The God Blunder (The God Series Book 5)

Table of contents :
The God Blunder
Quotations
Table of Contents
The Illuminati
Introduction
The Meta Paradigm
The Singularity
Alien Visitation?
No Moon
Universal Semen!
Chaos
The Infinite Human
The Science of Feelings?
The Null Zone
The Fallacy
Illuminism

Citation preview

The God Blunder by Mike Hockney Published by Hyperreality Books Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Quotations “Things fall apart: the centre cannot hold.” – W. B. Yeats “An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.” – Weinberg’s Corollary (Arthur Bloch) “In any calculation, any error which can creep in will do so.” – First Law for Naïve Engineers (Arthur Bloch) “Program complexity grows until it exceeds the capability of the programmer who must maintain it.” – Seventh Law of Computer Programming (Arthur Bloch) “Given any problem containing n equations, there will always be (n+1) unknowns.” – First Snafu Equation (Arthur Bloch) “If the input editor has been designed to reject all bad input, an ingenious idiot will discover a method to get bad data past it.” – Troutman’s Fifth Programming Postulate (Arthur Bloch) “Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows.” – Farber’s Fourth Law (Arthur Bloch) “What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” – Nietzsche

Table of Contents The God Blunder Quotations Table of Contents The Illuminati Introduction The Meta Paradigm The Singularity Alien Visitation? No Moon Universal Semen! Chaos The Infinite Human The Science of Feelings? The Null Zone The Fallacy Illuminism

The Illuminati THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the cosmology, philosophy, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the

author is a senior member, working under the pseudonym of “Mike Hockney”.

Introduction Is it possible for an error to be “divine” – to be so beautiful, ingenious, beguiling, compelling and apparently irrefutable that everyone who encounters it, no matter how intelligent, is deceived by it? Does the final throw of the dice of an entirely false view of the world throw up a “solution” that represents the perfect last stand of that ideology – the glorious “Alamo” defence? If so, this solution becomes the biggest possible obstacle to progress because it’s not just a question of showing that it’s false but of overthrowing a ferociously well-entrenched paradigm. People will cling desperately to the prevailing paradigm because it’s how they make sense of the world, and without it they’re lost. Also, many people’s careers are predicated on that paradigm, so they have a vested interest in maintaining it at any cost. Tellingly, Max Planck wrote, “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.” What that means is that scientists – supposedly highly rational people – are not convinced by “facts” and “evidence” at all (no matter how much they might claim otherwise), and fanatically adhere to indefensible positions, even to their dying breath. If a scientific head of department in a prestigious university has built his whole power base, reputation and lucrative job on a certain paradigm – in which he is an acknowledged expert – do you imagine he’s in any hurry to encourage research into a counter paradigm in which he has no status at all? This is the reality of science. Like everything else, it is based on status, salary, career prospects, professional reputation, “office politics” and so on. Those in power in science do not intend to abandon their power, so they create science in their own image, reflecting their own ideas, no matter how wrong they might be. Thomas Kuhn, in the breathtaking The Structure of Scientific Revolutions dealt a fatal blow to the illusions of scientists that they are some band of noble questers impartially following the truth wherever it

leads. On the contrary, they are highly partisan and partial, and the WHOLE of professional science revolves around an accepted but unproved paradigm. Kuhn wrote, “In science … novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation. Initially only the anticipated and usual are experienced even under circumstances where anomaly is later to be observed.” In other words, scientists have a habit of seeing what they want to see, believing what they want to believe and resisting anything that challenges the ruling paradigm. The parallels between science and the Catholic Church are horrific. Science is an institution that reviles heretics, apostates, freethinkers and infidels. It gives them no sustenance and excommunicates them. Science has only one saving grace: eventually, it comes to its senses and realises that a paradigm is no longer tenable. This is when what Kuhn labelled “revolutionary science” takes place – when the old paradigm is killed and a new one is born. It is both the most exciting and unsettling phase of science. The Catholic Church, Islam and Judaism cannot accept a new paradigm: science, fortunately, can. Miguel de Unamuno declared, “Science is a cemetery of dead ideas.” Yet wrong ideas do not die nearly quickly enough in science. Any ideas that become the key scaffolding of the prevailing paradigm can take centuries to perish. A paradigm falls only when they fall. They are the last things to fall. They are precisely those ideas in which people have most confidence, in which their faith is most invested. Keith J. Pendred wrote, “Successful research impedes further successful research.” This, sadly, is all too true. The more successful a paradigm becomes, the less anyone challenges it or is capable of seeing beyond it. Anyone who speaks out against a paradigm is mocked and banished. Their career is over. “Enough research will tend to support your theory.” – Murphy’s Law of Research (Arthur Bloch) Putting this another way, science supports the prevailing paradigm of science, and designs research programmes specifically to support it. (How many scientific funding bodies give grants to projects challenging the scientific wisdom? – NONE!)

Yet science sees itself as objective, neutral, dispassionate and unbiased. Scientists are apparently unaware of the endless unwritten laws of their profession that encourage groupthink – or, if they are aware, they go along with them anyway. Science as a career is much more important than science as a vehicle for understanding reality. Scientists enjoy excluding those who don’t agree with their paradigm. Yet, as the history of science shows, paradigm after paradigm has fallen. So, why not accept that all scientific paradigms are provisional and actively set up scientific groups to undermine and attack the prevailing paradigm so that its demise can come about all the sooner? Why wait until the paradigm is a cruel, old, dying man that has ruthlessly killed all rivals (and all their great ideas and potential) for decades and even centuries, before overthrowing him? The answer is career, mortgage, salary and status. Just as no religion wants a rival, so no scientific paradigm wants a rival, and just as the pope brooks no opposition, so none of the “priesthood of the paradigm” want their authority – and lucrative and prestigious careers – to be challenged. Science, despite some of its rhetoric, sees itself as quintessentially involved with the search for the TRUTH. But if science countenanced a rival paradigm with as much credibility then it would no longer enjoy its unchallenged and imperious status. Science OUGHT to be dialectical, but it isn’t. The dialectic is all about finding the opposition and creating a system that drives forward on the basis of resolving thesis and antithesis in a higher synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis, and so on. The scientific method itself is a perfect example of a dialectical process, but the scientific method is, ironically, not applied to the institutions of science, and to the careers of scientists. The scientific method calls for the most stringent tests to be applied to all hypotheses, experiments, “facts”, “evidence” and theories. The scientific method is supposed to invoke something akin to the Devil’s Advocate mechanism of the Catholic Church where any candidate for sainthood is to be attacked as strenuously as possible – as if the Devil himself were mounting the prosecution case and doing everything in his power to block the would-be saint from earning his rightful reward of canonisation. Yet what does science do in practice? It hires only those people who accept the prevailing paradigm. Anyone who attacks the paradigm is called a “crank” and excluded. Scientific funding bodies give assistance only to projects advancing the paradigm, and everything else is ignored. You can

rise high in science only by being a recognised priest of the paradigm. No true mavericks ever reach the top in mainstream, careerist science. The alleged mavericks – such as Richard Feynman – are not mavericks at all when you examine their record. They turn out to be fanatical advocates of the prevailing paradigm, and refuse to challenge it even when it is woefully incapable of making any sense at all. Consider these remarks by Feynman concerning quantum mechanics: “But the difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, ‘But how can it be like that?’ which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. “On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” “It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.” Why didn’t Feynman call for radical new thinking to unlock the apparent mysteries of quantum mechanics? Why did he simply surrender? – because he knew that a new paradigm was required, but he had no interest in any new paradigm. He preferred to remain ignorant within the existing paradigm.

Charles Caleb Cotton wrote, “Professors in every branch of science prefer their own theories to the truth: the reason is that their theories are private property, but the truth is common stock.” The conclusion isn’t valid, but it’s certainly true that professors prefer their paradigm to the truth, and even persuade themselves that it IS the truth. John Kenneth Galbraith provided the true but rather grim image of science, “The real accomplishment of modern science and technology consists in taking ordinary men, informing them narrowly and deeply and then, through appropriate action, arranging to have their knowledge combined with that of other specialised but equally ordinary men. This dispenses with the need for genius. The resulting performance, though less inspiring, is far more predictable.” This can be linked to Max Gluckmann’s observation, “A science is any discipline in which the fool of this generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the last generation.” In others words, science is about the relentless progress of rather ordinary people. It certainly isn’t going out of its way to identify and support geniuses. If such people nevertheless succeed, it’s often despite the scientific establishment rather than because of it. In the world of writing, Zamyatin said, “There can be a real literature only when it is produced by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics and not by patient and well-meaning functionaries.” Science is completely dominated by “functionaries”: apparatchiks, bureaucrats, conformist careerists, “mortgage men”. Why not have advanced institutes for scientific “madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics” whose precise job is to continually attack the prevailing paradigm and call it into question? Let them be the Devil’s Advocates. Let them test the ideas of the establishment to destruction. You cannot oppose the establishment form INSIDE the establishment. The scientific method has been subverted by science as a professional career since all of those who would be best at subjecting scientific ideas to proper scrutiny have been more or less deliberately excluded. Only those who accept the paradigm are allowed to pursue the scientific method, meaning that the method now possesses an inherent bias contrary to the raison d’être of the method. Supporters of the paradigm are not looking to undermine the paradigm. They are putting in no effort to do so. If they do so, it’s by accident, not design.

In order for the scientific method to be consistent with its own professed aims, philosophy and purpose, it MUST challenge itself in the most radical way, and that means by establishing a shadow science involving those who are not scientific careerists and conformists. Science must be made dialectical. It must be purged of its excessive “establishment bias” where only orthodox opinions are heard and all heretics are purged. Science has taken on the mantle of a dogmatic faith in the prevailing scientific paradigm. Only during a scientific revolution is the faith challenged and overturned. Why shouldn’t that be happening ALL of the time? Why wait for a revolution? Using Kuhn’s term, science should never be “normal” (i.e. careerist and conformist, involving group think and slavish adherence to the prevailing paradigm): it should always be “revolutionary” i.e. seeking to overthrow the prevailing paradigm at all times. That way, it will be maximally productive. An American Air Force saying asserts, “It takes a great enemy to make a great airplane.” This encapsulates the dialectic perfectly. The better the opposition to something, the better the “something” has to be to win. Science – full of conformist careerists – needs to be challenged by nonconformist geniuses. The scientific establishment must be opposed by the scientific anti-establishment. Both sides will benefit from the dialectical struggle, and the whole world will be the ultimate beneficiary.

***** “If a scientist uncovers a publishable fact, it will become central to his theory.” – Mann’s Law (Arthur Bloch) This sums up careerist science. Science, as actually practised, is all about writing papers, attending conferences, making the most of “publishable” facts, and so on. Thomas Kuhn exposed the great myth of science, but science has subsequently reformed itself no more than Catholicism did in the face of Protestantism. It’s about time Kuhn’s ideas were placed at the very heart of science as it exists as an institution. Never forget that science and institutionalized science are not one and the same, just as political philosophy (about political ideas and their coherence) has almost nothing in common with politics as an institution (revolving around populist, incoherent political parties). The same goes for religion. It has often been said that the institutionalized Catholic Church

would have persecuted early Christians – and even Jesus Christ himself – as heretics. Institutions are where power and hierarchies become entrenched, and all of the purity of a subject is destroyed. We need entirely new institutions – reflecting the dialectic – so that every institution is automatically opposed by its antithesis, and so that it cannot turn itself into a smug, careerist, conformist, blinkered tower of power. For a healthy society, we should always have an establishment view up against an anti-establishment view, and a third group (representing the Synthesis phase of the dialectic) that seeks to take the best of both views. Instead, all we get is the unchallenged establishment view thrust down our throats.

The Meta Paradigm Science doesn’t just operate according to a particular scientific paradigm. There is also an unwritten and tacit overarching Meta Paradigm. In ancient Greece, the Meta Paradigm of science was PythagoreanPlatonic rationalism and mathematics. Later, Aristotelian observation and classification took over. Later still, the Meta Paradigm of science became religious and all scientific theories had to be consistent with the Bible and Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology, which fitted neatly with the idea of a Creator God. Even today, Islamic “science” is subject to a religious Meta Paradigm (it is not permitted to contradict the Koran, hence is wholly worthless – which is why it’s almost unheard of for any Muslim to win a Nobel Prize in science). Only with Copernicus and Galileo did Western science escape the religious Meta Paradigm of Christianity. In that time, Illuminatus Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for railing against the Meta Paradigm of Catholicism, and Galileo was fortunate not to join him. The Enlightenment allowed the religious Meta Paradigm of science to be demolished and replaced with a new, more rationalistic Meta Paradigm. A brief battle took place between two Meta Paradigms: rationalist idealism (championed by Descartes, Spinoza and, especially Leibniz), and empiricist materialism (championed by Hobbes, Locke and Hume, and enshrined in the work of Isaac Newton).

Bishop Berkeley held an intermediate position of empiricist idealism. His philosophy was summed up by: to be is to be perceived i.e. his position was all about perception. There has never been a school of rationalist materialism because rationalism always makes an appeal to an immaterial and eternal Platonic domain of perfect knowledge and reason, and such a conception fundamentally contradicts materialist thinking. In the rationalist idealist approach, mind is held to be primary and reason is the means to explore the ultimate rational basis of mind and of existence. (If mind is fundamentally rational and existence is fundamentally mental then existence is fundamentally rational, as Hegel asserted). Experiments are useful in this view, but not essential. This view is highly metaphysical because it involves elements that are beyond observation and have no material form. Rationalist idealism, by making mind primary, can account for free will (since free will is a property of mind, but not of matter). This approach, by being based on the idea that existence is fundamentally mental, is asserting that existence is inherently ALIVE. In the empiricist materialist approach, matter is held to be primary (mind, such as it exists, is a product of matter and wholly dependent on matter; it can have no conceivable existence without matter – so when a body dies, any associated mind automatically dies too). Observation and experiments are critical to this approach. It is held that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that what cannot be observed does not exist, that if something that cannot, at least in principle, be made the subject of an experiment then it does not exist. Hence, the mind (as an independent entity), the soul, God and the afterlife are all denied. Free will is inexplicable within this Meta Paradigm, and has no possible source (only a free, independent, autonomous mind – dependent on nothing else – can be a source of free will and self-generated “agency”). This approach asserts that existence is inherently machinelike. There are no rational means for accounting for life and consciousness since these are not part of the empiricist materialist framework. (Bishop Berkeley’s empiricist idealism, on the other hand, IS all about life and consciousness – and rejects materialism entirely.) Since the death of Leibniz, the Meta Paradigm of rationalist idealism has been removed from science. It is now wholly about empiricist materialism. This Meta Paradigm has made no progress at all in accounting for life, consciousness, and free will, and most practising scientists have no interest

in these subjects. It has been highly successful in analyzing the universe as a kind of machine. While rationalist idealism is compatible with religious views such as pantheism, deism and evolutionary divinity, the empiricist materialism Meta Paradigm is more or less explicitly atheist. Frankly, no scientists can have any credibility if they believe in any kind of God; God is simply not a feature of the Meta Paradigm. There is no scope for God, just as there is none for free will. Richard Dawkins perfectly expresses the atheistic views consistent with this Meta Paradigm. All “religious” scientists are either dishonest, or don’t understand the scientific Meta Paradigm to which they subscribe. Atheism is therefore a tacit feature of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. Ironically, Newton – essentially the founder of the modern scientific view – was deeply religious. Others purged his system of all traces of God, with the process being completed by Darwin’s theory of evolution. From approximately 1700 to 1900, science was governed by the Newtonian scientific paradigm operating within the empiricist materialist atheistic Meta Paradigm.

The Problem of Mathematics Science reveres two things: mathematics and experiments. This poses a serious problem for science in terms of its Meta Paradigm. While experimentation goes hand in hand with empiricist materialism, mathematics is the quintessence of the rival Meta Paradigm of rationalist idealism. Mathematics is Platonic, immaterial, analytic, a priori, eternal, deductive and involves necessary truths. It does not require experiments in any way. Therefore, the prevailing Meta Paradigm of science is incoherent. Empiricist materialism is synthetic, ad hoc, provisional, contingent, inductive and a posteriori – the opposite of mathematics! Sadly, no practising scientist ever gives any thought to this catastrophic contradiction. The problem is removed in the rationalist idealist Meta Paradigm since mathematics is the basis of this approach, and experiments are not required at all. That’s not to say that experiments have no place; they can certainly be used to provide clues to the underlying mathematical reality, but, in

principle, the whole of reality could be worked out a priori if humanity were good enough at mathematics. Getting the right Meta Paradigm for science is essential if there’s to be a grand unified theory of everything. If your Meta Paradigm is wrong, the way you think about problems is also wrong. You bring tacit assumptions that determine how you approach problems and you never ask yourself whether it is in fact these assumptions that are preventing you from getting the right answer. Science is now at the stage where it can contemplate a Theory of Everything, but it can make no further progress until it tackles the Meta Paradigm rather than the science itself. Above all, science must address the issue of mathematics and its fundamentally a priori nature. Unless the Meta Paradigm of science can coherently account for mathematics, it will NEVER provide a theory of everything. Illuminism has addressed the issue by making mathematics itself the authentic theory of everything. We have no difficulty explaining the role of mathematics in our rationalist idealist Meta Paradigm because it’s the foundation of it. We suffer from none of the incoherence and inconsistency of the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm based on the “sanctity” of observations and experiments. The empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm is a hostage to experimental data. Any new data can destroy any scientific paradigm at any time. There is in fact no such thing as a “final” theory of everything because there is no such thing as a final, definitive experiment. Without such an experiment, any provisional theory of everything will stay exactly that – provisional, and always at the mercy of any new experimental data. The prevailing Meta Paradigm of science is simply incompatible with a theory of everything. It can’t deliver. Only mathematics itself – the supreme rationalist, a priori edifice – can EVER furnish a grand unified theory of everything.

The Einsteinian Paradigm Shift When any paradigm shift takes place, it’s always vital to examine the change in the prevailing Meta Paradigm. Science underwent a revolution during the Enlightenment precisely because it escaped from the Biblical Christian (and Aristotelian) Meta Paradigm. Islamic “science” is stuck with the Koranic Islamic Meta Paradigm, hence is useless. Muslim nations

cannot become scientific until they have a rational Enlightenment, as happened in Europe, but Islam is so hostile to rationalism that it makes it impossible to envisage an Islamic Enlightenment. More likely, Islam will become more and more backward and Muslims will become almost a different species, unable to exist in modernity. We can already see this process happening in Afghanistan – the template for the Islamic future. So, what changed in going from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian paradigm? If we can analyze the process of paradigm shifting, we can in a sense forget about the science and concentrate on the paradigm. That can give us the meta clue regarding how to handle the science. In scientific terms, the Newtonian paradigm was based on absolute space, absolute time and, it was assumed, variable measurements of light speed. Absolute space and time correspond to what can be called a “reality principle” – i.e. that there is an objective reality upon which ALL observers can unambiguously agree. The existence of objective reality was originally built into the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. No one doubted that the world was a real, solid place that existed when we weren’t looking at, and went on existing after we died. The last element of the Meta Paradigm was atheism because either God was part of the material world – in which case we would be able to materially interact with him, with souls, with heaven, and God would be part of the relentless causal network of science, and subject to decay and mortality like all other living things (which would render him not God) – or he simply didn’t exist at all. Any scientist subscribing to the prevailing Meta Paradigm who believes in God is committing a category error, and is acting irrationally (and dishonestly). When Einstein challenged Newton’s position, he was able to change the scientific paradigm only by dislodging one key ingredient of the Meta Paradigm. He didn’t touch atheism, empiricism or materialism. What allowed him to create the Theory of Relativity was the abandonment of OBJECTIVE REALITY! He destroyed the reality principle by removing an absolute reference frame with regard to which everything happened. With this gone, there was no longer any unique view of the universe with which all observers could agree. The reality principle – objective reality – DEMANDS an absolute reference frame, the same for everyone.

In his play Copenhagen about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, playwright Michael Frayn gave the following statement to Niels Bohr: “It starts with Einstein. He shows that measurement – measurement, on which the whole possibility of science depends – measurement is not an impersonal event that occurs with impartial universality. It’s a human act, carried out from a specific point of view in time and space, from the particular viewpoint of a possible observer. Then here in Copenhagen in those three years in the mid-twenties we discover that there is no precisely determinable objective universe. Thus the universe exists only as a series of approximations. Only within the limits determined by our relationship with it. Only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.” This accurately reflects the common understanding of Einstein’s contribution to physics. He DESTROYED the notion that science was based on objective reality. In fact, he destroyed science as it had hitherto been understood. No matter what any scientist might tell you, science is not now a subject that deals with objective truths. What it does is deal with mathematically well-defined subjective frames of reference, and then tries to pretend that these somehow constitute an objective reality. Astoundingly, Einstein believed himself a great champion of objectivity and vehemently disagreed with Werner Heisenberg’s subjectivist statement: “The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible.” Einstein also argued with Niels Bohr about whether the moon existed if no one was observing it. Bohr asserted that there was no evidence that it did! Yet it was Einstein himself who killed off the only way in which an objective reality can be understood i.e. that there must be an absolute reference frame, agreed upon by all observers. Once that’s gone – and it’s most certainly gone in Einstein’s theory of relativity – the reality principle is gone too. Increasingly subjective interpretations are inevitable, and that’s exactly what happened with quantum mechanics, even to the extent that some people argued that consciousness is essential to reality, and without consciousness nothing exists in any particular, definite state. Einstein declared, “Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking.”

