness, saltiness, bitterness, and umami. With our nose, we can smell danger, safety, good odours, bad odours, and so on. With our fingers, we can touch things that make us feel good or bad. We can feel pleasure or pain with our flesh. The point here is that all of this sensory data is judged subjectively – by our own internal nature, character, personality, taste. Our inner mathematical nature is not determined by anything outside us. It’s subjective, not objective. We are living beings, not programmed machines. Consider what happens when we display music visually, on an oscilloscope. We are now seeing a sound signal with our eyes, and it has a completely different effect on us. It provokes no emotional response. Similarly, a beautiful picture converted into sound would lose its beauty instantly. In these cases, the mathematical form is detached from a subjective emotional response and can be analysed objectively and

dispassionately ... and we recognise that we are indeed dealing with purely mathematical information. In our dreamspace, our mathematical activity is single-node. When we are awake, our mathematical activity is multi-node (involving interaction with our environment and with others). Our mathematical natures have a “withinness” – shielded from the external world – which nothing else can get inside. No one can experience what we experience. Every experience, for everyone, is uniquely experienced. Yet we also have an external mathematical nature where we objectively interact with the world, and it with us. Science absolutely denies this mathematical interiority, this privateness, this withinness, this subjectivity. Why? Because it’s outside the scope of any experimental observation, hence does not form part of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. In these circumstances, science claims that what cannot be observed does not exist. Mathematical subjectivity is none other than the activity of the unobservable soul. Ontological mathematics revolves around the soul, while science denies the existence of the soul. That’s why science is atheistic and ontological mathematics is religious. The beauty and power of ontological mathematics resides in the fact that it has this dual nature, this subjectivity and objectivity. “Matter” belongs to the objective, external nature of mathematics, and “mind” to the subjective, internal nature of mathematics. Matter and mind are just different aspects of mathematics, not separate substances.

The Best Possible World Given that the mathematical evolution of the universe has the best possible outcome – we are all transformed into Gods – then we could never wish for the world to be configured in any other way. No system could be better than the one we’re in. It’s true, however, that the world wades through horror and misery before it becomes perfect. It crawls through the gutters and sewers long before it thinks of looking up to the stars and heavens. Yet it has to do this if it’s to transmute itself from base metal into gold.

Mathematics is the true key to alchemy. It’s the Philosopher’s Stone itself. Through it, we are all made golden. It perfects each and every one of us, but some much sooner than others. It supports a meritocracy, not a communism. We are all in a race ... a race to become Gods. How well are you faring in the God Race? Leibniz said of the most perfect world, “God, however, has chosen the most perfect, that is to say, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” This is exactly the one delivered by the God Equation. It’s impossible to get anything simpler than that. It’s impossible to get anything else that’s both consistent and complete. The God Equation must be able to accommodate the whole of mathematics, and that’s exactly what it accomplishes. Nothing else can. The God Equation must at all times be the means by which “something” and “nothing” are the same. It must convert “being” and “nothing” into “becoming”. It must deliver perpetual motion at zero cost, i.e. it must leave the universe in a permanent ground state energy of zero; no processes can have any net energy cost. The God Equation is all you need to create the universe we inhabit. Nothing else can achieve this. The God Equation has no possible rivals. In his essay On the Ultimate Origination of Things, Leibniz wrote, “Since something rather than nothing exists, there is a certain urge for existence or (so to speak) a straining toward existence in possible things or in possibility or essence itself; in a word, essence in and of itself strives for existence. Furthermore, it follows from this that all possibles, that is, everything that expresses essence or possible reality, strive with equal right for existence in proportion to the amount of essence or reality or the degree of perfection they contain, for perfection is nothing but the amount of essence.” Quite simply, nothing is more perfect than the God Equation. Moreover, it’s the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing because it shows that something is in fact just structured nothingness. It’s not so much that there is something rather nothing, but, rather, how nothing can also be something. Only mathematics can deliver this incredible connection between something and nothing. In scientific Multiverse thinking, everything not forbidden strives for existence and does exist – in some universe or another within the Multiverse. For Leibniz, all possible things strive for existence, but only

those that are most compossible actually make it to existence. There is no Multiverse where everything that can happen does happen. Many things that might have happened haven’t and don’t happen – exactly as we see with our own lives and the choices we make (which immediately exclude the alternatives that we didn’t make, and all the ramifications that would have flowed from them). As above, so below. What is “becoming”? It’s the means by which potential is turned into actualization. Not everything becomes. “Becoming” selects one outcome at each instant and rejects all others. That’s how reality works. Multiverse theorists say that everything not forbidden “becomes”, but this privileges being over becoming. It says that mere possibility is all that counts, rather than selection from countless possibilities. “Becoming” is selection, and “being” is non-selection. Human beings are often faced with several choices. We actualize one, and the others, all of which were possible, vanish forever. They will never be actualised. That’s what it means to make a choice, to allow one option to become. According to the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, we do not in fact make any choices. Instead, new parallel worlds are created in which all possible choices are actualized. Nothing is ever discarded. Across the whole collection of parallel worlds, no choices are ever made because all choices are made, and if you choose all, you have not chosen at all ... you have avoided choosing. If you could execute all of your possible choices at once then you would of course have made no choice at all. Choice means the selection of one and the discarding of the others. Science seeks to render choice meaningless. Why? Because choice implies mind, consciousness and free will – and these are all repellent to science. It prefers a Multiverse of randomness to a Universe of Natural Selection. This is somewhat ironic gives science’s slavish worship of Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection. According to the many worlds view, no natural selection has ever taken place since all possibilities are actualised, which renders Darwin’s theory of Evolution redundant and absurd! Of course, no scientist ever realises this. They are, after all, philosophical barbarians and illiterates.

The Two Principles

Almost the whole of Leibniz’s philosophy flows from thinking through the consequences of just two rational principles: 1) The principle of contradiction states that nothing can be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. “A” and “not-A” cannot simultaneously both be true. (This principle plays a vital part in Leibniz’s doctrine of compossibility. Things, in order to exist at the same time, must not contradict each other. Possible things that are mutually contradictory cannot all exist at once. Multiverse theorists create new universes for them; Leibniz does not.) 2) The principle of sufficient reason says that every effect must have a cause, which is equivalent to saying that something cannot spring out of absolute nothingness (such as miracles, magic, randomness or whole universes). Everything has an explanation. We can explain why this happened rather than that. This is impossible in a world of magic or randomness. Only a universe of reason is a universe of explanation. Science invokes no core principles such as these. That’s exactly why it will never furnish a final explanation of everything. Science has chosen randomness to “explain”, but randomness is no explanation at all. It’s magic. The cause (or causes) of all things must be “intelligent”. This doesn’t have to be conscious intelligence, of course, but it certainly has to possess flawless order and organisation – the hallmarks of intelligence and design – rather than of randomness and chaos. The “blind watchmaker” is not blind at all, and not stupid. It’s unconsciously intelligent, and all of its works are designed because it’s the source of design by virtue of being perfectly mathematical.

Monads Leibnizian monads have two key attributes: unity and force. As unities, they are immaterial (because, in Leibniz’s system, anything material is compounded, hence not a unity). As sources of force, they provide the preconditions for all the motion and phenomena of the world. Force can be manifested actively or passively. Monads can never be without force – the same constant amount of force – hence are perpetual motion “machines”. They can never perish and never run down. Forces are

never exchanged because that would mean a loss of force for one monad and a gain in force for another, and that’s impossible. Monads are the true substances of the world, and they are minds, not material things. Monads do not have matter, shape, volume, dimensionality, extension. Since monadic minds are all that exist, matter, space and time are simply phenomena created by them. For Leibniz, substances (monadic minds), mental forces, and the “forms” that defined them and their material phenomena, were metaphysical, while physics dealt purely with phenomena: with material objects obeying laws of motion and colliding with each other. True science (knowledge of reality) was, for Leibniz, physics plus metaphysics (what comes after physics, and underpins and defines physics). For scientific materialists, science is physics alone, and there are absolutely no references to metaphysics, which lies wholly outside the domain of observation and experimentation, hence is deemed not to exist at all. The concept of matter is grounded in compoundedness (plurality); the concept of mind is grounded in singularity (unity). You cannot have unitary things – experiencing subjects – without autonomous mind substances (monads), uncreated and uncaused. How can myriad lifeless, mindless atoms coming together produce a unitary life and mind? The Aristotelian concept of teleological form goes hand-in-hand with unitary substances, but is dismissed by scientific materialism, which will not accept independent mind. Leibniz called the active force that’s fundamental to all substances an “entelechy” or “substantial form” – thus directly invoking Aristotelian language, albeit changing the meanings inherent in Aristotle’s system. For Aristotle, matter existed in its own right. For Leibniz, it didn’t, hence was pure phenomenon resulting from form (or force or energy, as we might say today). “God”, in Leibniz’s system, is regarded as pure action, pure form, while other substances are regarded as impure forms, resulting in having passive as well as active features, and it’s these passive elements in which the phenomenon of matter is grounded. To become God, each of us must rid ourselves of all passive elements and become pure active force.

Uncreated First Causes

Eternal truths of reason are the uncreated first causes that give rise to everything else. They are mathematical tautologies and they define the minds that create reality. Reality is grounded in tautology. More especially, it’s grounded in the supreme tautology that there are infinite ways of expressing 0 = 0, via balancing infinite suitable combinations of positive and negative numbers.

What is it? It’s scandalous that religious people talk so much about the soul without having the vaguest idea what it is. The soul is the quintessence of mathematical ontology. It’s not a religious entity but a mathematical entity. Any book of mathematics tells you much more about the soul than any religious book. All of the holiest texts of the human race are more or less downright useless, or downright lies. Religion, true religion, is about knowledge, not faith. It’s about math, not prayers, kneeling, bowing, chanting or meditation.

Leibnizian Matter There is no authentic matter in Leibniz’s system. Matter is simply a mental phenomenon. What is supposedly extended is not a solid “thing” but a quality – the quality of impenetrability. Matter as a phenomenon has another key quality – that of resistance. Being passive, it resists being moved. Impenetrability and resistance both originate in the passivity inherent in “matter”.

The Principle of Continuity The principle of continuity is a key ontological principle. It states that there are no gaps in nature, and nature makes no leaps. All change happens gradually, relentlessly, inevitably, step by step. Everything happens in perfect sequence. This principle also means that things can’t stop instantly, or instantly change direction, or undergo any abrupt change whatsoever. Everything takes place by gradations.

Passive And Active Forces Leibniz spoke of active and passive metaphysical forces, these being the primary forces (or “primitive” forces to use Leibniz’s term). From them were derived the secondary forces of physics.

Physics is purely concerned with secondary forces that originate in primary metaphysical forces (which constitute hidden variables). All the forces of physics are formally inexplicable in their own terms and rely upon circular instrumental definitions. Physics rejects any appeal to primary metaphysical explanations.

Motion “As for motion, what is real in it is force or power; that is to say, what there is in the present state which carries with it a change in the future. The rest is only phenomena and relations.” – Leibniz Motion is grounded in force. There can be no movement without force. This is a key argument with regard to refuting Einstein’s theory of relativity. Here, Leibniz and mainstream physics collide head on. For Leibniz, force is absolute. There’s nothing relative about it. Leibniz specifically argued that if motion is just change of position in relation to other things then it becomes impossible to determine which things are truly moving. For example, if a ball rolls across a table, it seems obvious that the ball is the thing doing the moving. But it could just as well be argued that the ball is stationary and it’s the table that’s moving. By appealing to position alone, it’s no longer possible to make any sense of motion, as Leibniz realised immediately. Astoundingly, exactly these same arguments – which Leibniz regarded as the proof of the absurdity of scientific accounts of motion – were the ones deployed by Einstein to justify his relativity theory. Motion becomes a fiction in relativity theory since any object moving at a constant speed in a straight line can equally well consider itself at rest and that it’s everything else that’s moving at a constant speed in a straight line. If that were the case then motion is a fantasy that has no objective reality. It is not a well-grounded phenomenon. Leibniz would unquestionably have found Einstein’s theory of relativity as idiotic and ludicrous as Newton’s theory of gravity. Both theories are formally nonsensical and non-explanatory. They destroy meaning and explanation. The principle of relativity is the complete refutation of the reality principle. Objective reality vanishes when something as basic as stating what is moving, and what isn’t, becomes a subjective opinion. Just as science can’t define what time is, nor can it define what motion is. Nor can it define space, or mass, or energy. It can’t define anything.

Einstein’s famous equation relating mass and energy explains neither mass nor energy. Leibniz was the great champion of proper explanations, airtight definitions and sufficient reasons. All of these are absent from Newtonian physics, from Einsteinian physics, and from quantum mechanics. Science measures. It doesn’t explain. It doesn’t know what it’s measuring. Leibniz would have been disgusted and appalled by what science has become. It’s a vast and intricate system of successful, heuristic equations that have no ability whatsoever to explain what reality is and to answer any ultimate questions. Science addresses “how” and never “why”. It tells you how to use and measure things, but not how to explain what they are, where they come from and where they are going. In Leibniz’s system, force is absolute, and, since motion derives from force, motion is absolute too. Thus there is no such thing as Einsteinian relativity. No object can ever be considered stationary from one perspective and in motion from another since that would make motion a bizarre fiction. Nothing can be time dilated from one perspective and simultaneously nontime dilated from another. As Herbert Dingle astutely said, “The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.” Leibniz’s system is absolute and reflects an authentic reality principle. The moon, in itself, really is there when no one is looking at it. Leibniz’s monads furnish the ultimate ether – completely unobservable and undetectable – and an absolute reality. They wholly refute Einsteinian relativity. You have a simple choice. Will you accept the fiction of motion, as manifested by Einstein’s theory of relativity? Will you accept the fiction of reality manifested by quantum mechanics, which relies upon an unobservable, non-local wavefunction? Or will you accept mathematical ontology based on a monadic, mental ether, guaranteeing objective reality? Leibniz (ontological mathematics), or science? – that’s what it comes down to. What shall it be?

The Monadic Ether If space does not have physical parts (“space atoms”, so to speak) then either space is an illusion with no parts at all, or it has immaterial, mental

parts (monads). Of course, each option provides insurmountable difficulties for science. Science could find no evidence of any ether, so Einstein produced the absurd principle of relativity, in which space does indeed become more or less illusory. Science rejects any suggestion of an unobservable, immaterial, mental space, since such a thing would be outside the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Science is thus forced to find ridiculous, incoherent ways of accounting for reality, none worse than Einstein’s principle of relativity, which flows directly from the Meta Paradigm of science, and not from any rational analysis of reality, i.e. it’s conditioned by the need to satisfy the way in which science has been constructed, not by considering what logic and reason demand. If logic and reason demand an ontology based on the primacy of mind over matter, science will reject this ontology since scientific materialism is of course predicated on the primacy of matter over mind, and this is a fanatical and dogmatic position of faith in science. Leibniz referred to monads as “metaphysical points”, “atoms of substance” or “formal atoms”. Self-evidently, you cannot derive “real” matter from mental atoms, but you can certainly derive matter as a wellgrounded, mental phenomenon. To give a familiar illustration of a well-grounded phenomenon, Leibniz liked to refer to the rainbow. A rainbow is not nothing, it’s not an illusion or hallucination, but it’s not material, it’s not a substance, and it can’t exist on its own (without the conditions for its creation). We can study rainbows, predict when they will occur, and refer to them as “things” – because they result from real things. As Leibniz wrote, “In just the same way a rainbow is not improperly said to be a thing, even though it is not a substance, that is, it is said to be a phenomenon, a real or well-founded phenomenon that doesn’t disappoint our expectations based on what precedes. And indeed, not only sight but also touch has its phenomena.” That is, material things are to the sense of touch what rainbows are to the sense of sight. Indeed, all of our senses are simply the means by which we construct phenomena, derived from underlying noumena that are never seen. All spacetime, material phenomena are just “rainbow” phenomena. This idea of minds projecting “reality” was of course the central theme of Kant’s philosophy. Kant, rather bizarrely, took Leibniz’s system – whereby phenomena were well founded and grounded in noumena that we

could understand through our reason – and turned it into one where phenomena were all we could “know” and the noumena that underlay them were beyond any possible knowledge. Kant specifically attacked “pure reason” – by which he meant, in effect, Leibnizian rationalism – and said it could tell us nothing about true reality. Kant produced “antinomies” (paradoxes or contradictions) allegedly showing that reason could “prove” or support diametrically opposed positions. That is, a proposition (a thesis) could be advanced, as could its converse (the antithesis), each with ostensibly the same validity. Where Kant thought this showed some sort of problem with reason, Hegel used antinomies as the basis of his rationalist dialectical philosophy. By introducing a higher synthesis phase in which thesis and antithesis could be partially resolved (leading to a new, higher thesis and antithesis, and another synthesis involving even more resolution, and so on), Hegel’s dialectical logic swept away Kant’s attack on rationalism. However, Leibniz, if he had succeeded rather than preceded Kant, would have defeated Kant’s arguments too, but from a different angle. Kant found himself faced with a powerful rationalist thesis provided by Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, and an equally powerful empiricist antithesis provided by Locke, Berkeley and Hume. He produced what he thought was a dazzling resolution by inventing what he called “synthetic a priori” judgments. The a priori part partook of rationalism, and the synthetic part of empiricism. But there are no such things as synthetic a priori judgements (it’s a category error to combine them), hence Kant’s system is false. What Kant ought to have done was what Leibniz had already done – show how empiricism derives from a rational, noumenal, true reality, how the phenomenal is well-grounded in the noumenal world of monadic substance and force. Kant, perhaps the most revered philosopher amongst academic philosophers, was in fact an immensely retrograde figure. His philosophy took philosophy backwards and created a world of things-in-themselves (noumena) that, according to Kant, could never be known. This is almost the opposite of philosophy. It puts ignorance at the heart of philosophy, but leaves plenty of room for faith. Indeed, Kant was very pleased with himself for having created a mysterious domain where God, the soul, the afterlife

and free will were all possible (and free from scientific intrusion), but could never be proved. Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were appalled by Kant’s anti-philosophy and refuted it with their rationalist idealist systems. Kant, ultimately, was a defender of empiricism and enemy of rationalism. He thought that only empirical phenomena were “knowable”, and he equated the study of phenomena with science. Science, however, sees itself as studying reality itself, not a phenomenon resulting from something else that we can never know. All those who attack Kant’s position are always rationalists. So, the three big questions are these... 1) Does the world of empiricism result from an underlying world of pure rationalism? – as Leibniz and Hegel say. 2) Is the empirical world of phenomena the only knowable world, and anything beyond it belongs to faith? – as Kant says. 3) Is the empirical world of phenomena the real world, with nothing underlying it? – as scientific materialism says. Only the first option allows definitive answers to be given to the ultimate questions of existence. Kant abandoned Leibnizian rationalism and replaced it with a noumenal domain of faith rather than reason. Science rejected the noumenal domain in its entirety. Everything depends on this noumenal domain, on whether it exists or not, and whether it’s rational and knowable or not. Illuminism asserts that the noumenal domain is not only real and rational but is also nothing other than the eternal domain of ontological mathematics. In other words, reality is 100% mathematical. Mathematics underlies all things and all phenomena are produced by mathematics. Mathematics, not science, is the basis of reality. Are you a mathematician (an Illuminist), an anti-mathematical philosopher (a Kantian), or a physicist (scientist)? Those are your three choices. In Illuminism, mathematics is metaphysics. Mathematics is the true language of metaphysics, based on eternal truths of reason. Reality comprises: 1) Noumenal domain (metaphysics) = mathematics.

2) Phenomenal domain (physics) = science. Mathematics underlies all things. Mathematics is the rational noumenon from which the phenomena of science result. According to science, science is reality and mathematics is a bizarre, unreal, abstract, unexplained and inexplicable rationalist phenomenon at the heart of empirical science. It’s not faith, God, religion, mysticism or philosophical speculation that’s the stage after physics (i.e. metaphysics), but math ... hyperrationalist math. There’s no bullshit here. Math destroys Mythos bullshit. What could be better and more reassuring than that? Math is the quintessential rationalist subject that can and does provide the ultimate answers. Science is looking for a grand unified theory of everything. It already has it – math! In terms of its eternal aspect, mathematics is a priori and obeys the static laws of logic formulated by Aristotle and Leibniz. In terms of its living aspect in time, mathematics obeys Hegel’s dynamic dialectical logic. Kant claimed that mathematical, scientific and moral judgments are all synthetic a priori. He was wrong regarding all three. Mathematics is analytic a priori, science is synthetic a posteriori, and morality is pure interpretation. As Nietzsche said, “There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena.” Science – purely because it is sensory – is deemed to be “true”, to provide “evidence”. This simply reflects the sensory fallacy that our senses are revealing what is really there rather than interpreting and misinterpreting what is really there. Science is all about the “sensible world”, as Plato put it. In fact, as Plato realised, the true world is the “intelligible world”, and reason alone can access it. It has nothing to do with the senses. Mathematics (intelligible), not science (sensible) is the language of reality. We use reason only to navigate the metaphysical, noumenal world of mathematics. We do not perform any experiments of any description. We do not use any of our senses. We use sequential reason based on parts (“normal” reason), and allat-once, holistic reason (intuition) to illuminate the world of math. Math is about rationalism, science about empiricism. This is the age-old war that, thus far, has given victory to science (and Newton). By the end of this century, mathematics will have reversed its (mis)fortunes and achieved unconditional victory over science. Leibniz rather than Newton will be

recognised as the true giant of his Age, and in fact the greatest genius of all time.

Substance Ontology versus Process Ontology One of the most profound issues concerning the nature of reality lies in deciding whether ontology is based on substances (“things”) or processes. Heraclitus said there’s nothing permanent except change. Yet while it’s true that everything is changing, it’s also true that many things appear to maintain a constant identity through this change. We ourselves are changing at every instant, but we don’t keep inventing a new “I” at each instant. We are the same “I” we have always been. We have a core identity that persists through all change. Changing is happening to us, but is not recreating us as something brand new with each change. So, here is the paradox of a world of perpetual change that has things within it that persist through that change. Atoms seem to persist, objects seem to persist, people seem to persist. Objects and the bodies of people may well decay in due course, but atoms seem to endure, and so do souls. (All material atoms will ultimately perish, but not soul atoms.) Are there things – substances – to which change happens, but which nevertheless retain a clear identity? This is substance ontology and this line of thinking has traditionally dominated Western philosophy. Substance ontology worked extremely well with the notion of a Creator God (the ultimate substance) who made souls and objects. In Eastern thinking, there’s no Abrahamic Creator God. In Taoism, there’s no God. Rather, there is the Way (Tao). There are natural forces and energies. There are the balancing elements of yin and yang. This is all about Nature, and processes of change. Atoms aren’t talked about, and nor are souls in any formal sense. This is a process ontology. Similarly, Buddhism talks of no God, no souls and no atoms, just processes. Hinduism has many gods but none are like the Abrahamic God. In fact, they function rather like natural processes. Hinduism acknowledges souls but they are often talked about as fragments of a divine Oneness (“atman = Brahman”). So, are things primary or are processes primary? We see this issue arising in modern physics. M-theory invokes 1D-strings (things) which give rise to all other things, and all change. This is a substance ontology. In the rival “loop quantum gravity”, on the other hand, the fabric of space is said to consist of closed loops knitted together into networks. These loops are

not to be considered as objects but rather as abstract relationships and connections in quantum force-fields. This is a process ontology. M-theory is background dependent while loop quantum gravity is background independent. In other words, here we have two radically different theories that invoke wholly different ontologies. Scientists make no attempt to analyse these rivals philosophically. Rather, the proponents of each theory simply assume they are right and attempt to marshal experimental evidence to support them. But this scattergun approach has been tried for many decades now and is getting nowhere. Science has run out of road. Whether it likes it or not, it’s now confronting metaphysical ontology – of exactly the kind Leibniz wrestled with – and experiments will be of no use in deciding these fundamental issues where the scale is far too small for any possibility of experimental observation. A substance ontology is one that emphasizes individuation. A process ontology is one that emphasizes holism. Western thinking is based on substance and individuation, and Eastern thinking on process and holism. What we need, of course, is a synthesis of this thesis and antithesis. The Hegelian dialectic is the ultimate holistic process, and yet it operates on the ultimate substance (the monad). In the end, the Many and the One achieve a grand synthesis. Holography is the ideal means for effecting this outcome. A substance is a thing which has properties. It’s a subject of predicates. Everything is clear cut. It’s much more complicated to treat processes in such a clear, definitional way since nothing in a process is clearly individuated from anything else. In a statement such as, “The milk is sour”, the milk is the subject and the sourness the predicate. The sourness depends on the milk. It does not exist independently of the milk. It’s a mode of substance. Our senses rely on “I” as the ultimate substance. If I drink sour milk, it’s not the milk that’s sour per se. Rather, it’s my sense of taste that adds the sourness. If that sense were defective, I wouldn’t notice any sourness! Descartes’ famous statement, “I think, therefore I am” assumes an “I” as subject (substance), and thinking as its predicate. In a process ontology, you would have, “There is thinking” – with thoughts not being done by substances but by processes. Illuminism is a substance ontology, and the ultimate substance is the mathematical monadic mind (soul), which is always changing, yet all those

changes take place within an identifiable, eternal entity that maintains a permanent identity. Yet Illuminism is also a dialectical, holographic process ideology, perfecting and fully actualising monads.

Barbaric Physics “It is, unfortunately, our destiny that, because of a certain aversion toward light, people love to be returned to darkness… That physics which explains everything in the nature of body through number, measure, weight, or size, shape and motion, and so teaches that, in physics, everything happens mechanically, that is, intelligibly, this physics seems excessively clear and easy… It is permissible to recognize magnetic, elastic, and other sorts of forces, but only insofar as we understand that they are not primitive or incapable of being explained, but arise from motions and shapes. However, the new patrons of such things don’t want this. And it has been observed that in our own times there was a real suggestion of this view among certain of our predecessors who established that the planets gravitate and tend toward one another. It pleased them to make the immediate inference that all matter essentially has a God-given and inherent attractive power and, as it were, mutual love, as if matter had senses, or as if a certain intelligence were given to each part of matter by whose means each part could perceive and desire even the most remote thing.” – Leibniz, Against Barbaric Physics Science is even more barbarous today than it was in Leibniz’s day. It’s extraordinary that people regard science as a rational undertaking when it’s so plainly hostile to reason and logic, and would be valueless without the reason and logic invalidly imported from math.

New Names For Old Things “But some people have added qualities which they have also called faculties, virtues, and most recently, forces.” – Leibniz “I objected that an attraction properly so called, or in the Scholastic sense, would be an operation at a distance without any means intervening. The author answers here that an attraction without any means intervening would indeed be a contradiction. Very well. But then, what does he mean when he

will have the sun to attract the globe of the earth through an empty space? Is it God himself that performs it? But this would be a miracle if ever there was any. This would surely exceed the power of creatures. ... if the means which causes an attraction, properly so called, are constant and at the same time inexplicable by the powers of creators, and yet are true, it must be a perpetual miracle, and if it is not miraculous, it is false. It is a chimerical thing, a Scholastic occult thing.” – Leibniz If you are forced to distance yourself from the terminology of the Scholastics, yet you don’t and can’t refute their concepts, you simply relabel their terms, and hope no one will notice. You invent a word such as “force” that’s almost meaningless in the mouths of scientists. Where did the force come from that produced the Big Bang? Nowhere?

Empiricism and Rationalism You can’t be an empiricist and a rationalist. You can’t be on the side of your senses and your non-sensory reason. You must choose one or the other. Yet scientists – fanatical empiricists – routinely claim to be on the side of reason. They are philosophical ignoramuses, who have no idea that being an empiricist precludes you from being a rationalist, and if you’re not a rationalist then you’re against reason. Kant attacked “pure reason”. If reason isn’t pure, what is it? If it isn’t pure, it’s not reason at all. That’s the whole problem. A transcendental empiricist such as Kant wanted to invoke rationalism while attacking it. Scientists are exactly the same. They have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re irrational.

Matter versus Form Form is active. Matter is passive. Matter lacks inherent action. Matter represents potentiality and form actualisation. A fully actualised universe is one where all matter has been converted into form. Mind is form. Light is perfect form. In the matter-form definition of substance championed by Aristotle, neither form nor matter is a substance in its own right; only their combination provides a substance. (This implies that God – as matterless form – is not a proper substance, or, alternatively, has a unique definition and status as a substance.) Matter and form might be regarded as two aspects of substance.

A universe described purely in terms of matter wouldn’t work. Form must also be taken into account. Form is always teleological. Science abolishes form, and advocates only material substances. Thus science removes purpose from existence. Science views purpose as metaphysical speculation, but that itself is a metaphysical speculation, not a fact. In the case of a human being, our form, from Aristotle’s viewpoint, is how we function, how we organise our matter, our process of living, how we survive, grow and strive for specific ends. Form = soul.

The Limits Much of philosophy and science concerns the limits of human knowledge. Unfortunately, empiricism has become the de facto standard in this regard. Empiricism talks about experience, observations, experiments, measurements ... everything that’s susceptible to the sensory detection. The fallacious inference has been drawn that anything outside the empiricist paradigm does not exist at all. Scientists sneer at any suggestion of an order of existence – no matter how rational and logical (i.e. mathematical) – beyond the reach of science. They always brand it as religious myth. So, the critical question becomes: do rational unobservables exist, and do they in fact represent much more certain knowledge than the dubious knowledge provided by our unreliable, deceptive senses? This is the classic dispute between rationalism and empiricism. We do not observe souls – they are not objects of our sensory experience – so does that mean they do not exist? That’s the conclusion science draws. Or are they by definition non-sensory objects grounded in an immaterial, intelligible, mathematical frequency domain that’s not in space and time in the first place? Empiricism states that all knowledge comes from experience (of the sensible world). Rationalism states that all knowledge comes from reason (applied to the intelligible world). Illuminism states that all knowledge is mathematical, and that mathematics gives rise to two domains: the sensible (phenomenal) and the intelligible (noumenal). We use our senses to interact with the former, and our reason to interact with the latter. The sensible world is about how we experience mathematics, and the intelligible world is about how we understand mathematics. The mistake of science is to try to understand

sensory experience (empiricism) rather than non-sensory rational mathematics (rationalism). Imagine you placed an ice sculpture in front of a fire and then left the room. When you returned a few minutes later, you of course found a puddle on the floor. Well, how does an empiricist react to this? Strictly speaking, all an empiricist can legitimately say is that one type of sensory object (ice) was in front of the fire initially, and now an apparently completely different type of sensory object (water) is in front of it. The empiricist can’t make any link between the two because none of the transformation was actually observed (since he was outside the room when it happened). He can’t validly draw a single causal inference within the empiricist paradigm. A rationalist, on the other hand, can immediately conclude that ice is solid water and that it melted in front of the fire, leaving liquid water. No observations of the transformation were required to draw those conclusions. They were easily rationally deducible. An empiricist subject such as science always cheats because, while stating on the one hand that experiments are all that count, it’s perfectly happy to draw rational conclusions that are never experimentally observable. As Hume famously pointed out, you can’t observe causation. You see one state of affairs at time A and a different state of affairs at time B. That’s all you actually observe. Anything you add to this is not observed but inferred. However, if you are perfectly happy to add unobservable inferences to observable entities, why aren’t you equally happy to add unobservable inferences to unobservable entities (such as the soul)? Empiricists do not reject unobservable inferences. What they reject are unobservable inferences applied to unobservable things. Yet if unobservable inferences are accepted in one context, the empiricist has admitted that empiricism isn’t the full story, so why won’t he also accept unobservable inferences in another context? He refuses to do so only because of irrational sensory prejudice. Descartes famously spoke of how beeswax is solid, hard, cold, easily handled and has a certain colour, shape, size, touch, smell, taste. However, when melted, the wax has entirely different observable properties. We know it’s the same thing thanks to our reason, not our senses (which in fact indicate that it’s something completely different). No person in the ancient world would imagine graphite, coal and diamond to be the same element, but they are. By the same token, why

should we not conclude that all apparently different things are, at the fundamental level, made of the same thing, and merely have a different phenomenal form (in the manner of carbon)? To argue otherwise is to fall into the error of Cartesian dualism or pluralism. How did these different substances come to be, and how do they interact? Everything must have a common origin. That was once called God or the Oneness, but is now known to be math. How do empiricists know that there aren’t things that are unobservable, but give rise to observables? Consider the Big Bang. According to Illuminism, the Big Bang was simply dimensionless existence (a Singularity) in which various mathematical operations were performed, leading to the appearance of dimensional existence (the material world). Rationally, there’s no mystery at all. Mathematics provides both dimensionless beeswax and dimensional beeswax, but it’s all still beeswax (mathematics). Scientific empiricist materialists are prevented from reaching this obvious rational conclusion because their paradigm explicitly forbids nonsensory, dimensionless existence. So, they are left to resort to a miracle – to a universe springing out of nothing via some inexplicable random event, one that could just as easily be explained as a magical act of “God”. Scientists are fundamentally irrational and refuse to accept obvious rational sequences such as the unextended giving rise to the extended, the dimensionless to the dimensional, unobservable mathematical things and operations to observable mathematical things and operations. Empiricists almost invariably subscribe to process ontology. They say that substances in the classical sense have no real meaning because they involve rational but unobservable concepts (such as Aristotelian form). Since these concepts are not derived from experience, they can play no part in the empiricist paradigm. The empiricist John Locke said that it was a “I know not what” that we assume stands behind experience. Kant maintained a similar position when he said that unknowable noumena stand behind the observable phenomena of our experience. Kant is often seen as the genius who reconciled empiricism and rationalism. In fact, he was just a more sophisticated empiricist. Like the other empiricists, he scoffed at “pure reason” and denied that it could provide us with authentic knowledge. All he did, in effect, was to produce a spurious category of statements labelled “synthetic a priori”, with which he

attempted to address Hume’s savage attack on the reality of causality. Hume was the supreme empiricist and skeptic, and more or less invented nihilism – since if you follow Hume’s logic you should not believe in anything, or accept or “know” anything as true. Kant made empiricism more rational, but he still excluded rationalism per se as having any validity. Classical scientific empiricism differed from philosophical empiricism insofar as it accepted efficient causality unquestioningly, even though causality was unobservable and had to be inferred. Classical scientists didn’t seem remotely worried by this. That’s because they were philosophically illiterate and had never bothered to study Hume. Modern scientists are even worse. They have dispensed with causality, and replaced it with probability. However, as Hume could easily have told them, there’s no more rational basis for indeterminism than there is for determinism. Neither is empirically observable. No one has ever observed a random event. They may claim it’s random, but that’s merely a claim, not an observable fact. Science is about atoms (matter) obeying laws of motion. It rejects any suggestion of mind, or Aristotelian form, existing unobservably within matter. However, it accepts the existence of unobservable causal determinism or probabilistic indeterminism – either of which looks exactly like a type of Aristotelian form providing internal instructions for how things will behave externally. Science, in rational terms, is incoherent. Newtonian physics didn’t make any sense (as Leibniz pointed out), and nor does Einsteinian physics make any sense (as Leibniz would also certainly have pointed out). Quantum mechanics is staggeringly successful despite no scientist on earth understanding what it actually means. Science is now stuck when it comes to producing a final theory of everything. That’s because it’s inherent irrationality and its limited experimental method have finally caught up with it and can’t take it any further.

Doublethink “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” – George Orwell, 1984

Doublethink automatically leads to double standards. All people have two hemispheres, and a mind inside each hemisphere, one conscious and one unconscious (or differently conscious), hence we are all double thinkers. The idea that you are a clearly defined, conscious “I” – and nothing but that – is one of the greatest delusions of all. You have a mind that straddles two domains: the dimensionless and dimensional. Your true mind is in the dimensionless domain outside space and time, but in order for you to operate in the dimensional world, you need a mind attuned to spacetime. This is your standard “consciousness”. It’s a reducing valve type of mind compared with your “mind at large” which is infinite (in touch with all of existence).

Risk You can’t make progress without taking risk. The trouble with conformism, groupthink, consensus, the status quo, the establishment, is that they’re all averse to risk. Science hates radical thinkers and any ideas incompatible with its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Just like religion, science automatically rejects whole categories of thought for no reason other than that they conflict with its ideology and dogmatism. There are plenty of Galileos failing to make any progress in the world of science, and being kicked out for “heresy”. The idea that science is open-minded is a joke. It would be hard to find a more blinkered, closed and conformist subject, a subject more resistant to left-field ideas.

Eternal Truth The only things that can be incontestably true are things that are eternally true ... and these can have absolutely no connection with human interpretations, beliefs, sensations, perceptions, feelings, opinions and experiences. You have to forget the human condition as a source of “knowledge” in any genuine sense. If you want an absolute starting point in terms of knowledge, you must begin with a system of analytic tautology, i.e. ontological mathematics. You cannot start from some interpretational, empirical standpoint.

Thoughts We could in principle know the exact Form of any thought in terms of the sinusoidal basis waves that constitute it. That’s the rational, knowable side

of the situation. What we cannot know is the empirical side: how that thought is experienced by the monadic mind thinking it. No one can empirically know what another person is thinking. They could in principle know the exact rational Form of what the other person was thinking, but that’s an entirely different thing.

Apparatchik We often liken the science establishment – mired in groupthink, conformism and conservatism – to the Catholic Church. Given the atheism of scientific materialism, a more appropriate comparison might be with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This totalitarian regime was propped up by “Apparatchiks”. Wikipedia says of these: “Apparatchik is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government, i.e. an agent of the governmental or party ‘apparat’ (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called ‘Nomenklatura’. James Billington describes one as ‘a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details.’ It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described. ... apparatchik: ‘agent of the apparatus’. Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins English Dictionary the word can mean ‘an official or bureaucrat in any organization’.” Isn’t science “the Apparatus”? Isn’t it full of professional functionaries? Isn’t it full of people without grand plans and visions, who can do nothing but perform a hundred carefully executed details (none of which they understand)? At the top of science, presiding over the legions of apparatchik drudges, are the Nomenklatura – the “names” ... those scientists with status, prestige and fame. They are the popes of scientific irrationalism.

The Delusion Scientists subscribe to the following schema:

Science = real, concrete, sensory, actual. Math = unreal, abstract, non-sensory, potential. This schema is most evident in the standard – yet extremely bizarre – interpretation of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical wavefunction is regarded as an unreal, mathematical potentiality, from which actuality is plucked via observations. The absurd notion that reality is randomly collapsed from unreality by undefined observations by undefined observers can be dispelled instantly simply by concluding that the mathematical wavefunction is real. It’s insane to maintain that math doesn’t exist – is unreal – and yet that it defines the wavefunctions that determine all possible real outcomes. Scientists – by rejecting reason, logic, philosophy and metaphysics – are never asked to explain what they’re talking about, and to rationally defend it. Science is staggeringly speculative, and all of these speculations are accepted on the basis that, at some future point, they will be either falsified or verified by experimental data. This means that scientific ideas are never assessed for how logical and rational they are. They always come with a promissory note attached that they will one day be tested in the sensory world. Science never dismisses any idea for being logically and rationally impossible – such as unobserved cats that are simultaneously alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states. It only dismisses an idea when it is incompatible with science’s ideology of materialism and empiricism. Ghostly cats in multiple ontological states are perfectly acceptable to scientists, while the existence of the immaterial mind/soul is laughed out of court. Why is the existence of an autonomous mind regarded as lunatic, while a living/dead cat doesn’t raise an eyebrow? What’s wrong with these people?!

The Rosenhan Experiment “The Rosenhan experiment was a famous experiment done in order to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis, conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan (November 22, 1929 – February 6, 2012), a Stanford University professor, and published by the journal Science in 1973 under the title ‘On being sane in insane places’. The study is considered an

important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis. It was while listening to one of R. D. Laing’s lectures that Rosenhan wondered if there was a way in which the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses could be tested experimentally. “Rosenhan’s study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or ‘pseudopatients’ (three women and five men, including Rosenhan himself) who briefly feigned auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different States in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had no longer experienced any additional hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The average time that the patients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia ‘in remission’ before their release. The second part of his study involved an offended hospital administration challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact, Rosenhan had sent no one to the hospital. “The study concluded ‘it is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals’ and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labelling in psychiatric institutions.” – Wikipedia “Between 1969 and 1972, the clinical psychologist David Rosenhan and seven other people – none of whom had a psychiatric diagnosis – got themselves admitted to 12 different psychiatric hospitals around the United States. They did this by presenting with a single symptom, saying that they heard a voice which said words such as ‘empty’, ‘dull’ and ‘thud.’ Once admitted, they acted completely normally. Nevertheless, they were kept in for periods of between 8 and 52 days. Seven of them were diagnosed with schizophrenia and were released as being ‘in remission’; not one of them was judged to be sane. “After Rosenhan published On Being Sane in Insane Places in the journal Science in 1973, the psychiatric profession went on the defensive to protest its diagnostic competence. The study struck at the heart of their

attempts to medicalise psychiatry and be accepted as proper doctors. Its impact was felt when the third edition of the profession’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, came out in 1980: changes had been made which brought more rigour to the diagnostic process. “However, as Claudia Hammond discovers from Rosenhan’s unpublished papers, for him the study was less an experiment of diagnostic efficacy than an anthropological survey of psychiatric wards. In a chapter of the book he never finished, she reads his poignant account of his own first admission, and his sense that ‘minimal attention was paid to my presence, as if I hardly existed’.” – Mind Changers, BBC Radio 4 Science defines what, from its point of view, is mad and what isn’t mad, but it never asks whether it is itself mad. Just as psychiatrists don’t know who is mad and who isn’t, science has no idea what’s real and what isn’t. It uses a diagnostic technique (the experimental method) – just as psychiatrists do – but is science’s any more valid? It can’t be valid at all if unobservable, rational things exist.

The Problem With Science Science is so complex that by the time anyone has mastered it, they are mentally exhausted, and also wholly brainwashed by the ideology to which they have been exposed. The last thing they are going to do is think about the coherence and logic of this system. However, anyone who has the strength, will and intelligence can rise above science and see the myriad errors from which it suffers. These errors are absent from ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is everything science is not. No truly rational person could ever stomach science with all of its contingency, arbitrariness, and speculation. There is nothing eternal, necessary and a priori about science. It can never tell us the answers to ultimate reality since it does not share the same character as ultimate reality. Since existence is eternal, anything contingent and temporal – as science is – can never address its own cause. That’s why science – a self-deluded subject – finally rejects causality entirely and turns to indeterminism, indeterminacy and randomness. If it doesn’t do this, it’s compelled to acknowledge a deeper, hidden order, and, of course, the whole scientific method is predicated on the non-existence of anything not

susceptible to this method. This is not a stance of reason, but of prejudice – prejudice against anything non-sensory. That’s the whole problem with science – it’s an irrational belief system that maintains that anything dimensionless and immaterial cannot exist. Absurdly, it immediately contradicts itself since light – one of the most important entities in science – is dimensionless and immaterial. Black hole singularities are also dimensionless and immaterial, and, above all, the Big Bang singularity is dimensionless and immaterial. Scientists are almost literally praying that some great and final theory of quantum gravity will dispel singularities, whether black holes, white holes, light holes, or Big Bang Singularities. It’s never going to happen. The singularity is ultimate reality and is none other than the immortal mathematical soul.

Collection Empiricists (scientists) are collectors of data. Data is what is most real to them. Their data must always be sensory. Rationalists (mathematicians and metaphysicists) are evaluators of data. The evaluation and understanding of data – forming it into an adamantine system of knowledge – is what is most important to them. Data need not be sensory, and usually isn’t. Rationalists think entirely differently from empiricists. Reason, logic and math come first; observations and experiments second. For the empiricists, it’s the other way around.

Science versus Ontological Mathematics In science, nothing at all miraculously produces matter, and matter then miraculously produces mind. The whole thing is a religious faith in miraculous processes that happen for no reason at all, via no mechanisms at all. In ontological mathematics, an eternal Mind (Singularity) exists, reflecting eternal, necessary mathematics, and “matter” is created from it via Fourier mathematics. There are no miracles. Everything happens for a sufficient reason. Ontological mathematics is rational and logical. Science is the opposite. Only people of faith take science seriously. It’s a sensory belief system that rejects reason just as much as Abrahamism does. We have seen ontological mathematics being described by scientific materialists as a belief system.

That reveals how little they understand ontological mathematics, or science. Ontological mathematics, unlike science, is a system of pure reason and logic, hence is the opposite of faith. It doesn’t rely on magic, miracles, randomness, indeterminism, uncertainty, acausality, indeterminacy, chance, accident and the irrational worship of the senses, as science does. It’s pointless attempting to rationally debate with scientists given that, from the get-go, they reject the principle of sufficient reason. You cannot persuade any scientist with an exact, infallible, rational, logical argument. All they will pay attention to is the sensory “evidence” (which has nothing to do with reason and logic).

Substance Leibniz posited infinite substances (each individual monad is a unique substance), but each monad belongs to the same type or class of substance, and is defined by the same master formula. Spinoza relied on only one substance (God or Nature). Descartes had one absolute substance (God), and two relative substances (mind and matter), with matter comprising a single extended substance and mind comprising as many unique, unextended mental substances as God had created souls. Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism all posit a single noumenal substance (let’s call it the “Oneness”). Kant relied on unknowable noumenal substance or substances underlying all phenomena. Science has no real substances in the philosophical sense, but it refers to substance-like things when it talks of the atomic elements of the Periodic Table, subatomic particles, photons, dark energy, dark matter, “loops” and “strings” – but none of these is clearly defined. Quantum indeterminacy more or less abolishes any coherent idea of substance, of real things. It’s critical to grasp that quantum indeterminacy vanishes if its ontological implications are changed. In Illuminism, there are two domains: a mental one of frequency singularities, outside space and time, and a material one inside space and time. There’s no indeterminacy at all in this system, just precise mathematics, albeit reflecting zero/infinity singularities (at which conventional mathematics and science shudder). In scientific materialist quantum mechanics, no frequency domain outside space and time is accepted. Indeterminacy arises from trying to explain a system inherently reliant on two domains in terms of just one

domain. It can’t rationally be done, and thus it leads to multiple, incomprehensible interpretations. If there’s only one substance, it becomes a major difficulty to understand why individuation exists. For Schopenhauer, for example, true reality comprises a single cosmic Will outside space and time. This Will gets parcelled up into individual wills via the individuating filter of space and time, but it remains baffling why all of these individual wills should all be savagely competing with each other if they are in fact all ultimately the same Will.

Feelings “My feelings dictate my thinking.” – Henry Miller Most people “think” with their feelings rather than with their reason. This means that they think on the basis of what will give them short-term pleasure, and prevent them from having short-term pain. If you look at the bulk of humanity, you will see that it operates purely according to the pursuit of imminent pleasure, and avoidance of imminent pain. Reason doesn’t come into it. We live in an irrational world of feelings. That’s a fact. We live in a Mythos world of emotive narrative. We need to be living in a world dominated by Logos. Of course, the feeling types will rail against us for saying this. That’s their feelings speaking, of course. The prospect of living in a rational world causes them pain. After all, reason is something terrifying and alien to them, and they’re no good at it. It gives them pleasure to reject reason. Many religions make an appeal to a mystical Oneness that supposedly underlies all things. To those who consider mind primary and matter secondary, the question of the nature of mind becomes paramount. Is mind a single substance or countless unique substance belonging to the same class of substance (i.e. there are no substances other than unique minds)? In Illuminism, each mind is unique. There’s no cosmic, unitary mind of the type envisaged by Buddhism. However, all minds come closer and closer together the more they exercise reason – because the eternal truths of reason are the same for everyone. Reason is a universal language. At the Omega Mind, all minds act as single entity (a “God” of pure reason, thinking perfectly).

In Spinoza’s unitary philosophy, dogs, cats, and anything else, are manifestations of a single substance (God or Nature). In scientific materialism, all objects, living or dead, animate or inanimate, are made from atoms – which invites the question of how mindless, lifeless atoms overwhelmingly create dead, inanimate things, but sometimes create living things, some of which have minds and even consciousness. Moreover, how is free will possible if everything is made from atoms that have zero free will and obey inescapable laws of physics? Why do unfree things have the illusion they are free? Why do they ponder choices if what they are going to do is inevitable? Why not just get straight to it? How does a collection of atoms ponder if it loves this woman or that woman, and torment itself over its decision?

Individuation “John Duns Scotus elaborates a distinct view on hylomorphism, with three important strong theses that differentiate him. He held: 1) that there exists matter that has no form whatsoever, or prime matter, as the stuff underlying all change, against Aquinas, 2) that not all created substances are composites of form and matter, that is, that purely spiritual substances do exist, and 3) that one and the same substance can have more than one substantial form – for instance, humans have at least two substantial forms, the soul and the form of the body (forma corporeitas). He argued for an original principle of individuation, the ‘haecceity’ as the ultimate unity of a unique individual (haecceitas, an entity’s ‘thisness’), as opposed to the common nature (natura communis) existing in any number of individuals. For Scotus, the axiom stating that only the individual exists is a dominating principle of the understanding of reality. For the apprehension of individuals, an intuitive cognition is required, which gives us the present existence or the non-existence of an individual, as opposed to abstract cognition. Thus the human soul, in its separated state from the body, will be capable of knowing the spiritual intuitively.” – Wikipedia

German Idealism versus British Science Descartes, a Frenchman, was the founder of modern philosophy. His mindmatter dualistic philosophy subsequently splintered in two directions:

idealism and materialism. Idealism said that mind was the primary reality and matter its creation. Materialism said that matter was the primary reality and mind its creation. Both of these were monistic rather than dualistic positions. Where Descartes said that mind and matter had equal reality under God, idealists said that mind was the true reality, and materialists that matter was the true reality. The Germans were the great idealists and the British the great materialists (which says an enormous amount about the countries’ respective characters: the Germans were intellectual and cultural, the British practical and anti-intellectual). America, with its roots in the British Empire, adopted the British outlook. German idealism is a fabulous work of the mind, but wholly divorced from the everyday world with which we interact. British science was eminently well-suited to the sensible world, and became spectacularly successful, spawning the industrial revolution. Its success made German idealism seem far-fetched and pointless, and interest in idealism has been more or less dead since Marx inverted Hegelian idealism and turned it into dialectical materialism. If German idealism can be found anywhere in the post-Marxist world, it’s in psychology and, especially, the work of Carl Jung. In many respects, idealism is psychology: the study of the mind. Scientific materialism studies our physical bodies and the physical world in which they function. Psychology (idealism) studies mind, consciousness, the unconscious, free will, dreams, behaviour and mental illness. The war between materialism and idealism hasn’t ended. Materialism has seemed wholly triumphant through the success of science, while metaphysical idealism has all but vanished (outside academic philosophy). Yet the war has simply taken on a new guise ... within psychology. Hartmann merged Schopenhauer’s doctrine of a blind, striving Will underlying all things with Hegel’s rational, dialectical Geist (mind/spirit) to produce the concept of the Unconscious, comprising Will and Intellect, with the latter seeking to free itself from its enslavement to the former (by becoming conscious). Freud then took forward the idea of an unconscious lurking beneath our conscious and strongly influencing it. He tried to adopt a quasi-scientific approach to the unconscious, carrying out as many objective measurements and observations as he could contrive. However,

with notions such as the tripartite mind – consisting of ego, id and superego – he was right back in classical idealist territory, metaphysically speculating about the structure and functioning of the mind in a way Kant would have appreciated. Jung too attempted to approach the study of the mind scientifically, before becoming increasingly metaphysical. By the time of his death, he was more a less a fully fledged idealist metaphysician. His “Collective Unconscious” was exactly the type of concept that idealists had always spoken about. Watson and Skinner’s Behaviourist school of psychology (taking its inspiration from the classical conditioning experiments of Pavlov) sought to turn psychology into a “proper”, objective science by removing the mind (!) – or, rather, turning it into a black box about which nothing could be said – and simply concentrating on stimuli applied to a subject then observing the behaviour that consequently resulted. The stimulus could be accurately measured and varied, and the resultant behaviour could be objectively observed and measured too. Behaviourism and Pavlov’s work were the basis of brainwashing and operant conditioning. Psychology, once so supportive of idealism, has, in these areas, become increasingly materialistic. More and more attempts are being made to correlate physical brain states to mental states, to explain mind purely from materialist considerations. Just as science needs to undergo a revolution and replace physics with ontological mathematics, so psychology also needs to undergo a revolution, replacing physical brains with monadic Fourier minds. While physics should deal with the spacetime side of Fourier mathematics, psychology should deal with the frequency side. It’s the interaction of the frequency and spacetime Fourier domains that fully explains the world of our experience. Science and idealism must be brought together via a tertium quid (“third thing”) – mathematics – thus producing a grand synthesis. Math is the answer to everything.