Yet that’s exactly the view relativity killed. What he ought to have said, given his own theory, is, “Out yonder there is this huge world, which can be understood in terms of the frames of reference we mathematically define, and which we can mathematically translate into alternative frames of reference.” Which doesn’t have quite the same ring! Einstein seemed to suffer from the delusion that because quantum mechanics was probabilistic and relativity theory wasn’t then the latter was objective. The fact that something is well defined mathematically and nonprobabilistic does NOT make it objective. The definition of objective reality is that there is an incontestable, absolute stage, which is the same for everyone. The point of relativity theory was to remove that stage and to allow everyone to define their own stage. That’s the essence of the subjective approach. Anyone who wants to analyze the steps Einstein took to arrive at his relativity theory must understand both his new paradigm (replacing the Newtonian paradigm) and how he changed the prevailing Meta Paradigm. This latter aspect is the part of his theory that is never studied and is precisely where he introduced a catastrophic fallacy into the core of physics, where it has remained undisturbed ever since, and fooled every prominent scientist on earth. So, let’s examine the ingredients that go into Meta Paradigms, and see how these are critical to specific scientific paradigms, but which are only tacitly acknowledged in the scientific paradigms themselves. In other words, a scientific paradigm is always overarched by an unspoken Meta Paradigm, and the latter is ideological, metaphysical, philosophical, even religious i.e. unscientific in the commonly understood sense. The tragedy of science is that it doesn’t realise it’s a reflection of speculative, non-scientific ideas, hence it doesn’t understand itself: it doesn’t know how to carry out the scientific process properly. Any scientific theory, to be credible, ought to consist of two stated elements: firstly, the specific paradigm itself, and secondly the Meta Paradigm in which the paradigm is framed. Step 2 is by far and away the most important and yet science ignores it because it does not see it as scientific at all. It’s here that science’s assumptions lie, and if these assumptions are false then any scientific paradigm constructed from them is false also.

We will show exactly where Einstein went wrong, why scientists are so blind to his error, and why they have to completely change the way they undertake science if they are to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

The Elements of Meta Paradigms We shall now list all of the components that feature in Meta Paradigms. 1) Religion. “God” designed the world, and laid out his design in “holy” texts. Since God is infallible and humans aren’t, no human being is permitted to challenge God’s revelation. If we think he made a mistake, we must be wrong because God doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore, if our reason, logic or experiments contradict divine revelation, it simply goes to show how deluded, flawed and fallible we are. Famously, the Catholic Church denied that the earth went round the sun, because this was contrary to Scripture. Evangelical Protestants reject Darwinian evolution on the same grounds, and Islam rejects all of science if it says anything at odds with the Koran. Contemporary Muslim scientists work within this Meta Paradigm, hence their work is worthless (since the Koran is nonsense from beginning to end and contains NO scientific truth content). All scientists should be compelled to acknowledge whether or not they subscribe to any religious Meta Paradigm in their work. 2) Atheism. There is no God, so the universe must be explained independently of the activities of any divine being or supernatural force. This is one of the default Meta Paradigms of contemporary science. 3) Idealism. Mind is the essence of reality. Given that mind is alive, existence itself is fundamentally alive. Matter is a construct of mind and has no independent existence. Idealism can be subjective or objective. A dream is an example where a mind constructs an entirely subjective reality. In a dream, we can create and remove others at will; we can alter space, time and causality. In the idealism of Bishop Berkeley, God created an objective reality for the rest of us, but if he chose to switch off

that reality then we would all instantly be annihilated i.e. his subjective reality is our objective reality, but there is no existence independent of his thoughts. Science absolutely rejects the idealistic Meta Paradigm, and has done so ever since Newton. 4) Materialism. Matter is the essence of reality. Mind is something that emerges from matter and is absolutely dependent on matter; it cannot exist independently of matter. Given that matter is dead and mindless, existence itself is fundamentally dead and lifeless; existence is therefore machinelike. Materialism CANNOT be subjective since there are no independent subjective minds in this Meta Paradigm. 5) Rationalism. The position that it is possible through reason alone to gain absolute knowledge of what exists; the view that knowledge forms a single (rational) system; the view that deduction is the means to unlock the secrets of the universe; the view that everything is rationally explicable in terms of a single, all-embracing system; the rejection of faith, prejudice, habit, the senses and anything else deemed irrational. Science is not well disposed to the rationalist Meta Paradigm because rationalism goes hand in hand with idealism. Rationalism concerns the activity of rational thinking and is therefore all about the mind. It’s not clear how matter could exhibit rationalism, except through having rational laws somehow encoded in it, but it’s not clear how such encoding could ever take place. There is no school of rationalist materialism. Rationalism, like idealism, gives primacy to the mind, and the ultimate task of rationalism is to explain the mind’s role in reality. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz were the key philosophers of rationalism. Descartes gave mind and matter separate domains (but this dualism failed to explain how they could interact), Spinoza gave mind and matter a shared domain (united in God/Nature) and Leibniz made mind primary and matter a product of mind. Science adopted the Cartesian view of a separate domain for matter, then promptly abolished the Cartesian domain of mind. The

prevailing scientific Meta Paradigm therefore does not reflect traditional rationalism in any way. 6) Empiricism. All real knowledge is said to derive from experience, observations, experiments, sensory data. Therefore, rational “knowledge” that has no empirical basis is empty and not true knowledge at all. Empiricism sees the mind as a blank canvas onto which our experiences are written. It explicitly denies the Platonic concept that we have innate ideas, owing nothing to experience. Practical science is a natural partner of empiricism, and pure mathematics of rationalism. Empiricism views pure mathematics as a collection of empty tautologies that contribute nothing to knowledge of the real world. Whereas rationalism was European, empiricism was exclusively British. Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Newton were its central figures. Empiricism offers “practical” knowledge as opposed to intellectual knowledge and can be regarded as somewhat plebeian. While the intellectual patrician is willing to contemplate what lies beyond the senses, the practical pleb wallows in the sensory domain. To this day, the British remain ferociously anti-intellectual. They are a soulless people, lacking in both intelligence and spirituality. Empiricism and materialism are natural partners and form the basis of the prevailing scientific Meta Paradigm. 7) Innate Ideas. These are ideas or knowledge in the mind that are prior to and independent of sense experience. They are strongly associated with rationalism and idealism, but completely rejected by empiricism and materialism. Therefore, any conclusive proof of innate ideas refutes the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. 8) Tabula Rasa. (Latin for “blank tablet”.) This concerns the central position of empiricism. The mind is blank at birth, and then populated by the stuff of our experience. The mind contains no innate, a priori knowledge. The innate ideas versus tabula rasa debate is intimately connected with the ultimate a priori subject – mathematics. According to Plato, mathematics is

something that exists independently of us and yet we all have access to it, meaning in effect that it is inbuilt in our minds. According to empiricists, mathematics has no independent existence and is something we construct, based on our experiences (although it’s surely somewhat miraculous that we can apparently construct something as complex as mathematics that only a small percentage of humanity can consciously understand). In baseball, the batter cannot actually track the pitcher’s ball because it’s moving too fast. So, how does he strike the ball given that he can’t see where it is? Apparently, he calculates the predicted flight path of the ball based on the stance of the pitcher at the moment he throws the ball. This is a staggeringly difficult calculation that the batter could never perform consciously with pencil and paper, yet he can perform it instinctively and instantaneously in his head – what’s that if not innate mathematical knowledge? 9) The Objective World. Empiricist materialist science was originally all about observable objective reality, the reality principle, the plain evidence of the senses, and rejected all unobservables and metaphysical speculations. Rationalist idealist science also accepted an observable objective reality, but additionally contemplated a higher, unobservable reality of which the world of our experience was a mere shadow or copy (just as Plato claimed the sensory world was an inferior copy of the perfect Domain of Forms). Empiricist materialist scientists reject any reference to any unseen domain (hence empiricist materialism is opposed to core religious concepts). Where idealism is about TWO WORLDS – the higher, true world of intellect and the lower sensory copy, empiricist materialist science has traditionally denied the two-world paradigm and been at pains to champion one world. However, this has subtly changed with modern physics. Quantum mechanics talks about a vague, fuzzy, probabilistic quantum domain, from which the normal, solid world of our experience somehow emerges. We are thus firmly in two-world territory – a very uncomfortable place for science since it contradicts the core Meta Paradigm.

Moreover, relativity abandons the “real world” – based on an absolute reference frame – and starts multiplying worlds endlessly, each based on its own unique reference frame. “Many worlds” and Multiverse theories talk of infinite universes, and infinite versions of us, and infinite versions of our lives. This represents a catastrophic break down of the underpinning Meta Paradigm of science. However, scientists haven’t noticed! 10) The Subjective World. Solipsism holds that only “I” exist. The apparent external world is only an object or content of “my” consciousness. In Berkeley’s idealism, the “real world” is an object or content of God’s consciousness. In Kant’s philosophy, the real world is unknowable and we use our minds to create a “phenomenal” reality, which easily lends itself to a subjective view of reality. Schopenhauer followed Kant, but whereas Kant envisaged many independent minds, Schopenhauer conceived of many instances of one underlying mind (of pure Will). 11) Mathematics. This is the most natural candidate for an eternal, defining framework of reality. Mathematics is about eternal, immutable, perfect, necessary, analytic, a priori truths, independent of experience and experiments. It is the perfect realisation of Plato’s mysterious domain of immaterial Forms. Mathematics revolves around deduction. 12) Science. Science is archetypally a posteriori, synthetic, contingent, empirical, ad hoc, provisional, materialist and inductive. In many ways, it is the opposite of mathematics, which makes it so extraordinary that mathematics is the foundation of science’s power. No scientist has ever explained how science and mathematics can be brought together given that they belong to different Meta Paradigms. It’s precisely because the relationship between science and mathematics is so vague that scientists feel free to disregard zero, infinity, negative numbers and imaginary numbers and use a mathematics based only on real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. How can science have pretensions to a Grand Unified Theory of

Everything if it can’t even explain the role and position of mathematics in science?

***** What Meta Paradigm combinations work together? Atheism, materialism, empiricism, “tabula rasa” and “objective world” all combine well. Mainstream religion works well on its own, but is difficult to link with anything else, though it does have a degree of affinity with innate ideas and idealism. Idealism, rationalism, innate ideas all go well together, and an objective and subjective worldview can both be easily accommodated.

***** Whenever you are presented with any idea, you should seek to identify to which Meta Paradigm it belongs – and that will tell you an enormous amount about the person telling you the idea and what assumptions are tacit in the opinion they’re expressing. In terms of Illuminism, there is actually only one Meta Paradigm – mathematics. All of existence is defined mathematically. However, Illuminism is friendly towards rationalism and idealism, and less so towards empiricism and materialism. Illuminism is contemptuous of the mainstream religious Meta Paradigm, to which most people in the world subscribe. In Illuminism, it is held that all objective knowledge about existence can in principle be calculated a priori. However, in practice, we need clues to help us with the enormous task – and that’s where a posteriori science comes into play. Science is a necessary dialectical stage on the way to a complete mathematical understanding of existence. Einstein used Riemannian geometry and tensor mathematics in his general theory of relativity i.e. the broad mathematical details had already been calculated but never applied to a specific real world problem. ONTOLOGICAL mathematics is all about applying abstract mathematics to the real world. Thus ontological mathematics will replace science in due course, and the mysterious relationship between mathematics and science will become irrelevant since science will fade away. Everything we need to know about reality will come from ontological mathematics, but science was the necessary precursor of ontological mathematics because it linked

mathematics with the observable world and gradually revealed that all scientific truths were, at core, mathematical truths. All scientific equations are mathematical equations. Science is successful purely because it used mathematics, and without mathematics it would be nothing but Mythos speculation – like Aristotle’s ancient version of science, or alchemy.

Einstein versus Newton The Meta Paradigm of Newtonian physics was empiricist, materialistic and based on an objective reality for all observers (enshrined in the concept of absolute space and absolute time – the same for every observer). It was assumed that different observers, depending on their relative speeds and directions of travel, would obtain different values of the speed of light. When it became clear that the speed of light was invariant, something had to give in the Newtonian Meta Paradigm. Einstein didn’t get rid of empiricism and he didn’t get rid of materialism. Amazingly, he chose to abandon objective reality. In Newtonian physics, there is one preferred, privileged reference frame representing a completely stationary state – against which everything else is moving. Just imagine a vast, static container in which all movement takes place – but which itself never moves. So, in this container, objective reality unfolds. All moving things – no matter how they are moving – are moving with respect to the stationary container. When Einstein was faced with explaining why the speed of light was invariant in all situations, his solution was to say that EVERY observer travelling at a constant speed in a straight line could consider himself at rest. That is, every observer could claim to be the stationary reference frame against which all others were moving. Since everyone could make the same claim, there was no longer such a thing as an absolute, objective reference frame. Every reference frame was now relative to every other reference frame, and no reference frame was privileged over any other. It was now no longer possible to define an absolute state of rest, only a relative state of rest. Einstein’s special theory of relativity (his non-gravitational version of relativity theory) worked so well, was so elegant and was supported by such impeccable mathematics that no one questioned the loss of objective reality and the abandonment of the reality principle. Isn’t it remarkable that scientists were so cavalier about a key Meta Paradigm of science? If science

isn’t about objective reality, is it still science? Hasn’t it mutated into something else? Hasn’t it become an elaborate fantasy, a construct of the mind? Hasn’t it become THE MATRIX? Einstein’s revolutionary manoeuvre was prompted by a failure to find a stationary physical ether (which stood as the physical manifestation of Newtonian absolute space). The key point is this: Einstein was not forced to abandon objective reality. There was an alternative and earlier theory by Lorentz, Poincaré and others that preserved the ether and used the same mathematics as Einstein. And there was an even more radical alternative: preserving objective reality by abandoning MATERIALISM. There is no logical difficulty with creating a perfectly stationary, non-physical ether. It can’t be physically detected precisely because it’s not physical. Einstein could have opted to sacrifice that particular Meta Paradigm of science, but chose instead to relinquish objective reality. In other words, scientists are more attached to the materialist Meta Paradigm than they are to the “objective reality” Meta Paradigm. What scientists fail to do is make it clear what Meta Paradigms they are employing and which ones they are dropping. Whatever theory results depends on what Meta Paradigm is cast aside. Einstein’s theory would have been radically different if he got rid of materialism rather than objective reality, and his special theory of relativity would never have had that name. Isn’t it fascinating that science is much more wedded to materialism than to reality itself (even though the whole attraction of matter is that it seems solid and real)? Einstein would have been a laughing stock if he had proposed an immaterial static ether, but he was lauded as one of history’s all-time geniuses for presenting a theory in which reality vanished and was replaced by subjective frames of reference, none of which had any special significance. Did scientists simply not notice what Einstein had done? Einstein himself seemed none too clear about it in some of his published writings. Yet the advent of quantum mechanics where the objective world was indeed explicitly denied by the leading scientists of the day showed that science had not been oblivious to Einstein’s manoeuvre. Science was prepared to sacrifice the reality principle in favour of the relativity principle, the objectivity principle in favour of the subjectivity principle. Later, we will show exactly how objective reality can be restored via an immaterial ether,

and we will demonstrate how Einstein’s much vaunted principle of relativity is wholly false. The two most successful scientific theories in history are quantum mechanics and general relativity, yet they cannot be merged into a single theory of quantum gravity. What that means is that one or other, or both, of the theories contains a radical falsehood. In Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed, Jim Al-Khalili wrote, “Workers in the field have divided up loosely into two camps. One camp claims that quantum mechanics contains the more fundamental concepts and that we should start from there and work our way up to incorporate general relativity. The other camp disagrees, prefers to start from general relativity with its fundamental notions of space and time, and tries to quantize it. Of course, there are other physicists who believe that neither will survive fully intact and that both will need major surgery before they can be grafted together into quantum gravity. A yet smaller minority of deep thinkers even proposes that the correct route is to ditch both quantum mechanics and general relativity and start from scratch. But since each theory works so well in its own domain it is hard to believe that they don’t both contain fundamental truths about nature.” Quantum mechanics and general relativity are based on radically different mathematical approaches. The two conflicting theories cannot be reconciled until they have a common mathematical grounding. That means showing which theory has taken the wrong path. The answer is the theory of relativity, and the principle of relativity itself is the fundamental error. “In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake.” – Finagle’s Third Law (Arthur Bloch) In this case, it is the principle of relativity – one of the keystones of physics – that is “most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking”. No one would ever think of looking there for the mistake, and that’s exactly why it’s the mistake.

***** The specific scientific paradigm shift Einstein inaugurated was to take Newtonian absolute space and time, with a variable measurement for the speed of light, and replace it with variable space and time and an absolute speed of light. In other words, all he did was identify a different absolute,

and examine the logical consequences of that. So, whereas the measured speed of light was relative in Newtonian physics, space and time became relative in Einsteinian physics. The scientific community was dazzled by Einstein and rapidly embraced his new worldview. After all, it seemed to work splendidly. However, as Nietzsche pointed out, success is the greatest liar of all! Success blinds us. We see success as somehow divine and infallible. Almost no one considers that success often comes about through luck, accident or a rigged system. Success causes us to suspend our disbelief. We fail to see the flaws in “successful” things. Almost no thought at all was given by the scientific community to the catastrophic Meta Paradigm change Einstein’s new theory had brought about. Absolute space and time was the bulwark of objective reality – of the reality principle. An absolute speed of light had the effect of changing space and time for all observers, depending on what speed they were moving at relative to light speed. Observers could have a shared objective reality only while they were travelling at more or less the same speed (as we all do on earth). If observers were continually changing their speed from zero to light speed through the course of the day, and doing so at random rather than in a synchronised way, the whole idea of a shared objective reality would dissolve. Einstein wasn’t bothered by this because he had a mathematical means (the so-called “Lorentz transformation(s)” of space, time and mass) to relate space and time in any frame of reference to any other, and he took this as some kind of acceptable criterion of objectivity. In fact, it is simply a means of objectively relating subjective viewpoints. A monolingual Chinese person and a monolingual English person can’t communicate with each other. Neither has any idea what the other is saying; they are locked into their own subjective worlds, with no possibility of communicating with the other “world”. The Lorentz transformation acts as a translator, making each subjective world intelligible to the other. But the whole point is that it’s a “middle man”, a mediator, a translator. In Newtonian physics, every observer spoke the same language, so no middleman was needed. In Einsteinian physics, every observer speaks a different language as soon as they change their speed, but the Lorentz transformation acts as a universal translator. Newtonian physics offers an unmediated, absolute, objective reality; Einsteinian physics provides a mediated subjective reality using an absolute translator.

So, incredibly, science simply abandoned one of the central planks of the scientific worldview – an objective world “out there”, agreed upon by everyone. In its place, it put a subjective world ruled by a mathematical transformation. We all inhabit our own frame of reference, but we have the mathematical means to understand what’s going on in any other frame of reference. We don’t SHARE that other reality, but we can mathematically make sense of it. Because of the power and objectivity of mathematics, Einstein convinced himself that he hadn’t killed the reality principle, but placed it on a more robust footing. Yet the extreme subjectivity of quantum mechanics soon revealed what the true direction of scientific thinking now was, and Einstein had set the ball rolling. The issue is this – is it possible to combine an absolute speed of light with something else absolute; something that thereby restores the reality principle? Einstein replaced absolute space and time with relativistic spacetime. Is it possible to have an ABSOLUTE spacetime? This was the key question neither Einstein nor anyone else addressed. The answer is yes, but not within the materialistic Meta Paradigm. To restore objective reality, you must dispense with materialism! In the course of this book, we will show exactly how it can be accomplished.

Speak Truth to Power Dialectically, it’s critical for people to speak truth to Power, and to have their voice heard. In our world, “Power” – the elite, the establishment – choose to ignore the powerless. In science, the establishment refuses to listen to anti-establishment views. In fact, the defining characteristic of power is that it strives to silence opposing voices; it seeks never to be contradicted. Where opposition is allowed, e.g. between rival political parties, there’s usually little difference between the parties, and no voice is given to extremist parties making radical suggestions. In a dialectical world, rather than a world of established power, opposing voices must be sought out. They’re essential to the process. There’s nothing more inimical to change than an establishment that only wants to listen to itself, and is only capable of hearing itself. Established power exists in an echo chamber. The prevailing scientific paradigm is also an echo chamber. It’s time for new voices.

***** How do robotic, conformist, paradigm thinkers escape from their own paradigm? It can’t be done. In fact, paradigm thinkers, rather than abandon their faltering paradigm, delve even further into it because they find it so reassuring. M-theory – the most complex theory in history – is the strongest ever assertion of the materialist Meta Paradigm. Its entire purpose is to eliminate the possibility of anything immaterial and dimensionless. Specifically, it is the attempt to remove zero from science. By removing zero, division by zero can’t take place and hence no infinities can be generated. Zero and infinity are the two defining numbers of non-material existence, so materialists are therefore committed to abolishing them. What they are doing is creating a version of mathematics without zero and infinity. Is this a rational, sane manoeuvre? Here we see how scientists – philosophical illiterates – are unaware of the full implications of exploring certain aspects of a Meta Paradigm. Scientists do not understand that two conflicting Meta Paradigms trap them. On the one hand is the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. On the other is the mathematical Meta Paradigm, which is rationalist and idealist. M-theory, by pushing materialism to its logical conclusion (getting rid of zero and infinity and thus removing any conceivable reference to an immaterial entity), comes into a catastrophic conflict with the mathematical Meta Paradigm. Any mathematical system lacking zero and infinity is incomplete, inconsistent and absurd. It is logically impossible to construct sensible mathematical systems designed to satisfy philosophical or religious beliefs rather than the necessary, analytic, a priori requirements of mathematics itself. M-theory isn’t working because it’s based on MEANINGLESS mathematics, intended to accommodate an extreme materialist bias. Imagine Muslims creating a version of mathematics that used only even numbers acceptable to Allah. Would anyone take such a mathematics seriously? Yet the materialist proponents of M-theory are engaged in an equivalent exercise. They are trying to make mathematics fit their preconceptions, beliefs and prejudices rather than accepting mathematics as a totality, independent of anyone’s beliefs. Illuminism makes mathematics primary and accepts it in its entirety. Any other approach is illogical, irrational and anti-mathematical. M-theory

can NEVER work because it is opposed to true mathematics and has removed the two decisive mathematical numbers: zero and infinity. Mtheorists have trapped themselves within their empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. They are not engaged in science but in philosophy i.e. they are trying to construct a science that reflects the ideology and dogmatism of materialism, regardless of the consequences for rationalist, idealist mathematics. We say to all M-theorists that mathematics trumps materialism. Science must comply with mathematics, not with materialism. Since mathematics and materialism are not formally compatible (materialism rejects zero and infinity), scientists have a decisive choice to make. Will they make a mockery of mathematics, or will they reject materialism? Given that mathematics IS existence, any challenge to mathematics is an assault on reality and can never succeed in explaining existence. M-theory is the Grand Folly of materialism, its last throw of the dice. It is guaranteed to fail. That is obvious a priori. M-theorists are wasting their lives on a unworkable fantasy, and all because they lack the philosophical nous to examine the consequences of their Meta Paradigm. You should never proceed with any Grand Unified Theory of Everything until you have first resolved any conflicts in your Meta Paradigm. Illuminism grasped that there was only one logical Meta Paradigm, devoid of fatal contradictions. That Meta Paradigm was mathematics itself, the queen of the sciences. Any scientific attack on mathematics represents a kind of insanity. Science’s whole problem is that it sees mathematics as a tool of science rather than seeing science as an application of mathematics. Science will fail if it cannot understand where it stands in relation to mathematics, and cannot identify the senior partner. Mathematics itself is the only logical Meta Paradigm. Science must take place within that context. Science must never contradict mathematics, nor get rid of troublesome numbers such as zero and infinity, nor reject the ontological reality of negative and imaginary numbers.

***** Science likes to think that it is separate from philosophy and insulated from it; that it is purged of all metaphysical notions; that it deals only in facts and evidence – in other words that it’s about “reality”.

However, what science is really all about is “observable” reality (definitely not the same as actual reality), which quite literally means that science now subscribes to the doctrine esse est percipi (“to be is to be perceived”), originally formulated by the über IDEALIST Bishop Berkeley, who denied the existence of any material world! For mainstream science, the moon exists when you observe it, and it doesn’t otherwise – or rather its unobserved existence is a superfluous hypothesis or belongs to metaphysical speculation. We cannot FACTUALLY state that the unobserved moon exists, so to say that it does is a mere assumption, or untestable claim. This is positivism and logical positivism taken to their absolute extreme and almost insane degree. You can only speak meaningfully about something WHILE you are observing it. When you cease to observe it, you cease to have any verifiable or indeed falsifiable information about it, so you have left the world of facts and evidence and are in danger of engaging in pointless speculation. This is now the supreme Meta Paradigm of science – enshrined in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics – and it’s purely a philosophical and even metaphysical stance. It’s making a radical epistemological claim that it’s meaningless to discuss the non-observed and unobservable. This is also an ontological claim because it is being asserted that the non-observed or unobservable either formally don’t exist or no formal meaning can be ascribed to their putative existence (which is equivalent to saying they don’t exist when not direct objects of observation). This view destroys the old scientific concept of reality existing regardless of any observers i.e. science no longer acknowledges a reality principle but is now based on an “observation principle” – only that which is observed evidentially exists. Science is now an extremist empiricist and positivist enterprise, and has a remarkable amount in common with Bishop Berkeley’s ultra idealism. It no longer subscribes to the old materialist Meta Paradigm but now invokes a new view of materialism – matter exists only while it is being observed. Matter cannot be said to have enduring qualities because these are unobservable. Matter has qualities only at the instant observation begins and while observation continues. When observation ceases, matter’s ontological status becomes speculative, hence “non-scientific”.

So, empiricism rather than materialism or objective reality (i.e. reality independent of observers) now stands at the core of science. This is an extraordinary transition that is never debated, least of all by scientists themselves, most of whom are clueless about the modern philosophy of science. This issue is of crucial importance because empiricism dismisses anything that can’t be a direct object of observation or experience. In this context, consider the concept of a “rational” ether i.e. an ether whose existence can be demonstrated rationally but not empirically. Is rationalism or empiricism the right way to approach this issue? In his special theory of relativity, Einstein got rid of the ether (or reduced it to a superfluous hypothesis, which was tantamount to killing it). No one disapproved of Einstein’s inference because if ether’s physical existence cannot be demonstrated then the scientific mind, invoking the empiricist Meta Paradigm, is happy to conclude that it does not exist at all. To state the key issue as bluntly as possible: a rationalist couldn’t care less about the sensory, observable existence of the ether if its rational existence is incontestable i.e. unobservability is deemed no rational barrier to something’s existence. An empiricist, on the other hands, cares ONLY about sensory observability, and dismisses as unreal or fantastical anything that cannot be observed. The “soul”, like the ether, is rejected by science, not because it defies rationality but because it defies empiricism. This standoff between rationalism and empiricism – between rational unobservability and empirical observability – is the defining question of existence. Our very soul depends on it – literally. Empiricism, of the materialistic kind, automatically rejects the soul, hence materialist empiricism is ALWAYS atheistic. It is inherently atheistic. You cannot have a religious materialist empiricist any more than you can have a rationalist empiricist. In Leibniz’s hyperrationalist Monadology, the monad (the soul, the zero) is DEFINED as being beyond the reach of empiricism. Accordingly, empiricism (i.e. science) dismisses it. Ironically, science derives all of its power from mathematics, the quintessential rationalist subject. Mathematics has no empirical requirement whatsoever.

A catastrophic fault line and contradiction exists at the core of science. It slavishly obeys the positivist, EMPIRICIST Meta Paradigm, while being absolutely based on the rationalist Meta Paradigm of mathematics. This is a fatal combination. Illuminism resolved it by accepting rationalist mathematics as the supreme arbiter of truth, with empiricism playing a subordinate role. Empiricism is not permitted to contradict rationalism (e.g. rational unobservables such as monads can’t be rejected). Its function is to help illuminate it. Science adopts the opposite viewpoint. Rationalism is not allowed to contradict empiricism. If something can’t be observed, it doesn’t exist, whether it’s rational or not. Rationalism is subordinate to empiricism and deemed acceptable only when it does not contradict empiricism. So, rational mathematical entities such as zero, infinity, negative and imaginary numbers are always dismissed as UNREAL, and only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity are accepted scientifically, because only these numbers comply with the empiricist Meta Paradigm. It can’t be emphasized enough what this entails. Science is based on a subset of mathematics that we can call Empiricist Mathematics, based only on “empirical” numbers i.e. real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. Because only these numbers have empirical consequences, only they are accepted as ontological. The rest of mathematics is dismissed as non-empirical, non-observable and non-ontological – a pure abstraction. Mtheory formally seeks to prevent zero and infinity from ever appearing in the theory, or having any possibility of appearing. This is the logical outcome of empiricist mathematics. Whether it represents anything other than insanity in relation to mathematics is a different question. The imaginary number, i, features throughout physics and yet is deemed to be empirically unobservable, hence non-ontological. Why has no scientist ever addressed the presence of an unobservable, “unreal”, nonontological number in the heart of physics? Scientists continually view mathematics as an abstraction. They don’t care about the significance of imaginary numbers in physics equations, providing the equations yield the right answers. Isn’t this cavalier in the extreme? No scientist who placed a “phantom” variable or made-up quantity into a physics equation would expect to be taken seriously, yet “fictitious” imaginary numbers pass without comment, or even any apparent curiosity. Why can’t scientists confront what their own equations are telling them i.e. imaginary numbers

are ontological? It’s because imaginary numbers defy the empiricist Meta Paradigm. They can’t be observed hence they can’t exist. The fact that they are entirely rational, essential to mathematical completeness, consistency and coherence, and there is no sufficient reason to exclude them, is conveniently ignored or simply doesn’t enter the minds of scientists. Mathematics itself has becomes the supreme battlefield of reality, and the precise relationship of science and mathematics must be clarified once and for all. Illuminism treats mathematics as a single, indissoluble entity. Either it’s all true or none of it is true. It is either all ontological or none of it is ontological. No part of it is privileged over any other part. There is no question of some numbers being real and some “unreal”: they are all as real as each other. There are no subsets of mathematics that have different ontological status. There is no sufficient reason for real numbers to have any special significance over imaginary numbers, or positive numbers over negatives or for zero or infinity to be cast into the wilderness of pure abstraction. According to science, mathematics divides into two: “real” mathematics and “unreal” mathematics. “Real” mathematics is empiricist and involves only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. The rest of mathematics is an abstraction with no ontological consequences; an elaborate fiction. The fact that unreal, unobservable imaginary numbers appear in many key scientific equations is left unexplained. “Imaginary numbers are useful because they allow the construction of nonreal complex numbers, which have essential concrete applications in a variety of scientific and related areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, cartography, and vibration analysis.” – Wikipedia The attitude of scientists towards mathematics is quite extraordinary and irrational. Mathematics is indispensible to them – their central tool for making sense of experimental data – yet they have no actual idea of what mathematics is, or where it comes from, or where it is “stored” and how the world can be so mathematical. Shouldn’t the status of mathematics be the NUMBER ONE issue addressed by scientists? How can they answer any other big question if they can’t answer that?

Scientists apply an empiricist Meta Paradigm filter to mathematics. They accept only those parts of mathematics that can be considered empirically observable; everything else is rejected. M-theory is the ultimate attempt to devise a new mathematics, excluding any non-empirical mathematics. Is this the maddest project ever undertaken? Is it the grandest folly of all time? Only people who have zero understanding of what mathematics actually is and how it fits together could imagine that they could strip out a huge chunk of it just to satisfy a philosophical empiricist bias. When has any Mtheorist ever spoken about what mathematics is? M-theorists are trying to construct a theory of everything, yet they can’t even explain mathematics – the tool they are using to formulate the theory. Is this not absurd? It’s almost comical. They are trying to produce an all-embracing theory that can’t even explain itself. Mathematics is the quintessence of the rationalist approach. Mathematics is immune to experiments. Mathematics is a priori. Mathematics is eternal. Mathematics is the arche – the prerequisite of everything else. Existence is 100% mathematical. It is impossible for anything to exist outside mathematics. Mathematics is the only possible answer to everything. There are no other candidates. We ourselves are eternal purely because we are indestructible mathematical objects; mathematical information systems. To apply empiricist considerations to rationalist mathematics is deranged, yet that’s exactly what science does. There is no rationale for such a procedure beyond an infantile anthropocentric obsession with the human senses. Where is there any cosmic law that what exists must be amenable to the human senses? Is something that is unobservable to humans ipso facto non-existent? Human beings can’t hear ultrasonic sounds. Does that mean that such sounds don’t exist? Human can’t see microwaves. Does that mean they don’t exist? Why shouldn’t rational, unobservable entities such as monads exist? What rational reason has ever been advanced by a scientist to logically exclude mathematical unobservables? In fact, no rational argument is possible. Only an empiricist critique is possible, and since when did the cosmos state that only the stuff of human experience and the human senses has any possibility of existence? Ontology at no time involves any rule that what exists must be observable to humans. Empiricism is an invented criterion. It has no basis in reason, yet it has become the central bulwark of science. Empiricism

constitutes a religious faith that the senses of human beings are more accurate arbiters of reality than reason. This is irrational, which means that science is fundamentally irrational. Science wages war against rationalism. A prominent scientist involved in the experiments to discover the Higgs Boson proclaimed that he was “disappointed” when the particle was discovered. He said it would have been more “exciting” if the Higgs particle has been disproved – because scientists would need to rethink everything. What does this say about the mentality of this leading scientist? – that he doesn’t want to find the answers, that he doesn’t want certainty, that he doesn’t want to be getting closer to the secrets of existence? He prefers to continually rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic (i.e. to keep shuffling his scientific theories) – he finds that more exciting than actually discovering the meaning of life. Scientists have a strange phobia towards truth, certainty and completion. They distrust reason. They think that something isn’t “proved” unless it is proved by an experiment. But mathematics has endless proofs that haven’t been anywhere near an experiment. Are the rational proofs of mathematics invalid because they have nothing to do with the human senses and human experimental apparatus? All of the problems of science could be resolved within ten years if the scientific community swapped en masse from empiricism to rationalism. The last proper scientist was Leibniz – a rationalist idealist rather than empiricist materialist. Leibniz had no fear of unobservables. His entire philosophy was based on them. Leibniz’s calculus – the most powerful tool ever discovered by the human mind – came about wholly through the consideration of unobservables. Leibniz was unafraid of metaphysics and saw no contradiction between science and metaphysics. In fact, he didn’t think that non-metaphysical science was coherent. “Nature must always be explained mathematically and mechanically, provided it is remembered that the principles themselves, or laws of mechanics or force, do not depend on mathematical extension alone, but on certain metaphysical reasons.” – Leibniz When he referred to “metaphysics”, Leibniz meant rational, logical thinking regarding inherently unobservable, immaterial mathematical entities. The “laws” of science – being mutable, provisional, contingent, synthetic, empiricist and a posteriori – CANNOT explain themselves. This is a simple

point to which scientists seem woefully oblivious. The laws of mathematics on the other hand are immutable, certain, necessary, analytic, rationalist, a priori and eternal, hence CAN explain themselves. In fact, only mathematics can explain itself. Science cannot explain why this set of laws should be true rather than that set of laws and seeks to escape the problem by citing a Multiverse in which ALL possible sets of laws exist!! Mathematics has no such problems. There is only ONE set of mathematical laws; and that set is eternal. The greatest scandal in the history of thought is that perfect mathematics has been subordinated to imperfect science. And the greatest irony is that it’s a subject that anyone takes seriously only because of mathematics. Science without mathematics would have remained as ALCHEMY, and little short of MAGIC. Why didn’t scientists add 2 + 2 and get 4? Mathematics is the key to our world, not science. Science is valuable only because it uses mathematics. Why did the monkey become the organ grinder? Because of empiricism – the infantile doctrine of “seeing is believing”. “Doubting Thomas” is the patron saint of skepticism and empiricism. Jesus Christ demanded that people should believe in unobservables without proof. Rationalism demands that people should accept what is rationally true mathematically regardless of whether it can be “seen” or brought into sensory experience. Empiricism demands that you should ignore anything of which you can’t have some kind of sensory experience, regardless of how rational or otherwise that thing may be. The senses trump reason. Is that not a supremely irrationalist stance? Why is it taken seriously? In ancient times, Plato was the champion of mathematical rationalism, and his student Aristotle was the champion of empiricism. In more modern times, Leibniz took over from Plato, and Newton took over from Aristotle. This is the key intellectual struggle that must be resolved. Should science be mathematical, rationalist, idealist and unafraid of rational metaphysics and unobservables, or should science remain empiricist, materialist, irrationalist and hostile to complete Platonic mathematical? The truth of reality lies in only one approach. If humanity doesn’t get it right, it will never find the answers to its own existence. Empiricist science is a dead end. It has reached the end of the line and has nothing further to say. M-theory is a monumental folly, the last will and testament of materialism. All of the “big” questions of existence lie beyond

matter, in the unobservable, dimensionless domain of mind. Life itself is a dimensionless phenomenon. Science must return to Leibniz’s rationalist idealist mathematical path. The tyranny of empiricism is over. Here is truth. Anything mathematical that is unobservable EXISTS. It necessarily exists. Any human mind that cannot grasp that can never grasp reality. The universe isn’t shaped FOR human minds and human senses. Our senses evolved. They are not organs of truth. They are immensely deceptive. Reason is the only thing we have that is capable of transcending the human condition and grasping mathematics. Mythos people remain locked in delusion forever. Only Logos people can escape. Reason alone frees us. Einstein revered mathematics, but tragically he revered empiricism more. Scientists are locked into an empiricist mindset and it forces them to look at every problem in a particular way, without the full clarity of complete mathematics. All of the conceptual problems preventing scientists from achieving a grand unified theory of everything are caused by empiricism, materialism and a rejection of non-empiricist mathematics. At the ultimate level, how you approach the problem, what philosophy you deploy, determines whether you succeed or fail. Any rejection of mathematics in any way is fatal. One of the greatest gifts to humanity is Plato’s theory of Forms, a theory which he originally took from Pythagoras, but which he made much grander using his own unique genius, which was on a par with Pythagoras’s. However, Plato extended the theory beyond its applicability. The theory of Forms should be restricted to mathematics alone. To understand the perfect, eternal domain of mathematical Forms is to understand existence itself. What lies BEYOND empirical science and fully explains empirical science? – the absolute, complete, immutable, eternal Platonic domain of mathematics. It is the domain of ultimate beauty and perfection, where the answers to all things lie, and it can be accessed only by the rational mind. Mathematics is not the servant of science. Unobservables don’t vanish because empiricism rejects them. Empiricists can’t get rid of most of mathematics just because they don’t like it. How did science become so fanatically irrational? It’s now completely trapped by its own ideology and dogmatism, which are opposed to reason.

Why doesn’t science simply accept mathematics as reality and see what happens? Why don’t scientists embrace rationalist idealism and see where it takes them? Aren’t they supposed to like experiments? Scientists do not have to be empiricist materialists. They have chosen to be. They have spent decades trying to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, with no success. They can’t make any progress because of the Meta Paradigm to which they subscribe. They need to escape to a new Meta Paradigm of mathematical rationalism, including unobservables.

***** You have three choices in life: 1) Mainstream religion – absolute certainty based on faith. 2) Science – permanent uncertainty; no definitive answers. 3) Mathematics – absolute certainty based on reason, logic and the eternal, infallible and immutable analytic truths of mathematics. Mathematics provides definitive answers. That’s it. Make your choice.

The Impossible Ether What will you choose to accept? 1) A mathematical ether that is undetectable because it’s constructed from dimensionless monads. 2) The non-existence of the ether because it cannot be physically observed. Imagine that your ability to understand reality depends on the conclusion you reach. Can’t make up your mind? Well, isn’t there a rational step to take? – try out both approaches and see which one proves the more productive. Why does science never experiment with alternative approaches? Why is it so inflexible?

The Most Important Question Nothing is more important than establishing the precise status of mathematics. Why is this question of such little interest to scientists and philosophers, and even to mathematicians? Ever since Pythagoras and Plato, mathematics has been staring humanity in the face as the answer to everything. Descartes and Leibniz reminded everyone of this. Yet humanity ignored them and took the disastrous decision to embrace British empiricism – all because of the success of Isaac Newton. The antiphilosophical Newton defined the direction science took and established the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm to which science still subscribes. It’s time to go back to the Leibniz-Newton conflict and follows Leibniz’s Illuminist path this time. Never forget that 99.9999999999999% of the atom is empty space. Never forget that the universe is mostly the near-vacuum of outer space. Imagine stripping out of all of the sensory data from the universe: colours, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch. What’s left? Just mathematical operations taking place in absolute darkness. The universe is nothing but an information ocean – of mathematical signals, being processed by minds and converted into sensory information. Why did anyone ever believe it was a place of scientific phenomena rather than mathematical phenomena?

Intuition How is it possible for an answer to come to you out of thin air unless the answer is actually present in “thin air”? If the laws of mathematics are encoded in every monad, the laws of mathematics are literally everywhere, and permanently available to all of us.

***** Jung created a mental model that contrasted thinking with feeling, and intuition with sensing. Logos people think using reason; Mythos people “think” using feelings. Logos people rely on intuition; Mythos people rely on sense perception. Just as sense perceptions reveal the dimensional, material world, intuitions reveal the dimensionless, immaterial world of mathematics.