***** “We are the gods of the atoms that make up ourselves but we are also the atoms of the gods that make up the universe.” – Manly P. Hall No, we are the gods that make up the universe.

The Foolishness It’s foolish for anyone to challenge INTJs and INTPs when it comes to rational ideas. They will definitely outthink you. That’s the way they’re built. You have your strengths, but being smarter than INTJs or INTPs isn’t one of them.

No Support Scientists don’t support reason. They support experience. They are empiricists, not rationalists. Scientists oppose reason. They do not see reality as fundamentally rational and mathematical.

Prime Matter “A very crude definition of matter would be that it is the ‘stuff’ out of which a thing is made, whereas form is signified by the organisation that the matter takes. A common example used by Aquinas and his contemporaries for explaining matter and form was that of a statue. Consider a marble statue. The marble is the matter of the statue whereas the shape signifies the form of the statue. The marble is the ‘stuff’ out of which the statue is made whereas the shape signifies the form that the artist decided to give to the statue. On a more metaphysical level, form is the principle whereby the matter has the particular structure that it has, and matter is simply that which stands to be structured in a certain way. It follows from this initial account that matter is a principle of potency in a thing; since if the matter is that which stands to be structured in a certain way, matter can be potentially an indefinite number of forms. Form on the other hand is not potentially one thing or another; form as form is the kind of thing that it is and no other.” – Wikipedia Modern science subscribes to a version of prime matter and form. Prime matter is the “stuff” of reality, acted upon by the mysterious laws of physics, which give form to prime matter, and create all of the subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and compounds from it. We might also view force particles (bosons) as giving additional form to matter particles (fermions). “On Aquinas’s account, there are certain levels of matter/form composition. On one level we can think of the matter of a statue as being the marble whereas we can think of the shape of the statue as signifying the form. But

on a different level with can think of the marble as signifying the form and something more fundamental being the matter. For instance, before the marble was formed into the statue by the sculptor, it was a block of marble, already with a certain form that made it ‘marble’. At this level, the marble cannot be the matter of the thing, since its being marble and not, say, granite, is its form. Thus, there is a more fundamental level of materiality that admits of being formed in such a way that the end product is marble or granite, and at a higher level, this formed matter stands as matter for the artist when constructing the statue.” – Wikipedia Aquinas accepted matter as the principle of individuation in material substances. However, if that were so, what was the individuation principle in immaterial substances such as angels? How could a multitude of different incorporeal (immaterial) angels exist? How would they be distinguished from each other? An appeal would have to be made to Aristotelian form. Aquinas concluded that each angel was a unique form, a unique essence. Thus no two angels could belong to the same species. This got Aquinas into logical and theological problems. If only God is pure matterless form then how could matterless angels exist at all? And why should God be prevented from making as many angels as he liked in a particular angelic species? The question of the composition and individuation of angels was one of the most hotly contested of the Scholastic period. “If we think of matter as without any form, we come to the notion of prime matter, and this is a type of matter that is totally unformed, pure materiality itself. Prime matter is the ultimate subject of form, and in itself indefinable; we can only understand prime matter through thinking of matter as wholly devoid of form. As wholly devoid of form prime matter is neither a substance nor any of the other categories of being; prime matter, as pure potency, cannot in fact express any concrete mode of being, since as pure potency is does not exist except as potency. Thus, prime matter is not a thing actually existing, since it has no principle of act rendering it actually existing.” – Wikipedia Science regards energy as a kind of formless prime matter, waiting to be formed by the laws of physics. In ontological mathematics, all energy is automatically formed (as sinusoidal waves), and automatically conveys the laws of ontological mathematics (which are built into the sinusoids). It’s

rationally essential to build in all the properties of existence into its basic constituents. In science’s M-theory, there are three classes of existence: 1) the laws of physics, 2) 1D energy strings, and 3) an 11D background of spacetime, involving three large spatial dimensions, seven rolled-up spatial dimensions, and one temporal dimension. None of these things has any necessary rational connection to the others. The whole scheme is arbitrary, ad hoc and heuristic. No rational and logical principles are admitted to Mtheory. It’s just an enormously complex mathematical theory based on a an absurd materialist and empiricist ideology (though precious little of it is actually capable of being experimentally supported). “Matter can be considered in two senses: (i) as designated and (ii) as undesignated. Designated matter is the type of matter to which one can point and of which one can make use. It is the matter that we see around us. Undesignated matter is a type of matter that we simply consider through the use of our reason; it is the abstracted notion of matter. For instance, the actual flesh and bones that make up an individual man are instances of designated matter, whereas the notions of ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’ are abstracted notions of certain types of matter and these are taken to enter into the definition of ‘man’ as such. Designated matter is what individuates some form. As noted, the form of a thing is the principle of its material organisation. A thing’s form then can apply to many different things insofar as those things are all organised in the same way. The form then can be said to be universal, since it remains the same but is predicated over different things. As signifying the actual matter that is organised in the thing, designated matter individuates the form to ‘this’ or ‘that’ particular thing, thereby ensuring individuals (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) of the same form (man).” – Wikipedia All such considerations – with all their subtleties and nuances – are dismissed by anti-intellectual science, which never relies on anything other than heuristics and instrumental definitions. Science has no ontology and epistemology. It’s a method, not an explanation of reality, or a coherent body of knowledge. There is nothing complete and consistent about science. “Given that form is the principle of organisation of a thing’s matter, or the thing’s intelligible nature, form can be of two kinds. On the one hand, form

can be substantial, organising the matter into the kind of thing that the substance is. On the other hand, form can be accidental, organising some part of an already constituted substance. We can come to a greater understanding of substantial and accidental form if we consider their relation to matter. Substantial form always informs prime matter and in doing so it brings a new substance into existence; accidental form simply informs an already existing substance (an already existing composite of substantial form and prime matter), and in doing so it simply modifies some substance. Given that substantial form always informs prime matter, there can be only one substantial form of a thing; for if substantial form informs prime matter, any other form that may accrue to a thing is posterior to it and simply informs an already constituted substance, which is the role of accidental form. Thus, there can only be one substantial form of a thing.” – Wikipedia It’s essential for science to be able to deal properly with form, matter, content, laws and prime matter. As things stand, science refuses to engage with these philosophical considerations, to science’s extreme intellectual detriment. “... essence is signified by the definition of a thing; essence is the definable nature of the thing that exists. A thing’s essence then is its definition. It follows that on Thomas’s account the essence of a thing is the composition of its matter and form, where matter here is taken as undesignated matter. Contrary to contemporary theories of essence, Aquinas does not, strictly speaking, take essence to be what is essential to the thing in question, where the latter is determined by a thing’s possessing some property or set of properties in all possible worlds. In the latter context, the essence of a thing comprises its essential properties, properties that are true of it in all possible worlds; but this is surely not Aquinas’s view. For Aquinas, the essence of a thing is not the conglomeration of those properties that it would possess in all possible worlds, but the composition of matter and form. On a possibleworlds view of essence, the essence of a thing could not signify the matter/form composite as it is in this actual world, since such a composite could be different in some possible world and therefore not uniform across all possible worlds. Thus, Aquinas does not adopt a possible-worlds view of essence; he envisages the essence of a thing as the definition or quiddity of

the thing existing in this world, not as it would exist in all possible worlds.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H5 Imagine how different science would be if all scientists were trained in Scholastic philosophy. A huge amount of idiotic scientific speculation would vanish overnight if scientists had to rigorously defend their hypotheses and theories, using a precise philosophy of clearly-defined terms. Precise philosophy and precise mathematics are exactly what science is disastrously lacking.

***** Prime matter, first matter, is not a substance according to Aquinas. It does not exist apart from any particular substance. It is always the matter of some substance that exists. In ontological mathematics, prime matter (prime content) and prime form are both conveyed by sinusoidal waves.

The Existence of God? “The existence of God [Duns Scotus says] can be proven only a posteriori, through its effects. The Causal Argument he gives for the existence of God says that an infinity of things that are essentially ordered is impossible, as the totality of caused things that are essentially caused is itself caused, and so it is caused by some cause which is not a part of the totality...” – Wikipedia An infinity of things that are essentially ordered is absolutely possible (just imagine an infinity of Gods ... if one God is possible, why not an infinite number?). Ontological mathematics provides an infinity of essentially ordered units (monads). These are eternal, necessary, uncreated, uncaused causes.

Infinity In ancient Greek philosophy, Anaximander said that “the Boundless” is the origin of all that is. Today, we would call the Boundless the Super

Singularity, made of infinite singularities, each of infinite energy (the positive and negative components of which balance to zero). In Judeo-Christian theology, there was always a tension about what infinity meant in relation to God. For some, God was unlimited in quantity, but others regarded this as heresy since they believed that only well-defined (hence finite) things could be perfect, while anything lacking in precise definition (the infinite) was imperfect. For others, God was unlimited in quality. For yet others, he was infinite insofar as he was without constraint.

One and Infinity Spinoza’s single substance (God or Nature) cannot plausibly explain individuality. If God is Nature, then there can be nothing in Nature outside God. Spinoza said, “As God is a being absolutely infinite ... and he necessarily exists; if any substance besides God were granted it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the same attribute would exist, which is absurd; therefore, besides God, no substance can be granted, or consequently, be conceived.” – Spinoza

***** “In an infinite universe of unending variation and variety, nothing is impossible, no matter how improbable it may seem and appear to normal common sense.” – Yuma Mossi In that case, God and the soul are possible!

***** Is there one God or infinite Gods, one substance or infinite substances, one mind or infinite minds?

The Avoidance Pythagoras’s ontological mathematical philosophy always avoided any taint of Christianity, or Abrahamism in general. Thank God!

The Universe Universe: from Latin universum (“one turn”; “turned into one [thing]”), from unus “one” and vertere “to turn”.

Neoplatonism The World Source = the “One” = the Singularity = “God”. This is the source of all being and becoming, of all life and mind. Everything else emanates from it. It’s pure mathematics. Its first emanation is the World Mind. The World Mind = the Nous = the Logos = the Platonic Laws of Mathematics. The World Mind, which is outside space and time, continuously calculates everything with perfect mathematical precision, at the speed of light (which is infinite speed in relation to spacetime, i.e. the Singularity speed of light seems infinite in comparison with the spacetime speed of light because nothing in the Singularity has to travel any physical distance in any physical time). It’s the World Mind that calculates and tracks the cosmic wavefunction of quantum mechanics as it continuously changes. This can be called the Mind of God, but it’s not a person’s mind, and it’s not conscious. It’s the Mind of minds, the Monad of monads. Any mind that can tune into the World Mind knows the whole of mathematics all at once and thinks at infinite speed, just like God. The first emanation of the World Mind and second emanation of the Source (the “One”) is the World Soul (Anima Mundi) – the Psyche. The World Soul has two components. The first is unitary and is outside space and time. All the minds are linked in what we might call the Jungian Collective Unconscious. Ideas can therefore be instantaneously propagated to, and through, all the minds in the universe. This is the basis of what Rupert Sheldrake calls “morphic resonance”. In Illuminism, it’s the basis of dynamic, dialectical, evolving Platonic Forms, converging on their respective Omega Points. “Intuition” is the ability to tune into the World Mind (Nous) and World Soul (Psyche) , outside space and time. The first emanation of the World Soul, the second emanation of the World Mind and third emanation of the Source of All is “Nature”, the material word of spacetime (the interface where mind and matter come together). Spacetime introduces the principle of “individuation”. The unitary World Soul fragments into countless individual souls – our souls! Outside space and time, our souls are united in the unitary World Soul. Inside space and time, all of our souls are individuated. We have a Collective

Unconscious outside space and time, and an individual (personal) unconscious and conscious inside space and time. The World Mind is Platonic in the sense that it reflects the perfect, immutable, eternal laws of mathematics. The World Soul, in its fragmented, individuated form is dialectical, dynamic and evolutionary rather than static and eternal. Its purpose, in effect, is to become equivalent to the World Mind, and hence be fully rational. It seeks to escape from the sensible world and embrace the intelligible world. It wants to abandon the phenomenal (illusory) for the noumenal (truth). It wants truths of reason rather than truths of fact. Most individual souls in Nature have no interest in higher things. They are mired in materialism and ruled by the Demiurge (Satan). Individual minds in nature that are questing after absolute truth (gnosis) are always contemplating higher things. They first of all contemplate the World Soul (Collective Unconscious) and, via that, they contemplate the World Mind, and, via that, they contemplate the Source (“God”) itself. In doing so, they become God. The more rational and mathematical you are, the more you reflect the true nature of things. The less rational and mathematical you are, the more bestial you are, and the more you are alienated from the truth. Mythos is all about lies. Logos leads us to the truth.

Physical Consciousness? “I favour a decidedly physicalist approach to the study of consciousness. ... This, of course, doesn’t mean that there cannot be something that transcends our rational understandings, but only that the best way to show evidence for it is to make sure that physics, chemistry, and biology are insufficient to the task.” – David Lane Lane, like all scientists, makes the absurd assumption that “rationality” implies physics, chemistry, and biology, and that anything that transcends these is therefore irrational. Never heard of mathematics, dumbo ... the quintessence of rationalism?! What does math have to do with “physicality”? How does science explain math? Why does science use math at all if it doesn’t know what math is and can’t define it?

“I am advocating what I call ‘The Remainder Conjecture,’ which stresses that we exhaust any and all physical explanations first before succumbing to what Paul Kurz called ‘The transcendental temptation’ where we prematurely jump ship and opt for supermundane explanations for erstwhile mundane events. ... Far too often in our rush for the transcendental, we accept anecdotes and claims that (given enough careful study and time) don’t pass critical scrutiny. In other words, if something is genuinely beyond science’s reach, it will invariably show up as a remainder. But if we are not skeptical enough we can easily be duped and mistakenly confuse a sleight of hand magician’s trick as a miracle.” – David Lane What, and science isn’t a magician’s trick when it randomly summons infinite universes out of non-existence for no reason at all? If that isn’t “transcendental”, what is? We have to escape from the ludicrous suggestion that science is anything other than a bad empiricist misinterpretation of mathematics. Anything that can be falsified is, by definition, not true. Equally, anything that needs to be empirically verified rather than rationally proven cannot be true. Science is a philosophical misinterpretation of reality based on the fallible human senses. It’s as “transcendental” as any religion. It has a religious faith in the existence of some mysterious, transcendental entity called “matter” that no one has, or ever could, access independently of the human mind. In other words, there is no rational reason to assume that “matter” exists independently of the mind. Science, unlike philosophy and religion, matches its conjectures to observable reality, but, crucially, uses mathematics to do so. Mathematics, however, has nothing to do with the senses, thus creating a fatal contradiction in science’s conceptual set-up. Philosophers wouldn’t rest until the contradiction was resolved. Scientists – anti-philosophers, anti-intellectuals – couldn’t care less. No scientist is ever worried by fatal contradictions. Many of the most cherished beliefs, principles and laws of science are absurdly contradictory. Lane said, “In other words, if something is genuinely beyond science’s reach, it will invariably show up as a remainder.” Really? How are we to assess this? Isn’t free will beyond science’s reach, or consciousness, or the unconscious, or life, or meaning, or purpose, or eternal necessity, or math, or the state that preceded the Big Bang, or life itself? Since when has science ever explained any of these things, and since when has it ever acknowledged these as “remainders”, outside science? Science refuses to consider anything outside science, i.e. science’s dogmatic stance is that

there can never be any such thing as a “remainder.” How can Lane simultaneously defend science and yet also promote his Remainder Conjecture, which contradicts science? As ever, such people are spectacularly irrational and inconsistent. “The good news in advocating this consilient approach is that if our self reflective consciousness is ultimately non-physical, then our science will end up driving itself to the very brink of an epistemological cul de sac and in the process reveal that which cannot be explained away. The materialist agenda, I suggest, should be fully embraced, by those most engaged in a spiritual quest since it is, ironically, the surest pathway to discover that which is immune to our rationalist inspections.” – David Lane This is gibberish. What lies beyond science isn’t irrationality, but rationality itself. Science is an empirical subject, not rational, and what lies beyond empiricism is rationalism. If we accept that the universe is rational then it must have a rational answer and the only rational answer lies in mathematics. Empirical science and religious and spiritual mysticism can never be an answer to the rational universe. Why do people such as Lane insist on linking science to rationalism, when, in fact, only mathematics can have this role? It’s literally a category error. Lane doesn’t even understand what science is, yet he says we must exhaust scientific “explanations” before contemplating anything else, at which point, he ridiculously claims, we have left reason behind! It’s about time these empiricist clowns and charlatans started answering the truly fundamental question – what is mathematics ontologically? The task is not to exhaust materialism and move onto spiritualism. The real task is to escape from irrationalism and move on to rationalism. Science is empirical, hence opposed to rationalism, hence formally irrational. You cannot look to an irrational subject for answers to a rational universe. Remember, the sole reason why science works is that it illegitimately uses rationalist mathematics. Without math, it would be alchemy – which was a spiritual religion. Forget materialism. It’s a wholly false starting point. There is not one shred of evidence that matter exists. All of our ideas regarding matter are exactly that – ideas ... in our minds! The proper starting point is mathematical rationalism and idealism, and to work out everything from there. No materialist ideas are required, and no

irrational mysticism and spiritualism. As for epistemology, science doesn’t have one, just as it doesn’t have an ontology. Science is simply a collection of hypotheses, none of which have any necessary connections with each other. The hypotheses regarding relativity have zero connection with the hypotheses concerning quantum mechanics, which is why they cannot be reconciled and thus provide a unified theory. As for Darwinian evolution, what possible connection does it have to either relativity or quantum mechanics? Go on, any scientist on earth, define how Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, or the absolute speed of light, directs evolution. Lane says, “...science will end up driving itself to the very brink of an epistemological cul de sac and in the process reveal that which cannot be explained away.” When has science ever acknowledged that it has reached an epistemological cul de sac? It can’t explain mind, yet will never admit that it can’t explain mind. It explains away everything, or claims it will be explained at some unknown point in the future. “...unless we fully option a materialist approach, we run the very real risk of prematurely optioning something as spiritual when, in fact, given better instrumentation and technical prowess it may well have been the result of subtle neuronal discharges.” – David Lane We shouldn’t option a materialist approach at all. If materialism is true there can be no world of mind. It’s absurd to seek to arrive at mind from a subject that denies the existence of mind (!). What an utterly irrational notion, one which is all too prevalent in irrationalists such as Lane. They just can’t think the problem through correctly. We live in a rational universe and that means we must address it rationally, and that means mathematically. There is no rational alternative, but infinite irrational alternatives, all of which are fallacious. Many of the “explanations” provided by science are as bad as it’s possible to get; even worse than those of mainstream religion. Mind is not what remains when you have exhausted materialism. There was no matter to start with. Either everything is mind or everything is matter. There’s no intermediate position. Lane’s “Remainder Conjecture” is irrational, mystical waffle. To talk of “subtle neuronal discharges” is to make statements that are empty of content. They mean nothing.

The Glass Delusion How can collections of lifeless, mindless atoms suffer from delusions? How can they imagine themselves “free”? Would any scientific materialist like to explain?

The Present Illuminism is a presentism theory. The only thing that exists is the present. The past happened, but has now gone forever. It’s not a location to which anyone can go. We can remember it, and place past events in relational order with regard to it, and nothing else. As for the future, it hasn’t happened yet so doesn’t exist. It has no location and no reality, although much of it is implicit in the present (just as the past is). Reality is simply an ever-changing cosmic wavefunction and the present is the state it’s in “now”. This is the only thing that exists. It’s not a question of time passing but of motion always going forward relentlessly, and with everything interacting with everything else. There’s nothing except this mathematical calculation and its present state (its present “solution”). It’s ridiculous to talk of making a tunnel in spacetime, or bending spacetime to link two different points or regions, since this implies something having persistence when in fact everything is mathematically calculated instant by instant, as in a video game (which is the perfect analogy for reality – how could you “bend” two states in a video game to make them into a spacetime game loop? ... you would simply calculate the feature there and then using math.) We do not inhabit a physical universe of persisting material things (as scientists believe). We inhabit a dynamic mathematical universe being calculated and recalculated instant by instant. The next instant closely resembles the previous instant because the mathematical calculation is extremely similar given that nothing has had the chance to change much. We are literally calculated beings that only ever exist in the instant. There is no “past” us locked in some region of spacetime, and, equally, there is no future us. We are what we are right now, and nothing else. The present is the only thing that has objective existence. The past and future exist only subjectively: we remember the past, and anticipate the future. The immediate future will strongly resemble the present because it’s simply the next click of a gigantic mathematical equation obeying a precise

mathematical causal law which determines what state it will have next. We are all contributors to this calculation. All of the things we choose to do affect it. It’s physically unaffected by all the things we might have done but didn’t. People have to abandon the illusion that the past is a real thing. Past things certainly happened, but they are no longer existents. They are not stored forever, as the advocates of the block universe claim, in some sort of bizarre set of infinite, linked snapshots of reality. No time machine can return us to the past. There’s nowhere to return to. Moreover, since the machine belongs to the present, it cannot exist in the past even in principle since it has no relationship to the past. It’s a category error to imagine present things going to the past where they never existed in the first place. Nothing persists. Everything is a calculation. We literally inhabit a razor’s edge of reality, the slenderist thing cosmically possible. Only the perfection of mathematics converts it into such a powerful illusion of enduring things. If you were a being without a memory, a creature that never once contemplated the past or future, you would inhabit true reality – “right now”. Except, of course, you wouldn’t be a thinking being at all. You would be like a bullet flying through the air. What does a bullet think of? Well, nothing at all. It’s just a mathematical object that has its origins in mental things but is not itself a thinking thing. It has no soul. If you have a soul, you will develop a memory (to link you to the past state of the cosmic wavefunction), and you will anticipate the future (new states of the cosmic wavefunction yet to be realised). Look around you. You imagine you are in a room that has existed for years. It hasn’t. It was calculated one instant ago. You are in effect inside a living video game. Rather than programs and algorithms (written by games programmers) constructing your environment for you, the environment is constructed by countless mathematical minds – monadic souls ... of which you yourself are one. You inhabit a self-writing holographic video game. Moreover, it’s a selfoptimising, self-solving, teleological game. The best is yet to come, i.e. when we reach level infinity of the game, the final, winning level ... where we all become Gods. Isn’t it wondrous? “Matter” is just a mathematical, holographic illusion constructed by minds.

Minds – souls! – and their mathematical calculations (performed via the God Equation) are all there is. Dreams are your own private video game. Waking “reality” is the collective, public video game. There is no such thing as time as understood by physicists. What they inconsistently and incoherently call time is actually just mathematical imaginary space. It doesn’t “flow”. It’s static. What moves – the agent of change – is mathematical energy which is eternal becoming, eternal motion. It moves (mathematically) regardless of space or imaginary space (time). The movement of mathematical energy outside space and time is none other than what constitutes thinking. In spacetime, it constitutes physics. That’s the secret of existence. Space and time are secondary, not primary as physics claims. Motion is primary, and motion outside space and time is thought.

Eternalism When properly understood, eternity is just the present moment dynamically recalculated forever.

Conservations Laws All conservation laws logically depend on everything being exactly recalculated from instant to instant. In science, which is no respecter of conservation laws, the most bizarre things can happen. Existence, if science is to be believed, can be randomly and miraculously summoned out of nothing at all ... the most egregious breach of energy conservation. In quantum mechanics, the absurd claim is made that energy can be borrowed from the past or future, or both. This means that reality is not conserved from instant to instant, and also requires that the past and future somehow co-exist with the present (in order for energy to be taken from them). None of this is remotely coherent. However, since science has no ontology and epistemology, does not obey the principle of sufficient reason, has no rational and logical first principles, then the most bizarre and impossible notions are permitted in science. Scientists would rather believe in uncertainty, approximation, temporality and contingency than in certainty, precision, eternity (composed of an ever-changing present) and necessity. It’s their materialism,

empiricism and anti-rationalism that makes them “think” in this irrational way.

Leibnizian Science The God Series is a series of books about Leibnizian science. All of our criticisms of scientific materialism and empiricism are those Leibniz himself would make. Our science is that of scientific idealism and rationalism = ontological mathematics.

The Revolution One of the greatest tragedies in history was that Robespierre and Saint-Just were executed, thus destroying the energy and principles of the French Revolution, and paving the way for the megalomaniacal emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Had Robespierre and Saint-Just led the Revolution for several decades – into their fifties and sixties – France would now be the greatest nation on earth, and the meritocratic beacon for the world.