Intuition takes us right to the Platonic domain of mathematical Forms, and gives us glimpses of how they interconnect. All good mathematicians are intuitive; all mathematical geniuses staggeringly so. They stroll through the Platonic Forms as if through the rooms of their own house. The more attuned you are to the world around you (sensory perception), the less intuitive you are, just as the more emotional you are the less rational you are. “As a natural scientist, thinking and sensation were uppermost in me.” – Jung Mathematics is a subject for thinking intuitives. Science is a subject for thinking sensing types. Leibniz was an INTJ. Newton and Einstein were ISTPs although, interestingly, they are often wrongly identified as INTPs. ISTPs are introverted thinking types and extraverted sensing types. Thanks to this combination, ISTPs are able to build very elaborate “physical” models in their minds i.e. they can apply their extraverted sensing in their imagination – which allows them to perform fascinating thought experiments where they can analyse a problem from all angles (as if they have created a computer simulation of it). This ability is so powerful that it is often confused with intuition since intuition also reveals a full view of something from all angles, thus unlocking all of its secrets. Intuition is, however, instantaneous, whereas the ISTP approach is enduring. Scientists have such a strange view of mathematics because they lack the intuition to grasp how it’s absolutely interconnected. You can’t take mathematics apart. You can’t extract an “empiricist” mathematics from it. To an intuitive, nothing could be more absurd. The scientific Meta Paradigm reflects the brain wiring and psychology of the average scientist, which is not mathematically optimal. The two best psychological types for understanding ultimate reality are INTJ and INTP – the “mathematical” psychological types. “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.” --Arthur Schopenhauer INTJs and INTPs are precisely those who go beyond the world “seen” by others, to a world only they can see: Plato’s world!

Trapped by Prejudice Only one Meta Paradigm is true. All the others are false. If humanity cannot identify the true Meta Paradigm, it is doomed always to be in error. It’s possible to imagine Muslims a trillion years from now, still locked into their absolutely false Meta Paradigm of the Koran, or the Jews still enslaved by the false Torah, or Christians by the ludicrous Bible. Sadly, it’s also possible to imagine scientists still trapped in their empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. In the search for the truth, the identification of the right Meta Paradigm must come first. If you employ any but the right Meta Paradigm, you are certain to get the wrong answers. You are looking at reality with distorting spectacles that necessarily prevent you from seeing what’s actually there. You are subject to severe biases and prejudices that obstruct the truth and make you see illusions. Our eyes are continually tripped up by optical illusions, and our minds are even more susceptible to mental illusions. In ancient Greece, the story was told of Procrustes (the “Stretcher”), a wicked innkeeper. Guests staying at his inn were unlikely to emerge alive since he was determined to make them fit the bed he’d prepared for them. Those too tall would have any body parts overhanging the bed sawn off; those too short would be stretched as if on a rack. Afterwards, the mutilated guests were finished off and their possessions stolen by Procrustes. The Athenian hero Theseus brought the innkeeper’s reign of terror to an end by subjecting him to a taste of his own medicine. A Meta Paradigm is like the bed of Procrustes. It forces people to view the world in a particular way, and it prevents them from considering it from any other angle. You must get the Meta Paradigm right or you will never understand reality.

The Four Approaches As Jung recognised, there are four ways of understanding the world: 1) Feelings. This is how religious people, New Agers, and so on, comprehend reality. Their beliefs comfort them and make them feel good, and they are terrified of having to live without those reassuring beliefs, hence they will never abandon them.

They are locked into the emotional Meta Paradigm which asserts that it’s better to believe things that might be false than not to believe and be plunged into nihilism and despair. Emotion is the basis of Mythos. Emotional people cannot think rationally, hence why their belief systems are always based on emotive narratives and mysticism, and never on facts, theories, evidence, experiments and proofs. 2) Thinking. This is how Logos people comprehend the world. Thinking people are not emotional about rational things. They can accept tough truths without difficulty. Where feeling types go into a state of denial, fantasy or depression, thinking types just face the facts and get on with it. Many thinkers are atheists, and are not in any way comforted by notions of a personal God, which they consider absurd and irrational. 3) Intuition (“super reason”). Intuitive people can grasp multiple truths at once, without having to reason their way through them one by one. Intuitives can be so overcome by the power of their intuitions that they can easily accept the concept of divine minds that can understand everything. Virtually every Illuminist is an intuitive. 4) Sensing (empiricism). Skeptics, agnostics, atheists, cynics and scientists tend to place a huge amount of faith in direct observation and struggle to comprehend anything that can’t be grasped via their senses. Their kneejerk response is to assume that anything that is beyond sensory detection doesn’t exist at all. They have no relationship with the “soul” – because the soul is defined as something that doesn’t belong to the sensory world. Plainly, sensing types will be the LEAST LIKELY to take the existence of the soul seriously because it goes against their innate brain wiring and psychology. Sensing types have almost no intuition. Sensing thinking types are likely to be scientists. Sensing feeling types are often irrational conspiracy theorists and believe in aliens rather than souls (i.e. something extraterrestrial but tangible).

Feeling intuitives will be religious, thinking intuitives will be mathematical (Platonists), thinking sensers will be scientific (Aristotelian empiricists), and sensing feeling types will be conspiracy theorists. Each group is locked in a psychological Meta Paradigm, but only one of the Meta Paradigms is correct. That golden Meta Paradigm is INTROVERTED, THINKING and INTUITIVE i.e. it is the one ideally suited to Platonism and a completely Pythagorean-mathematical view of reality. Nothing other than mathematics can explain existence. The qualities of mathematics make that clear. Mathematics is about eternal truths. These are immutable, necessary and analytic. They are true by definition, and they are true forever. Mathematics is true a priori i.e. before a single experiment takes place, before a single aspect of a “physical” world exists. The concept of eternity is itself mathematical (an expression of mathematical infinity). The concept of a soul (a dimensionless entity beyond sensory detection) is also entirely mathematical. Mathematics is about absolute, incontestable truths i.e. the kinds of truth that are typically associated with “God”. All mainstream religions are full of contradictions and irrationalities – unlike mathematics. No “God” could be as perfect as mathematics. Science doesn’t aspire to infallible truth. The “truths” of science are of a radically different kind from those of mathematics. They are synthetic and constantly changing as the experimental facts change. “Truth” in science is a moving target; it’s provisional, and never actually proved. Truth in mathematics is eternal and definitive. So, if you aspire to absolute, eternal truth – the incontestable answer to everything – only mathematics can deliver it. Science can’t and mainstream religion is emotional narrative nonsense for the simple-minded and irrational. Absolute truth is a property of mathematics, and not of anything else. Plato spoke of the perfect domain of Forms, but it would have been much more helpful if he had spoken of the perfect, immutable, eternal domain of mathematics. He spoke of a being (the Demiurge, the Craftsman) taking the Forms and imprinting them on matter to create an inferior physical copy of the mental domain of Forms. In fact, the domain of Forms corresponds to the laws of mathematics, which are located in their entirety within monads (dimensionless points with infinite energy capacity). Monads are the arche – the fundamental stuff of existence – and they are

100% mathematical, hence existence is 100% mathematical. Energy flows out of monads and gives rise to dimensionality: space, time, matter. Space, time and matter all reflect the laws of mathematics. There is no Demiurge that stamps mathematics on things. Rather, mathematics itself gives rise to an immense range of phenomena, including matter. Mathematics isn’t stamped on matter: matter is inherently mathematical. The dimensionless and the dimensional are both mathematical, and it’s because they’re united in mathematics that they can interact.

***** Mathematics precedes science; science does not precede mathematics. Eternity is built into mathematics, but not into science. Science cannot say anything at all about what happens BEFORE physical space and time come into existence at the Big Bang. To mathematics, this is no problem at all. What is existence like before the Big Bang? It must be something. What’s for sure is that it isn’t scientific. What else could it be other than mathematics – the eternal subject? Before the Big Bang, only one thing was capable of existence – an infinite number of dimensionless points (monads), each containing infinity. Precisely because of the properties of monads, it’s possible to go from nothing but dimensionless points (“nothing”) to an infinite physical universe (“everything”). Empiricist materialist science has no conceivable explanation for the Big Bang – because it has no conception of dimensionless existence. What can come before matter in an exclusively material world? The question makes no sense in conventional science. Some scientists blabber on about “quantum fluctuations” as the source of the Big Bang, but how can there be quantum fluctuations before space, time and matter actually exist (since these are brought into being by the Big Bang)? This is an entirely circular argument. Scientists are invoking concepts that make sense only after the Big Bang to explain how the Big Bang occurred in the first place. This is laughably incoherent. A quantum fluctuation took place where? – there was no space. It took place when? – there was no time. It involved energy-mass? – there was no energy-mass. There is no conceivable logical explanation for the Big Bang within empiricist, materialist science, but no difficulty at all in terms of rationalist, idealist science.

The Whole Mathematics is a complete, whole system, perfectly interlocking. Every part has its allotted place. There is nothing out of place, redundant, unnecessary or unimportant. The entire edifice stands and falls together. What of science? It’s a patchwork, a group of ad hoc theories with no necessary connections, all stuck together like some sort of Frankenstein monster. There’s no life in it. What do people take this grotesque creature seriously? Compared with the pure, perfect and incorruptible beauty of mathematics, it’s repulsive. Who could ever be seduced by something as hideous as science, a subject that inherently offers no definitive answers? What kind of peculiar psychology does it take to be smitten by science, the subject that NEVER delivers the truth, or any final conclusions? The sensory world is devoid of answers. It’s something you experience, but you have to go beyond it if you want answers. The sensory world is the surface. The truth lies beneath. Yet scientists, being empiricists, simply stare at the sensory world all the time, and imagine that to be reality. What little imagination they have. Are scientists congenitally superficial? They have no DEPTH. Their eyes can’t see BEYOND. What sad people they are. They are the plebeians of the mind, while mathematicians are the patricians. Mathematics must replace science. Platonic Academies must become the most powerful and influential institutions in the world, the home of the intellectual elite.

The Platonic Sculpture Plato thought of reality in terms of sculpture. What does a sculpture require? – a sculptor, an idea and a material to sculpt. Matter was the “clay” that the cosmic sculptor (the Demiurge) used. As for his ideas to impose on the clay, he got these from the domain of perfect Forms. The final outcome was a material world sculpted in the image of the perfect domain of Forms. So, we see that we have a clear separation between ideas (mental entities) and matter. Aristotle, an ISTP rather than an INTJ like Plato, couldn’t relate to any immaterial domain of perfect Forms. He decided that the Forms and matter must always naturally go together and so he abolished Plato’s beautiful, unobservable realm of reason. With the domain of Forms went the Demiurge too.

Already, then, we see the battle between empiricism with atheistic undertones and rationalism with a religious aspect. However, Plato and Aristotle were united in believing that Forms and matter (the mental and the physical) were distinct. Plato thought ideas were transcendent and Aristotle that they were immanent. Forms have no place in a purely materialistic system, so the question immediately arises as to where matter gets its Form from. Why isn’t matter just some amorphous mass? Why should putting atoms together create Form? And what are atoms anyway? They are described mathematically. That is, they have mathematical Form. But where does this mathematical Form come from if not from mathematics itself? How can mathematical Form occur in some non-mathematical substance? We are back to the classic problem of substance dualism – how can two different substances interact? If atoms have mathematical Form but are not themselves mathematical, how did they manage to take on mathematical functionality and Form? How can something mathematical interact with something non-mathematical? It’s impossible. In a purely material world, where shall we find Form? Laws control matter. But since only matter exists in a material world, laws must themselves be material. How can a law be physicalised? How can a law be a material thing? And if laws are physical things, why don’t such laws decay and die? Matter itself decays, but never, apparently, the laws that control it – how can that be? Why don’t “material laws” act materially? Why are they eternal? Of course, by definition, only one thing can be eternal – mathematics.

***** To reiterate, if laws are material –as they must be in an exclusively material world – they must decay and fall apart, as all matter does. A physical world implies physical laws. How could it imply anything else? If matter exists in time, so must material laws, and they must be subject to temporal decay. If the laws that control matter aren’t material then materialism is ipso facto not the whole story and is in fact refuted. If the laws of materialism are materialistic – and how could they not be? – why don’t they mutate and change, why don’t they corrode and disintegrate – like all material things?

This is a conundrum never answered by science. It’s not even clear that scientists are aware of the problem. How can atemporal (eternal) laws of matter that are never themselves affected by material changes co-exist with temporal matter that is constantly changing because of the laws of matter? It’s an absurd and irrational scenario. If physical laws aren’t eternal then the laws of physics should be constantly changing – and hence they wouldn’t be laws and we wouldn’t be able to make any sense any of the world. Isn’t it amazing that scientists seek a theory of everything and yet they can’t even explain the nature of physical laws and how they make sense in an empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm? What is the ONLY thing that can be eternal? – dimensionless existence … THE MIND! Why? Because there’s no mechanism for dimensionless existence to decay to any more stable lower state. Eternal laws are mental laws, and any laws that aren’t mental are neither laws nor eternal. What an irony! – the laws of materialist physics are themselves the proof that materialism if FALSE. They themselves exist outside the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm. They control matter without taking part in material existence. They are exactly of the transcendent and immanent nature described by Plato and Aristotle. The laws of materialism are everywhere – which is why they can control matter in all circumstances – but they are not themselves material. They must therefore be immaterial, hence mental. In fact, they must be mathematical.

In Time Science exists in time. Mathematics exists out of time (eternally). Will you look to a temporal subject or an eternal subject to give you the eternal answers of existence? The answer is self-evident. Whatever science is, it’s not the answer to the big questions of “life, the universe and everything”. It’s a small, parochial, unimaginative subject with limited scope, limited ambition, limited applicability and no chance at all of explaining existence.

Eternalism versus Empiricism

How can eternal things be material? Empiricism is all about material things, but material things all decompose. All dimensional things break up. Only dimensionless things are immune to decomposition, precisely because they are dimensionless. There’s no lower state for them to decompose to. The existence of anything eternal automatically refutes empiricist materialism. What of the laws of physics? Did they exist before the Big Bang in order to control and direct it? If they did then they existed before space, time and matter existed, hence they belong to the mental rather than material domain. If the laws of physics came into being at the same time as the Big Bang (i.e. they are temporal) then why have they never changed since? Laws, by definition, cannot be continuously changing. If the laws of a nation were torn up every day and replaced by new laws, the Law would ipso facto be rendered meaningless. Laws do not change – they are eternal. Eternal things are not material things. If there are any laws at all, the materialist theory is refuted. That’s a fact. Just as Abrahamism has been absolutely refuted, so in fact has scientific materialism. The scientists are just too dumb philosophically to realise it. They lack any intuitive grasp of how reality works.

The Empiricist Fallacy Empiricists are those obsessed with the evidence of their senses. If something isn’t an empirical, tangible thing that they can observe and upon which they can conduct experiments then they regard it as non-existent. Of course, humanity can see only a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum – and it was reason (James Clerk Maxwell’s) that revealed the “unobservable” remainder of the spectrum. Why should reason have to stop at empirical things? What sufficient reason prevents it? Why shouldn’t immaterial, dimensionless, unobservable entities exist just because they don’t comply with the empiricist prejudice? The empiricist position is the glorification of the human senses, but a theory of everything must be based on reason, not on the senses. What kind of thinking person starts with sensory perception rather than rationality as the basis of an intellectual theory? Well, a Myers-Briggs “ST” type, that’s who. An “NT” would never think that way. A rationalist accepts an unobservable rational existent every bit as much as an observable rational existent. There is no rational sufficient reason for any other conclusion. “Observability” is a sensory ontological criterion, not

a rational one. The need for “observability” reflects a sensory prejudice. It has nothing to do with reason. With science versus mathematics, we have a conflict between the senses and reason. Science embraces the senses (empiricism) and rejects reason. Mathematics embraces reason (rationalism) and rejects the senses. The Platonic domain of perfect, eternal Forms is the ultimate object of thought. To a sensing type, no such domain can exist. To a rationalist, it is the quintessence of reality. Empiricism is irrationalism. It refuses to countenance the existence of rational unobservables. Empiricism imposes radical restrictions on what can be thought. Problems that pose no rational difficulty if both observable and unobservable rational existents are factored in become incomprehensible and insoluble if only observables are permitted (as in empiricism). Mtheory has failed because it is an irrational expression of empiricist materialism and won’t accept rational unobservables. Einstein produced a false theory for exactly the same reason. He allowed his thinking to be constrained by empiricist dogma. If he had adopted a rationalist approach, he would have constructed the correct theory. However, science, under its present leadership, will never accept rationalist theories. Only empiricism is countenanced, but empiricism can never work because it’s rationally false. Scientists need a crash course in both philosophy and mathematics. Mathematics is pure rationalism. To reject rationalism in favour of empiricism is to reject mathematics, and that’s an insane thing for a scientist to do. The final standoff is not in fact between empiricism and rationalism, but between empiricism and mathematics. Mathematics is full of empirical unobservables (such as zero, infinity, imaginary numbers and negative numbers). Hitherto, science has followed the empiricist doctrine and rejected all of these, thus accepting the pre-eminence of the senses over the complete rational power of mathematics. A true grand unified theory of everything can come about only mathematically. It’s absurd to abandon reason and place our understanding of reality in the control of our fallible human senses. Why are scientists so irrational and sensory obsessed? There’s nothing rational about the human senses. How can the human senses tell us about the ultimate rational nature of existence?

Scientific empiricist materialism represents a kind of madness. Science’s power flows from mathematics and yet mathematics is forced to subordinate itself to the human senses and their feeble observations. Science must reverse course. It must abandon empiricist materialism and adopt rationalist idealism – and the full power of mathematics, including zero, infinity, imaginary and negative numbers. Then the human race will know everything. And we will be as gods!

Plato Updated The Modern Theory of Forms combines Form and mass-energy. Numbers = frequencies of energy waves. Energy waves (sine waves and cosine waves) inherently have Form. All mathematical entities have Form inbuilt – that’s why they’re mathematical. ENERGY is purely mathematical. It is both “stuff” and Form in one. Energy contained within monads is dimensionless mental energy. When it leaves individual monads and enters the collective monadic field (sixdimensional Cartesian field) it becomes dimensional i.e. it enters space and time, and it generates matter. What Plato and Aristotle got wrong was that matter is formless, shapeless and amorphous: in fact, it is dimensionless mathematical energy expressed dimensionally. It is entirely mathematical hence has Form inbuilt. Aristotle was right that Form and “matter” always occur together but he was wrong that they are separate things. Form is inherent in matter as part of its mathematical properties. When Plato talked of Forms, he meant something beyond this world that could never be affected by this world. The laws of mathematics are exactly of that nature. They are eternal and immutable. Mathematical energy is constantly changing its Form as it interacts with other mathematical energy, but it always obeys the eternal laws of mathematics. Mathematics itself resolves all of the conundrums of Platonic and Aristotelian science.

The Third Thing Mathematics is the essence of existence. It is the precondition for both the mental and physical aspects of existence. It is the tertium quid – the third

thing – in which the paradox of mind-matter dualism is resolved. Mathematics underlies both. Each is an expression of mathematics.

The Ultimate Substance Mathematics a substance. It is not dependent on anything else for its existence. It is the arche, and it is composed of an infinite number of dimensionless monads, each of which has infinite mathematical (energy) capacity and contains the full set of laws of mathematics. That’s all you need for existence. Full stop.

Love What mathematician does not fall in love with Plato’s domain of perfect, eternal, immutable Forms? If it does not fatally seduce you, you’re not a mathematician. Scientists – soulless empiricists – aren’t beguiled by eternity and perfection. They prefer Large Hadron Colliders.

Why Einstein Was Wrong Like many geniuses, theoretical physicist John Bell’s name is practically unknown to the general public. His “inequality” theorem from 1964 was described by particle physicist Henry Stapp as “the most profound discovery of science.” Using ingenious mathematics (what else?!), Bell was able to bring two “common sense” keystones of our understanding of the physical world into direct conflict and show that both could not be true. Therefore, one of the foundations of physics must be removed from the edifice it supports, and that means that everything changes because the old building of physics can no longer stand. The two critical principles that Bell brought into opposition were: 1) The objective, external world, independent of our observations. 2) “Locality”: no signal can be passed between two points faster than the speed of light.

Bell’s inequality invites us to abandon objective reality or locality. So, what’s it to be? Bell commented, “I think it’s a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things. But I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincaré thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light. But then in other frames of reference when they seem to go not only faster than light but backwards in time, that is an optical illusion. … Revolutionary or reactionary, make your choice. But that is certainly the cheapest solution. Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of phenomena, a deeper level is not Lorentz invariant. … Well, what is not sufficiently emphasized in textbooks, in my opinion, is that the pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincaré, Larmor and Fitzgerald was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and that Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view.” (Taken from an interview between Bell and P.C.W. Davies and featuring in the excellent book The Ghost in the Atom (A discussion of the mysteries of quantum physics), edited by P.C.W. Davies and J.R. Brown.) The fact that an alternative version of relativity theory exists that is completely consistent with the enormous amount of experimental support for Einstein’s relativity theory is entirely ignored in mainstream scientific thinking and unknown to the general public. This is a classic example of paradigm thinking in science. Einstein’s position has become the establishment view while the alternative view is left to wither on the vine, receiving no attention or development. It cannot be stressed enough that Einstein never at any time disproved the existence of the aether. All he did was remove it from his theory as an unnecessary hypothesis with no observable consequences. Paul Davies, in his interview with Bell, said of the rival relativity theory (based on the aether), “And it was abandoned on the grounds of elegance?”

Bell replied, “Well, on the grounds of philosophy; that what is unobservable does not exist. And also on the grounds of simplicity, because Einstein found that the theory was both more elegant and simpler when we left out the idea of the aether. … The reason I want to go back to the idea of an aether here is because in these EPR experiments there is the suggestion that behind the scenes something is going faster than light. Now if all Lorentz frames are equivalent, that also means that things can go backward in time. … It introduces great problems, paradoxes of causality and so on. And it’s precisely to avoid these that I want to say there is a real causal sequence which is defined in the aether. Now the mystery is, as with Lorentz and Poincaré, that this aether does not show up at the observational level. It is as if there is some kind of conspiracy, that something is going on behind the scenes which is not allowed to appear on the scenes. And I agree that that’s extremely uncomfortable.”

***** Ironically, as Bell observed, it was Einstein’s own theory that threw a question mark over objective reality. Einstein was sure that quantum mechanics couldn’t be the final truth and there must be an objective underlying reality rather than probabilistic fuzziness (“God does not play dice,” as Einstein famously said). However, even more than fuzziness, Einstein was opposed to any faster-than-light signalling. Both of the views Einstein wished to champion (objective reality and light speed as the invariant cosmic speed limit) are, as Bell’s Inequality demonstrates, incompatible. This is not speculation. This is a simple, proven fact. Bell, if forced into a choice, made it clear that he would rather sacrifice locality than objective reality, in which case there is something fundamentally wrong with relativity theory as propounded by Einstein. Some signals can travel faster than light, and without going back in time. Bell said, “One wants to be able to take a realistic view of the world, to talk about the world as if it is really there, even when it is not being observed. I certainly believe in a world that was here before me, and will be here after me, and I believe that you are part of it! And I believe that most physicists take this point of view when they are being pushed into a corner by philosophers.” Paul Davies provided an extraordinary reply, which sums up much of what is wrong with the scientific view of the world: “But it’s always

seemed to me that the practice of physics is merely creating models which describe the observations that we can make on the world, and relate them together, and we have either good models or less good models, depending on how successful they are. The idea of the world ‘really existing’, and our theories somehow being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as being approximations to this reality, I think is not a very helpful one.” Here we see the classic “instrumentalist” doctrine of science. Getting the “right” answers is the important thing; not understanding “reality”. No instrumentalist seems to be overly concerned with what the “right” answer actually means, and whether it’s intrinsically tied to reality or not. There are many insane people in asylums who get the “right” answer to their selfdelusion that they are Napoleon. Are they any madder than instrumentalist scientists? To an instrumentalist, a successful fantasy that yields good and useful answers within the parameters of the fantasy is more desirable than an unsuccessful attempt to understand “reality”. In The Matrix, instrumentalist scientists would be those who successfully probed the programmed rules of the Matrix but who had no interest whatever in what might be concealed by those rules (i.e. true reality). Scientists don’t care about truth. They are interested in utility. The “right” answer is useful; the wrong answer isn’t. The right answer vindicates the theoretical model, so this model, this paradigm, becomes de facto “reality”. This attitude demonstrates how right Thomas Kuhn was to attack the paradigm thinking of scientists. They start questioning their model only when it consistently generates wrong answers (anomalies). John Bell, sadly dead now, was a philosophical scientist, genuinely interested in truth and reality. Such scientists are increasingly rare. Careerist instrumentalists make up the vast bulk of the scientific “church”. Bell also believed that quantum theory was only a temporary expedient that would be subsumed by a bigger and better theory. He pointed out that quantum theory doesn’t so much explain anything as reliably provide useful calculations that have a great deal of utility in terms of technology. Yet, in terms of understanding reality, the standard Copenhagen Interpretation represents a kind of retreat from the battlefield. It’s not interested in “reality”, regarding it as somehow “metaphysical”. “Reality” for a conventional quantum theorist is merely that which can be observed. Anything unobserved is like the Kantian noumenon – unknowable, and not worth talking about. Unobserved reality is thus converted, in this view, into

fantastical unreality or indeed into non-existence: “What is unobservable does not exist.” Scientists are soulless people. The reason for that is that they can’t observe the soul and they can’t do any calculations with it, so who cares about it?! Bell said of quantum mechanics, “Well, it does not really explain things; in fact the founding fathers of quantum mechanics rather prided themselves on giving up the idea of explanation. They were very proud that they dealt only with phenomena, regarding that as the price one had to pay for coming to terms with nature. … When I look at quantum mechanics I see that it’s a dirty theory. The formulations of quantum mechanics that you find in the books involve dividing the world into an observer and an observed, and you are not told where that division comes. …You have a theory which is fundamentally ambiguous, but where the ambiguity involves decimal places remote from human abilities to test.”

Lorentz Invariant Minds “The interaction between the mind and the rest of the world, how does that occur? Does that occur over a finite region of space, at an instant of time? Clearly not, because that is not a Lorentz invariant concept.” – John Bell “By Lorentz invariant you mean that it doesn’t have a consistent description for all observers depending on how they’re moving?” – P.C.W. Davies “That’s correct. And the only way to get such a consistent description, if you assume the mind has access to a single point in time, is to assume it has access to only a single point in space.” – John Bell “This is the big difficulty that there has always been with mind; that it can’t be located anywhere in space, and yet one presumably wants it to be located in time.” – P.C.W. Davies “Absolutely, and yet Wigner wants somehow to couple that up into the equations of physics.” – John Bell This is a somewhat odd debate because the quantum mechanical wavefunction itself is nonlocal and not located in space or time (or rather is everywhere at once), hence has all the characteristics of mind. Wavefunction collapse is, therefore, a continual collaboration between the

material domain (particles) and the mental domain (wavefunctions of particles). Wavefunction collapse followed by wavefunction reformation is a continuous and eternal process: the mathematical interface between mind and matter. Mind does not have to be brought into quantum mechanics from outside. It’s already integral to quantum mechanics! As for Bell’s comments regarding Lorentz invariance and the mind, he’s mischaracterising the mind. The mind is a monad. At one level, it is a single point in space and time, exactly as Bell requires for Lorentz invariance of the mind, but, of course, as a dimensionless point, it’s not actually in space and time at all. It’s nonlocal. It’s everywhere at once, connected to the whole universe. A point is an extraordinary thing because it’s dimensionless, yet dimensionality is based on it. How do you draw a one-dimensional line? You start by placing the point of your pencil on a piece of paper to create a dimensionless point, and then you move your pencil in a particular direction, and all you’re doing is adding more dimensionless points to your original point, and by the end you have drawn your one dimensional line. Even great thinkers like Bell can’t make any progress with the mind until they define it correctly: as a mathematical point, as a Leibnizian monad. Moreover, it is the brain (a physical entity), that is the mind’s agent or proxy in the physical world. The brain’s collective wavefunction is its mind – which is ultimately traced back to a single controlling monad (the soul). When we die, our brain (and the rest of our body) turns to dust, but the controlling monad goes on since it’s imperishable and immortal, being outside space and time.

***** “One of the things that I specifically wanted to do was to see whether there was any real objection to the idea put forward long ago by de Broglie and Bohm that you could give a completely realistic account of all quantum phenomena. De Broglie had done that in 1927, and was laughed out of court in a way that I now regard as disgraceful, because his arguments were not refuted, they were simply trampled on. Bohm resurrected that theory in 1952, and was rather ignored. I thought that the theory of Bohm and de

Broglie was in all ways equivalent to quantum mechanics for experimental purposes, but nevertheless was realistic and unambiguous. But it did have the remarkable feature of action-at-a-distance. You could see in the equations of that theory that when something happened at one point there were consequences immediately over the whole of space unrestricted by the velocity of light.” – John Bell This is a classic example of the establishment paradigm crushing a rival, but not through science, evidence or reason; simply through ideology, fashion and the personalities and profile of the protagonists. De Broglie was no match for superstars like Bohr and Heisenberg. Scientific careerists followed the establishment view of the two gods, while De Broglie’s ideas were left to rot. If science were a proper science (!) it wouldn’t simply dismiss unfashionable positions, but would seek to explore all possible avenues and see what emerges. The way science works is that science departments appeal for funding (provided by the establishment) and scientists themselves want to be working in fashionable areas in order to advance their careers. Funding isn’t provided to anti-establishment projects, and scientists don’t want to work in “unsexy” areas, so the effect is to turn science into a fashion parade and a vehicle for the dogmatism and ideology of the establishment. The idea that science actively seeks systematically to disprove its own theories (as it’s supposed to do according to Karl Popper’s falsification principle) is nonsense. Nor does it attempt systematically to verify its theories in all possible situations (it assumes a theory is right if it passes a few, non-exhaustive experimental tests). Rather, it staggers along in a piecemeal fashion by allowing some views to become popular, well funded and good for scientists’ careers, while anything on the margins is starved of money, interest and scientists willing to investigate it. These marginal areas are never refuted; they are simply ignored. Is that how science ought to operate? Science does not function as it likes to think. If it did, it would be actively and systematically supporting research into ALL viable theories in order to test which ones were the most robust scientifically. Instead, it pursues a kind of X-Factor or American Idol approach where some “singers” (theories) fall by the wayside by popular vote even though they may be better than the eventual winners. Science is a popularity contest like

everything else. It has a priesthood, a political stance, an establishment, an ideology and dogma – just like religion. Imagine a version of American Idol where no votes were ever taken and no one was ever eliminated. All the singers could stay in the contest and the decision as to who was the winner would be taken after thirty years, and would be based on the success of their singing careers over that time. Would such a contest generate the same winners as the ordinary contest? Almost certainly not. Science rejected many good theories as callously as American Idol kicked out many good singers. This is to the extreme detriment of science. Science should not be about careerism, fashion and establishment paradigms. It should be about trying to find the right answers and genuinely best theories, just as American Idol should be about the best singer rather the prettiest, most charismatic, most popular or fashionable singer. These other attributes have nothing to do with the quality of someone’s voice (if that’s what the show is really about). Similarly, many scientific theories are abandoned for reasons unconnected with their scientific quality or worth. They are regarded as not “pretty enough”.

The Opposite of Outer Space Science focuses on “outer space” and ignores “inner space”. Inner space is the mental space. It’s also called the transcendent space and hyperspace, or even hypospace. Any true Theory of Everything must include life, mind and consciousness. If it doesn’t, it’s self-evidently incomplete.

The Fifth Force? Science speaks of four forces: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. What about the “fifth” force of conscious free will? It has the power to move physical entities (as for example when you choose to move your body), so it must be catered for in any all-embracing theory. And what about the force of the unconscious mind? All people do things for unconscious as well as conscious reasons. The “unconscious” things they do impact on the physical world of science – so where is the scientific theory that accounts for them?

“If the universe is a product of mind … then it will ultimately illustrate mind’s axiom.” – J.W. Dunne Isn’t consciousness the perfect illustration of mind’s axiom? If the universe is a product of mind, consciousness is entirely comprehensible since consciousness is the supreme expression of mind. If the universe isn’t a product of mind, consciousness is incomprehensible because how can lifeless, mindless matter generate such a thing?

Einstein: Ether and Relativity In 1920, Einstein gave an address at the University of Leiden on the topic “Ether and the Theory of Relativity”. This is given almost none of the widespread attention it deserves given that, in it, Einstein practically resurrects the ether from the grave in which he himself placed it. We have highlighted in bold the statements where he defends an ether hypothesis as being compatible with his relativity theory. In essence, his special theory of relativity dispenses with the ether and then his general theory of relativity brings it back again (although the physics community rarely mentions this return from the dead). Einstein’s analysis is brilliant, yet also reveals the absolute ambiguity that continues to surround the subject of the ether, and to which physics has found no solution. The nature of the ether is one of the most important questions in physics – because if you cannot define the stage then where will you place the actors, and how can they interact? Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of these two subjects.

Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton’s theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton’s theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton’s contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance. It is only with reluctance that man’s desire for knowledge endures a dualism of this kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton’s followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton’s law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part. When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether hypothesis found fresh support. It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as

a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the “quasirigid” luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves. This theory – also called the theory of the stationary luminiferous ether – moreover found a strong support in an experiment which is also of fundamental importance in the special theory of relativity, the experiment of Fizeau, from which one was obliged to infer that the luminiferous ether does not take part in the movements of bodies. The phenomenon of aberration also favoured the theory of the quasi-rigid ether. The development of the theory of electricity along the path opened up by Maxwell and Lorentz gave the development of our ideas concerning the ether quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Maxwell himself the ether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of tangible solid bodies. But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell’s laws of the electromagnetic field. The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory. Almost imperceptibly the theoretical physicists adapted themselves to a situation which, from the standpoint of their mechanical programme, was very depressing. They were particularly influenced by the electro-dynamical investigations of Heinrich Hertz. For whereas they previously had required of a conclusive theory that it should content itself with the fundamental concepts which belong exclusively to mechanics (e.g. densities, velocities, deformations, stresses) they gradually accustomed themselves to admitting electric and magnetic force as fundamental concepts side by side with those of mechanics, without requiring a mechanical interpretation for them. Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was gradually abandoned. But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the long-run was insupportable. A way of escape was now sought in the reverse direction, by reducing the principles of mechanics to those of electricity, and this especially as confidence in the

strict validity of the equations of Newton’s mechanics was shaken by the experiments with b-rays and rapid cathode rays. This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also occur in vacuo – i.e. in free ether – the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz’s ether and ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether). The Hertz theory suffered not only from the defect of ascribing to matter and ether, on the one hand mechanical states, and on the other hand electrical states, which do not stand in any conceivable relation to each other; it was also at variance with the result of Fizeau’s important experiment on the velocity of the propagation of light in moving fluids, and with other established experimental results. Such was the state of things when H A Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell’s equations for free space. As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H A Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.

The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of coordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K’ which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K’ systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K’, the physical equivalence of K and K’ seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable. The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz’s theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy. More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance – we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics – if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium. We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something material in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions. Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski’s idiom this is expressed as follows:- Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether. Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space “Ether”; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real. It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach’s way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach’s ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them. Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the

gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density. If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without

gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type. Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or – as they might also be called – space and matter. Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass. Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there

not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

***** So, Einstein says, “…we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.” In Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines, Jim Al-Khalili wrote, “But if space is not a substance, can we interact with it? Can matter affect it in some way? It turns out that matter can indeed affect space itself: it can bend it!” Al-Khalili also says, “[I] will assume that although space is not a substance, it must nevertheless be something!” Al-Khalili was writing some 80 years after Einstein’s Leiden lecture. While we have Einstein saying that space is endowed with physical quantities, we have Al-Khalili saying that space is not a physical substance, yet it can be bent. Einstein said that ether does exist in some sense. Al-Khalili wrote that experiments performed at the end of the 19th century proved beyond any doubt that the ether does not exist. Confusion reigns. Ether does and does not exist. Space is endowed with physical properties yet is not a physical substance, though it can be bent. WHAT?! How can you bend a non-substance? Here we see the catastrophic lack of philosophical literacy that bedevils physicists. They make outrageous statements, and see no serious problems with what they have said. We would be appalled if we had to defend the concept of a non-physical substance that bends. Physicists clearly aren’t troubled. (We should point out that we’re not singling out Al-Khalili; he is simply reflecting the position of all physicists.) “In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an

absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ‘Ether’; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.” – Einstein This, in fact, goes right to the heart of the matter. Is the essential framework of physics based, finally, on an imperceptible stage – an invisible, permanently unobservable Cartesian Arena, not of absolute space and absolute time as Newton maintained, but in fact absolute spacetime? EVERYTHING in physics makes sense if that’s true. Physics makes no sense otherwise. But physics has established itself as a dogmatic ideology of materialism and empiricism. It cannot, within the terms of its own paradigm, accept an unobservable, perfect mathematical stage that solves all of the problems of physics but contradicts the currently accepted paradigm. Yet the way out is simple. Physicists have to abandon scientific empiricist materialism and accept a new paradigm (or rather a 300-year-old forgotten paradigm): the scientific rationalist idealism of the ultimate genius – Leibniz. The reason why the “ether” isn’t observable is that it isn’t physical, it’s mental. As soon as that single fact is grasped, the materialist paradigm falls and is replaced by idealism. Just as importantly, empiricism – though certainly not rendered redundant – must bow to rationalism regarding fundamental issues beyond the reach of the senses, experience and experiments, but fully accessible to reason. For science to make any further substantive progress, this revolutionary change in its central paradigm must take place. M-theory – which is the culmination of decades of the work of some of the greatest scientific minds of the age – is getting nowhere. It cannot succeed. It is the final attempt of materialists to save their ideology, yet that ideology is wrong and incapable of being rescued. Once scientists accept that idealism allows a perfect mathematical stage to be constructed, they will see that one intractable problem after another simply falls away and science is replaced by ontological mathematics: the mathematics of a living (but unconscious) cosmic mind made up of infinite unitary minds that Leibniz labelled monads. Scientific empiricist materialism is about ad hoc theories and experiments. Scientific rationalist idealism is about analytic, immutable,

eternal mathematical laws, devoid of any provisionalism or imperfection. Mathematics offers definite solutions to all the conundrums of existence; science does not. Only when we replace science with ontological mathematics – the mathematics of existence – can we finally master the knowledge of the universe. Illuminists, like scientific materialists, are not people of faith. We despise faith every bit as much as scientists do. We despise the Abrahamic God and Eastern karma as much as scientists do, but unlike them we place all of our confidence in mathematical reason and not in ad hoc experiments. We don’t seek experimental “evidence”. We seek Platonic truths. We are hyperrationalists and we regard scientific materialism as merely a disguised form of irrationalism or anti-rationalism. Scientific materialism “works” only because it invokes mathematics. Remove mathematics from science and it’s just another Mythos. So why not go the whole way and replace science with mathematics? The central question for all people who reject faith is – will you support mathematics or science? Which can solve the problems of existence once and for all? Science cannot provide any ultimate answers because it would require an impossible, ultimate experiment – the recreation of the Big Bang itself – before it could claim that it had all the experimental data it needed. Yet if scientists could recreate the Big Bang and study it in every particular, can any sane person doubt that the final scientific theory would simply be 100% mathematical and none other than ontological mathematics itself? We don’t need a Big Bang experiment to solve the ultimate secrets. We just need to be better at mathematics because mathematics already contains ALL of the answers. The Big Bang was a 100% mathematical event.

The Evolution of Truth Humanity’s first attempt to explain the truth of religion was animism: everything is alive; everything has a spirit. When it thunders, we should attribute it to the mood of the thunder god. An earthquake happens because its guiding spirit is angry. Perhaps we need to appease it with a human sacrifice. If we fail to respect the sea god, he will create raging seas. The wind spirit, if it wishes to punish us, will send a hurricane.

In essence, in the animist view, we assign human motives to all the things of nature. Seemingly inanimate things are in fact animate. Animism – where gods and spirits were thought to be everywhere – gave way to polytheism, involving a small cast of gods who controlled everything. These then gave way, in the West, to monotheism, the idea of a single controlling God. In the East, religious mysticism tended to pantheism – the union of God and Nature. The first dent in the religious hegemony came in ancient Greece with the rise of the philosophers. Great thinkers looked for rational reasons rather than Mythos explanations for why things were the way they were. Ancient Greek philosophy was an amalgam of philosophy, science and mathematics and best exemplified by Pythagoras, a genius in each field. Plato and Aristotle carried forward the tradition and founded Western civilisation. Greek philosophy was the greatest thing that ever happened to the West. Disastrously, Greek philosophy was stopped in its tracks by the deadly rise of Jewish monotheism, expressed through its two vile miscarriages: Christianity and Islam. The Dark Ages promptly descended. Eventually, the Catholic Church rediscovered the Greeks and started to build a fascinating philosophy called scholasticism that formed the framework for modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes. Philosophy gave way in two main directions: to natural philosophy (physics; science), and to idealism. Science has now gone as far as it can and must give way to the final link in the chain: mathematics. Mathematics alone can provide the final answers. So, the sequence of thinking in the search for ultimate truth is: 1) Religion (Mythos). 2) Philosophy (Logos) – thesis. 3) Science (Logos) – antithesis. 4) Mathematics (Logos) – synthesis. Religion is a primitive narrative account of reality that “evolved”, in the West, from infinite gods and spirits to just one (the Abrahamic “Creator”). This is as far as that line of thinking can go. In the East, pantheism replaced monotheism and that’s as far as it’s possible to go in terms of identifying God with Nature.