Passive and Active Intellect “In Aristotle’s philosophy of mind, the passive intellect (nous pathetikos) ‘is what it is by becoming all things.’ By this Aristotle means that the passive intellect can potentially become anything by receiving that thing’s intelligible form. The active intellect (nous poietikos) is then required to illuminate the passive intellect to make the potential knowledge into knowledge in act, in the same way that light makes potential colours into actual colours. The analysis of this distinction in On the Soul is very brief, and it has led to dispute as to what it means.” – Wikipedia What does science say about the intellect? Nothing at all. Science is a profoundly anti-intellectual subject. It doesn’t care about intellectual things, only sensory things, which are incredibly dumb things. “Later philosophers, including Averroes and St. Thomas Aquinas, have proposed mutually exclusive interpretations of Aristotle’s distinction between the active and passive intellect. Other terms used are ‘material intellect’ and ‘potential intellect’, the point being that the active intellect works on the passive intellect to produce knowledge (acquired intellect), in the same way that actuality works on potentiality or form on matter.” – Wikipedia

It’s much more useful to describe intellect in psychological terms, such as those of Freud, with his ego, id, superego, or Jung, with his ego, shadow, persona, self, anima/animus and mana personalities on the one hand, and his extraversion, introversion, sensing, intuition, feelings and thinking on the other. All of these are different types of intellect, leading to radically different worldviews and understanding of reality. “Averroes held that the passive intellect, being analogous to unformed matter, is a single substance common to all minds, and that the differences between individual minds are rooted in their phantasms as the product of the differences in the history of their sense perceptions. Aquinas argues against this position in the Disputed Questions on the Soul (Quaestiones disputatae de Anima), and asserts that while the passive intellect is one specifically, numerically it is many, as each individual person has their own passive intellect.” – Wikipedia Likewise, a monad is one specifically, but numerically it is many. Each monad is a noumenal person: a person in itself. “The active intellect (also translated as agent intellect, active intelligence, active reason, or productive intellect) is a concept in classical and medieval philosophy. The term refers to the formal (morphe) aspect of the intellect (nous), in accordance with the theory of hylomorphism.” – Wikipedia Rationalists are on the side of active intellect. They analyse and evaluate data. Empiricists on the other hand are on the side of the passive intellect. They merely gather data via their senses. Is reality about data gathering, or data analysis and evaluation? “The early Greek commentators on Aristotle, in particular Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, gave several different interpretations of the distinction between the active and passive intellects. Some of them regarded the active intellect as a power external to the human mind, Alexander going so far as to identify it with God.” – Wikipedia Pure reason is ultimate active reason, and all of us can access it. It’s universal. “Al-Farabi and Avicenna, and also the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, agreed with the ‘external’ interpretation of active intellect, and held that the active intellect was the lowest of the ten emanations descending through the

celestial spheres. Maimonides cited it in his definition of prophecy where, ‘Prophecy is, in truth and reality, an emanation sent forth by the Divine Being through the medium of the Active Intellect, in the first instance to man’s rational faculty, and then to his imaginative faculty.’” – Wikipedia This is where philosophy takes off into anti-mathematical, speculative nonsense. “The more strictly Aristotelian Muslims (in particular Avempace and Averroes) wrote about how one could conjoin oneself with the active intellect, thus attaining philosophical nirvana.” – Wikipedia These views have a great deal in common with Buddhism. “The reason of the Islamic and Jewish Aristotelians for positing a single external Agent Intellect is that all (rational) human beings are considered by Aristotelians to possess or have access to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a unified correct knowledge of the universe. The only way that all human minds could possess the same correct knowledge is if they all had access to some central knowledge store, as terminals might have access to a mainframe computer. This mainframe is the Agent Intellect, the ‘mind’ of the universe, which makes all other cognition possible.” – Wikipedia The “mainframe” is ontological mathematics. The eternal truths of reason are the fixed and stable set of concepts that provide a unified, correct knowledge of the universe. “In medieval and Renaissance Europe some thinkers, such as Siger of Brabant, adopted the interpretation of Averroes on every point, as did the later school of ‘Paduan Averroists’. Thomas Aquinas elaborated on Aristotle’s distinction between the active intellect and passive intellect in his Disputed Questions on the Soul and his commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, arguing against Averroes that the active intellect is part of the individual human personality. A third school, of ‘Alexandrists’, rejected the argument linking the active intellect to the immortality of the soul, while hastening to add that they still believed in immortality as a matter of religious faith.” – Wikipedia Note how without mathematics, all of this descends into mumbo jumbo, and mystical speculation. Mathematics is the antidote to bullshit. Metaphysics is in as much need of ontological mathematics as science is.

“The active intellect, in the sense described, is more properly called the Agent Intellect, as it is the force triggering intellection in the human mind and causing thoughts to pass from the potential to the actual. It must not be confused with the ‘intellect in act’, which is the result of that triggering, and is more akin to the psychological term ‘active knowledge’. Another term for the final result of intellection, that is to say a person’s accumulated knowledge, is the ‘acquired intellect’.” – Wikipedia Mathematics is the Agent Intellect, and it can be accessed via reason and logic alone.

***** In Illuminism, all rational minds come to the same rational conclusion, namely, that mathematics alone provides the eternal truths of reason that underlie all things. Knowledge of the verities of mathematics is the rational glue that binds together all rational minds. In this regard, all rational minds are identical. However, since they are also subjective minds with their own feelings, perceptions, perspectives, will and desires, they are by no means identical.

***** “What is peculiar in Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle is the meaning he gives to the Aristotelian doctrine of the Active and Passive Intellect. His predecessor, Avicenna, taught that, while the Active Intellect is universal and separate, the Passive Intellect is individual and inherent in the soul. Averroes holds that both the Active and the Passive Intellect are separate from the individual soul and are universal, that is, one in all men.” – New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia Mathematics is the same for all species in the universe, but every species has its own science, based on its particular sensory configuration. “The sun, for instance, while it is and remains one source of light, may be said to be multiplied and to become many sources of light, in so far as it illuminates many bodies from which its light is distributed; so it is with the universal mind and the individual minds which come in contact with it.” – New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia

Equally the same can be said of mathematics. It’s the sun of existence, conveying the light of reason.

***** Avicenna taught that the Active Intellect is universal and separate, while the Passive Intellect is individual and inherent in the soul. By analogy with the Neoplatonic Psyche with its unitary upper part and fragmentary lower part, we might refer to an upper and lower Nous, with the unitary upper Nous being God, and the fragmentary lower Nous belonging to man. Only the upper Nous survives death (because it’s God). Averroes, Avicenna’s successor, maintained that both the Active and Passive Intellect are separate from the individual soul and are universal, i.e., the upper and lower Nous both belong to God and not to man. The Nous as a whole survives death. Nous is called “passive”, “possible” or “material” when it’s acted upon, and “active” when it acts. Loosely speaking, we might say that when we are taking conscious decisions, our minds are active, but when we are being acted upon by our unconscious mind and by our senses and feelings, our conscious mind is passive and merely furnishes the raw mental material out of which active ideas are fabricated. In this scenario, the unconscious mind is capable of being active and, it could be argued by thinkers such as Averroes that the Prime Mover at the root of the Collective Unconscious is God himself. Averroes also introduced the notion of the “Acquired Intellect” (intellectus acquisitus, adeptus), meaning the individuated mind in communication with the unitary Active Intellect. While the Active Intellect is “one”, there’s an acquired intellect for every individual soul with which the Active Intellect interacts. This acquired intellect dies when the individual dies. In essence, an immortal universal mind is in contact with countless mortal individual minds. Schopenhauer’s philosophy has elements in common with this view. He believed in a single Cosmic Will that goes on forever, individuating itself in mortal spacetime bodies. Buddhism says something similar. For Leibniz, it’s not one mind that underlies everything but countless individual monadic minds. A metaphor used in relation to Averroes’ philosophy is that of the sun and its sunbeams. There is one sun but countless sunbeams. The sun goes

on and on, but each sunbeam “lives and dies”. Each beam is created by its source, connected to its source, and informed by its source, but has only a fleeting existence. We might say that each of our minds is illuminated by the central sun (the universal mind of God), but the light eventually goes out in each individual (mortal) mind, though new minds (souls) are always being created. However, this makes us seem passive when in fact we are clearly active. Interestingly, Buddhism and Stoicism seek to make us passive, to make us abandon desire and active willing. You might as well be dead. When we say “I”, and when we all behave in radically different ways, we are showing that we are own active agents, and not the puppets of some cosmic “I”. That’s why Leibniz’s monadic system is so much more rational than any notion of a single cosmic Mind (the doctrine of Monopsychism). With Monopsychism, there can be no individual immortality, hence why Buddhists don’t believe in the self (the individual soul). Averroes openly denied personal immortality as a philosophical concept, as did Aristotle, his philosophical mentor. As a result, Averroes was eventually depicted as “the arch-enemy of the faith”, by Muslims and Christians alike. Where Aristotle and Averroes said there was no such thing as individual immortality, Avicenna and Aquinas said there was. Regarding the question of there being a different potential intellect in each human being, Aristotle gave an ambiguous answer (probably yes), Averroes said no, and Avicenna and Aquinas said yes. In relation to the question of there being a different active intellect in each human being, Aristotle, Averroes and Avicenna all said no, while Aquinas said yes.

Monopsychism The doctrine of monopsychism, or the doctrine that there is but one mind in the cosmos, is a prominent belief of Buddhists. Such a doctrine denies the individual soul and personal immortality. When Buddhists seek to achieve a state of No Mind, or Non-Mind, what they actually mean is One Mind. They want to abandon the mind of the individual – with all of its problems – and switch to the unitary collective mind: the Collective Consciousness of bare awareness, so to speak, which is conceived as a state of infinite peace

and tranquillity, i.e. nirvana. Yet it’s exactly where the individual is annihilated ... removed entirely from existence. You might as well call it “death”! Buddhism is a death cult.

The Three Groups Averroes claimed that humanity is divided into three groups: 1) Those, the vast majority, who live by imagination (Mythos, as we would now say) rather than reason (Logos). They need religious preaching, parables and stories, which all work on the imagination and feelings. 2) Those, the theologians, who seek rational justification for their beliefs, but who are contented with merely probable proofs, or with revelation and faith if they are contradicted by reason. 3) Those, the small elite of philosophers, who seek absolute, incontestable, rational certainty and will not accept faith, revelation, Mythos or merely plausible hypotheses (such as those of science, which are never proved but always provisional). So, to which group do you belong? Averroes, like Hegel later, said that art and religion were for those with less able minds, while philosophy was reserved for the intellectual elite, who were, by implication, much closer to God’s own mind, God being the God of Reason. Averroes knew that philosophy would be ineffective for the masses. They require prophets, preachers and endless Mythos that fires their imaginations. However, no thinker would ever be satisfied with preachers, prophets, priests and their tall tales. They crave rational satisfaction, and will not settle for anything less. Alexander of Aphrodisias identified the Active Intellect of Aristotle’s philosophy with God. Avicenna and Averroes identified it with the Intelligence of the sublunary world (which, in Gnostic terms, makes it the mind of the Demiurge rather than of the True God). Averroes, in one passage, equated the passive intellect with the imaginative faculty of individual humans, implying that it dies with individual humans. Elsewhere, he suggested that it belongs to God (or the Demiurge), and that it’s the acquired intellect that corresponds to the mortal imaginative faculty. (Aristotle himself was no clearer on such subtleties.)

We might say that the potential intellect is from God, but acts individually in each human. The death of the human results in the end of the operations of the potential intellect in that body, but not the death of the potential intellect itself (since it belongs to God). Thomas Aquinas, on the contrary, argued that the potential intellect was individuated (belonged to the individual) and so was the active intellect, hence humans have immortal intellects.

***** Monopsychism: all humans share a common mind or intellect. This is somewhat related to Jung’s notion of the Collective Unconscious, or the Buddhist notion of a Collective Conscious of bare awareness. The intellect (the intellective soul) has both an active component, “the agent intellect”, and a passive component, the “possible intellect”, which is the wax tablet (or tabula rasa) – initially blank – on which the active component leaves its imprints (as concepts and knowledge acquired from the senses). In empiricism, only our senses populate the tabula rasa. In the philosophy of the “active intellect”, the active rational mind also populates the tabula rasa, meaning that the tabula rasa does not consist of sensory experiences alone but also the ideas derived from experiences, and also the innate ideas that have no connection with the senses. Philosophers asked whether the active and passive minds belonged together or were separate, and was there just one active and passive mind for everyone to share, or one collective active mind and a separate, individual passive mind for everyone, or an individual active and passive mind for everyone. The active mind was thought by many thinkers to properly belong to God and to provide a single set of Platonic absolute truths, common to all minds. The active mind was therefore an extra-human, separate substance – a divine substance. The passive mind was the source of our individual thoughts (and accounts for why we don’t share thoughts and think the same things). Averroes, however, said that the intellect, active and passive, is a single impersonal substance (this is the doctrine of monopsychism) and individual but mortal human souls can enter into contact with it in their own individual ways. In this view, the irrational part of a human soul is destroyed at death without affecting the intellect (which belongs to God). Buddhists have similar views.

The notion of a single rational mind underlying all human beings, but not animals, provides a simple explanation of why all humans can share language, concepts, knowledge, mathematics, reason and logic, etc., but animals can’t. But the individuation of human thinking and behaviour then becomes problematic. Some thinkers said that if intellectual operations were based on sensory data (unique to each individual), unaided by intellect, then this would explain individuated thinking. This ultimately leads to the philosophy of empiricism.

***** The Collective Conscious is the supra-individual intellect posited by Averroes. Such a view removes moral accountability from humans since their moral thinking is actually performed by God! The Fifth Lateran Council of 1513 formally denounced the view that the intellective soul is mortal in any way, and that there’s only one Intellect for everyone (i.e. God’s Intellect).

No Knowledge There is no knowledge whatsoever in David Hume’s philosophy. He’s a total skeptic. There is no “naive” epistemology since there’s no epistemology at all. An epistemology is either true or false, and any “naive” epistemology is automatically false. How can you use a “naive” epistemology to establish an ontology? It’s an absurdity. If the epistemology is naive, so is the ontology. Science starts off from a false, fallacious, naive epistemology – based on a sensory data gathering method (experiments) – and, from that, creates a ludicrous ontology based on acausation, randomness, indeterminism, statistics, probability, chance, accident, infinite contingent regress, uncertainty, fuzziness, unreal wavefunctions, and existence leaping out of non-existence for no reason. Many people become stuck in a logical No Man’s Land where they struggle to understand what ontology and epistemology actually are. They get stuck talking about empirical Content (what they directly experience) and ignore rational Form, i.e. the logical rules and laws that establish how experience is possible at all, and the ontological information carriers that reflect them and convey all experiences.

Experience isn’t a given. It can’t exist in isolation. It’s not the fundamental feature of reality as so many second-rate thinkers claim. Experience is just information, and information is impossible without an information carrier. Given that we experience information and not the information carrier, the information carrier is empirically hidden from us, but it’s not rationally hidden from us. Reason and logic can give us direct knowledge of the invisible information carriers (mathematical sinusoids). Reason and logic are not about feelings, perceptions, sensations, observations, and experiments. Reason and logic transcend experience and take us directly to the noumenal, non-sensory world of mathematics. You can’t understand reality unless you can grasp that all sensory things (phenomena) are derived from non-sensory things (noumena), and that minds themselves (the things that actually do the experiencing and sensing) are themselves non-sensory. Thoughts are non-sensory, so how can any sane person claim, as scientists do, that non-sensory things cannot exist? They are denying their own thoughts and minds! We are mathematical minds interpreting mathematical information, conveyed by mathematical sinusoids. That’s reality in a nutshell. Nietzsche said that there are no facts, only interpretations. What he should have said is that there no empirical facts, only empirical interpretations. There are however rational and logical facts ... those of mathematics. Anything that anyone says that is not strictly about mathematics is guaranteed to be an opinion, conjecture, belief, hypothesis or interpretation since it cannot belong to any eternally true, eternally necessary ontology and epistemology. It’s a delusion that “knowledge” means knowledge of everything. It doesn’t. It means knowledge of that which can be known, and all that can be known is mathematics. Everything that doesn’t deal with mathematics itself cannot be “known”; it can be experienced, which is something entirely different. We can create any number of false epistemologies and ontologies regarding our experiences – exactly as science does, and also as philosophy and religion do – but all of those attempted “explanations” will remain forever as contingent interpretation, with little or no truth content. They can have truth content only to the extent that they intersect with reason, logic and mathematics. Scholastic philosophy, for which Leibniz had a high regard, but which science found absurd, actually has a high degree of truth content because

the rational arguments it deploys to prove the existence of God turn out to be almost identical to the rational arguments required to prove the existence of Math! Science is true purely to the extent that it uses math, hence can’t help but reflect mathematical truth. It’s not experiments and sensory evidence that give science its truth, but it’s non-sensory, non-experimental math. No scientist has ever grasped that. No scientist has ever performed the simple thought experiment of imagining a perfect scientific world of perfect experiments and perfect experimental results ... but without mathematics. The most perfect experiments conceivable will avail you nought in the absence of math. Experiments are just disparate sensory snapshots. They tell you nothing until they are converted into mathematical formulae. Plainly, science, without math, would be useless. This raises the question of why we need science at all. Why don’t we turn purely to math? The main obstacles are scientists themselves, who perversely rail against math and call it “unreal”, “abstract”, “manmade”, without seemingly realising that if any of those claims were true then it’s preposterous that science uses math at all. These scientific ignoramuses and illiterates are hoist with their own petard. They are destroyed by their own absurd “logic”. Being illogical is exactly their primary problem, and is what is most holding back science.

Quality It’s staggeringly hard for high quality work to succeed in a low quality world, full of low quality people.

When Ronnie Real Comes Knocking Know Thyself Keep it Real Get Real

The Dawn This is the Dawn of the Coming Race, of the Supermen. The HyperHumans are coming. H2.

The Language of Existence Every book in existence obeys some language or another – a grammar, a syntax, a vocabulary. We can “know” the language up to a point (but, even then, all languages are evolving and mutating, so are never truly knowable), but we can have no idea what books will be written in those languages, i.e. we can know the language’s Form, but we don’t know what Content it will be used to produce. Mathematics is the language of existence, and provides the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of existence, but we can have no idea what particular mathematical functions are going to be generated in a mathematical universe comprising mathematical monads interacting with each other, and in constant feedback loops with each other. We can know the eternal, necessary Form of math, but we can’t know the temporal, contingent Content it generates. You have to be extremely clear about what ontology and epistemology actually mean, and what their limitations are. We can know how a mathematical universe will operate (its Form). We cannot know how it will unfold detail by detail, and we cannot know how it will be experienced and interpreted by subjective minds (Content). These are not the subject matter of knowledge.

Absence Scientists notoriously believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. What they ought to say is that absence of sensory evidence is evidence of sensory absence, and no more than that. No conclusions can be drawn, via the senses, concerning non-sensory entities. Scientists, such is their sensory mania, have never understood this simple point. They cannot conceive of non-sensory things, so they dismiss them out of hand. Of course, pure mathematics, so indispensable to the scientific project, is entirely non-sensory, hence, by science’s “logic”, must be considered not to exist ... which would make it a manmade construct; an unreal abstraction. How, rationally, can science – a subject supposedly addressing reality – be based on an unreal, manmade abstraction? That would make science itself an unreal, manmade abstraction! Indeed, science is a human sensory Mythos.

Only the math part of science is true and real ... the opposite of what scientists believe. The rest is the product of science’s half-baked philosophy, ideology and dogmatism. In the end, science simply replaces rational, mental, deterministic causes with irrational, non-mental, random “causes”. In place of “God” and “mind” (meaning and teleology), scientists put chance, accident, statistics and probability (meaninglessness and purposelessness). Where Leibniz posited substances (monads) that perform actions, science posits actions that perform themselves. Substances – eternal, necessary ontological entities – are abolished by science, leaving nothing but eternal contingent regress, or existence randomly jumping out of non-existence for no reason via no mechanism. When you get rid of substances (God or monadic minds, i.e. uncreated, uncaused eternal things), nothing is left to you but to “explain” things via self-performing, self-booting miracles and magic. Do you find that rational and logical?

Content “Red” is the empirical Content corresponding to a specific rational Form. Sodium has a specific underlying Form, so does Chlorine, and so does Sodium Chloride. From the Form of Sodium and the Form of Chlorine, we could easily work out the Form of Sodium Chloride (just as we can in Chemistry). However, what we can’t do is know how sodium chloride will be experienced based on how sodium is experienced and how chlorine is experienced. This is an empirical issue regarding Content, not a rational issue regarding Form. We can know Form in advance. We can even “know” Content in advance since all compounded Content is, like all compounded Form, made up of absolute basis units. However, what we can never know is how we will experience that Content. We can never predict in advance how we will experience things we have never encountered before. We can know that a certain frequency of light is accompanied by a specific sensation of “blue”, but the word “blue” is meaningless to us until we first see blue, and, even when we have seen it, we can never know if our “blue” is the same as anyone else’s blue. We can certainly rationally assume this to be the case, but we could never have any direct evidence or proof of this. You can’t have “knowledge” of empirical matters, only of rational matters. Knowledge and experience are two very different things, and

should never be confused (although they are invariably are).

***** “Synthetic” propositions can be of two types: 1) synthetic rational propositions (dealing with Form), and 2) synthetic empirical propositions (dealing with Content). They are radically different things. Leibniz wanted to construct a perfect set of basis analytic statements, and all valid synthetic statements would then be straightforward combinations of those basis statements. George MacDonald Ross wrote, “[Leibniz] envisaged a larger version of his mechanical calculator being used to mechanise all reasoning processes, once all possible thoughts had been given a number through his projected ‘Universal Characteristic’. Instead of fruitless arguing, people would say, ‘Let us calculate’ – and they could do so by setting the dials and cranking the handle of the machine (one of a number of Leibnizian schemes satirised in Swift’s Voyage to Balnibarbi).” Leibniz said, “But to return to the expression of thoughts by means of characters, I thus think that controversies can never be resolved, nor sectarian disputes be silenced, unless we renounce complicated chains of reasoning in favour of simple calculations, and vague terms of uncertain meaning in favour of determinate characters. “In other words, it must be brought about that every fallacy becomes nothing other than a calculating error, and every sophism expressed in this new type of notation becomes in fact nothing other than a grammatical or linguistic error, easily proved to be such by the very laws of this philosophical grammar. “Once this has been achieved, when controversies arise, there will be no more need for a disputation between two philosophers than there would be between two accountants [computistas]. It would be enough for them to pick up their pens and sit at their abacuses, and say to each other (perhaps having summoned a mutual friend): ‘Let us calculate.’” Any synthetic statement nor properly formed from analytic statements or that could not be deconstructed into valid analytic statements would ipso facto be false. Such a scheme would certainly work rationally, but not empirically. If Leibniz’s scheme were possible, we couldn’t live in a free world. It would be an entirely predictable, algorithmic, computer world.

The system that perfectly reflects Leibniz’s dream is just the number system itself ... which is where all true knowledge resides. Any number is either an analytic basis number, or a synthetic number deconstructable into analytic basis numbers. All synthetic numbers are made of analytic prime numbers that cannot be further reduced. Prime numbers constitute the number alphabet from which all number “words” are made. However, nothing else can reflect this numerical perfection. We can’t give how we experience something an analytic number, yet it’s how we experience something that determines our behaviour, decisions, interpretations, opinions and beliefs, so analytic numbers are useless in this context. You cannot “know” in advance how you will experience something, how you will react to it. No one can prepare you for the experience of the colour red before you first encounter it, no one can describe it to you, and that goes for all sensory experiences. Content-wise, every experience is built of atomic experiences, but experience isn’t like knowledge, so we can’t “know” what any novel experience will be like before it has occurred. There are objective laws for combining atomic Forms to create “molecular” Forms. Experiences, however, aren’t objective. They’re subjective. We can’t state, on the basis of subjective atomic experiences, what a molecular experience will be like that’s constructed from those experiences. That’s the difference between rationalism and empiricism, Form and Content, objectivity and subjectivity, quantity and quality. Knowledge is about rationalism, Form, objectivity and quantity. Experience is about empiricism, Content, subjectivity and quality. The catastrophic epistemological error that’s present throughout philosophy and science is to regard subjective experiences as “knowledge”. It’s a category error. Knowledge is something that can be taught. You can teach someone that 1 + 1 = 2, and they can then go and tautologically derive the rest of mathematics from that. You can’t teach someone what a rose will smell like, and no one can work out from how a rose smells how a fish will smell, i.e. empiricism involves a set of unique experiential, subjective “facts”, while rationalism involves a complete analytic collection of tautological facts. Genuine knowledge flows automatically from eternal basis rational facts, but not from empirical basis facts.