Logos is a completely different way of thinking about the world, based on reason rather than emotional religious narrative. Philosophy is the Logos upgrade of simplistic religious thinking. Science is philosophy turned into a practical body of knowledge based on experiments and mathematical equations rather than relying on unverifiable philosophical speculation. Philosophy is overly speculative while science is overly empirical. Their FINAL dialectical synthesis is mathematics. Mathematics relies on neither speculation nor experiment. Instead, it deals in absolute, indisputable, immutable, necessary analytic truths – true now and forever. Speculation can never deliver the ultimate truth and nor can the contingent, synthetic truths of science. Mathematics alone is truth. Mathematics is the definitive end of the line. There is literally nowhere left to go. For humanity to achieve its maximum potential, everyone on earth should be mathematically literate, and the Grand Unified Theory of Everything is nothing other than the mathematics of existence that we call “ontological mathematics”. The challenge facing humanity could not be stated any simpler. If we want to have a future, we must ditch the Mythos religions and turn to Logos mathematics. Once we do, we will be on the verge of discovering the secrets of the Mind of God, and we ourselves can all expect to be promoted to divinity. To be divine means to have absolute knowledge of existence through mathematics, and to be able to mentally control the “physical” world of mathematics (mind over matter). Being God can have no other meaning.

***** “Scholasticism” was an attempt by medieval Catholic philosopher-monks to create a Logos version of Catholicism. It reached its zenith with St Thomas Aquinas, the key philosopher of the Catholic religion even today. Scholasticism had many impressive features – which proved invaluable to the three great rationalist philosophers: Descartes (Catholic, but certainly not of the conventional variety), Spinoza (Jewish atheist/pantheist) and, above all, Leibniz (Lutheran, but secretly an Illuminatus and eventual Grand Master of the Illuminati). It is more or less impossible for any Logos thinker to subscribe to a Mythos religion. Islam has enjoyed no Renaissance, no Enlightenment and no equivalent of Scholasticism. It is literally the dumbest religion on earth for the dumbest people on earth. A few Muslim philosophers managed to

exist between 800 – 1200 CE, and, just as Catholic philosophy tried to embrace Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, so did these rare Islamic philosophers. Their ideas mutated into Islamic mysticism (Sufism). Since about 1300 CE, Islam has been intellectually dead and is now so fanatical and rigid that it’s impossible to imagine any possible reformation of this religion. Alchemy was a kind of “philosophical science” – dedicated to the purification of the soul and matter (turning base metal into gold) and eventually became chemistry, which is also about purification, distillation and transformation. Magic was a kind of “religious science” that sought to use spells, invocations, numerology and so on to command the universe. Esoteric thinking (including Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism and Alchemy) was a grand unified theory of religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, magic and Mythos. Atheism was the wholesale rejection of all Mythos explanations of the universe, and the refusal to examine the possibility of a Logos religion; it was linked to skepticism and cynicism. Agnosticism was a refusal to commit to any particular position.

***** These constitute all the different ways human beings have tried to think about the world. There are no new possibilities. Humanity must now choose which approach is right. In fact, there’s only one plausible candidate – mathematics, the language of existence itself, of God. It’s time for humanity to speak the divine language. Mathematics is the Logos religion that atheists deemed impossible. Pythagoras and Leibniz, the two greatest Grand Masters of the Illuminati, were those who saw most clearly that mathematics was the key to true religion, to unlocking the innermost secrets of the universe. You now have a chance to define what kind of human being you are. Will you join New Humanity, the Humanity of the Future, the Humanity on the ascent to divinity – Logos Humanity? Or will you remain stuck in the past as a Mythos human, on your knees, worshipping a Torture God or mystical karma. These are the dinosaur humans, waiting for extinction.

***** In The Golden Bough, J.G. Frazer stated that magic has two core principles: “First, that like produces like, or that effect resembles cause” (the Law of Similarity, leading to Homoeopathic or Imitative or Mimetic Magic) and “Second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed” (the Law of Contagion, leading to Contact or Contagious Magic). Magicians therefore believe that by imitating or simulating something, they can make the same thing in happen in reality. So, in voodoo, if you stab a model of your victim, the victim himself will be stabbed (Imitative Magic). The effect will be enhanced if your model of the intended victim is equipped with one of their personal effects (Contact Magic). “Homoeopathic magic is founded on the association of ideas by similarity: contagious magic is founded on the association of ideas by contiguity. Homoeopathic magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which resemble each other are the same: contagious magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which have once been in contact with each other are always in contact.” – J.G. Frazer Frazer said that the two branches of magic, the homoeopathic and contagious, could be embraced by the general name of “Sympathetic Magic” since “both assume that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy, the impulse being transmitted from one to the other by means of what we may conceive as a kind of invisible ether, not unlike that which is postulated by modern science for a precisely similar purpose, namely, to explain how things can physically affect each other through a space which appears to be empty.” Newton’s law of gravity was exactly magical in this sense since two masses separated by any distance were said to instantaneously transmit their gravitational force to each other. Einstein modified this by saying that no effect could be transmitted faster than the speed of light. However, quantum entanglement once again points to instantaneous communication between far distant particles. It just shows that magic isn’t necessarily as dumb as it looks. In fact, mathematics is the supreme magic because, through the use of imaginary

numbers, it allows points seemingly separated by an immense distance in terms of their coordinates, to actually be separated by zero distance when imaginary coordinates are offset against real coordinates (the square of an imaginary number is negative and the square of a real number is positive, so when calculating distances using Pythagoras’s Theory, zero distances can be generated if the negative and positive squares are equal). This is just one way in which apparently far distant objects can actually be contiguous. The greatest magicians in history are mathematicians, equations are the greatest spells and the properties of numbers are the quintessence of magic.

***** Some people may wonder why, over this series of books, we jump around from philosophy to science, to psychology, to mathematics to sociology, to religion, to popular culture to the esoteric. The reason is that it creates connections between subjects that the “specialist” (the high priests, the “establishment”) want to keep separate. We talk of a grand unified theory of everything so, naturally, we must address everything. Additionally, it gives the mind a rest from one subject, and reinvigorates it, waking it up to something new with a metaphorical electric shock. Our writing style consciously emulates Nietzsche’s. He was perhaps the greatest writer of all time in any field. His style is usually aphoristic, leaping from one subject to another with consummate ease. By turn, he is polemical, ironic, angry, funny, visionary, mystical, analytic, bizarre, astounding, deadly, insane, exhilarating, megalomaniacal, humble, brilliant, crass, surprising, lyrical, controversial, incendiary, provocative, inspiring … all within a few pages of almost any of his great books. No reading experience is more thrilling. We think that it should be the default writing style. No dreary, desiccated academics can pull it off. There’s no excuse for mathematics and science to be so boring. These are the most mind-blowing subjects imaginable – it’s about time they lived up to their billing.

Relativity In a Euclidean space, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In a curved Riemannian space, the shortest distance between two points is a called a “geodesic”.

In relativity theory, there are three types of geodesics, labelled timelike, null and spacelike. Timelike geodesics involve speeds less than light speed, null geodesics apply to light speed itself, and spacelike geodesics apply to hypothetical speeds greater than light speed (conventionally considered impossible). Matter – as we experience it – always travels in timelike geodesics and can never reach null geodesics. Humanity inhabits a timelike universe; and light inhabits a null universe. This situation can be better understood by applying Pythagoras’s theorem to a four-dimensional Riemannian spacetime. The relevant formula to calculate the distance (ds) between two points in spacetime is: Equation A) ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 – c2dt2. What is extraordinary about this formula is that it allows three types of distance to be produced: 1) Negative distances where the negative time term (– c2dt2) is greater than the positive distance term (dx2 + dy2 + dz2). 2) Positive distances where the positive distance term is greater than the negative time term. 3) ZERO distances where the positive distance term and negative time term exactly balance. Negative distances correspond to timelike geodesics, positive distances to spacelike distances, and zero distances to null geodesics. Massless objects such as photons follow null geodesics, and particles with mass follow timelike geodesics. This seems a wonderfully neat, tidy and elegant system, with immense explanatory power. You can understand why Einstein’s theory is held in such high regard.

The Universal Speed Limit One of the most important laws of physics is that the universe has a maximum speed limit (light speed). However, given the timelike, null and spacelike classifications of relativity theory, there is no unambiguous reason why that should be the case. Why should the null geodesics correspond to

the maximum speed rather than the spacelike geodesics? Moreover, if spacelike geodesics were possible, the maximum speed of the universe would in fact be infinite. Since there is no formal prohibition against superluminal speeds, some theorists have speculated about “tachyons” – faster-than-light particles. It seems a major flaw of relativity theory that while it can propose that no timelike geodesics can ever be converted into null geodesics (i.e. no particle with mass can ever reach light speed), it cannot formally forbid spacelike geodesics which, in the limit, can reflect infinite speed. Therefore, relativity theory does not explain why light speed is the maximum speed of the universe, but simply makes it a plausible hypothesis (providing spacelike geodesics are in fact impossible). Yet there’s another paradox. Light speed itself seems to be INFINITE when viewed from its own perspective. According to the Lorentz transformation equations of the special theory of relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, and all distances are zero. If we reconsider Equation A), there are two ways in which ds2 can equal zero. Firstly, where dx2 + dy2 + dz2 = -c2dt2. And secondly where (dx2 + dy2 + dz2) and (-c2dt2) both equal zero. These are radically different situations and they present a real problem for relativity theory. In the latter case, the system is outside both space and time: clocks don’t tick and measuring rods don’t measure any distances. Yet in the former case, clocks can tick and measuring rods can measure. The clear implication is that particles could travel at light speed as long as they followed a perfectly balanced trajectory that always ensured that the negative time contribution cancelled the positive distance contribution. However, the situation is rather more complicated, and we will return to this question in another book in the series. For the moment, the thing to bear in mind is that light speed strictly applies to the situation where (dx2 + dy2 + dz2) and (-c2dt2) both equal zero. Given that, in their domain, clocks don’t tick and measuring rods don’t measure, photons – from their own point of view – don’t have any speed at all, or it can’t be defined. We could say that they have zero speed since they never have to travel any distance (all distances are zero), or that they have infinite speed (they are everywhere at once since time never passes). Clearly, if their speed is infinite, nothing can travel faster. What would it even mean to talk about tachyons going faster than the speed of light?

Faster, how? You can’t go faster than being everywhere at once, or never having any distance to travel. Such questions show that there is something radically wrong with the special theory of relativity. It is conceptually incoherent when subtle questions are asked of it. “In 4-dimensional spacetime, photons actually travel NO distance. Though, of course, photons can travel great distances in SPACE.” – Bruce Bassett, Relativity Do you understand this quotation? Do you really understand it? Isn’t there something bizarre about it? Do we live in spacetime or do we live in space and time? Doesn’t spacetime – fused space and time – replace space and time? So why is space still being mentioned? Scientists talk about light travelling a definite distance in a definite time, yet photons in their own spacetime framework don’t understand the concept of either time (clocks don’t tick) or space (measuring rods don’t measure). Think about the universe from the photon’s perspective and then think about how you perceive light. Are you absolutely confident that you can reconcile both perspectives?

***** Einstein made the perfectly rational and plausible suggestion that the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit. After all, photons have no mass, so what could possibly be faster than a massless particle? While it is without doubt that the cosmos has a speed limit, whether or not light speed should be equated with that speed limit is a different matter. In 2011, experiments with neutrinos suggested that these mysterious particles might travel faster than light, although these experiments have now been discredited due to problems with the equipment. (The latest experiments suggest that neutrinos travel AT light speed, but certainly no faster.) Now, if the neutrino result had been verified, would it have refuted Einstein’s assertion that there is a cosmic speed limit? It was interesting that when the neutrino anomaly was first made public, many physicists started talking about time travel, causality violations and so on (all the things associated with superluminal travel). None of them suggested that the result need not have any impact at all on the architecture of Einstein’s system since that architecture is based on the existence of a cosmic speed limit, but

does not formally require that the cosmic speed limit be the speed of light. That is merely a plausible assumption. If it were the case that neutrinos were faster than light, we could simply replace “c”, the speed of light, in Einstein’s equations with the speed of neutrinos. Even then, we couldn’t be sure that the new apparent speed limit was the true speed limit. In fact, we can never be sure of what the cosmic speed limit is. Whether any particle is suitable for measuring it is a moot point. There is no a priori basis for assuming that any stable particle in our world has exactly the right qualities. Light speed or neutrino speed might be as close as we can get, without actually being right. “This particle [the neutrino] interacts so weakly with matter that if the Universe were made entirely of lead a neutrino would still stand a good chance of travelling its full length without being absorbed. In our neutrinotransparent Universe, most neutrinos are destined never to be absorbed.” – Nick Herbert, Faster than Light Neutrinos barely interact with the universe at all. They have a mass only slightly greater than zero, and it was once thought that it might actually be zero. Light, on the other hand strongly interacts with the universe. Light is markedly slowed down in water, for example. Even in a vacuum (actually a seething quantum foam of virtual particles), light can be expected to be significantly more impacted than neutrinos i.e. it interacts more with “nothing” than neutrinos do. So, a particle with negligible mass and with a very low “environmental interactivity quotient” (as we might term it), might indeed be faster than a particle with no mass but quite a high “environmental interactivity quotient” i.e. higher mass might be more than offset by lower interactivity with the cosmos, thus favouring the neutrino. There certainly isn’t a clearcut victory for light. A speed limit is built into the structure of space and time, but whether light speed is that limit is another matter. Would not the perfect particle be one with no mass (like the photon) and no interaction with the cosmos at all (neutrino behaviour taken to its extreme)? No such particle has ever been identified (indeed, how could it? – it’s formally unobservable). Therefore, it’s possible that the true speed limit of the universe may never actually be measured.

Light speed no doubt offers an exceptionally good approximation, but it might be marginally slower than the true speed limit because of its significant environmental interactivity quotient that always slows it down, even in a vacuum. Even if light speed isn’t quite the true cosmic speed limit, Einstein’s theoretical architecture isn’t refuted, but simply requires a modification of the value required for the cosmic speed limit, which may be a fraction higher. The margin of experimental error may disguise the fact that light speed isn’t quite the cosmic speed light i.e. if the difference between light speed and the true cosmic speed limit is smaller than the margin of error that afflicts even the best experiments, it would be extremely difficult to detect that light speed was slightly slower. Experimentally, it would be in the right ballpark. In these circumstances, it would take theory rather than experiment to determine a precise value for the cosmic speed limit. As it is, it seems highly improbable that any measured speed will ever exceed light speed, so it’s likely to be the practical cosmic speed limit.

The Neutrino Mystery The neutrino is an astoundingly weird particle. If anything could go faster than light, the neutrino would be one of the most plausible candidates. Consider these comments about the neutrino. “Neutrinos are one of the fundamental particles which make up the universe. They are also one of the least understood. Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge. Because neutrinos are electrically neutral, they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces which act on electrons. Neutrinos are affected only by a ‘weak’ sub-atomic force of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and are therefore able to pass through great distances in matter without being affected by it. If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.” – Dave Casper “The basic Standard Model of particle physics assumes that the neutrino is massless, although adding massive neutrinos to the basic framework is not difficult, and recent experiments suggest that the neutrino has a small although non-zero mass. The strongest upper limits on the mass of the neutrino come from cosmology. The Big Bang model predicts that there is a

fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total mass of all three types of neutrinos exceeded 50 electron volts (per neutrino), there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse. This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. However, it is now widely believed that the mass of the neutrino is non-zero. When one extends the Standard Model to include neutrino masses, one finds that massive neutrinos can change type whereas massless neutrinos cannot. This phenomenon, known as neutrino oscillation, explains why there are many fewer electron neutrinos observed from the sun and the upper atmosphere than expected, and has also been directly observed.” – http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Neutrino#Mass “Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon predicted by Bruno Pontecorvo whereby a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavour (electron, muon or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavour. The probability of measuring a particular flavour for a neutrino varies periodically as it propagates. Neutrino oscillation is of theoretical and experimental interest since observation of the phenomenon implies that the neutrino has a non-zero mass, which is not part of the original Standard Model of particle physics. “Neutrino oscillation arises from a mixture between the flavour and mass eigenstates of neutrinos. That is, the three neutrino states that interact with the charged leptons in weak interactions are each a different superposition of the three neutrino states of definite mass. Neutrinos are created in weak decays and reactions in their flavour eigenstates. As a neutrino propagates through space, the quantum mechanical phases of the three mass states advance at slightly different rates due to the slight differences in the neutrino masses. This results in a changing mixture of mass states as the neutrino travels, but a different mixture of mass states corresponds to a different mixture of flavour states. So a neutrino born as, say, an electron neutrino will be some mixture of electron, mu, and tau neutrino after travelling some distance. Since the quantum mechanical phase advances in a periodic fashion, after some distance the state will nearly return to the original mixture, and the neutrino will be again mostly electron neutrino. The electron flavour content of the neutrino will then continue to oscillate as long as the quantum mechanical state maintains

coherence. It is because the mass differences between the neutrinos are small that the coherence length for neutrino oscillation is so long, making this microscopic quantum effect observable over macroscopic distances. Since experiments observing neutrino oscillation measure the squared mass difference and not absolute mass, one can claim that the lightest neutrino mass is exactly zero, without contradicting observations. This is however regarded as unlikely by theorists.” -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation “Origins of neutrino mass. The question of how neutrino masses arise has not been answered conclusively. In the Standard Model of particle physics, fermions only have mass because of interactions with the Higgs field (see Higgs boson). These interactions involve both left- and right-handed versions of the fermion (see chirality). However, only left-handed neutrinos have been observed so far. Neutrinos may have another source of mass through the Majorana mass term. This type of mass applies for electricallyneutral particles since otherwise it would allow particles to turn into antiparticles, which would violate conservation of electric charge. The smallest modification to the Standard Model, which only has left-handed neutrinos, is to allow these left-handed neutrinos to have Majorana masses. The problem with this is that the neutrino masses are implausibly smaller than the rest of the known particles (at least 500,000 times smaller than the mass of an electron), which, while it does not invalidate the theory, is not very satisfactory. The next simplest addition would be to add right-handed neutrinos into the Standard Model, which interact with the left-handed neutrinos and the Higgs field in an analogous way to the rest of the fermions. These new neutrinos would interact with the other fermions solely in this way, so are not phenomenologically excluded. The problem of the disparity of the mass scales remains.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

Ether – the Rebirth of Absolute Space? “Physicists devised increasingly ingenious schemes for reconciling the notion of an ether with the negative results of the ether wind experiments. Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Irish physicist George Francis FitzGerald independently proposed that when something moves through the ether, the electrical forces holding it together are modified in such a way

that an object shrinks in the direction of motion; matter moving through the ether experiences a kind of ‘ether squeeze.’ Since all measuring rods also contract by the same amount, this ‘Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is never directly measured. In ether wind experiments such as those of Michelson and Morley, the apparatus shrinks in the direction of the ether wind just enough to compensate for light’s slower speed in that direction fooling the experimenter into believing that lights travels at the same speed in all directions.” – Nick Herbert, Faster than Light Einstein used exactly the same equations as Lorentz and FitzGerald in his special theory of relativity. It’s essential to grasp the difference in the two approaches. In the Lorentz-FitzGerald case, light was considered to have a variable apparent speed (depending on the motion of the source of light through the ether), so in order to explain why it was always measured to have the same speed, it was necessary to conclude that the measuring equipment itself adjusted in exactly the right way to compensate for the apparent changes in light speed through the ether. Einstein realised that the search for the ether was the search for an absolute frame of reference; for a means to determine, in empty space, who was moving and who was standing still. Ether acted as the physical embodiment of Newton’s absolute space: the universal stillness that provided the background against which the motions of stars and planets were measured. As Newton said, “Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.” In other words, the one thing of which we can be sure is absolute space. It is not dependent on anything else. If you removed everything else from the universe, it would still be there. It alone is at rest; everything else is moving. It is unique and defines everything else. Einstein took the bold move of speculating what would happen if absolute space were abolished, meaning that every observer moving at a constant speed in a straight line could consider himself the stationary frame and that all other frames were moving. In this view, there was no objective, absolute stationary frame but simply countless subjective, relative frames, each of which could be regarded as stationary by an observer in that frame. This meant that all reference frames were equivalent, in the sense that none (such as the old absolute space) could be privileged over the others. For Einstein, this implied that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers since all observers were entitled to perform exactly the same

manoeuvre and declare themselves the stationary frame, against which all other frames were moving. In the old Newtonian view, there was one, unique, privileged stationary reference frame and every other frame was in motion relative to it. The other frames were all in absolute motion; none could consider itself truly stationary. The speed of light became the crux of the matter. If the laws of physics were the same for all observers, all observers must measure the same value for the speed of light (otherwise they would be in a different system of physics with a different speed of light). It seemed, on the other hand, that, in the Newtonian view, the apparent speed of light must be different in every moving reference frame since the apparent speed would be the speed of light plus the speed of the frame. To Einstein, this didn’t stack up, so he abandoned the ether and made invariant light speed an absolute feature of existence. In order for everyone to measure the same speed of light no matter what speed they were moving at, it was necessary for mass, length and time to adjust appropriately, using the Lorentz-FitzGerald equations (or Lorentz transformations, as they are now known). Hence, there are two different views of reality: A) Lorenz-FitzGerald: 1) Absolute ether but it is undetectable. 2) Variable apparent speed of light, but it is always compensated for by the Lorentz transformations in order to ensure that light speed is always measured to have the same invariant value. 3) Variable length, mass and time in an absolute sense i.e. objects really do shrink in size, increase in mass and experience real time dilation as their speed increases. B) Einstein: 1) No ether. 2) Invariant, absolute light speed.

3) Variable length, mass and time in a relative sense i.e. objects do NOT shrink in size, increase in mass and experience real time dilation as their speed increases. However, it seems to another observer that they do. Any observer moving at constant speed in a straight line can consider himself at rest and everyone else moving. But if the others are moving at constant speed in a straight line then they can consider themselves the ones at rest. Thus the single observer can legitimately conclude that the others are moving and are experiencing length contraction, time dilation and mass increase. The others, however, can legitimately conclude that it’s the single observer who is experiencing length contraction, time dilation and mass increase. For some rather odd reason, it was deemed by the physics community that Einstein’s bizarre and counterintuitive relativistic scheme was more plausible than the absolutist scheme of Lorentz and Fitzgerald. None of them stopped to think whether alternatives were possible that combined the more plausible aspects of both theories. For example: C) Lorentz-FitzGerald-Einstein: 1) Absolute ether but undetectable. (Lorentz-FitzGerald) 2) Invariant, absolute light speed. (Einstein) 3) Variable length, mass and time in an absolute sense i.e. objects really do shrink in size, increase in mass and experience real time dilation as their speed increases. (Lorentz-FitzGerald). What we are going to do is prove that Einstein was wrong in terms of his central idea: the Principle of Relativity. It’s a central feature of relativity theory that no observer moving at a constant speed in a straight line should be able to tell whether he is moving or whether the rest of the universe is moving. However, special relativity shows that length contracts and mass increases as light speed is approached. There must come a point below the speed of light when mass has become so great and length so contracted that ANY particle will reach its “Schwarzschild radius” and irreversibly collapse into a black hole singularity. Now, if an observer is moving at just this critical speed then,

according to Einstein, he is allowed to consider himself at rest. Therefore, by Einstein’s logic, this observer must see the rest of the universe irreversibly turning into a black hole singularity! Alternatively, the other observers consider that the single observer is the one turning into a black hole. We have now established an absolute problem for Einstein’s relativity theory. We have shown a means whereby an irreversible, absolute condition (a black hole) applies to a critical speed below the speed of light. This means that there IS an absolute way of establishing at what speed something is travelling. If you become a black hole (!), you definitely can’t think you were stationary and the rest of the universe moving. Ergo, relativity is false and general relativity (black holes) refutes special relativity (the assertion that particles travelling at constant speed in a straight line can consider themselves stationary). Quite simply, Einstein’s key principle of relativity is false according to his own logic and equations. The Lorentz-FitzGerald principle of actual, absolute physical changes taking place in particles as they increase in speed is vindicated. They are right and Einstein is wrong. It’s astounding that Einstein’s relativity principle was ever taken seriously in the first place because it directly contradicts a higher principle that we call the Reality Principle. According to this principle, things really do have an absolute, objective size and position. According to Einstein’s relativity principle, this is not the case. For example, one observer might be holding a one-metre measuring rod. However if he is travelling at 0.87 of the speed of light then, according to Einstein’s length contraction equation, a stationary observer will consider that the first person’s measuring rod is only 50 cm long. Now, if the stationary observer also has a one metre measuring rod then his rod will also be observed to be 50 cm long by the moving observer (assuming the moving observer is travelling at constant speed in a straight line and can deem himself stationary according to the logic of relativity). So, we now have a baffling paradox: 1) Observer 1 (moving according to Observer 2) thinks he has a 1 m rod, but Observer 2 (stationary according to himself) thinks it is only 50 cm long. 2) Observer 2 (moving according to Observer 1) thinks he has a 1 m rod but Observer 1 (stationary according to himself)

thinks it is only 50 cm long. So, who’s right? How can an observer have a measuring rod that is both 1 m and 50 cm long (depending on the perspective of the observer)? What is reality? In fact, according to Einstein, both observers are right and therefore there is no reality, only relativity. Everyone is correct in their own frame of reference, even if their perceptions of reality directly contradict those of other observers. Einstein was quick to condemn the bizarre ideas of quantum theory as an assault on objective reality, yet his own relativity theory destroyed objective reality and placed the observer in a privileged position. The Reality Principle states that objective reality is the only privileged position. Observers do not determine reality. Reality determines itself – that’s why it’s reality and not a Kantian observer-constructed fantasy. Einstein’s ideas, philosophically, are tantamount to a rebirth of Kant’s view. It’s incredible that science chose to take them seriously. The Einsteinian relativity principle is false and we have definitively disproved it with the black hole case. Any plausible scientific theory must be based on the Reality Principle – the existence of an objective reality independent of any observer and any measurement by any observer. The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction uses the same mathematics as Einstein’s theory (in fact Einstein took his equations from Lorentz and FitzGerald) but successfully obeys the Reality Principle by requiring real, objective changes in moving objects. In the Lorentz-FitzGerald theory, the stationary observer really is stationary and the moving observer really is moving. The moving observer cannot consider himself truly at rest. His speed causes objective, measurable changes. His 1 m rod really shrinks to 50 cm. Moreover, he himself shrinks … and dies! This is an absolute not a relative state. Newton said, “If a ship is sailing smoothly enough, a man shut up in the cabin can’t tell whether it is moving or not; but that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s moving and it’s not moving are not the same state! Whether or not the locked-up man can detect it, the motion of the ship is a real state with real effects...and if the ship suddenly stopped, that would yield other real effects; as would a sudden stopping of an indiscernible motion of the universe.”

Leibniz was a great champion of the relationist view and he advanced such arguments as what would happen if we moved the entire universe 100 metres to the right – what observable difference would it make? What would happen if we removed all of the objects from the universe? What would be left? However, Leibniz came to understand that the situation wasn’t quite as he had first understood it, and sense could actually be made of the idea of an “absolute universe” if it was examined in the right mathematical way. In relation to his first argument, Leibniz realised that God, or the cosmic mind as we might say, would “know” if the universe had been moved, even if humans wouldn’t (there would be no observable consequences for humans). Of course, the relationist argument applies only to a finite universe. If the universe is finite in space and time then there is no sufficient reason for God to have placed a relative universe either here or there. Nor is there any sufficient reason for God to have started the relative universe at this time or that. But these objections are removed if the universe is infinite in space and time, and Leibniz’s system is of course based on infinite, eternal monads, not a finite number. Once an infinite universe is logically accepted, the question must be raised of whether it progresses in a strictly linear sense – never reaching an end – or is cyclical (having an infinite number of beginnings and endings, births and deaths). If the universe is ALIVE then we would certainly expect it to have a life cycle, like all life. Each universe is born, matures, grows old and finally dies. As above, so below. Yet its moment of death is simply its moment of birth in its next life. This, of course, is the basis of reincarnational thinking. Like all life, the universe itself continually reincarnates. “God” too must reincarnate. There can never be an eternal Creator God of the type imagined by Abrahamists. The universe is a mathematical infinite series; one that inherently can never reach an end; that can never converge on a final limit. Each incarnation of a universe had its own absolute spacetime, but only relative to itself i.e. even God can know only the starting time of this universe. He can’t know the starting time of the previous universe because that universe no longer exists and all information pertaining to it is lost (the Big Bang is like a total reboot mechanism that wipes out all RAM memory and completely reformats the hard drive. Only ROM memory – the laws of

mathematics themselves – and the monads, the basics units of mathematics, survive). So, time is a strange combination of absolute and relative. Time is absolute in terms of our universe, but our universe will die and its time will die with it, and because the next universe will know nothing of this one, time will therefore be relative across the whole sequence of universes. Time always starts completely afresh with each new universe. A process of reincarnation within a universe does not erase all memories (hence some people can legitimately remember past lives), but the reincarnation of the universe itself wipes out every conceivable memory pertaining to the dead universe. We can have ZERO knowledge of the universes before ours. As with time, space is absolute for each universe, but comes to an end at the end of the universe, so is NOT absolute across the infinite series of universes, as Newton might have contended. Absolute spacetime is created for each new universe when its Big Bang event takes places. The Big Bang is the death of the previous universe. It’s the existential reboot button. So, Einstein’s dismissal of absolute spacetime in terms of relativistic spacetime was wrong. There is a definitive means of establishing exactly where you are in spacetime. That’s a consequence of the physical universe being based on a 6-Dimensional Cartesian grid. However, because we have no direct access to the 6-D grid (since it’s based on monadic points that exist outside space and time), we ourselves can never know exactly where we are in terms of absolute spacetime.

Emptying the Universe Regarding the problem of removing all objects from the universe, space and time would no longer exist, as Leibniz always maintained. Only monads – outside space and time – would still exist. In other words, absolute spacetime originates in something external to the physical world, and when all the things and events of the physical world are removed, they take spacetime with them. Absolute space and time do not permanently exist in their own right as Newton maintained and as Leibniz denied. When a Big Bang event takes place – involving a mathematical Singularity – there is NO spacetime at that instant. Spacetime is therefore framed by nonspacetime: 1) Big Bang – no spacetime.

2) Universe that emerges from Big Bang – spacetime. 3) Expansion of spacetime leads to complete destruction of all matter, leaving only energy outside spacetime (i.e. all energy has returned to the monads from which it originated in the first place). No spacetime at end of universe – universe has died. Just as spacetime ends for us when we die (until we are reincarnated), so it ends for the universe when it dies (until it in turns reincarnates via a new Big Bang event): as above, so below. The Big Bang is nothing other than the proof of cosmic reincarnation! If the universe – made of monads – reincarnates, why wouldn’t we – single monads – also reincarnate? We are made of exactly the same stuff as the universe and the same laws apply to us as to the universe. The cosmos is the spacetime “body” of the cosmic mind (composed of ALL monads), and our physical body is the spacetime agent of our individual, eternal monadic mind. Isn’t it astoundingly and wondrously simple? We are linked in every possible way with the cosmos, and the cosmic mind (“God” = Abraxas) that controls it.

No “Before” Consider these comments by Professor Roger Penrose, one of the key shapers of Big Bang theory: “If people asked me what happened before the Big Bang, my normal answer would be to say, well, you know, the word ‘before’, you see, what does that mean? Well, that’s a sort of temporal concept, and if the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime that means the very notion of time loses its meaning at this event, this so-called Big Bang. If the notion of time loses its meaning, the very notion of ‘before’ loses its meaning. So we pretend to say it’s a meaningless question to ask for before. There wasn’t a ‘before’. That’s the wrong kind of notion. And I would have perhaps gone along with this point of view until I’ve had some different ideas more recently.” Penrose then enunciated what we might call his “small equals large” hypothesis: “The present picture of the universe is that it starts with a Big Bang and it ends with an indefinitely expanding, exponentially expanding, universe where, in the remote future, it cools off and there’s nothing much left except photons. Now what I’m saying is that in this remote future the

photons have no way of keeping time: they don’t have any mass. You need mass to make a clock and you have to have a clock to measure the scale of the universe, so the universe loses track of how big it is. And this very expanded universe becomes equivalent to a Big Bang of another one. So I’m saying that this, what we think about our present universe, is but one eon of a succession of eons, where this remotely expanding universe of each becomes the Big Bang of the next. So small and big become completely equivalent.” Penrose’s new view is absolutely identical to our position. Given that Penrose is also a Platonist, he might as well be an Illuminist!

The Cyclic Universe “Our universe’s expansion means that all of its mass will eventually be converted into energy. When that happens, conventional ideas of time and size disappear. Because of this, an infinitely large universe could be the infinitely small starting point for the next one, a cyclic system with a before and after.” BBC Horizon Documentary, What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Sui Generis Einstein tried to make space and time dependent on themselves rather on something formally external to them. The Latin term sui generis means “of its own kind” – it’s in a class by itself; there’s nothing else like it; it’s unique. Existence itself is sui generis. So, the key question is this: is spacetime existentially fundamental, or is spacetime something that has its origins in a lower level outside spacetime? We already have the answer. The Big Bang Singularity is itself OUTSIDE spacetime, but gives rise to spacetime. Scientific materialists – with their hatred of zero, of dimensionlessness, and with their spectacular philosophical illiteracy – have never understood what the Big Bang tells us about existence. It reveals unambiguously that spacetime is preceded by non-spacetime, that dimensionality is preceded by dimensionlessness and, above all, that MIND PRECEDES MATTER, that mind is matter’s precursor, not the other way round. The Big Bang is the PROOF that materialism is false and idealism is true. It’s also the proof that the soul, the afterlife and God are all real and that the religious worldview

(provided it is based solely in Logos mathematic rather than absurd Mythos) is 100% rational and vindicated. The Big Bang conclusively refutes atheist materialism because the idea that a material universe can emerge from “nothing” is an impossibility within the materialist paradigm. It’s astonishing that no modern philosopher has ever pointed out that the Big Bang singularity – being dimensionless – is science’s own proof that its dogmatic materialist stance and worship of experimental data is false. All of the secrets of existence reside in the Big Bang – which is dimensionless, outside space and time and 100% immaterial. The Singularity is available ONLY to reason, not to experiment. Therefore rationality trumps empiricism. Mathematics is the ONLY tool we have for investigating the Big Bang Singularity that gives rise to everything. It’s purely a mathematical object, and contains all of the laws of ontological mathematics, and hence of existence itself. The Singularity can be composed of only one thing: dimensionless Leibnizian monads; nothings, zeros, SOULS! The Big Bang Singularity is nothing other than the Cosmic Soul (the Soul of God) that contains infinite individual souls. The Big Bang is the true Creation Event, but not by any conscious, “perfect” Abrahamic God. It is a strictly mathematical creation event and its purpose is to release the potential of monads and, via physical reality, fully actualise everything they have it within them to be. In other words, its great end is to convert bare monads consisting of nothing but potential into the most glorious, full, selfrealised GODS. The cosmos is the supreme God Factory. God does not create it: it creates God. It creates not just one God, but infinite Gods. The Singularity is a self-solving, living mathematical equation and the answer it is seeking is the 100% perfection of a universe that comprises only Gods. The Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is the driver of the selfsolving equation. The equation cannot consciously solve itself because consciousness is one of the products of the evolving solution. It therefore uses the most brute force, primitive method imaginable: the conflict of opposites that leads to a higher synthesis, which becomes a new thesis, which generates a new antithesis, which generates a new synthesis and so on. Eventually this process converges on an Omega Point, an Absolute condition where all contradictions have been resolved and all oppositions reconciled. At this point, the process has generated PERFECTION.

We are all becoming God. We are all living inside a mathematical, dialectical perfection machine, designed to perfect everything over an eon, to arrive at the cosmic OMEGA POINT.

The Bisection Method and the Dialectic In mathematics, a root-finding algorithm is a numerical method for finding a value x such that f(x) = 0 for function f. Each such x is a root of the function f. The simplest way of finding a root is known as the bisection method. It involves making two initial guesses a and b such that if f(a) is positive then f(b) is negative. As long as this is true, the root must be bracketed between them. We then divide the interval into two equal halves by computing f(c) where c=(a+b)/2 (hence why it is called the bisection method). If f(c) isn’t itself the root then the root will either be between f(a) and f(c) or between f(b) and f(c). We can keep going until we have converged on the root. It’s slow, but certain. The interesting thing is that it has a strong resemblance to the dialectic. If we regard the root as the desired omega point (ultimate synthesis) and f(a) as positive (the thesis) and f(b) as negative (the antithesis) then f(c) is our initial guess at the synthesis, and we keep reiterating dialectically until we reach the root. During its initial evolution, nature operates using the simplest possible mathematical means (e.g. techniques such as the bisection method). Think of a typical binary opposition such as love and hate. There is some point between unconditional love and unconditional hate that represents the optimal synthesis of the two. This is the “root” of the lovehate function that we’re trying to find. We keep using the bisection method dialectically until we get there. Of course, as Hegel pointed out, the dialectic doesn’t operate consciously, at least not until such time as people become conscious of what’s actually happening. However, once we become conscious of the dialectic, we can then consciously use much more efficient means for converging on the final synthesis, just as there are far superior mathematical means for finding roots than the bisection method.

No Entry

The sign above Plato’s Academy proclaimed, “Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here.” Guess what, the same sign is posted over the gates of heaven – so no Abrahamists or karmists will be getting in! IMAGINE!!!

The Truth Then and the Truth Now “Bless us divine number, who generated Gods and men. Number containest the root and source of eternally flowing creation.” – Pythagoras, First Grand Master of the Illuminati.

God the Mathematician “God ever geometrizes.” – Plato

Mathematics – the Light of the Universe “The book of the Universe is written in mathematical language, without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.” – Galileo

The Difficulty of Mathematics “One never understands mathematics, one simply gets used to it.” – John von Neumann

Mathematics: Always Delivering More “One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.” – Hertz

Hotel Infinity The first thing the big Bang Singularity does is to create a perfect Cartesian arena made of … MONADS. This infinite Cartesian arena is capable of constant expansion, as per David Hilbert’s Hotel Infinity hypothesis. This is the mathematical basis of the expanding universe.

Without a monadic Cartesian grid, Einstein’s relativistic way of thinking would be right since there would be nothing external to the physical universe to provide an absolute reference frame. But there is something – MIND, made of dimensionless monads. Mind (outside space and time) provides the external, absolute reference frame for the material universe. Mind is what determines matter. Scientists’ refusal to countenance mind is responsible for their inability to provide a final explanation of the material universe. They must go beyond physicality in order to explain physicality. The same is not true of mind since, by virtue of being dimensionless – by being “nothing” – there is nothing beyond it. It is truly sue generis. The biggest scientific revolution of all time will take place when science adopts Illuminism’s Theory of Everything based on perfect, ontological mathematics.

***** Isaac Asimov wrote, “The most fundamental aspect of Einstein’s theory was its denial of the existence of absolute space and absolute time. This may sound like nonsense: how can the human mind learn anything at all about the universe if it has no point of departure? Einstein answered that all we need to do is pick a frame of reference to which the events of the universe can be related. Any frame of reference (the earth motionless, or the sun motionless, or we ourselves motionless, for that matter) will be equally valid, and we can simply choose the frame that is most convenient. It is more convenient to calculate planetary motion in a frame of reference in which the sun is motionless than in one in which the earth is motionless – but it is no more true.” So, according to Asimov’s way of thinking, the Catholic Church could have defended itself against the Copernican view by insisting that they were simply choosing a frame of reference in which the earth was stationary and the sun moving – and that no scientist who accepted Einsteinian relativity could accuse them of anything worse than choosing a less “convenient” frame of reference! They could not be accused of being wrong or teaching falsehoods – because it’s all relative (scientifically and even morally). Asimov’s question – “How can the human mind learn anything at all about the universe if it has no point of departure?” – is spot on, but he gave the wrong answer by agreeing with Einstein’s relativistic hypothesis. There must be an objective, external ABSOLUTE reality that all minds agree on,

not one based on the arbitrary selection of a subjective “frame of reference”. Einstein replaced objective reality with an observer-chosen frame of reference. So, the Catholic Church and Copernicus are simply advocates of different reference frames rather than different objective realities. Relativity is one of the most insidious ideas ever devised. It destroys objective reality, yet no one seems to notice or care. As the name suggests, it introduces relativism into all aspects of life. Anyone can define their world according to their own frame of reference and insist they are correct. As long as they are consistent about their frame of reference then no one can say they are wrong. And even if they’re inconsistent, well, who cares? It’s all relative, right?! Einstein’s relativity principle poses a catastrophic challenge to the possibility of absolute knowledge and it’s essential that he’s refuted. Ironically, Einstein accused quantum mechanics of subverting objective reality (and turning it into God’s dice game), but in fact his own relativity theory was much worse. He got rid of objective reality just as completely and put in its place relative frames of reference. Asimov, in defending Einstein, demonstrates how absurd relativity is: “The measurements of space and time are ‘relative’ to some arbitrarily chosen frame of reference – and that is the reason for naming Einstein’s idea the theory of relativity. To illustrate. Suppose we on the earth were to observe a strange planet (Planet X), exactly like our own in size and mass, go whizzing past us at 163,000 miles per second relative to ourselves. If we could measure its dimensions as it shot past, we would find it foreshortened by 50 percent in the direction of its motion. It would be an ellipsoid rather than a sphere and would, on further measurement, seem to have twice the mass of the earth. Yet to a man on planet X, it would seem that he himself and his own planet were motionless. The earth would seem to be moving past him at 163,000 miles per second, and it would appear to have an ellipsoidal shape and twice the mass of his planet. One is tempted to ask which planet would really be foreshortened and doubled in mass, but the only possible answer depends on the frame of reference. If you find that notion frustrating, consider that a man is small compared with a whale and large compared with a beetle. Is there any point in asking what a man is really – large or small? “