Experience is not a body of knowledge. Nothing at all in experience leads inexorably and inevitably to the next thing in experience. The fundamental error of science is to try to relate empirical facts to rational truths (via quasi-mathematical formulae), and to disregard rational truths where no empirical facts are possible (in singularities, for example, or in the domain of imaginary and complex numbers). Science uses the absurd notion of “emergence” to try to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism. It claims that life and mind “emerge” from organising lifeless, mindless atoms in specific ways. It claims that the properties of sodium chloride emerge unpredictably from the respective properties of sodium and chlorine. But how can miraculous emergence have any connection with knowledge? Science will never explain the origin of life and mind since it has no knowledge-based means of doing so. It will be stuck with “emergence” – non-knowledge – forever. “Emergence” is simply magic and miracle relabelled to satisfy scientific squeamishness, and to prevent science from being a mystical religion (which is what it actually is). You have to be absolutely clear what constitutes knowledge and what doesn’t. The experience of the colour red is just that – an experience. It’s not knowledge. If it were knowledge, it would be analytic, tautological, and we could explain it to someone else who had never yet encountered it. Anything that cannot be explained to anyone else cannot be objective knowledge, but is merely subjective experience. Scientists state that life comes from lifeless atoms, but they can’t explain this. They can’t make it part of a system of knowledge, so they invent the word “emergence” to pretend they have some idea of what is going on, but emergence literally explains nothing and can have no connection with knowledge. Just as opium “causes” sleep by its sleep-inducing qualities (this of course is to state and explain nothing, and to merely take opium’s observed effect of sleepiness and relabel it as cause rather than an effect), so emergence causes emergence by its emergence-inducing qualities. Emergence is one of the most absurd ideas ever presented. In fact, it’s not an idea. It’s a childish means of repackaging observed effects as unexplained causes, e.g. you claim that “emergence” produces life when lifelessness is arranged in a certain way. This explains nothing at all, and especially doesn’t explain how life can ever arise from something that doesn’t contain any life. This was impossible before, and remains

impossible after. “Emergence” sheds zero light on the issue. You might as well invoke faith, magic or God. People imagine that everything is somehow knowable. This is utterly fallacious. Knowable things are certainly knowable (by definition), but there’s a whole world of unknowable things – subjective experiences. You have experiences, you don’t know them. You can experience red or blue and never be able to explain what either is to a blind man. You can explain math to a blind man and he will know math. You can explain “blue” to a blind man and he will have no idea what you are talking about. That’s because this isn’t knowledge. Knowledge can be transmitted equally to everyone. No one on earth will disagree that 1 + 1 = 2. Opinions and beliefs can be transmitted, but will generate tremendous opposition in those who don’t share those opinions and beliefs. Experiences can be described, but those descriptions will be meaningless to those who can’t have, or haven’t had, those experiences. None of these things can ever constitute knowledge. Everything that is knowable can be known, but all that can be known in any true sense is math. Empiricism made the absurd claim that all knowledge derives from experience. This is exactly where knowledge does not come from. Experiences are not, and never can be, knowledge. Empiricism, as Hume showed so brilliantly, leads to total skepticism – the opposite of knowledge. Hume basically denied that anything is knowable. Science – practical empiricism – escaped Hume’s skepticism by blatantly cheating ... by adding a rationalist mathematical engine, i.e. it went outside empiricism to advance its empiricism, something that would have repelled Hume for its sheer intellectual dishonesty and fraud. What science does is pattern-matching, nothing more. It empirically observes a pattern in Nature, then seeks a theoretical, rational mathematical formula to match it ... thus linking the rational order to the empirical order. When it gets a good match, it calls this “knowledge”. It can be used to predict new things, and it can be taught. The problem is that this practical type of knowledge is self-limiting. It can’t be applied to anything that doesn’t produce an observable pattern, and it’s ad hoc, arbitrary, inconsistent and incomplete. Nothing is ontologically defined. Nothing is part of any formal epistemology. Science invokes principles of verification and falsification, but these have no connection with eternal, immutable, infallible, Platonic knowledge

and Truth, which can be neither falsified, nor experimentally verified. Science is useful and successful, but it’s emphatically not true. It’s a model or simulation of knowledge, but it’s not knowledge itself. It works thanks to its use of mathematics, the one and only subject of true knowledge, but it systematically abuses and misinterprets mathematics. It has no mathematical rigour, consistency and completeness.

***** Are subjective experiences knowledge? – No. Are religious faith and revelations knowledge? – No. Are mystical intuitions knowledge? – No. Are the verifiable/falsifiable pattern-matching exercises of science knowledge? – No, but they’re more useful than pure empiricism, religion and mysticism. We might call them “practical” knowledge since they are a useful empiricist-rationalist hybrid, matching mathematics to observable Nature, albeit in a piecemeal way driven by a fallible method rather than infallible proof. True knowledge is what comes after science (physics), i.e. metaphysics = ontological mathematics. There is no “universal” logic that will solve every problem. This is impossible. Eternal, necessary logic can never address the temporal, contingent, empirical order. It was for exactly this reason that Hegel had to introduce a brand new type of living, dynamic logic – the dialectic, predicated on contradiction, hence the opposite of conventional logic, which was designed to avoid contradiction. Valid logic flows directly from the eternal, necessary laws of ontological mathematics, and applies only to those eternal, necessary laws. Any other type of logic (leaving aside the dialectic) is invalid. Like science (which is actually invalid mathematics), invalid logic may be useful in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t alter its invalidity. Hegel introduced dialectical logic to provide some means to relate the eternal rational world to the temporal empirical world. The promise of the dialectic is to reconcile both worlds at the Absolute (i.e. the Omega Point). Leibniz wanted to treat mathematics, science and metaphysics as one – and that’s exactly what ontological mathematic accomplishes. Of course,

mathematics at the time of Leibniz was primitive compared to its current state, so Leibniz was tempted to use logic instead to achieve his goals. However, Leibniz’s work in that regard is now redundant since complete and consistent ontological mathematics does everything he required. Ontological mathematics is the universal and formal language of existence – the characteristica universalis. Those who are not so comfortable with mathematics, shy away from this. Some prefer logic, and keep looking for new logical schemes to try to “answer everything”, but logic has none of the power of ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the end of the line for rationalism. There’s nowhere beyond it, nowhere else to go. Ontological mathematics is both the characteristica universalis and the calculus ratiocinator. Wikipedia says, “The Calculus ratiocinator is a theoretical universal logical calculation framework, a concept described in the writings of Gottfried Leibniz, usually paired with his more frequently mentioned characteristica universalis, a universal conceptual language. There are two contrasting points of view on what Leibniz meant by calculus ratiocinator. The first is associated with computer software, the second is associated with computer hardware. The received point of view in analytic philosophy and formal logic, is that the calculus ratiocinator anticipates mathematical logic – an ‘algebra of logic’. The analytic point of view understands that the calculus ratiocinator is a formal inference engine or computer program which can be designed so as to grant primacy to calculations. That logic began with Frege’s 1879 Begriffsschrift and C.S. Peirce’s writings on logic in the 1880s. Frege intended his ‘concept script’ to be a calculus ratiocinator as well as a lingua characteristica. That part of formal logic relevant to the calculus comes under the heading of proof theory. From this perspective the calculus ratiocinator is only a part (or a subset) of the universal characteristic, and a complete universal characteristic includes a ‘logical calculus’. A contrasting point of view stems from synthetic philosophy and fields such as cybernetics, electronic engineering and general systems theory. It is little appreciated in analytic philosophy. The synthetic view understands the calculus ratiocinator as referring to a ‘calculating machine’. The cybernetician Norbert Wiener considered Leibniz’s calculus ratiocinator a forerunner to the modern day digital computer: ‘The history of the modern computing machine goes back to Leibniz and Pascal. Indeed, the general idea of a computing machine is

nothing but a mechanization of Leibniz’s calculus ratiocinator.’ (Wiener 1948: 214) and ‘...like his predecessor Pascal, [Leibniz] was interested in the construction of computing machines in the Metal. ... just as the calculus of arithmetic lends itself to a mechanization progressing through the abacus and the desk computing machine to the ultra-rapid computing machines of the present day, so the calculus ratiocinator of Leibniz contains the germs of the machina ratiocinatrix, the reasoning machine.’ (Wiener 1965: 12) Leibniz constructed just such a machine for mathematical calculations which was also called a Stepped Reckoner. As a computing machine, the ideal calculus ratiocinator would perform Leibniz’s integral and differential calculus. In this way the meaning of the word, ‘ratiocinator’ is clarified and can be understood as a mechanical instrument that combines and compares ratios. Hartley Rogers saw a link between the two, defining the calculus ratiocinator as ‘an algorithm which, when applied to the symbols of any formula of the characteristica universalis, would determine whether or not that formula were true as a statement of science.’ (Hartley Rogers, Jr. 1963; p. 934). A classic discussion of the calculus ratiocinator is Couturat (1901: chpts. 3,4), who maintained that the characteristica universalis – and thus the calculus ratiocinator – were inseparable from Leibniz’s encyclopaedic project (chpt. 5). Hence the characteristic, calculus ratiocinator, and encyclopaedia form three pillars of Leibniz’s project.” But ontological mathematics does not help at all regarding the “facts” of subjective experience. Nothing can help with this. Red will always need to be seen for someone to have the experience of red, to “know” what red is (but, as we have said, this is not knowledge at all, although it’s claimed to be so by empiricists).

***** “Leibniz’s views about the systematic character of all knowledge are linked with his plans for a universal symbolism, a Characteristica Universalis. This was to be a calculus which would cover all thought, and replace controversy by calculation. The ideal now seems absurdly optimistic...” – G. H. R. Parkinson Ontological mathematics covers everything that can be known, and provides the basis of everything that is experienced too. Ontological mathematics conveys the mathematical information that we interpret as our

moment-by-moment experiences (and which, of course, we interpret as though it weren’t mathematics!). “The logician Kurt Gödel, on the other hand, believed that the characteristica universalis was feasible, and that its development would revolutionize mathematical practice.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics will revolutionise metaphysics, psychology and religion.

mathematics,

science,

***** We can know the objective, rational Form of the universe. We cannot know how it is subjectively experienced and interpreted (except in terms of our own unique experiences and interpretations), but we can use Hegelian dialectics to work out how a subjective universe lacking in true knowledge will unfold – via the crude, savage clash of binary opposites. Through this clash, the rational truth slowly and painfully evolves. We get to the Truth in the end, but only having exhausted every false idea. Science is just another false stage on that great cosmic journey, and must be replaced by ontological mathematics if humanity is to advance. Ontological mathematics addresses the eternal, necessary order of existence and specifies its basic units (monads). The dialectic addresses the temporal (historical), evolution of the subjective interpretation of this external order. In the end, all monads come to a full rational understanding of the rational (mathematical) universe, but only after exploring every absurd alternative possibility. Ontological mathematics (objective, eternal, necessary) and the dialectic (subjective, temporal, contingent) ... that’s all there is. Ontological mathematics is immutable, while the dialectic is ever changing, evolving and becoming. The combination of ontological mathematics and the dialectic (reflecting how living mathematical monads solve and optimise themselves) is the complete, total and perfect explanation of everything. No other solution is possible. In terms of formal logic, reality is driven by 1) static AristotelianLeibnizian logic, reflecting the eternal analytic order of ontological mathematics, and 2) dynamic Hegelian dialectical logic, reflecting how living things evolve conscious awareness of what they are.

Aristotelian-Leibnizian logic is supremely elegant and perfect; Hegelian dialectical logic is supremely crude, brutal, crazy, messy, and inefficient ... as we see all around us every day! Geniuses understand Aristotelian-Leibnizian logic; brutes unknowingly deploy dialectical logic. Ontological mathematics is the pinnacle of rational thinking. The dialectic is the pinnacle for explaining the irrational thinking that actually drives the human understanding (or, rather, misunderstanding) of reality ... and is why all errors will ultimately be corrected.

Time Einstein claimed that spacetime was four dimensional. He denied that it was a substance yet claimed it could be “bent”. How a non-substance can be bent is something no scientist has ever bothered to explain, yet when populist scientists model spacetime problems for TV audiences, they invariably take a sheet of card – a substance – and start folding it over to demonstrate curved spacetime. In ontological mathematics, there’s only mathematics. “Spacetime” is therefore a strictly mathematical domain (of complex numbers). It’s derived, via Fourier mathematics, from an underlying mathematical frequency domain outside space and time. Since the mathematical basis of everything is the Euler Formula which defines a unit circle in the complex plane, curvature is in fact inherent in existence. It’s linearity and flatness that are in need of vindication. The universe, at its most fundamental, comprises mathematical energy contained within units known as monads. This energy is inherently dimensionless, immaterial, outside space and time. Fourier mathematics allows frequency energy functions to be represented in an entirely different way: as spacetime matter functions. The frequency domain (mental universe) comprises dimensionless mathematical energy (“dimensionless” meaning outside space and time). The spacetime domain (matter universe) comprises dimensional energy (matter), which, being dimensional, inherently occupies spacetime (i.e. “dimensional” means in space and time). “Dimensional” energy is spread out energy (“extended”), while dimensionless energy is not spread out (“unextended”). Where dimensional energy is highly localised, scientists refer to it as matter. Where it’s not

highly localised, scientists refer to it as “space”, as if space were a container for matter and something different from matter.

The Einstein Syndrome Einsteinian relativity predicted black hole singularities and the Big Bang Singularity, yet Einstein rejected both. Why? Because these are nonempirical states. Singularities do not belong to science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Einstein reflexively rejected them for ideological reasons ... because he was a typical scientist who was willing to contemplate only “scientific” things. When Edwin Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, this immediately implied that the universe had begun from a Singularity, thus demonstrating that scientific evidence can be produced to support the existence of apparently non-scientific entities. Einstein was certainly a genius, but emphatically not a genius of the first rank (such as Leibniz). Einstein was critical of common sense, yet not critical enough to have announced to the world that singularities exist, and that the spacetime world itself began from a Singularity. He suspected, probably rightly, that he would destroy his career if he made any such claims – even though they were right there at the core of his theory. The person who got Big Bang theory going was in fact a Belgian Catholic priest called Georges Lemaître (!). Why was it a priest of all people who had one of the greatest and boldest ideas of all time? The answer is simple. As a Catholic, Lemaître wasn’t an atheistic scientific materialist, i.e. he was very different from the normal groupthink, conformist scientists who have, today, completely hijacked the subject. Lemaître – whether consciously or not (in fact, he tried to be a good little scientist, playing the scientific game) – was highly motivated to look for something that supported his religious beliefs. So, when he came to Einstein’s theory, he, unlike Einstein himself, was radically open-minded to the possibilities it contained. He soon enough realised that Einstein’s theory predicted what could easily be interpreted as a Creation Event. The Big Bang could be the event where the Catholic God proclaimed, “Let there be Light!” Lemaître was careful not to make such claims, no doubt for fear of being ostracised from science, but it’s impossible to believe that these notions weren’t firmly in his mind.

Although Lemaître was bold in comparison with Einstein and the conservative scientific community, he wasn’t all that bold given that he was reaching a conclusion that would be music to the ears of the Church to which he belonged. In other words, where non-religious thinkers automatically steered themselves away from any line of argument that seemed to imply the existence of God, Lemaître was – at least at some level – as strongly motivated in the opposite direction, i.e. to seek arguments that could actively support the existence of God. In his own way, Lemaître was as closed-minded as Einstein. Whether he admitted it or not, he was fixated on defending his Catholic beliefs, just as Einstein was fixated on not producing a theory that seemed metaphysical rather than physical (almost invariably a fatal error in terms of scientific credibility). Scientists are never looking to adopt positions compatible with theology. Lemaître, as a priest, was. Here we see the most perfect example of how scientific theories are riddled with biases, prejudices, beliefs, opinions, interpretations, philosophies, worldviews, paradigms, groupthink, conformism, and so on. Einstein looked at his own theory and saw a good theory with strange abstractions. Lemaître looked at exactly the same theory, at those very abstractions that were so problematic for Einstein, and saw concrete evidence for the existence of God, and the Creation Event described in the Book of Genesis. How is it possible for the same theory to be able to produce two diametrically opposed theories of existence? According to Einstein, his theory concerned a static universe. According to Lemaître, Einstein’s theory concerned a Big Bang Singularity, followed by an expansion of the universe. So, how many other scientific theories are being relentlessly interpreted in one way – to support a certain ideological and dogmatic stance – but, with a little imagination, could be interpreted in the opposite way? Quantum mechanics is even worse than Einsteinian relativity in this regard. There are around twenty wildly different interpretations of quantum mechanics that imply radically different ontologies and epistemologies. All of these theories – which contradict each other – are consistent with the available experimental data, i.e. we know for a fact that experimental results are not sufficient for falsifying scientific claims. Logically, either all, or all bar one, of the interpretations of quantum mechanics must be wrong

(false). After all, there can only be one reality, one Truth, one true ontology and epistemology. Science claims to support a principle of falsifiability, but none of these wrong and false interpretations can be falsified by the prevailing experimental data, which means that it’s a joke to claim that science can prove theories false. Science is always mired in interpretation. As soon as a theory seems about to be falsified, it can simply be reinterpreted, just as Einstein’s have been in relation to quantum entanglement. The expansion of the universe showed that Einstein’s static universe was false, but few scientists then agreed with the Catholic Church that the Big Bang was proof of God’s Creation. To avoid any theological or metaphysical conclusions, science now rallies behind the logical impossibility that existence can randomly and miraculously spring out of non-existence for no reason at all, via no mechanism at all. (So-called quantum mechanical indeterminacy is often dragged in to bolster such notions.) Science has to make this claim because, to do otherwise, would be to acknowledge the existence of God, or some eternal, necessary order of existence beyond science and the scientific method. Science, like any religious faith, refuses to conclude that it is itself false. Ontological mathematics is the exact means by which the Big Bang can be understood as a rational mathematical event, rather than an empirical scientific event. However, scientists, despite using math all the time, and despite the fact that science would be 100% useless without math, are fanatically resistant to accepting that the universe is mathematical. Why? – because mathematical rationalism refutes scientific empiricism. Scientists reject math because they are people of the senses rather than people of reason. The senses seem concrete, while math seems “abstract”, so math is dismissed as the basis of reality. Just as Einstein rejected singularities, so does all of science reject singularities. Even now, theoretical scientists are trying to produce theories that avoid Einsteinian singularities. Adding quantum mechanics to relativity will, they think, help them to accomplish this. Like Lemaître, they ought to be embracing singularities. If they did, they wouldn’t find themselves in the theological world of the Catholic Church. Instead, they would find themselves in the hyperrationalist, mathematical world of Leibnizian monads, each of which is a singularity.

Singularities are minds. As soon as you accept the real existence of singularities, you leave behind the scientific claim that minds come from matter, and reach the opposite conclusion, namely that matter comes from mind. You leave science, and become mathematical This transition, this ultimate paradigm shift, is certain to happen, but the vast majority of scientists will fight it bitter step by bitter step. As Max Planck so chillingly said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” He made this devastating indictment regarding the intellectual integrity of science and scientists: “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.” Planck saw the horrific truth of science: it’s a faith, and believers never abandon their faith. They die out and are replaced by people who don’t share the same faith. It’s that replacement process, not science itself, that lead to new ideas and progress. Today, the scientific mind has almost totally closed down. Someone such as Lemaître would never get a look-in in today’s world of science. He would be called a crank and religious lunatic. Science is now almost 100% populated by conformist groupthinkers, drudges, drones and apparatchiks. No new thinking that contradicts the prevailing Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism is ever accepted. In the whole history of science, it has never been harder for new ideas to be introduced into science than it is now. Science is now exactly like the Catholic Church, persecuting freethinkers such as Galileo. Like the Catholic Church, it thinks it has done nothing wrong, and believes itself fully on the side of the Truth. Einstein is a chilling example of how scientists deliberately avoid interpreting their own theories in the most obvious way, how they invent fudge factors to save themselves from the implications of their own theories. Einstein notoriously inserted an entirely arbitrary “cosmological constant” (a repulsive force) into his theory, to balance the force of gravity and ensure the outcome he wanted of a static universe. There was no need for this ideological add-on, but it reveals that Einstein was unwilling to accept his own theory because its implications were too disturbing. How many other scientific theories are weighed down by absurd fudge factors? How many other scientists have, like Einstein, censored their own

theories, and mangled them to make them more acceptable to the prevailing scientific ideology? Scientists are spectacularly intellectually dishonest. They refuse to follow reason and logic. They have excluded the principle of sufficient reason from the halls of science, which means that science is always driven by empiricist ideology and dogmatism rather than rationalist logic. If Einstein had been a rationalist rather than an empiricist, he would have arrived at entirely different versions of his theories. He would in fact, have reached the ultimate rational destination ... ontological mathematics. We are right and science is wrong. Why? – because we use the principle of sufficient reason, not faith, or the senses, or opinions – to establish what is right and what is wrong. Experiments don’t tell you what the truth is ... reason and logic do. Reason and logic take you to the Platonic world of eternal, infallible, immutable, necessary Truths. Nothing else does. Science certainly doesn’t. Science is the quasi-religious faith of “seeing is believing”. Scientists are the kind of people who, like Doubting Thomas, would take Jesus Christ seriously if they touched his wounds rather than realising that he rationally must be a total fraud since every claim ever made by him is logically impossible. We don’t give a damn about sensory experiences. They prove nothing. Even if “God” stood right in front of us, we still wouldn’t believe in him. We would immediately set to work to rationally work out what trick he was performing! Fuck the senses. Fuck any sensory God. Fuck any sensory answers to anything at all. The answer to ultimate existence, you can be 100% certain, will not be something that presents itself to your delusional senses, feelings or mystical intuitions. The answer will be, and is, perfect reason, perfect logic ... perfect mathematics. If you don’t like that answer, soz! The Truth is only for the smartest people in existence. It’s certainly not for the dumbest. Gnosticism was a message reserved exclusively for the elite few, those capable of attaining the highest knowledge. Where the Abrahamists said that “God” created the world, the Gnostics said it was the Devil (the Demiurge) ... the 100% opposite conclusion. You should always be prepared to draw the 100% opposite conclusions from everyone else, as long as you have reason, logic and math on your side.

Science is just a new type of religion ... that of the senses rather than of feelings or mysticism. Mathematics is the only subject on the side of reason and logic. You have a simple choice. You must decide which Jungian faculty will reveal the truth to you: 1) the senses, 2) intuition, 3) feelings, or 4) thinking (reason). If you choose 1), you will be a scientist, if 2), you will be a follower of Eastern religion or New Ageism, if 3), you will be an Abrahamist, and, if 4), you will be a metaphysicist and mathematician. It’s entirely your choice. If this is a rational, intelligible universe, only option 4) can be right. If 4) isn’t right, this isn’t a rational, intelligible universe. It’s an irrational, illogical, unintelligible universe of magic and miracles ... so you can believe whatever you like since one crazy belief is as valid as any other crazy belief in a crazy universe. Humanity has chosen to be crazy. Higher Humanity chooses to be rational and logical. We want to know, to understand, and our sole tools are reason and logic.

Georges Lemaître, Father of the Big Bang “According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous. ... “In 1927, Lemaître published in Belgium a virtually unnoticed paper that provided a compelling solution to the equations of General Relativity for the case of an expanding universe. His solution had, in fact, already been derived without his knowledge by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. But Friedmann was principally interested in the mathematics of a range of idealized solutions (including expanding and contracting

universes) and did not pursue the possibility that one of them might actually describe the physical universe. “In contrast, Lemaître attacked the problem of cosmology from a thoroughly physical point of view, and realized that his solution predicted the expansion of the real universe of galaxies that observations were only then beginning to suggest. By 1930, other cosmologists, including Eddington, Willem de Sitter, and Einstein, had concluded that the static (non-evolving) models of the universe they had worked on for many years were unsatisfactory. Furthermore, Edwin Hubble, using the world’s largest telescope at Mt. Wilson in California, had shown that the distant galaxies all appeared to be receding from us at speeds proportional to their distances. It was at this point that Lemaître drew Eddington’s attention to his earlier work, in which he had derived and explained the relation between the distance and the recession velocity of galaxies. Eddington at once called the attention of other cosmologists to Lemaître’s 1927 paper and arranged for the publication of an English translation. “Together with Hubble’s observations, Lemaître’s paper convinced the majority of astronomers that the universe was indeed expanding, and this revolutionized the study of cosmology. A year later, Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle – the ‘primeval atom’ as he called it – which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology. “It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific

validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two: “‘As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.’” – Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge (American Museum of Natural History Book) by Steven Soter (Editor) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (Editor) Lemaître was one of those strange people trying to straddle two horses at once: Catholicism and scientific materialism. This makes him a rather shifty character, neither fish nor fowl, but at least he had a broader perspective than that of pure scientists. Lemaître couldn’t bring himself to talk of an outright singularity as the basis of the Big Bang. Instead, he referred to a primordial atom – a material object. Even today, many scientists want to banish a Big Bang Singularity and replace it with some super dense atom, containing the entire universe. As ever in science, such an atom could have no conceivable rational explanation or justification.

The Tensed and Tenseless Theories of Time Most people, including scientists, have no idea what time is. Most of them don’t even know that there are two radically different theories of time called tensed and tenseless. The latter treats time as a form of space and thus as static. The former treats it as dynamic (changing) and thus as motion rather than as space. With the tenseless view, time is treated like space, with coordinates. To refer to dates and years is to give time coordinates. These are eternal coordinates, i.e. they have always existed. In this view, time is already laid out. To “live” simply means to activate each pre-existing coordinate in succession. Some time, you will activate the instant that corresponds to your death, and after that you won’t activate anything ever again. But every instant of your existence, including your death, will still exist, frozen for all eternity. Conceivably, some force could go back and rerun it – over and over again, as in Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence. With the tensed view of time, reference is made to past, present and future. The past was real but is now behind us, the present is our true reality

(what we’re actually experiencing right now), and the future is unreal (it doesn’t exist), but will exist in due course (when it will be the present). We cannot change the past because it has already happened, but we can change the future because it’s “open”: it’s not fixed. What we do in the present will decide what happens in the future. The future is not ordained. It hasn’t already been written. According to the tenseless theory, the future (or, rather, the set of all times that lie ahead of the present moment rather than behind it) is fixed. Just as there are planets in the vast universe that we don’t yet know anything about, so the future exists, but we don’t yet know anything about it. All “future” events are already locked into spacetime: all coordinates are already written. Our fate has already been decided. Consider the Big Bang from the two different views. In tenseless time, the Big Bang and all subsequent events are already present on a cosmic spacetime coordinate map. In tensed time, the entire future lies ahead and is unreal insofar as it hasn’t happened and no one knows, or can know, what will happen there. Novelist L. P. Hartley wrote, “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” He could equally have written, “The future is a foreign country: we don’t know what they will do there.” All clairvoyants who claim to “see” the future are subscribing to a tenseless theory of time. All those who believe that we might travel to the future are assuming there is something there to which to travel, hence they too are subscribers to the tenseless theory. In the tensed theory, the future doesn’t exist, so there’s nowhere to go. The past is real to the extent that it happened, but it’s unreal in the sense that it cannot now be reached. It doesn’t exist as a location to visit. It’s not like New York! In tensed time, the past was real (it really happened), and the present moves along into the as yet unreal future, promptly converting it into the real past.

***** “The odd thing is that none of these concepts [past, present and future] is uniquely defined in our most fundamental description of physical reality.” – Professor Stephen Hawking

Hey Stephen, did no one tell you – nothing at all is defined in science’s most fundamental description of physical reality. No ultimate definitions are possible in an instrumental rather than ontological subject such as science. “Something which flows, changes with time. But how can time change with time? It’s a logical impossibility.” – Professor James Hartle Time doesn’t change with time, just as space doesn’t change with space. Time is simply imaginary space. It’s motion, not time, that’s the source of change. Motion is permanent flow. Something which flows does not change with time. It’s the flow itself – the motion – that’s the source of change. Moving things move through real space and imaginary space (time). They do so differentially, depending on their speed through space and their speed through time. Things moving fast through real space move slowly through imaginary space (clocks slow down), and things moving fast through imaginary space move slowly through real space (they cover little or no distance). Clocks measure our relationship with imaginary space. They do not measure motion. All things move at exactly the same speed – the speed of light, but all things in spacetime manifest two derived speeds: a speed through space and a speed through time. By Pythagoras’ Theorem, the square of the speed through real space plus the square of the speed through imaginary space (time) equals the square of the speed of light. The net speed is always that of light speed for everything in the universe. It’s not only the cosmic speed limit, it’s the sole net speed at which everything moves. Time doesn’t change with time. Motion causes changes in time. When something has fast motion through real space, it has slow motion through imaginary space, i.e. clocks slow down not because time is slowing down but as a side-effect of motion taking place more through real space than through imaginary space. Motion is the key to the system of change, not time. Time is just imaginary space. It has nothing to do with change.

Time “There are two dominant – and incompatible – theories of time: the tensed theory, and the tenseless theory. The tensed theory of time most resembles the popularly-held view of time. The tensed theory requires there to be a

present moment (the ‘now’), and a distinction between an event in the past, present, and future (an event in the past was real, an event in the present is real, and an event in the future will be real). Notice that the ‘now’ moves. This apparent movement of the ‘now’ is an essential feature of the tensed theory of time. “However, there is a philosophical (and logical) problem to this idea of a moving ‘now’. Put simply, it raises the question which has puzzled philosophers: ‘How fast does time flow?’ If the ‘now’ moves then it must move with respect to some time reference. So is it moving with respect to itself? Surely not. To say ‘Time moves at the rate of one second per second’ is meaningless. Rather, the rate of time flow would have to be measured with respect to some secondary, external time reference. However, [we] stressed that there was no clock outside the universe, so there could not be any such external time reference. It is simply logically impossible for there to be a moving ‘now’. Time does not ‘flow’!” – http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp This is the typical nonsense that physicists spout because they have catastrophically failed to understand the primacy of motion, and that time is no more concerned with motion than space is. Time (imaginary space) and space (real space) simply form a coupled container in which motion occurs. Motion is separate from both. Motion can occur without time. Photons move but do not experience the passage of time; and in fact don’t experience the passage of space either. All energy in the dimensionless, immaterial frequency domain is in pure mathematical motion, and nothing at all to do with physics (which concerns the spacetime material universe). Pure mathematical motion is mental motion. Time doesn’t flow at any rate. It doesn’t flow at all. Motion flows and that which is permanently expressed through motion is simply mathematical energy. Energy is the basis of motion, change and flow, not time. The alternative is to consider a universe in which all of time is laid-out (just as the space dimension is laid-out), and there’s no moving “now”. All times are equally real. As there is no special “now”, there is no distinction between past and future. This is the tenseless theory of time. Most physicists favour the tenseless theory as the most accurate representation of time. It’s also called a block universe model because all of spacetime can be regarded as laid-out in one unchanging, four-dimensional,

spacetime block. According to this model, every moment in time is equally real.

***** “But we all feel a ‘flow’ of time in which an unknown and unfixed future becomes our present moment before being relegated to the past. How can we reconcile this feeling with the block universe in which all of time is laidout, and there is no moving ‘now’? It emerges that the feeling we have of the passing of time is nothing more than an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the time axis: we can remember the past, but we cannot remember the future. This then gives the illusion of a flow of time with the unknown future becoming the fixed past.” – http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp Are you buying that? Are you buying the crazy claim that for no reason at all, we “remember” the past, but not the future? What possible reason could there be for that given that the past has no privileged status over the future in the block universe? Why don’t we remember the future and have no memory of the past? In T. H. White’s Merlyn The Once and Future King, Merlyn is “born backwards in time”. Merlyn says, “Now ordinary people are born forwards in Time, if you understand what I mean, and nearly everything in the world goes forward too. This makes it quite easy for the ordinary people to live, just as it would be easy to join those five dots into a W if you were allowed to look at them forwards, instead of backwards and inside out. But I unfortunately was born at the wrong end of time, and I have to live backwards from in front, while surrounded by a lot of people living forwards from behind. Some people call it having a second sight.” In fact, “now” is nothing to do with time. “Now” is the tip of a moving arrow. There’s no arrow of time, only a one-way arrow of motion. The present is always where the arrow-tip is currently located.

Mathematics Only in mathematics is truth to be found. Truth exists nowhere else. All else is belief, opinion, conjecture, interpretation. Is that what you want to base your life on?

Eternal Life “It might come as a surprise that this orthodox ‘block universe’ view of time in fact leads us to conclude that we possess a form of eternal life! This is a consequence of the principle that in the block time model all periods of time are equally real. If a loved one dies, you might take some comfort from the knowledge that this period of time in which your loved one is dead has, in fact, no greater reality than the time when your loved one was alive. According to physics, it is just as valid to consider your loved one as alive as it is to consider them dead! “Einstein took comfort from this knowledge when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died. He wrote a letter consoling Besso’s family: ‘Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.’ “Of course, the flip-side is that you’re already dead!” – http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp Given Einstein’s attempt to “comfort” Besso’s family, he was plainly on the autistic spectrum! There is an absolute distinction between past, present, and future. No one can ever go back to the past. It’s not there anymore. It’s not a destination anyone can go to. Equally, the future doesn’t exist. No one can go there. According to Einstein, the future has already happened (which would make it the past!). Einstein’s ideas are exactly those of a fortune teller, clairvoyant or precog ... and of all the other charlatans who claim to know the future. In Einstein’s system, the future can be known since it already exists, although the very fact that you know about it was also factored in at the dawn of time, i.e. you were fated to be a person (precog) who could see the future, and you had no choice over it whatsoever, and nor can you change anything, so it’s the most pointless “gift” ever!

The Astounding Implications of the Block Universe “I do not believe the implications of the orthodox block universe model are widely realised – even among physicists! I regularly read phrases in published papers (even from highly-reputable authors) which make no

sense at all from the point of view of the block universe. As Lee Smolin says in his book Three Roads to Quantum Gravity: ‘There are unfortunately not a few good professional physicists who still think about the world as if space and time had an absolute meaning.’” – Andre Thomas http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp The block universe is an absurd speculation that has no ontological and epistemological basis. No scientist has ever defined time ontologically, so everything any scientist says about it is invariably bogus. Scientists have failed to distinguish between time and motion, have not ontologically defined space (including imaginary space), have not ontologically defined energy, have not ontologically defined consciousness, have not ontologically defined how and when the block universe came into existence, and who or what created it, who or what preceded it, how it can make any sense at all in terms of human experience, how and where it’s stored (is the whole thing physical? ... is it stored on a computer hard drive?). Scientists continually slip between speaking of time in tensed and tenseless terms. They can’t verify or falsify either position. They can’t analyse either model in terms of ontology and epistemology. They can’t define why an “arrow of time” exists. Why isn’t everything running backwards, or, indeed, in any direction at all?

The Physicist’s Mindset Physicists are trapped between two radically different conceptions of reality. The first, the “classical” Newtonian view, is that of enduring material objects moving around in a vast physical container (absolute space that persists forever), while a cosmic tock clicks to mark the passage of absolute time. If this didn’t tick, nothing could move. Time, in this view, is responsible for and dictates motion and change. Every part of this vision is false: 1) there are no enduring material objects, 2) there is no persistent and absolute space, and 3) “time” has nothing to do with change and motion. “Time” is just imaginary space. Most scientists rely on this fallacious Newtonian model when they are attempting to “explain” reality. Einsteinian relativity theory destroyed the

Newtonian worldview. Absolute space (the “ether”) was abolished. Absolute cosmic time was also abolished. Space and time were now fused into a single entity called spacetime, which had very unusual properties. Strangest of all, although spacetime isn’t a substance, it’s supposedly warped by the presence of matter. Yet matter cannot be consistently defined since it’s now dependent on motion, which itself cannot be consistently defined except in the case of the absolute, invariant speed of light. For anything else, moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it can consider itself stationary and regard everything else as moving. And everything else can do the same. However, things in motion suffer time dilation and length contraction, so things are time dilated and length contracted according to observers who regard themselves as stationary, while these same observers are themselves time dilated and length contracted according to different observers who call themselves stationary. All absolute notions of what really exists have been abandoned. There is no longer any universally agreed reality principle. The objective world of objective facts has vanished. What now exists “objectively” is a mathematical set of tools (Lorentz transformations) that can consistently relate one frame of reference to another. So, although we no longer have any idea what state anything actually has in any definitive, objective, way, we do have a way to mathematically relate any state to any other state. Scientists are entirely happy with this. However, things got even more bizarre with the advent of quantum mechanics. Now, even relativity couldn’t come to the rescue of particles. In relativity, it was still possible, to some degree, to define particles as mathematically consistent objects (from a particular frame of reference). With Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, particles were no longer deterministic particles in any way. As Einstein himself complained, God was now “playing dice”. Particles had stopped being things with a specific mass, energy, momentum and location at a specific time. Now they were vague things that popped out of some bizarre probability cloud derived from the unreal, abstract, unobservable quantum mechanical wavefunction. So, modern physics – relativity combined with quantum mechanics – bears no resemblance to classical physics. The mystery is why scientists continue to act as if it’s still possible to talk of a “real” physical world of “real”, persistent physical objects moving through space, with time defining motion and change.

By now, if they were honest and rational, scientists would have given up on materialism since it’s no longer a tenable position (especially in the light of the Big Bang theory which claims that the “material” world of space and time came from nothing at all as a result of some bizarre, inexplicable and undefined, random “fluctuation” (in what?!). The truth is that there is no material world at all. There are no persistent objects. Time is simply the imaginary version of space. Time is static and has nothing to do with motion and change. Motion is the most fundamental aspect of reality. What is motion? It’s how mathematical energy expresses itself. Energy is always moving. It can’t do anything else. All energy moves at exactly the same net speed – the speed of light. Basic energy is “frequency” – vibration. This is immaterial and dimensionless. Yet, via Fourier mathematics, it can be expressed in material, dimensional (spacetime) terms. Everything is calculated at every instant. Ever-changing energy (changing according to a precise mathematical law – the God Equation) is the only reality, and our world is simply the state that the ontological, cosmic mathematical wavefunction has at any instant (“now”). The world is being constantly recalculated instant by instant. There are no persistent things at all. The illusion of persistence arises because the mathematical wavefunction at each instant closely resembles the wavefunction of the last instant. If it were wildly different (which would certainly be possible if God plays dice, as physicists claim) then reality would fall apart. Physicists seek to claim that quantum mechanical probability ensures that the world stays much the same from instant to instant. But if anything that is not forbidden is compulsory in physics then we should expect wildly bizarre, improbable and cataclysmic events to happen. They simply don’t. The true quantum mechanical wavefunction is fully ontological and deterministic. It has nothing to do with probability, indeterminacy, statistics and randomness. It’s a model of mathematical precision and perfection. Reality is a cosmic “video game”. It’s calculated as we go along. Everything that exists, including us, is calculated instant by instant. We are not made of ancient atoms. We are made of eternal mathematical energy obeying Fourier mathematics. There’s nothing else.

God’s Foreknowledge If you believe in a God with foreknowledge, you must rationally agree with Leibniz who said, “So the present is big with the future, the future could have been read in the past, and distant things are expressed in what is nearby. What is folded into any individual soul will become perceptible only through time, as the soul develops; but if we could unfold it all at once right now, we could see the beauty of the universe in the individual soul – any individual soul. But as each of the soul’s distinct perceptions involves an infinity of confused perceptions that take in the entire universe, the soul itself doesn’t know the things of which it has a perception except insofar the perception is distinct and conspicuous; and the extent to which a soul has distinct perceptions is the extent to which it is perfect. Every soul knows infinity – knows everything – but knows it in a confused way. It is like what happens when I walk along the seashore: in hearing the roar of the sea, I hear – though without distinguishing them – the individual little noises of the waves out of which that total noise is made up. Similarly, our big confused perceptions are the outcome of the infinity of tiny impressions that the whole universe makes on us. It is the same for each monad. Only God has distinct knowledge of everything, as he is the source of everything. It has been well said that it’s as though God were like a centre that is everywhere, with a circumference nowhere, because to him everything is immediately present, at no distance from that Centre.” – Leibniz “God” is the Singularity, connected to everything that happens.

The Futility It’s futile to attempt to have a rational debate with a scientist. No matter what logical and rational assertion you make, the scientist will always say, “Where is your sensory evidence?” When you explain to them that you are referring to rational, noumenal objects rather than sensory, phenomenal objects, they then claim you are being “religious”. In other words, they regard reason, logic and mathematics as “religious”. That’s how irrational they are! Scientists are information gatherers. They are not information processers, analysers and evaluators.

Imagine that scientists had performed every experiment conceivable, i.e. not a single experiment remained to be performed; all possible sensory data about the world had been gathered. That, in a sense, is the ultimate goal of science. Now imagine trying to make sense of this data without math, logic and reason. Science would be revealed for what it really is: divination, soothsaying, fortune telling, astrology, divination and augury. It’s purely the application of non-empirical, non-sensory, non-experimental reason, logic and math that saves science from being a joke. The task of reason, logic and math is to construct an infallible, absolute, complete and consistent framework in which to understand all data, and the vast bulk of data is in fact non-sensory and non-experimental. Minds, singularities, thoughts, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero, infinity ... absolutely none of them are sensory things, but you cannot establish a complete and consistent ontology and epistemology without them. Science is the delusion that sensory science is reality and everything else is religion. In fact, it’s science that’s a religion – the religion of the senses, the Church of Matter, the faith-based claim that “matter” actually exists, and exists exactly as someone perceives it to exist. This is intellectually embarrassing. Leibniz, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and quantum mechanics have all dealt death blows to science. Scientists just don’t care – because they’re religious believers. Nothing can shake their irrational faith. It was obscene for Thomas Aquinas to use his brilliant mind to mount a rational defence of the Christian God (he invariably had to pervert his reason to do so), and it’s just as obscene for scientists to use their reason, such as it is, to defend anti-mathematical, anti-rationalist empiricism. But don’t waste your breath arguing with them. You will never persuade an irrational person of anything rational.

Scientific Materialism Science can be regarded as mathematics allied to, and modified by, experiments. Mathematics reflects rationalism, while experiments reflect empiricism. Rationalism and empiricism are incommensurate. Science is thus the philosophy of empiricism (and materialism) imposed on rationalist mathematics, which has nothing to do with experiments. Science refuses to address this contradiction. It’s driven by pragmatism, not Truth. Science

seeks to understand the world, and yet, bizarrely, can’t understand itself, and makes no attempt to do so. Yet science, for all of its lack of intellectual integrity, has applied mathematics to the world and been fantastically successful. Remove math from science and science collapses. Why have so few failed to realise that it’s when you apply numbers (math) that you get to grips with reality, and when you use words, emotions, faith, mysticism, and so on, you get all the crazy religions and speculations that have defaced human history?

The Great Science Hoax Science is not an intellectual subject. It’s an instrumental method for creating an evidence-based collection of pragmatic facts and hypotheses, but the scientific edifice can’t sustain any serious intellectual scrutiny. It’s anti-philosophical and laughably irrational. Experiments collect data; they do not evaluate it. That’s the problem with experimentalism. By itself, it’s useless, yet scientists imagine it the most useful thing conceivable. The evaluation of the data collected is what’s vital to understanding the world. How does science evaluate the data it collects via experiments? Does it use philosophy, religion, astrology, soothsaying, economics, religion, divination, Buddhism, alchemy, or whatever? Does it use empiricism? No, it disgracefully uses rationalist mathematics. “Disgracefully” because no empiricist has any right to invoke anti-empiricist rationalism. No scientist ever explains what rational and logical right science has to use math, and of course it has no right at all. At the core of science is a fundamental contradiction, which is permanently ignored by 100% of scientists. Scientific empiricism and mathematical rationalism are incommensurate. They cannot be combined in any logical way. Science is inconsistent and incomplete, hence epistemologically and ontologically useless. Science is a phenomenal model of reality. It has nothing to do with reality in itself. If you want the Truth of existence, you would no more go to science than to Abrahamism or Karmism. Isn’t it telling that science has to use math – the least experimental subject you can get – to evaluate, organise, rationalise and generalise the data collected by experiments? Why is no scientist bothered by this? Not one of the many amateur scientists who ridicule ontological mathematics

has ever refuted it, understood it, or responded to its fatal deconstruction of the logic of science. So, we say once again to all of these people, why do you believe in experiments given that experimentation without nonexperimental mathematics is astrology?!

***** Plato separated Forms from Matter while Aristotle brought Forms and Matter together. That was almost two and half thousand years ago. What “improvements” has scientific materialism made? Well, we now have things (matter – just as Plato and Aristotle had), and we have laws that control matter – just as Plato and Aristotle had Forms that controlled matter. So, “scientific laws” are just a different take on ancient Forms, and aren’t all that different. In fact, laws are Platonic Forms. Scientific materialism asserts that all that exists is matter. Yet scientific laws aren’t material, so this assertion is immediately refuted. Science is false from the get go. All matter decays, but scientific laws don’t. Unless we argue that laws summon themselves into existence from nothing, then laws are eternal, immaterial and never change, regardless of how much matter changes. In other words, scientific laws sit like Platonic Forms in an immaterial domain of eternal perfection and immutability. So much for materialism! In another respect, scientific laws are immanently embedded in matter, exactly as Aristotle said of Forms. So, scientific laws are both transcendent and immanent – which is exactly the definition of mind in relation to matter. Scientific laws prove that scientific materialism is false because they themselves demonstrate that there’s more to existence than mere matter. Unless laws produced themselves at the Big Bang – an irrational miracle – then laws preceded the Big Bang, hence preceded the scientific spacetime universe of matter, and therefore preceded the entire basis on which science is predicated, thus refuting scientism. Scientists are forever creating new scientific hypotheses, theories and laws, yet not one of these people ever stops to ponder what a scientific law actually is. Where is it? Why is it? What’s it made of? How did it come to be? Where was it before the Big Bang? How does a scientific law interact with matter if doesn’t belong to the same substance? How do material

things “know” how to obey scientific laws? Is matter versus immaterial scientific laws anther version of Cartesian matter-mind dualism? Incredibly, science calls itself a rational, intellectual discipline, yet has no interest in its own validity. Science is about pragmatism and instrumentalism. It’s not about truth, it’s about getting results. It’s about collection, not evaluation and meaning. Science’s failure to produce a Final Theory of Everything stems from the fact that it now has to address the fundamental philosophical questions relating to the meaning of science and existence. How can you establish a law of everything if you don’t know what or where a law is and how it interacts with things? In Illuminism, the laws of existence are encoded in the fundamental particles of existence – monads. In fact, there’s only one law: the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). The law and the things it controls are one and the same thing. In Aristotelian terms, “Matter” and “Form” are indistinguishable. Form and Content always accompany each other. The universe is a hologram. Each part is in the whole, and the whole is in each part. Everything is immanent and transcendent with regard to everything else. The whole universe is mathematically contained within a single point. One point (the Monadic Collective) contains infinite points (individual monads). There’s nothing else. All the points (monads) are alive and express mind. This system, no matter how weird and contrary to common sense it may seem (it’s a lot less weird than the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which denies objective reality and says a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time!), provides a complete and consistent rational explanation of everything. There are no mysteries, miracles or oddities in this system. Everything that science fails to answer, Illuminism answers.

Rain Men Scientists are Rain Men. Mathematikoi are Sun Men.

Could Science Be Any More Wrong?

The laws of science are themselves immaterial, rationalist, non-local and holographic. They are everywhere at once, present in everything. The whole of scientific law is contained with each part, hence why things always know what to do. Why are scientists such slaves to their irrational senses, and why do they have such contempt for reason? They’re almost as bad as Abrahamists. In its own way, atheistic scientific materialism is as pernicious as Abrahamism, and as great an enemy of the truth.

Climate Change With the global warming debate, we encounter a rock and a hard place, the Devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand, we have the deniers of manmade global warming, most of whom are gibbering conspiracy theorists, libertarians, right wing nutjobs, followers of Ayn Rand and the Tea Party, anarchists, haters of the Government and the State, supporters of the super rich, oil corporations, Big Business, and so on. On the other hand, we have the brainwashed science community of groupthinkers and conformists, all of whom have seen a brilliant opportunity to get limitless funding from the Government, and make themselves feel important. Sadly, science itself is the victim in all of this. The debate about the science of climate change is the only thing that matters. The scientific case (rather than the right wing political and economic case) against the theory of manmade global warming is more convincing than many people believe. It deserves to be properly heard and considered ... and properly refuted by the science establishment (if it’s as wrong as is claimed). Instead, the science establishment ignores the scientific case against manmade global warming. No funding is provided for scientists opposing the consensus (which means they have to be funded by the right wing nutjobs who want a return on their investment), and almost zero effort is devoted to considering their claims. This isn’t science, it’s politics. If this debate is to be conducted scientifically, the world ought to be funding all of the best scientists who oppose the manmade theory of global warming, and the supporters of the establishment position should then have to formally rebut all of their arguments, or admit they can’t. From a political perspective, we are perfectly happy to support many of the proposals suggested by the proponents of manmade global warming given that these are concerned with the promotion of renewable energy,

reducing pollution, and curbing rapacious Big Business. However, scientifically, the manmade global warming theory remains dubious, and always will be until it engages with its critics and refutes them. If it can’t refute them, why should anyone accept manmade global warming? In these circumstances, it’s not science, it’s a faith.

Don’t Think! “The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.” – JK Gilbraith Scientific materialism has now become utterly conventional. Scientists no longer think.

Men on the Moon Was it science or math that landed men on the moon? Remove math from science, and there wouldn’t be anything landing anywhere. Science would be reduced to divination. Science’s biggest problem is that it’s reliant on mathematics, yet is clueless about what mathematics is. Science worships experiments, yet mathematics has no connection with experiments.

***** “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” – Keats Mathematics is Truth, and Mathematics is Beauty. Beauty = truth = math. All things are answered by that equation.

The Fundamental Theorem “In number theory, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, also called the unique factorization theorem or the unique-prime-factorization theorem, states that every integer greater than 1 either is prime itself or is the product of prime numbers, and that this product is unique, up to the order of the factors.” – Wikipedia

Science Science is a use system, not a truth system, i.e. it provides an effective model of phenomena while telling us zero about noumena. Math alone has truth value.

Either/Or You either keep on believing ancient old shit, or you wake up and try to understand the staggering amount of knowledge humanity has amassed in the last four hundred years. Anyone who spends any time at all on any Mythos religion has turned their back on human progress, and declared useless all modern knowledge. Why are you going backwards rather than forwards, to unreason rather than reason? Why are you going back to ignorance and superstition? The answer is simple ... you don’t understand modern knowledge whereas you’re perfectly happy with ancient mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus. You’re addicted to fantasy and illusion, and despise reason and reality. Why would anyone seeking to be “enlightened”, study Buddhism or Hinduism rather than Gödel’s incompleteness theorems? Er, because Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are fucking hard, whereas any dumbass can get some kind of hold on Buddhism or Hinduism. Talk about dumbing down and the race to the bottom! What’s the average IQ of the kind of person who studies Gödel’s incompleteness theorems compared with the average IQ of the type of person who gets involved with Abrahamism or Karmism? That tells you the whole story. Stupid people study stupid things, and smart people study smart things.

The Replay It has been speculated that the death experience is just a replay of the birth experience. At birth, we pass through the birth canal (a dark tunnel) and emerge into a bright delivery room, and the waiting hands of doctors and nurses, and the loving embrace of our parents. At death, we pass through a dark tunnel, and emerge into a bright room (heaven), and the waiting embrace of angels, and our previously departed loved ones.

Mind and Matter In terms of ontological mathematics, “matter” relates to Fourier spacetime functions, and “mind” to Fourier frequency functions. The material aspect is a projection of the mental aspect, hence we are dealing with a dual-aspect monism.

Prime Numbers Prime numbers are the building blocks of all numbers, just as the atomic elements are in chemistry. Any number can be written as the multiplication of primes. Primes are numbers that can’t be divided further. Rewriting a number into primes is called prime decomposition (“finding the factors”). There are infinite primes. Their pattern has not yet been deciphered. If mathematics is the science of patterns, isn’t it remarkable that mathematics is built from a set of numbers which have no apparent pattern and logic to them?

***** “The distribution of prime numbers among all natural numbers does not follow any regular pattern, however Riemann observed that the frequency of prime numbers is very closely related to the behaviour of an elaborate function called the Riemann Zeta function. The Riemann hypothesis asserts that all non trivial solutions of the equation ζ(s) = 0 lie on a certain vertical straight line with a ‘longitude’ of 0.5.” – Sameer Gupta “Suppose you have a bunch of friends, each with an instrument that plays at a frequency equal to the imaginary part of a zero of the Riemann zeta function. We know that these instruments are all we need to create a song that sounds exactly at the prime-powered beats; if the Riemann Hypothesis holds, this song can be created by playing each instrument at the same volume. ... So when the Riemann Hypothesis says that all the non-trivial zeroes have real part 1/2, it’s hypothesizing that the non-trivial zeta-zero waves have equal amplitude, i.e., they make equal contributions to counting the primes. In Fourier-poetic terms, when Flying Spaghetti Monster composed the music of the primes, he built the notes out of the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function. If the Riemann Hypothesis holds, he made all the non-trivial notes equally loud.” – Edwin Chen “Quantum physics and prime numbers are inextricably linked. ... If one could understand the mathematics describing the structure of the atomic nucleus in quantum physics, maybe the same math could solve the Riemann Hypothesis.” – Marcus du Sautoy

Quantum mechanics ultimately reduces to Fourier mathematics and the generalised Euler formula, and the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis will be found there too. You read it here first!

Falsification Science likes to believes it’s based on cold, hard, unchanging, unarguable facts. In fact, everything in science is unstable. Everything is changing. All facts are interpretations. All theories are provisional. According to Karl Popper’s falsification principle, a theory or idea shouldn’t be described as scientific unless it can, in principle, be proven false. This, supposedly, is how we acquire “knowledge”, but how can falsifiable things be true things? Consider mathematics. Here the task is the opposite of what Popper proposes. A mathematical proof cannot contain any falsifiable elements. Every part of the proof must be absolute and infallible. Therefore, this is an entirely different type of knowledge. Which type is right? Which would you rather rely on? What kind of person prefers falsifiable “knowledge” over unfalsifiable knowledge? Mathematical knowledge is provable knowledge. It’s not based on faith or hope, or the fallible human senses. How does Popper account for unfalsifiable, rational mathematics being at the core of falsifiable, empirical science? Well, he doesn’t, of course. No scientist does. All such questions are ignored. They’re dismissed as “philosophy”. This is how science avoids having to confront the fallacies with which it’s riddled. Mathematics cannot be proven false, so, according to Popper, it cannot be “science”, yet what would science be without mathematics? Why is an allegedly falsifiable subject (science) reliant on an utterly unfalsifiable subject (mathematics)? How can that make any sense at all? Isn’t that a blatant category error? In fact, science is full of category errors that are regarded as fundamental scientific principles. Science isn’t based on falsifiability, it’s based on downright falsehood! Everything in math is true. Nothing in science is true. How can the two coexist? They can’t ... one of them has to go. Math can do without science; science can’t do without math, so there’s your answer right there.

How we can know anything at all? Certainly not by accepting as true things that are falsifiable, hence can’t be true. Which kind of person builds their system of “knowledge” on things that they themselves proclaim untrue (i.e. falsifiable)? If something must be falsifiable to qualify as science, then science can never be true since all true things have one quintessential property ... they can never be false under any circumstances!

***** “How can we know anything? I’m a scientist and I would say that the answer to that question is through the use of the scientific method. I write a theory, I make predictions, and then I test those predictions by building an experiment and taking data that can prove or disprove my predictions.” – Tara Shears Is that a statement of religious faith? How can Shears claim that “knowledge” can be disproved? If it can, it can’t be knowledge! It’s just someone’s guess, which even they don’t claim is true.

***** It’s said that “real” science can be proven wrong, and pseudo-science cannot be. But math can’t be proven wrong, and nor can the Truth. Does that make them pseudo-science? The real pseudo-science is science itself, a subject opposed to the provable, the absolute, the infallible, the incontestable, the unconditional ... to the Truth itself. If science is falsifiable and the Truth isn’t, science can’t be on the side of the Truth. It’s a provable lie! However, math is provable, and unfalsifiable, hence has exactly the same character as the absolute, infallible Truth. If we live in a true world, it must be a mathematical world, hence not scientific. To separate “real” science from pseudo-science, is also to separate it from the Truth. Science can never be True if it’s always falsifiable. We cannot progress to the Truth via false and falsifiable theories. Of one fact we can be absolutely certain ... science is not, and never can be, a route to the Truth.

How Many Dimensions?! “The physicists that claim to have a beautiful and consistent theory of quantum gravity cannot agree on the number of dimensions! The surprising answer is that it can be both 10 and 11! What happens is that the classical notion of spacetime loses its meaning in the quantum theory. It is replaced by a more general concept, a ‘quantum spacetime’ where the dimension is not a well defined notion. We know a great deal about certain quantum spacetimes and they have many precise properties, but their dimension is not one of them. In fact, string theory leads to very surprising phenomena which clash our intuitive geometrical notions. ... “So if the number of dimensions is not well defined in string theory, why do people talk about it? In string theory, what we know for sure is that the number of dimensions we need to describe the world we live in is greater than four. The cases when we have 10 or 11 are specially simple, and people have concentrated in studying these cases. They are simpler because in these cases the internal dimensions, namely the dimensions beyond the four we see, can be relatively large so that we can describe them using geometrical language. By relatively large I mean larger than the size of the string but smaller than any distance that we can experimentally see today. If the total number of dimensions is not 10 or 11, then necessarily some of the dimensions have string size and are therefore harder to describe. “What is the difference between 10 and 11? The simplest string theory is ten dimensional. Strings can interact with each other. If the interaction among strings is large, the theory is hard to describe. It turns out that when strings interact very, very strongly, something surprising happens. A new dimension opens up and we have a theory in eleven dimensions, the ten we started with plus an extra circle. In eleven dimensions we do not have strings, we have membranes. Membranes wrapped along the 11th dimension give rise to strings. “We do not know yet whether a description in terms of 10 or 11 dimensions is more appropriate for the universe where we live in. But these two possibilities are continuously connected. They are simply different possibilities for the internal geometry. Since the geometry of the internal space is quantum mechanical, asking what its dimension is might not be the right question.

“One of the main lessons from recent developments is that the concept of spacetime itself will have to be replaced by some other concept at the quantum level. Let us just consider an analogy. Let us consider the surface of a lake. “If we are classical physicists we would describe the waves that propagate on this surface, we will be able to say if we are above the surface or below the surface, etc. On the other hand, when we look at the lake with very high resolution we start seeing the individual water molecules. Then the surface of the lake becomes a lot less sharp. In fact, the surface is not a well defined concept at the atomic level. There are molecules constantly leaving the water into the air and vice versa. We can only talk about the surface of the lake at macroscopic distances. The same happens with spacetime, we can use the standard geometric description only at long enough distances. Of course, in the case of spacetime we would need to go to distances smaller than the distances that are experimentally accessible today in order to see that the concept is breaking down. But string theory predicts that just as in the case of the surface of the lake, spacetime will lose its meaning at very short distances. “Of course this does not mean that we cannot describe the system. In the case of the water, we have a well defined description of the system in terms of the water molecules. Similarly, in the case of spacetime we have a good description of what is going on, at least in some special circumstances. But this description uses less intuitive variables, which we do not have the space to describe in more detail. “In summary, in a quantum spacetime the dimension might not be a well defined notion. When the space in question is small, it can interpolate continuously between different dimensions.” – Professor Juan Maldacena, Institute for Advanced Study Does this sound like how eternal, rational reality is configured, or how a bunch of falsifiabilists make it up as they go along? There is nothing at all elegant, beautiful or necessary about M-theory. In every conceivable regard, M-theory if false and absurd. It is materialism’s grandest folly.

Metamorphosis

Metamorphosis: “change of form or shape; to transform”, from the ancient Greek meta- “change” + morphe “form” (connected to Morpheus). Transmutation: “transformation, change, metamorphosis”, from Latin transmutare “change from one condition to another”, from trans“thoroughly” + mutare “to change” (hence mutable). The word is strongly linked to alchemy. Transformation: “change of shape or form”. (Latin equivalent of Greek metamorphosis.) Meta: word-forming element meaning 1. “after, behind”, 2. “changed, altered”, 3. “higher, beyond”, 4. “change of place, order, or nature”, 5. “higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of.” Metaphysics: “science of that which transcends the physical; that which comes after physics; that which stands behind, or under physics; that which is higher than physics”. Evolution: “an opening of what was rolled up,” from Latin evolutionem “unrolling (of a book)”; “growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing”; “descent with modification”; “progress”.

The Evolution of the Theory of Evolution The word “evolution” does not appear at all in the original text (first edition) of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). Instead, Darwin refers to the process of biological change as “transmutation”, a word associated with alchemy! They don’t teach you that in science class. Transmutation or metamorphosis would be far better words than evolution. They suggest intentionality and teleology rather than blind chance and accident.

The God Machines “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” – Richard Brautigan “The title poem envisions a world where cybernetics has advanced to a stage where it allows a return to the balance of nature and an elimination of the need for human labour.” – Wikipedia

Er, when were machines ever part of the “balance of nature”?

Dual-Aspect Monism For humans to understand reality effortlessly, we would require split- screen minds showing us in one screen noumenal mathematical functions (suitably presented in some visual way), and in the other screen the phenomenal, sensory or emotional experience to which they give rise, i.e. to see the Maya Matrix in one screen and the true reality underlying it in the other, the hologram in one screen and the source interference pattern in the other, the simulation in one screen and what is simulated in the other, the information carried in one screen, and the information carrier in the other. If we had split-screen minds of this nature, we would be able to map our experiences to the underlying rational mathematics, and we would never be tempted to invent absurd speculations about what is causing our experiences. We would know that everything is math, and we would know that mainstream religion is absurd, spirituality is absurd, metaphysical speculation is absurd, New Ageism is absurd, and scientific materialism is absurd. However, since we don’t have minds that map phenomena to noumena, humans can invent anything they like about what underlies phenomena, whether it be God, cosmic consciousness, randomness, “matter”, potentiality wavefunctions, etc. Only our reason and logic can cut through all the crap and reveal to us exactly what’s going on.

Science And Computing According to some thinkers, computers and computer networks are now so complex that we are losing the ability to understand how they actually work. Some people are saying that they are capable of exhibiting unpredictable, emergent behaviour. Computers are no longer reliable, mechanical slaves, they say, but a kind of evolving organism. This new age of complexity is what has been referred to as “the Entanglement”. We are now inextricably entangled with computers, and it’s no longer clear where they end and we begin. As in postmodernism, we are rapidly entering the Age of simulations and simulacra where we have copies without originals, where reality has become detached from itself, or hidden from itself by how it simulates itself. Of course, humanity has always been confronted with the problem of

what is a simulacrum and what is reality. In fact, the only reality is mathematics. Science is increasingly reliant on computers. What do computers have to do with empiricism and materialism? Are computer models now destroying scientists’ ability to think about reality? If the Enlightenment is about demystification, the so-called Entanglement ends up mystifying everyone. Are computer models now mystifying everyone?

The Question Would a fully working simulation of the human brain be the human brain, or would it remain forever as nothing more than a simulacrum, never able to capture what a brain truly is, never able to simulate its quintessence?

Meatspace and Mindspace Meatspace = the physical world. Mindspace = the mental world.

The God Series The God Series contains all of the material, all of the explanations, signally absent from the Torah, Bible and the Koran. Why are “holy” books about stories, commandments and prohibitions, and never about math, philosophy, science and metaphysics? Why are holy books about revelation, and not about reason and logic? Why are they presented by crazy prophets rather than intellectual geniuses? Why doesn’t God choose smart people rather than lunatics to deliver his message? If Leibniz is smarter than God, who needs God?

***** If you covertly attend a Charismatic Christian service, you won’t fail to notice that it’s all about stories and emotionalism, and has exactly zero intellectual content and substance. Why does “God” attract morons? Why does God write like a moron and present only moronic revelations to moronic prophets and moronic followers? Seriously, did Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed say even one intelligent thing, even one thing that would qualify as science, mathematics, or philosophy? Why is “God” stupid? Isn’t he just the projection of human stupidity?

***** Muslims are simply Arab Jews, and Christians are simply Greek (European) Jews. The Jews are the authors of Abrahamism and all the evils that have flowed from it. Even the Nazis were just pagans following the Jewish handbook (terror, racial purity, pure blood, nationalism, fanaticism, intolerance, narcissism, egotism, exterminatory hatred; the Nazis thought they were the master race, just as the Jews believe they are the Chosen People). The Jews are fully responsible and accountable. This is the 21st century. They can have no excuses for failing to repudiate their evil religion and their evil God. Everyone on earth should have the guts to break free from whatever religious and cultural brainwashing they were subjected to as children. The world would lose nothing if Abrahamism vanished from our world this very day. In fact, it would instantly take vast strides forward if this were to happen. The global loss of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism would equally be no loss at all. People have to embrace reason, and stop living in the fantastical, mythical past. They have to stop listening to prophets and gurus, and start exercising their own reason. Reason is what sets you free. Never believe anything anyone tells you. Subject everything they say to the “Reason Test”. Agree with them if you agree with their reasoning, and otherwise disagree with them. We would be horrified if people “believed” in what we say. Our assertion is that we are the people providing the most rational analysis of reality. We must be judged on the robustness of our reasoning, just as we judge everyone else (extremely harshly!) on this exact basis. That’s how to free yourself of both 1) religious faith and mysticism, and 2) scientific materialism. Ontological mathematics is where correct reasoning inevitably leads you. If you reject reason, you will certainly reject what we say.

Reason Schools In the future, Platonic Reason Academies will replace faith schools and empiricism schools. Reason must abolish faith and empiricism.

Intellectual Intuition Intellectual intuition results from locking onto the incredible, wondrous mathematical patterns in the mathematical Singularity. “God” can lock onto

all patterns. At the Omega Point, the cosmos attains a single, perfect pattern of maximum symmetry.

Your Choices You have four routes to understanding the world: 1) your feelings, 2) your senses, 3) your intuition, and 4) your reason. Only reason provides an answer. The other three provide an experience. They are aspects of empiricism, whereas reason, of course, concerns rationalism. Sadly, people are much more convinced by their experiences than by their intellect (reason). People who meditate, for example, are not seeking to understand ultimate reality – to have knowledge of it – they are seeking to experience ultimate reality, to be one with it. People have experiences all the time. Can they understand them? Can they explain what they are? By giving someone a math book, do they learn math by experiencing the symbols on the page, or do they actually have to work hard and learn what the symbols mean, and how to manipulate them? Animals and humans babies have countless experiences and understand nothing at all. Sadly, the same is true of 99.9 of adult humanity. They have no idea what it is they are experiencing, yet they swear by their experiences. That’s the nature of irrationalism!

Atheism Atheism is understood as a war between science and religion. In fact, it’s a war between science and math, and, in particular, a war of science against the reality of imaginary and complex numbers, the vast majority of negative numbers, and zero and infinity. These numbers are exactly those that define metaphysics, religion and spirituality. Atheism collapses as soon as the entire mathematical universe (complete and consistent) is granted. Atheists are empiricist (anti-rationalist) scientific materialists who deny the reality of mathematics, but can’t define what math is, just as they deny the mind, soul, consciousness, the unconscious, free will and God, even though they can’t define any of these either. In other words, atheists impose a fatwa on anything they can’t define within their belief system of materialism and empiricism. That makes them religious believers, operating via faith and not reason. They have no rational reason for ruling out all the things they dismiss. They have no evidence or proof that their religious faith is correct. They are as bad as Abrahamists and Karmists.

***** “In recent years we’ve come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that’s making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works – an intellectual error without human value, which we’d be better without.” – John Gray “An atheist – and here I speak as one myself – is anybody who doesn’t rely on an idea of God.” – John Gray An atheist is anybody who doesn’t rely on an idea of God, metaphysics or math ... anything at all incompatible with the Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. An atheist is someone who believes in materialism and empiricism, and disbelieves in idealism and rationalism. “Of course there are different ideas of God, but in western cultures the deity is understood as a divine mind that is all-knowing, all-powerful and allloving. Atheists reject this idea, or simply don’t need it. But that’s all they have in common. Atheism has gone with a wide diversity of world-views and values.” – John Gray This is a simplistic and childish notion of atheism. Atheists also reject the idea of metaphysics, ontological mathematics and any possibility of rational, noumenal, existence, all of which have no connection with religious Mythos. That makes atheists totally irrational. “For Giacomo Leopardi, the universe was made of matter that obeyed physical laws. Humans were animals that had come into the world and acquired self-awareness by chance. Writing before Darwin, he didn’t acquire this view of things from science, but from reading the classics and observing the life around him. Leopardi never renounced this uncompromising materialism. But at the same time he defended religion, which he regarded as an illusion that was necessary for human happiness.” – John Gray Leopardi is a classic atheist ... and uncompromising “materialist” who believes in chance. Richard Dawkins would have no disagreement with

him. Dawkins wouldn’t disagree that religion is an illusion that makes many people happy. “If the modern world rejected traditional faiths, Leopardi believed, it would only be to take up others that were more harmful.” – John Gray And traditional faiths haven’t been harmful? What could be worse? In any case, “new” faiths are just old faiths repackaged. Nazism is just Aryan Judaism, with the “master race” of pure blood replacing the Chosen People of pure blood. “Man was happier before Christianity than after it.” – Giacomo Leopardi Man was happier before Abrahamism and Karmism. “Leopardi favoured the Catholicism in which he’d been brought up as the best available illusion.” – John Gray Oh dear. “[Africa] laps up the life-blood of all the delicate illusions that have for so long danced before the eyes of men and made them happy. Truth alone is left alive. What was suspected in Europe is made plain here… the surface is everything, underneath is nothing” – Llewelyn Powys Scientific materialism and atheism are all about the surface, the appearance. “Underneath” – noumenal reality, comprising hidden variables and rational unobservables – is regarded as “nothing” (non-existence). “Powys wasn’t disconcerted at this discovery. He was clear that human life had no intrinsic meaning or purpose, but that only made him all the more determined to savour the sensation of being alive. ... Powys chose to live as a hedonist. Always close to death, he aimed to heighten the sensation of life.” – John Gray Atheism is the mental disorder resulting from the delusion that life and existence have no meaning or purpose. Atheism is a psychiatric condition, and has a place on the autistic spectrum. “The two atheists I’ve discussed were very different from one another. Where Leopardi accepted a godless universe with tranquil resignation, Powys embraced it with exultant joy.” – John Gray

“But each of these atheists was also very different from most of the unbelievers of recent years. The predominant strand of contemporary unbelief, which aims to convert the world to a scientific view of things, is only one way of living without an idea of God. It’s worth looking back to other kinds of atheism, far richer and subtler than the version we’re familiar with, that aren’t just evangelical religion turned upside down.” – John Gray At least the atheism of Dawkins is clear-cut, unlike the cowardly, halfhearted, half-baked, insincere and inauthentic muddle offered by the likes of John Gray, who seem just a breath away from mainstream religion. “Atheism is an absence of belief ...” – Brian No, atheism is only an absence of belief in immaterialism. It’s the active belief in materialism. “‘Atheism’ is simply the rejection of a claim that god/gods exist.” – Peter No, atheism is the assertion that matter is all that exists, and there is no immaterial existence. “God” and the soul are merely two instances of immaterialism. Mathematics, in itself, as pure rational form, is immaterial. Mathematics – as an ontological reality – is as much denied by atheism as “God” is.

Nietzsche’s Passion “As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!” – Nietzsche Only rationalists can think dispassionately. Emotionalists “think” with their feelings, and automatically oppose anything that doesn’t make them feel good. True reason and logic don’t come into. Pseudo reason and logic are deployed to sustain emotional positions. “I want to awaken the greatest mistrust of myself: I speak only of things I have experienced and do not offer only events in the head.” – Nietzsche Here we see Nietzsche exposed as an emotionalist empiricist. Why doesn’t he “awaken the greatest mistrust” of “things I have experienced”, just as Descartes did? Like so many people, he assumes his own experiences are superior to reason and logic (“events in the head”). Nietzsche is a visceral,

bodily philosopher – which is why he’s so exciting to read – but he’s no rationalist, logically answering the great questions of existence. “One must want to experience the great problems with one’s body and one’s soul.” – Nietzsche Well, Nietzsche didn’t believe in the soul! Secondly, one must encounter the great problems with one’s reason. To do so in other way is to admit you are looking for irrational “answers”. Indeed, that’s exactly what most people want ... irrational answers that make them feel good. Nietzsche himself highlighted how much people hated the truth. He too hated all truth that didn’t accord with his empiricist philosophy, and called it a lie. “I have at all times written my writings with my whole heart and soul: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.” – Nietzsche It’s to the great detriment of Nietzsche’s philosophy that he couldn’t think purely intellectually (rationally). “You know these things as thoughts, but your thoughts are not your experiences ...” – Nietzsche Here, Nietzsche’s empiricism rears its head yet again. He continually seeks to privilege subjective, individual experience over objective, universal reason. He refers to thoughts as “an echo and after-effect of your experiences: as when your room trembles when a carriage goes past. I however, am sitting in the carriage, and often am the carriage itself.” In fact, experiences are the echoes and after-effects of thoughts! You can’t have experiences without thoughts. You can’t have information without an information carrier, signifieds without signifiers, or phenomena without noumena. There’s an enormous contrast between reading Leibniz, an idealist and rationalist, and Nietzsche, a skeptic and empiricist. You go to Nietzsche for controversy, radical views, incendiary comments, for cutting through bullshit and hypocrisy. You certainly don’t go to him for the truth of existence. Nietzsche was hopeless metaphysically and mathematically. He was a man of the body – the heart, the gut, the senses – but not, alas, of the head (pure intellect). A hybrid of Nietzsche and Leibniz would shake the world. Leibniz is too “cold and dry”, Nietzsche, too “hot and wet”. Together, they would be just

right.

The Matter Mystery Science is all about the unprovable claim, the faith, that there is some mysterious sensory substance called “matter” from which, inexplicably, our mind, ideas, feelings, perceptions, qualia, and so on, are constructed. The claim is made that “matter” is somehow amenable to description by mathematics (considered to be an unreal, manmade abstraction). None of this makes sense. Minds and the ideas that minds contain are the selfevident, unarguable reality in which we are immersed, and “matter” is simply one of those ideas, just like “God”, “justice”, “morality”, “colours”, and so on. Once the absurd notion is dropped that the basis of our world is some ontologically undefined entity called “matter”, and that it’s able to be described by something else equally ontologically undefined (in the opinion of scientists) called mathematics, we can get on with understanding true reality. The scientific worldview immediately raises a version of Cartesian substance dualism. If “matter” is not mathematical – and no scientist says it is, despite using mathematics to describe it – then it must be ontologically and epistemologically different from mathematics, in which case “matter” and math must be regarded as two different Cartesian substances. How, then, can they communicate with each, how can they interact, how can they relate to each other, what do they have in common? If matter isn’t math, it has nothing at all in common with math, and can’t possibly be described by math, and can’t possibly obey mathematical laws, and mathematically “know” how to obey them. “Matter” is in fact the a sensory label scientists apply to the experiential appearance of mathematics. Mathematics in itself (as noumenon) is bare, rational existence, with no appearance. It’s pure rational form. However, noumenal mathematics conveys empirical information (content), and it’s this information that we actually experience. “Matter” is nothing but sensory mathematical content. So, there’s nothing other than mathematics. The universe is 100% mathematical (i.e. there is no Cartesian substance dualism).

Existence is a mathematical monism. It’s impossible for anything nonmathematical to interact with mathematics. The universe can’t be a bit mathematical and a lot non-mathematical, a bit rational and a lot nonrational, a bit mathematical and a lot “material”. These are rational impossibilities. The whole notion of “matter” is a result of sensory mania, the obsession with labelling the world in terms of the human senses, and refusing to acknowledge that the senses are just a means of presenting mathematical information. The thing that causes people so much confusion is that mathematics is a dual-aspect monism. For every rational mathematical form, there is empirical content that we do not regard as mathematics. Anyone who insists on considering information alone, without considering the invisible, nonsensory information carrier, can never understand reality. They will automatically invent bogus, empirical ideas such as “matter” – treating them as things in themselves rather than appearances of other things that have no appearance. We experience a world of phenomena, but phenomena are not things in themselves ... noumena are. So, the question is what are the noumena that underlie phenomena? If you can’t make the conceptual leap that everything that appears to you is underpinned by something that does not, and never can, appear to you, you are lost, and you will never comprehend reality. Never believe in empirical appearances (content; matters of fact). Always look for rational causes (form; truths of reason). Empiricism is wholly false because it considers itself reality, rather than grasping that it must be underpinned by a non-empirical, rational order. Empiricism is all about phenomena. Rationalism is all about noumena. Phenomena and noumena cannot co-exist if they relate to different substances. They will not be able to interact. Rationalism and empiricism must therefore be regarded as a dual-aspect monism. Empiricism is about what we experience (phenomena; information; content; “matter”); rationalism is about what we don’t experience (noumena; the information carrier; form; math). Because simple-minded humans regard what they experience as real, concrete and immediate, they automatically regard mathematics as the opposite: unreal, abstract and remote. They simply can’t conceive that math is actually more real, more concrete, and more fundamental than what we experience (which is all transient, temporal and contingent).

Consider the difficulty of convincing people that what they imagine as concrete reality isn’t concrete at all, and is conveyed by something they can never directly, experientially encounter – except via reason, logic and intellectual intuition. Yet all religions, by referring to an invisible “God, “Oneness”, “Bare Awareness”, world of souls, and so on, have all correctly grasped that there’s a more fundamental, unseen, unseeable reality ... a noumenal reality. Scientific materialism and empiricism – atheism – has absolutely denied the existence of any unseen, non-empirical order of existence. Yet, ironically, science is just a combination of “matter”, an allegedly empirical substance (although it’s not empirical at all since we never encounter it directly, but only through undefined minds and ideas in minds, as Bishop Berkeley so devastatingly highlighted), and mathematics – a wholly rationalist, invisible, non-sensory, non-empirical, noumenal, undefined order of existence. As soon as you equate the invisible, noumenal order of existence to mathematics – rather than God, religion, spirituality, or speculative philosophical metaphysics – you realise that mathematics is all there is, and “matter” is just the phenomenal appearance of math. Science’s matter/math hybrid system is just phenomenal mathematics (empirical mathematics; content) matched to noumenal mathematics (rational mathematics; form), which is why it works. However, it does not work properly because a huge amount of mathematics is deemed inadmissible. It’s exactly this mathematics – “hidden” mathematics; hidden variables; rational unobservables – that defines the whole unseen reality explicitly denied by scientific atheism. Atheism, in other words, is an attack not on God, religion and spirituality, but on noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics – the mathematics of everything that has no sensory appearance to human beings. Atheists are ferociously irrational, anti-intellectual and anti-mathematical. They despise reason and logic – which reveal non-empirical things – and suffer from autistic sensory mania. Atheists are non-intuitive. They can’t direct intuit or rationally work out that there’s an eternal, necessary order of existence underpinning the temporal, contingent, empirical world. They are suffering from a disorder of mind that causes them to deny the real existence of their own minds.

Even though they despise the notion of non-empirical things, scientists insanely believe in the existence of non-empirical “matter”, a hypothetical substance which is impossible to detect without minds, which are supposedly made of this unprovable substance. Talk about circular logic! Science claims that matter constructs minds, which are the means by which we “know” that matter exists. Except we don’t “know” it. The only reality we have is the mental reality. The rational thing to do is conclude that mind is the primary reality and constructs the mental idea of matter, not that matter is the primary reality, which we can’t encounter except through its construct (mind). Reality is all about minds and their thoughts, perceivers and their perceptions. Minds aren’t material agents (things made from matter). They are mathematical agents (things made from math). Mathematical reality is mental reality. Matter is a holographic projection of mind. We encounter math both indirectly, in terms of empirical experiences and phenomena, and directly, in terms of reason, logic and intellectual intuition. We emphatically do not encounter “matter” in terms of reason, logic and intellectual intuition. And, of course, all functional definitions of matter are presented in terms of mathematics, so why don’t we just cut to the chase and admit that matter is math! Science, then, is no longer about matter and math (Cartesian substance dualism), but purely about math (monism). The noumenal, eternal necessary order that underlies existence is not “God”, as people have traditionally believed, but math ... the true basis of reason, logic, perfection eternity, necessity, and the source of all things.

***** “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” – Morpheus, The Matrix And what, ultimately, are electrical signals? They are math!

Incommensurate Minds Given Occam’s Razor (the search for the most economic explanation), what’s the simpler explanation – that “God” created the universe, or that it jumped out of nothing for no reason? Is either of these even an explanation

at all, or simply an ideological claim? How can you compare and contrast two such radically different “explanations”? They don’t share the same language. As Thomas Kuhn points out, they are incommensurate. Wikipedia says, “According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable – the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. (A later interpretation by Kuhn of ‘commensurable’ versus ‘incommensurable’ was as a distinction between languages, namely, that statements in commensurable languages were translatable fully from one to the other, while in incommensurable languages, strict translation is not possible.) The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in a difficult position: ‘Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.’ (SSR, p. 148). Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another. “Kuhn (SSR, section XII) states that the probabilistic tools used by verificationists are inherently inadequate for the task of deciding between conflicting theories, since they belong to the very paradigms they seek to compare. Similarly, observations that are intended to falsify a statement will fall under one of the paradigms they are supposed to help compare, and will therefore also be inadequate for the task. According to Kuhn, the concept of falsifiability is unhelpful for understanding why and how science has developed as it has. In the practice of science, scientists will only consider

the possibility that a theory has been falsified if an alternative theory is available that they judge credible. If there is not, scientists will continue to adhere to the established conceptual framework. If a paradigm shift has occurred, the textbooks will be rewritten to state that the previous theory has been falsified.” It’s a crucial point that scientists refuse to deem a theory falsified unless they have migrated to a new theory via a paradigm shift. This means that the falsification principle is absurd since science does not use it when falsification has actually occurred, but only when a successful new paradigm has been established. That’s like someone waiting to find a new religion before they abandon their previous religion. You ought to abandon it as soon as you know it’s false. You cannot compare incommensurate theories. You can compare only theories that belong to the same order. Scientific, religious, spiritual, philosophical and mathematical explanations are all incommensurate. Theories based on words, emotions and faith (Mythos explanations) cannot be compared with theories based on numbers and reason (Logos explanations). Scientific theories based on the senses cannot be compared with theories based on reason and logic.

***** Theories based on words are incommensurate with theories based on numbers. Theories based on words or numbers are incommensurate with theories based on sensations. Mythos and Logos theories are incommensurate. Empiricist theories are incommensurate with rationalist theories. Physical theories are incommensurate with metaphysical theories. Faith theories are incommensurate with theories based on reason. Emotional theories are incommensurate with thinking theories. Sensory theories are incommensurate with intuitive theories. Mystical theories are incommensurate with rational theories. Sensory theories are incommensurate with non-sensory theories. Why are hidden variables repudiated by science? – because they are incommensurate with scientific experimentalism. Human beings are always talking at cross purposes. They argue over theories that are wholly incommensurate. The real issue is this ... what kind of theory has the right qualities and properties to provide a definitive answer to existence?

All wrong theories are incommensurate with the right theory of existence. Not all theories are equal. There is no relativism of theories. One is right and all the rest are wrong. If you haven’t identified the right one, you have wasted your life, and failed the exam your existence has set for you. As soon as you say there are many ways to enlightenment, you have proved you have no idea what enlightenment is. Only once you have defined enlightenment ontologically and epistemologically can you know how to attain it. Otherwise, you are making it up as you go along.

Do We Have A Falsifiable Theory of Everything? If you go around saying that something must be falsifiable, you are saying that it must be false since, by definition, nothing true can be falsifiable. The whole task of truthfully explaining reality is to arrive at rational positions that are 100% unfalsifiable (hence non-scientific). Mathematics is what lies behind science and is unfalsifiable. You can’t have a falsifiable theory of everything since that implies that something must be outside of everything in order to be capable of falsifying the theory of everything, but, by definition, nothing can be outside everything (!). In other words, once you have said that you have a theory of everything, you must be claiming that’s it’s unfalsifiable, since you have ruled out the possibility of anything external to it that can falsify it. Mathematics cannot be falsified, so a mathematical theory of everything is inherently unfalsifiable. What science actually means is a “theory of everything” that can be susceptible to observation, or is amenable to science’s experimental method or model. Science has no option but to recognise the possibility that there may be things outside science, hence science will indeed always be falsifiable (hence unable to explain everything). If even one thing exists that is in principle not amenable to experiments, science is automatically falsified as a system of knowledge. Yet there are countless things in this category ... such as the world before the Big Bang, the noumenal world, mind, free will, life, the unconscious, consciousness, wavefunction collapse, unreal, abstract wavefunctions, unobserved cats and moons, indeed all unobserved things (even something that is observed stops being observed the moment you turn away, hence no longer “exists” in a strictly scientific sense).

Science is about what is right in front of you right now, but the rest of the universe isn’t in front of you. How do you know it even exists? What observations can you perform on the universe as a totality? We can only intellectually, not empirically or experimentally, grasp the totality of existence. Science is destroyed by the two numbers outside science – zero and infinity. These, by themselves, falsify science. Singularities can exist that will always be beyond the reach of science, the senses, and experiments, but not beyond the reach of reason. Reason can go anywhere, to all the places that science, the senses and experiments can’t. Intuition can get there too, but must be directed by reason (intellect) or will become mystical (as in Eastern religion).

The Desperate Cure “A desperate disease requires a desperate remedy.” – Guy Fawkes Science has become a desperate disease. It needs a rational remedy ... ontological mathematics.

Analysis and Synthesis “All this time I’ve been convinced of Leibniz’s statement that synthetic propositions are, in actuality, simply infinitely analytic propositions – a statement that amounts to saying that truths of fact are not truths of fact at all, but really just highly convoluted truths of reason (truths which our own Maya-riddled minds have warped into subjectivity).” – P You have to be careful about which version of Leibniz you are referring to. When Leibniz is defending the notion of a Creator God who first calculated and then created (actualised) the best of all possible worlds, he is effectively saying that God programmed the universe, has total foreknowledge of the universe, and knows absolutely everything about it. In this case, Leibniz’s God must be capable of reducing all synthetic propositions to analytic propositions. Only thus is it possible to know everything, i.e. to be in the position of the Leibnizian God. Of course, when he’s arguing this case, Leibniz is forced to use a somewhat odd notion of what constitutes an analytic statement. If you

programmed into the monad of, say, Alexander the Great, every event that happened to Alexander in his life, then you are thereby turning empirical matters of fact into truths of reason, i.e. it would involve a logical contradiction in terms to deny that Alexander the Great would carry out empirical action “X” if “X” were built into God’s programmed definition of Alexander the Great (i.e. it was part of the analytic definition of Alexander the Great). Equally, if Leibniz wanted to replace thinking with calculation in his Characteristica Universalis project and deconstruct all empirical matters of fact with it, he would have to be able to relate synthetic statements to analytic statements. Even if moving from one to the other took infinite steps, this would be no problem for the infinite mind of God. In actual fact, one should not think of going from matters of fact to truths of reason, or vice versa. The correct way to proceed is in terms of dual-aspect monism, whereby every analytic proposition has a synthetic experience associated with it, or mapped to it. When people experience “the sky is blue” (an empirical synthetic statement), they are simultaneously encountering a rational analytic statement, i.e. there is a sufficient analytic reason why we are having the particular experience we are having. If you could see the noumenal underpinning of your phenomenal experience of a blue sky, you would see an analytic mathematical function. The problem – always – is how to match one side of the ontological coin to the other. How can you ever get to heads from tails? If you have only tails, how can you produce a head? And yet every tail is always accompanied by an unseen head (its flip side). How does the experience of blue tell you about the mathematics of the situation? Yet the mathematics of the situation is what produces both the colour and the experience of blue. What Leibniz should have said is that every synthetic proposition is the flip side of an analytic statement. So a “truth of fact” is actually a truth of reason seen from the empirical (synthetic) rather than rational (analytic) perspective, from the noumenal rather than phenomenal perspective. Leibniz did indeed believe that you could get to a synthetic proposition from, if needs be, an infinite number of analytic propositions (hence enabling “God” to have perfect knowledge of everything). Leibniz’s argument would hold in a strictly rational (computerised) universe, but the whole point of ontological mathematics is that mathematics is not a rational abstraction, but every sinusoid is in fact accompanied by a concrete empirical experience. It’s not that you get from one to the other via an

infinite number of steps, but, rather, that each is the flip side of the other. However, the rules that apply to one can never be used to construct the other. No amount of manipulating the laws of rational mathematical form in a computer will produce the experience of blue. A computer will never experience blue. It might be able to detect frequencies associated with blue and label them as blue, but it will never have the experience of their blueness – because only living things can have that experience. Reality is a dual-aspect monism, not a mono-aspect monism (as it has to be for Leibniz’s Creator God). You can associate every truth of fact with a truth of reason, but you can never know truths of fact by applying truths of reason, and vice versa. That’s why you get hybrid subjects such as science (which uses rational mathematical functions to map to empirical observed patterns in nature).

***** “Isn’t our entire project all about proving truths of fact in terms of truths of reason, of producing the ultimate analytic edifice from which a proper double-aspect ontology can spring forth from, from which we can finally unlock all of the mysteries behind so-called truths of fact?” – P You can’t prove truths of fact via truths of reason. It’s a category error to imagine you can. How can a “truth of fact” e.g. “The sky is blue” be proved mathematically (i.e. via truths of reason, via numbers and their relations)? Truths of fact are empirical, not rational. What our project is about is developing minds that can see both sides of the coin at once. Imagine having a split-screen mind that can see the exact mathematical function that corresponds to whatever experience you are having. So, it’s not a case of proving that such and such a function equals a blue sky. Rather, it’s a case of “knowing” it experientially because that’s the exact experience you are having when you ontologically encounter that function. You are seeing the rational (analytic) and empirical (synthetic) sides of the situation simultaneously. Our project is about mathematically knowing everything that is capable of being rationally known, and mapping all mathematical knowledge to the empirical experiences to which they are hardwired. However, we can never know in advance what experience we are going to get. Imagine you wanted to have an unknown experience “X”. Well, how could you construct it given that you don’t know what “X” is? It’s impossible to know in advance what

an experience will be like, and even Leibniz’s God, or a perfect Leibnizian calculating machine, couldn’t tell you. Truths of fact are not proved in terms of truths of reason. Truths of fact are the flip side of truths of reason. Truths of reason are provable. Truths of fact are not. Truths of fact correspond to our empirical experiences of truths of reason. Wittgenstein was obsessed with truths of fact (which he thought must be empirically verified), and regarded truths of reason as empty tautologies. In fact, every truth of fact is simply the phenomenal expression of a noumenal, analytic truth of reason. If you could see behind any phenomenal experience you would see pure analytic math. Ontological mathematics is the ultimate analytic edifice from which a proper double-aspect ontology springs forth, and using which we can finally unlock all of the mysteries behind so-called truths of fact. We don’t do it via logic, but via correspondence, i.e. we simply read off what experiences go with what mathematical functions. We can do so only when we have developed sufficiently powerful intuitive minds that can be rational and empirical at once, and see what mathematical functions correspond to each and every experience. We cannot do it by logic, by any grand logical, calculating, computational project. Ontological mathematics is the end of the line. It does not prove truths of fact in terms of truths of reason. Instead, it demonstrates what truths of fact go with which truths of reason. Only rational mathematical statements can be proved. Empirical statements cannot be. They do not have the property of provability. Just read Wittgenstein.

***** “You wrote, ‘It could be argued that what Gödel’s work established was that truths of fact can never be proved in terms of truths of reason. All truths of reason are provable, but no truths of fact are.’” – P Exactly so! Imagine trying to prove that the sky is blue. What conceivable rational proof would you provide? How would you prove that the sky is blue to someone who has never seen the colour blue, or to a blind person? Empirical facts simply don’t have the character of provability. “I thought that Gödel showed that the logicists, formalists, and intuitionists were wrong in trying to prove truths of reason in terms of truths of fact.” –

P And if you can’t prove truths of reason in terms of truths of fact, why should you be able to do the converse? Remember, proof is all about analytic tautology. How can non-tautological empirical facts be provable? You build castles in the air if you get your ontology wrong, if you make the wrong assumptions. In future books, we shall be showing exactly how to construct the universe mathematically, step by step. What we will never be doing is proving truths of reason in terms of truths of fact, or vice versa. It would be a category error to attempt to do so. It would be to confuse words and numbers, manmade languages and natural language (mathematics), the empirical and rational, the synthetic and analytic, the temporal and eternal, the a posteriori and a priori, the non-essential and essential, the contingent and necessary, evidence and proof, non-tautology and tautology. You can prove only those things that have the property of provability. Only tautologies have this property. Anything non-tautological – such as an empirical experience – can never be proved under any circumstances. But that’s emphatically not to say that empirical experiences exist independently of provable reality. They are the flip side of that reality, the experiential rather than rational part of that reality.

Analysis and Synthesis II “An analytic judgment is one whose predicate is contained in its subject, so that its denial is a self contradiction. (Example: all mothers are female – analytic because ‘mother’ means a ‘female parent’.)” – R. J. Hollingdale “A synthetic judgment is one whose predicate is not contained in its subject, so that its denial is not a self-contradiction: thus all judgments (propositions) which, in ordinary terms, ‘say something’ are synthetic.” – R. J. Hollingdale For Wittgenstein, all analytic statements are “empty”: they say nothing about the world. They are mere matters of definition and tautologies flowing from those definitions. Wittgenstein dismissed mathematics as analytic tautology that said nothing about the world. He believed that science did say things about the world, but failed to realise that it can’t do so given that science is useless without mathematics, which, in his opinion, as we have seen, is empty

tautology. How can a subject about synthetic “reality” be reliant on analytic “unreality”? Wittgenstein was a profoundly confused man, as are all scientists, none of whom has ever answered what rationalist math is doing at the core of empiricist science. “What exactly Leibniz meant by the principle of sufficient reason is a controversial question. Couturat maintains that it means that every true proposition is ‘analytic’, i.e. such that its contradictory is self-contradictory. But this interpretation (which has support in writings that Leibniz did not publish) belongs, if true, to the esoteric doctrine. In his published works, he maintains that there is a difference between necessary and contingent propositions, that only the former follow from the laws of logic...” – Bertrand Russell Russell, as an empiricist, had a very poor understanding of Leibniz, the supreme rationalist. It’s extraordinary that Russell wrote about Leibniz given that he had so little sympathy with his basic worldview. What Russell (an atheist) failed to understand was Leibniz’s injection of God into his published works. Necessary propositions are all analytic, but contingent propositions can be made analytic ... by act of God. When God was calculating the best of all possible worlds, he worked out every contingent possibility, and rejected all of those that were incompatible with the best possible world, leaving only the small subset consistent with the best. Although none of these was logically necessary, each became necessary with regard to the given criterion of creating the best possible world. So, these contingent propositions were transformed into necessary propositions in God’s scheme. Not as logically necessary, but as necessary in relation to God’s plan for the world. By this stratagem, Leibniz turned synthetic propositions into analytic propositions ... but only in relation to God’s calculated best possible world. Outside that context, they are not analytic at all. Within the context of “the best”, they are analytic because their denial would entail a contradiction of the perfect system God had established, and God cannot contradict himself. To put it another way, God’s chosen plan converts contingent propositions into necessary propositions in relation to that plan (but not otherwise), so Leibniz has not contradicted himself. Before he calculated the best possible world, God did not know which contingent propositions would be accepted and which rejected. There was no logical necessity for

the rejected propositions to be discarded – hence any might have been accepted – but, once the calculation had been performed, it would contradict God’s inherent goodness for him to choose anything other than the best possible world, at which point all contingent propositions connected with the best possible world became necessary (analytic), and any contradictions were formally impossible. It follows that given any supposedly synthetic proposition, we should be able to demonstrate that it is in fact analytic, even if infinite steps are involved (which God could easily perform). “I find that every predicate, necessary or contingent, past, present or future, is comprised in the notion of the subject...” – Leibniz “The law of sufficient reason (in the esoteric system only) states that all true propositions are analytic. This applies even to what we should regard as empirical statements about matters of fact.” – Bertrand Russell Leibniz’s work raises the issue of whether every synthetic proposition is in fact analytic, i.e. the predicate is contained in its subject. If we say, “The sky is blue”, the predicate “blue” does not seem to be contained in the subject “sky”. However, if we replace “sky” by a mathematical function, f, which has both rational form and empirical content then the rational form is inevitably and necessarily accompanied by the corresponding content (blue). In other words, you couldn’t have the function f without the predicate blue. It would be a mathematical contradiction in terms. In this mathematical context, all synthetic propositions do indeed become analytic. All synthetic “matters of fact” are necessarily hardwired to analytic mathematical functions and truths of reason. In other words, we misspeak when we refer to synthetic matters of fact. They were necessarily analytic tautologies all along. They couldn’t have been otherwise. There is a noumenal analytic system of rational mathematics, inevitably accompanied by a phenomenal “synthetic” system of empirical mathematics. Empiricists always interpret phenomena as real concrete facts rather than the phenomenal correspondences of real, concrete, analytic mathematics. The “facts” could never have been otherwise, hence are actually disguised tautologies. The synthetic and analytic are not two different Cartesian substances in disconnected worlds (the “real” world of concrete empirical facts, and the “unreal” world of empty, analytic tautologies). Rather, we are dealing with

a dual-aspect monism, and all synthetic phenomenal propositions are just the phenomenal flipside of the analytic noumenal propositions of ontological mathematics. A dual-aspect ontology changes the entire terms of reference of logic and language. In particular, it destroys Wittgenstein’s philosophy, logical positivism, scientific materialism, and all empiricist philosophy. All of these things are misinterpretations of an analytic, tautological system of mathematics. We can’t use the mathematical language of rationalism to account for the non-mathematical language of empiricism, or vice versa, but we can map rationalism to empiricism, and vice versa. One always accompanies the other. We need to acknowledge a system of direct correspondences, not seek a system of proving one in terms of the other when they are incommensurate in terms of their language.

Fantasy Science “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” – Carl Sagan Never once has a scientist said, “You know what, science’s entire Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism is false ... you’ll never hear me referring to it again.” It’s as unthinkable as a politician switching to a rival party, or a Muslim abandoning the Koran. Sagan is clueless. What he’s talking about is scientists changing their minds over tiny details of scientific models, in which they have no great emotional and ideological investment ... they have no skin in the game. It’s easy to change your mind over trivia, but unbelievably difficult to change your mind over the really important stuff, the stuff that shapes your worldview, such as your religious, philosophical, economic, political, social and scientific beliefs.

It’s pathetic when a nihilist such as Sagan claims that scientists arguing over minor technical details of hypotheses has an equivalence to furious political and religious debates. It shows how out of touch scientists are. If scientists were willing to abandon the scientific method after a rational debate, Sagan would have a point, but that’s every bit as inconceivable as the Pope stopping being a Catholic. Science is itself a faith-based religion, and no scientist ever abandons his core beliefs.

The Lie The greatest lie of all is that we live in a strictly empirical world. We actually live in an analytic, mathematical world of reason and logic, and its flip side is the empirical world of phenomena. Your reason isn’t empty and futile, dealing only with ideals and nothing real. Your reason, just like your senses, feelings and intuitions, directly encounters reality, but noumenally rather than phenomenally, rationally rather than irrationally. Humanity has a fatally wrong idea of what reason is and what it does. Scientists believe in a sensory, material reality, which the senses detect. They should accept a non-sensory, mathematical reality, which reason detects. Mathematics is ontological and concrete, not manmade, abstract, potential or virtual. Mathematics is really out there, and we really can detect it. But only people of reason have this capacity, and no one else. Just as blind people can’t see the visible world all around them, people who are blind to reason can’t see the mathematical world all around them. They are lacking the organ for Truth.

Creativity Why are humans creative? Why are they always trying things, experimenting, seeking novelty, trying to improve, hoping to make things better? It’s because they’re inherently self-optimising, self-solving entities. Machines will never be creative since they are not inherently selfoptimising and self-solving. This cannot be programmed into them. You need a soul in order to be creative! The more soulful you are, the more creative you are. Get in touch with your soul if you want to create wonders.

The Ontological Argument

Only a rationalist argument can explain why anything exists at all. The existence of the world can be accounted for only by the existence of eternal, necessary, uncaused, uncreated beings (monads). A necessary being is one whose essence involves and entails existence. Reason alone, without any resort to experience, can define such a being, i.e. the being’s existence follows exclusively from an ontological argument. Everything that has to do with essence is known independently of experience (i.e. it has nothing to do with science). The mathematical ontological arguments proceeds as follows: nothing can prevent nothing; nothing has no requirements; nothing, uniquely, endures forever; nothing is indestructible. A universe of nothings must exist. However, a universe of nothings with no properties is actually a universe of nothing at all, i.e. a universe of non-existence. Why, then, does anything exist? Why is there something (existence) rather than nothing at all (non-existence)? There is only one conceivable answer. A something can exist only when it is nothing. However, it is not nothing with no properties, but nothing with one essential property: its components balance to exactly nothing. Consider Euler’s identity: eiπ + 1 = 0. Here we have the exact situation where a something – the expression on the left – is exactly equal to zero (nothing). The expression on the left is not non-existence. It has properties, capacities, potentialities, the ability to interact with others of its kind, indeed, to contribute to the entire infinite system of mathematics, which, in the end, reduces to nothing but a set of infinite tautologies expressing 0 = 0. Since we know that eiπ + 1 = 0, we can substitute 0 for eiπ + 1, leaving 0 = 0. So, here we have something whose essence is to exist and yet be nothing. This is true of the whole of ontological mathematics, and it’s the only system of which this is true, hence it’s the only true system. Anything which does not have zero as its essential ground state – which can never be violated under any circumstances – can never be true. The idea that quantum mechanics is associated with inherent indeterminacy is logically laughable because here we have a situation where zero is not the essential ground state, and zero can be continuously violated (within the bounds of the uncertainty). Anything that breaches eternal conservation of a cosmic energy ground state of exactly zero is automatically false. Any theory that leads to non-conservation of zero is ipso facto false and must be

rejected. If science applied these rational principles, science would collapse (which is exactly why it doesn’t apply them). Science rejects ontological and epistemological arguments because science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism can never be consistent with them. The last thing that any experiment can prove is that existence is in an eternal state of zero, where something is always and necessarily equal to zero. Reason alone can prove this. Faith cannot, prayer cannot, meditation cannot, mysticism cannot, and the senses cannot. In other words, only reason is capable of taking us to the Truth. Everything else inherently lies to us. Nothing else has the capacity to tell us the Truth, so there’s no point in looking to anything other than reason to lead us to the Truth. If you’re not in the reason game, you’re in the lies game. You want to delude yourself. You want to believe in nonsense.

Science And Religion Science and religion are reality distortion fields. Only reason shows us actual reality. Only reason is free of distortion. Reason is exact, absolute, immutable, infallible, indisputable and incontrovertible. Only people of reason have a relationship with the Truth. Everyone else is lying to themselves and to everyone else. Truth is for the most intelligent people, and not for anyone else. The Holy Grail does not appear to the most “virtuous” people, but to the most rational people. The Grail is a test of intelligence, not of morality.

The Exam You’re in an exam – the exam of existence. Do you know how to pass it? To whom will you turn for advice? This is the strangest exam of all. You are presented with a blank sheet, and you yourself must provide both the questions and the answers. How well you do this will determine whether you pass or fail. 99.9% of people ask the wrong questions and give the wrong answers. They use the wrong tools: their feelings, their mystical intuitions, their senses, their fears, their hopes, their faith, prayer, meditation, “authorities” (prophets and gurus). If you do not sit the exam using your reason alone, you will never make the grade. It’s your choice. This is your life. You are either for reason or for unreason. There is no middle ground. Reason is mathematics. Mathematics is Truth. There is no other Truth.

Religion and science are at war with reason, hence at war with the Truth. Do not listen to the siren calls of the false prophets and gurus. Reason is all you need. Reason alone does not deceive you. 1 + 1 = 2 is truer than all religions and all sciences put together. We don’t require you to believe a single thing we say. Everything we say must be judged on only one basis: is it rationally true or false. Whether you agree with us or not depends on your intelligence, and nothing else. Are you a HyperHuman, or are you one of the irrational masses, willing to believe any old nonsense? Illuminism is natural selection. Only the smartest people on earth can understand our message. “This book belongs to the very few.” – Nietzsche

Vanitas Vanitatum, Omnia Vanitas (“Vanity, Vanity, All Is Vanity”)