Well, Isaac, of course there is – if you’re interested in objective reality. Someone interested in absolute knowledge wants to know what absolute size a whale is, what absolute size a man is and what absolute size a beetle is. He’s not interested in their subjective relations. He wants to know their objective properties. With relativity, science has abandoned any pretence at providing knowledge of a real, objective world independent of us. Smart scientists such as Asimov don’t even seem to mind. The ideology of relativity is false, so why does it seem to work at all? Why do experiments triumphantly vindicate it? The answer is that the basic mathematical equations of relativity are correct. It’s the interpretation, not the mathematics, that’s in error. In fact, the mathematics worked just as well for Lorentz and FitzGerald and their theory was conceptually radically different. Why did the science establishment prefer Einstein’s far-fetched interpretation that destroyed objective reality over Lorentz and FitzGerald’s that preserved it? Well, it seemed too much to believe that nature was somehow conspiring to ensure that we always got the same result when we measured the speed of light. Einstein gave a thought-provoking interpretation that seemed to perfectly reflect the ultra-positivism of influential science thinker Ernst Mach, and everyone stopped thinking about the problem. Yet Einstein’s conception of reality is every bit as “stupid” as Newton’s. Like Newton’s physics, Einstein’s physics gives the right answers and in fact yields more right answers, so has therefore replaced Newtonian physics. But ours will in turn replace Einstein’s interpretation. The ether is real, but it’s not physical; it’s mental. The ether should be defined as a perfect 6-dimensional Cartesian grid (one involving imaginary axes as well as real axes). You cannot detect it, but there it is, providing an absolute reference frame that defines objective reality. Lorentz and FitzGerald were right that objects change in absolute terms as their speed increases. Einstein’s authentic flash of genius was that space and time themselves, not just objects in space and time, are affected by the speed at which something is travelling (in fact the objects in space and time physically change precisely because they are reflecting the changed spacetime environment in which they are moving). Unfortunately, he then characterised this as a relative rather than absolute effect. The truth is that an object travelling at 0.87 of light speed really does experiences time that

ticks twice as slowly, and distances that are half of “normal” (i.e. of those at rest). This is not a relative matter; it’s absolute. It’s vital to make it clear exactly how Einstein’s interpretation differs from that of Lorentz and FitzGerald. Einstein claimed that an object travelling in a straight line at a constant speed of, for example, 0.87 light speed, remained exactly as it was when it was at rest. Space and time were exactly the same for it. However, to an observer in a different frame of reference, it would seem that time and distance were different for the first object. For two observers moving relative to one another inertially (i.e. without acceleration), the first observer has a different space and time from the second. This is the radical conclusion of Einstein’s work. The only reason we on earth all agree on space and time is that we are all more or less in exactly the same reference frame. People moving in fast planes, for example, are in slightly different reference frames, but not sufficiently different to make a noteworthy difference. Lorentz and FitzGerald, on the other hand, claimed that objects physically changed as they moved and that these changes were of exactly the right magnitude, in experiments to measure light speed, to offset the differences in light speed associated with the movement of a light source through the ether (i.e. the earth and everything on it, including our sense organs and the measuring equipment would be “conspiring” to ensure that the speed of light was always measured to have an invariant value). Einstein proposed apparent changes in space and time judged by one observer relative to another, with each observer entitled to consider himself stationary if he were moving at a constant speed in a straight line. Lorentz and FitzGerald proposed actual changes in the lengths of moving objects. Both used the same mathematics, so got the same results. What is at issue is the interpretation and the consequences that flow from the different interpretations. Famously, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein simply dispensed with the ether as an unobservable hypothesis though he never at any stage actually disproved its existence. Lorentz and FitzGerald accepted the ether, absolute time and absolute space i.e. an absolute objective reality. They accepted the concept of light having different apparent speeds depending on the motion of the light source, but believed that the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction would hide these effects. Einstein rejected the ether and made time and space

measurements dependent on observers moving at constant speed with respect to each other. He made the speed of light absolutely invariant. What is truly remarkable is that Einstein did not prove Lorentz and FitzGerald wrong. It was simply the case that his theory was regarded as more plausible, powerful, elegant and useful. Illuminism mixes and matches the two different approaches, and thus benefits from the best of both worlds. 1) The ether is ontologically real but is physically undetectable because it provides the coordinate frame for space and time without itself being in space and time. This is therefore in partial agreement with Lorentz and FitzGerald (who accepted the existence of the ether) and with Einstein (who proposed that the ether has no discernible physical effects). To reiterate, the ether does indeed exist but it is mental, not physical, hence it is not physically detectable but it provides the basis for time and space, without which they could not exist. 2) Absolute space and absolute time DO exist (as Lorentz and FitzGerald believed). However, they are products of the ether and hence cannot be directly measured, hence are only experienced relatively (as Einstein argued). Space and time are not completely separate, as Newton believed, but fused together in spacetime, just as Einstein said i.e. absolute space and time become absolute spacetime. 3) The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and the more general Lorentz transformations have real effects (as Lorentz and FitzGerald believed) and are NOT relative in the manner Einstein envisaged. You really do physically contract and experience mass increases and time dilation as you speed up. You may not notice initially because everything around you will be experiencing the same effect. However, a human being will start to experience real physical difficulties as he reaches a certain speed, and his ultimate fate as he approaches light speed is to be crushed into oblivion. This is an absolute effect. There is nothing relative about it.

“In Lorentz’s theory, the shrinking is considered to be a physical effect arising from the assumption that electromagnetic theory is defined in the coordinate frame of ether and length contraction results from the change in electromagnetic fields in moving frames. That is, Lorentz’s arguments assume that there is a frame of absolute space (the ether frame) in which electrodynamics of Maxwell is defined and in frames which are moving in absolute space, the electrodynamics is modified and this leads to shrinking of physical lengths. In special theory, on the other hand, the length only appears to shrink. The shrinking is not a real effect. So, the distance between two points in space (not connected by any material body) also appears to shrink when observed from a moving frame. Thus, there is no special frame like absolute space in special theory.” – S.C.Phatak In Illuminism, electromagnetic theory is defined in the coordinate frame of ether. However, Illuminism also accepts the absolute invariance of light speed. If Lorentz and Fitzgerald provided the thesis and Einstein the antithesis, Illuminism provides the dialectical synthesis of the two different approaches. Illuminism saves objective reality: measurements really do measure things absolutely and not in some relative and imaginary sense. Einstein’s contention that an absolutely invariant light speed for all observers necessarily implies relativity is false. However, in the ether-based worldview of objective reality, this demands that all moving observers undergo real Lorentz transformations as regards length, mass and time. Einsteinian relativity is abandoned and replaced by absolutism. The velocity of light is constant, but it is not independent of coordinate frames as Einstein maintained. Rather, the 6-D coordinate frame of the ether defines it. This is a critical point. In the 6-D universe, the speed of light is something that emerges naturally from the properties of that coordinate system. In Einstein’s relativistic framework, the invariance of the speed of light is a postulate, not something that arises from an underlying theory. “The rejection of ether hypothesis in the special theory was quite revolutionary. This is because, at that time, ether was thought to be essential for existence of electromagnetic waves. We find that all waves require a medium. An example is sound waves. Sound exists in some medium (air, water, solids such as metals and so on) and cannot exist in vacuum. This is true of other types of waves as well. It was therefore natural to consider that

light, which is also a wave, would require a medium for its propagation. The electric and magnetic fields in light waves were expected to be generated and travel in some medium. Since we receive light from far away stars, the medium, in which light waves are present must exist between Earth and stars. That is, this medium should be all pervading and the natural thing is to assume that the frame in which the medium is stationary defines the absolute space. Thus, we now have a tangible object which could define the coordinate frame of absolute space, thus solving the problem of absolute space which, as we have seen, was not required in classical mechanics. Hence efforts were made to determine this frame by doing terrestrial and extra-terrestrial experiments. It required a genius of Einstein to take the bold step of rejecting the ether hypothesis and develop a new framework based on the experimental results. It may be mentioned that, for a number of years after the advent of special theory, the hypothesis of ether and absolute space was not given up readily. Indeed, the mathematical aspects of special theory were accepted quickly but not the physical aspects. It may be noted that in fact, the mathematical aspects of special theory were obtained before special theory and the special theory gave a physical and philosophical foundation to them.” – S.C.Phatak Electromagnetism obviously does require a medium. A wave must travel through something. That medium does not, however, have to be physical. In fact, it’s mental and it is a perfect 6D Cartesian coordinate system. Electromagnetic waves must travel in accordance with a mathematical coordinate system or they cannot travel at all. Electromagnetic waves are themselves mathematical waves, dependent on a mathematical Cartesian framework.

The Critical Question Einstein’s central insight can be boiled down to the idea that all observers moving at constant speed in a straight line are entitled to consider themselves stationary. This produces a kind of pseudo-absolute reference frame, but now centred on each subjective observer rather than on one unique absolute space, objectively agreed upon by all observers. Because the pseudo-absolute reference frame is identical for all observers, the laws of physics must be identical in every way for each of them. Light speed must be the same in every case.

With this view, something has to give and what gives is the perception of other observers regarding the frame of reference of any moving observer who considers himself at rest. From their perspective, time and space must be different for that other observer in order to ensure that he gets the same result for the speed of light as they do. Since the speed of light is based on distance and time then distance and time must be “fluid” for all observers so that, no matter what speed they are actually moving at, space and time must be adjustable and measurable in such a way as to always give the same result. Absolute, fixed space and time were definitively dead if Einstein was right. But was he? In the Newtonian world, a light beam should be measured to travel at different speeds for observers travelling at different speeds. Light, in that system, travels at c only for an observer absolutely at rest. In the Einsteinian and Illuminist world, light speed is invariant Is it possible for the ether and the invariant speed of light to be mutually compatible and consistent? It turns out that this is possible, providing absolute space is defined in a very specific way involving the introduction of imaginary numbers and an exact balance between real and imaginary dimensions. Einstein rejected the Newtonian concepts of absolute space and absolute time and thereby rejected the concept of a static reference frame. What he never paused to consider was an absolute version of the very thing that emerged from his own special theory of relativity, namely spacetime where space and time are dynamically fused together. With absolute spacetime, any observer moving through spacetime at a constant speed in a straight line experiences spacetime differently from any other observer moving through it at a different constant speed in a straight line i.e. space and time dynamically alter according to the particular speed, and always in such a way as to ensure the same measurement, across all reference frames, for the speed of light in a vacuum.

***** The catastrophic error at the core of Einsteinian relativity is fiendishly well hidden, or scientists would have spotted it long ago. The problem is as follows: Einstein inherited the Newtonian view of absolute space and time, which he radically altered to embrace a new concept called spacetime, where time and space are fused together rather than independent. That was

unquestionably the bold and revolutionary act of an undisputed genius of the highest order, and the scientific world was suitably spellbound. However, Einstein then failed to see a further elementary step he could have taken that would have saved the objective reality he had just destroyed with his principle of relativity. He could have salvaged objective reality simply by positing absolute fused spacetime rather than absolute space and absolute time (treated as entirely independent of each other). He could have returned to the concept of the ether that provided an absolute reference point for everything else, except it would now be an absolute spacetime ether rather than an absolute space ether as it had hitherto been envisaged (with time ticking independently and absolutely in the background). To do so, he would have had to take the boldest step of all: accepting that the spacetime ether was inherently unobservable. Instead, Einstein ended up in no man’s land. His special theory of relativity (lacking any gravitational effects) denies the existence of the ether and doesn’t formally require any ether. The general theory of relativity (concentrating on gravitational effects) needs some sort of ether in order to warp it. As Einstein himself said, “The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether.” Einstein futilely spent the latter part of his life trying to reconcile electromagnetism and gravity. Paul Dirac successfully produced a consistent theory of quantum theory and special relativity (in the shape of quantum electrodynamics: QED) and, ever since, the holy grail of physics has been to reconcile quantum theory and general relativity, with M-theory being the current focus. The historical sequence of the conceptual development of space and time is: 1) Thesis – Newton: absolute space and time (consistent with a physical ether).

2) Antithesis – Einstein: relativistic spacetime (inconsistent with a physical ether). 3) Synthesis – Illuminism: absolute spacetime (consistent with a new conception of the ether, melding space and time, and being non-physical, hence unobservable).

***** 1) Thesis – Newtonian physics: consistent with objective reality. 2) Antithesis – Einsteinian physics: inconsistent with objective reality. 3) Synthesis – Illuminism: consistent with objective reality.

***** 1) Thesis: Newton – Absolute Time and Absolute Space. 2) Antithesis: Replaced by Einsteinian Relativistic Spacetime. 3) Synthesis: Replaced by Illuminist Absolute Spacetime, which reconciles Newton and Einstein in a higher synthesis. End of the dialectic. There is nowhere left to go with this line of thinking. Newton was wrong; Einstein was wrong; Illuminism is correct.

***** Had Einstein been a dialectical thinker, he would have seen that the dialectic offered him a further step that he didn’t take. He thus became the champion of relativism and the destroyer of objective reality. Illuminism restores non-relativistic objective reality while retaining the invariance of light speed. This is the end of the line. No further dialectical changes are possible regarding this question. The omega point has been reached. Objective reality must be constructed on the basis of a static, absolute frame of reference, against which all movement can be objectively and

absolutely measured. Leibniz’s Monadic Mind Field, furnishing a perfect Cartesian grid of mathematical points outside space and time, is the only conceivable candidate. It alone guarantees objective reality. In Leibniz’s system, there are two domains. There is a static domain of monads “in themselves” – as noumena outside space and time. Then there is a domain full of movement, of energy that flows from monads. This movement takes place in the perfect Cartesian arena established by the monads. It is this movement in this specially defined arena that is responsible for what we perceive as space and time. In other words, the mathematical properties of the Cartesian arena lead to the creation of space and time when energy (movement) flows through that arena. The part of the Cartesian arena defined by real numbers supports movement through “space”; the part of the Cartesian arena defined by imaginary numbers supports movement through “time” (i.e. motion through imaginary space is perceived as the flow of time). Fundamental axioms: 1) The Cartesian arena defines all of the properties of existence. Therefore this is the most important step in creating a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. If this basic architecture of existence is defined wrongly, everything else is wrong. Mtheory, for example, posits 11 dimensions: three ordinary space dimensions, one time dimension and 7 “rolled up” dimensions that are all but invisible. In M-theory, there is no a priori reason for 11 dimensions (this is simply the number that makes the mathematics work and allows scientists to write papers); there is no a priori explanation of the origin of time; there is no a priori explanation of why the universe should be based on “proper” dimensions and “rolled up” dimensions; and M-theory also rejects zero, imaginary numbers, negative numbers and infinity as any having ontological reality. In other words, M-theory is theoretically absurd from the get-go. It provides no sufficient reasons and no a priori explanations for anything. It begins from the premise of trying to prevent division by zero from ever happening and builds, from that fatally mistaken axiom, a vast edifice built on sand.

2) Leibniz realised that there was no sufficient reason to privilege real numbers over imaginary numbers and they must therefore be treated on an exactly equal footing. He added to the three “proper” dimensions of Newtonian absolute space, three corresponding imaginary dimensions. He now had a 6-D absolute space composed of three real and three imaginary dimensions. Reality would unfold in this objective Cartesian framework. (A mathematical purist might prefer to label the Cartesian framework as Gaussian or Argandian since Gauss and Argand both devised a coordinate system with an imaginary axis, and Descartes didn’t.) 3) Leibniz, using the principle of sufficient reason, concluded that all energy in the universe, considered in its most abstract and rudimentary sense, should move at the same speed since there was no sufficient reason why energy should move at arbitrary speeds. Moreover, all energy should in fact move at infinite speed since there is no sufficient reason why it should move any slower than that i.e. at some arbitrary finite speed limit. We are used to thinking of all electromagnetic radiation moving at exactly the same speed – the speed of light. Leibniz in effect extended this concept to all energy, except he made all energy move infinitely fast. Energy moves infinitely fast because it takes no time to get anywhere since it turns out that all monads exist within a dimensionless Singularity: everything is connected to everything else. That, of course, is not the whole story. 4) Leibniz reasoned that the infinite speed of energy outside space and time was necessarily converted into finite speed when it entered the finite spacetime region of the Cartesian arena. If there was no such thing as mass then ALL energy in spacetime would travel at the maximum finite speed limit (normally equated with the speed of light). All energy characterised by real numbers would travel at light speed through space (no movement through time; clocks stop) and all energy characterised by imaginary numbers would travel at light speed through time (no movement through space). Mass (“bound

energy”) – produced in the standard model of physics by the Higgs field and Higgs boson – has the effect of converting some motion through space into motion through time (because space and time are dynamically coupled: any slowing down in one aspect automatically leads to speeding up in the other, keeping the overall speed at exactly the speed of light). Another way to think about “rest” mass is that it is a mechanism for binding imaginary energy and real energy. “Dynamic” mass – caused by the increase in mass of a particle as it speeds up through space is effectively replacing imaginary energy (time energy) with real energy (mass). At light speed through space, all time (imaginary) energy has been shed and thus time has stopped.

Timelike, Lightlike and Spacelike “Consider the three different ways that two events [A and B] can be separated in Einstein’s world. If B can be reached from A by a slower-than light signal, the separation is called ‘timelike’ because for such slow signals more time than space stretches between A and B. If B can be reached from A by a ray of light, the A-B separation is called ‘lightlike.’ Lightlike separations span equal amounts of time and space. Finally, if B can be reached from A only by Faster the Light (FTL) travel, the separation is called ‘spacelike’. More space than time is spanned by such superluminal separations. … Any pair of events in spacetime belongs to one of these categories: timelike, spacelike, or lightlike. …The instantaneous connection (infinite signal velocity) is the fastest FTL signal imaginable.” – Nick Herbert, Faster than Light An observer can in theory live in one of three environments: 1) where time dominates (“timelike” – our world); 2) where space dominates (“spacelike” – the forbidden zone of impossibility) or 3) where space and time are equally balanced (the “lightlike” or “null” zone). Human beings live in the time environment. Light lives in the balanced zone. No human being can ever reach the space environment. We can’t even reach the light zone because our mass increases to infinity as we approach light speed. There is therefore a “luxon wall” shielding us from the space environment. We will always be children of time, not space. As for souls, angels and gods, they have always been considered beings of light. (If we

perform a thought experiment to imagine if anything could exist in the forbidden zone, we would have to imagine, perhaps, creatures made of time particles (!) moving through space rather than space particles moving through time.) What is a human being? It’s a lightlike soul connected to a timelike, mortal body. When we die, our timelike physical aspect perishes and our lightlike part goes on, enduring forever. Through reincarnation, it enters the timelike domain once again in a new body. Einsteinian physics, cast in these terms, gives us a perfect description of what we are and the type of world we inhabit. We are the children of light and time. When our time ends, we return to the light.

Minkowski Rotations An intuitive person is someone who links concepts “out of thin air”. Often, similar wording used in two different descriptions can be enough to alert him to an unspoken connection between two seemingly unrelated ideas. Consider these two statements: 1) “Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’s physics teachers at the Zurich Polytechnical Institute noticed that the Lorentz transformations formally resemble a mathematical rotation, a rotation not however in ordinary space but in a four dimensional space, which, in addition to the ordinary three spatial dimensions incorporates time as an extra dimension.” – Nick Herbert, Faster than Light 2) “Just as √-1 rotates vectors in the complex plane, Hamilton wondered what would rotate vectors in three-dimensional space. This led him to his discovery of quaternions or hypercomplex numbers.” – Paul J. Nahin, An Imaginary Tale: The Story of √-1 An intuitive would immediately wonder whether the rotation in spacetime associated with Lorentz transformations is related to rotation in the complex plane caused by multiplication by √-1, or to rotation in three-dimensional space by quaternions. A 2D spacetime consisting of one real and one imaginary dimension is nothing other than the complex plane, and √-1 (the imaginary number)

controls rotation in that plane. In a 6D spacetime of three real and three imaginary dimensions, quaternions find an immediate home. No one with any knowledge of imaginary numbers can look at the equations relating to Einstein’s 4D spacetime (three space dimensions and one time dimension) without instantly seeing imaginary numbers looming over the architecture of this 4D spacetime. The interval (ds) between events in Einsteinian 4D spacetime is defined according to the following equation derived from Pythagoras’s theorem: (ds)2 = (dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2 –c2(dt)2, where x, y and z are space coordinates, t is the time coordinate and c is the speed of light (and multiplying time by c gives space units, thus turning time into a type of space). This equation is said to be “Lorentz invariant” because (ds)2 is not changed under coordinate transformations of translation and/or rotation. Note that the “time term”, –c2(dt)2, enters the equation with exactly the characteristic of the square of an imaginary number (a squared imaginary number always produces a negative number). As soon as you see a negative number in a “squared” equation, you know imaginary numbers are lurking, even if not explicitly identified. The equivalent equation of 6D Illuminism is: (ds)2 = (dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2 + (dui)2 + (dvi)2 + (dwi)2 where, x, y and z are the real coordinates and ui, vi and wi are the imaginary coordinates. This can be rewritten as: (ds)2 = (dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2 – (du)2 – (dv)2 – (dw)2 This has the same “architecture” as the Einstein equation, but at a more fundamental and expanded level, showing that time is derived from imaginary numbers and there is not one time dimension but three, exactly reflecting the three space dimensions. There is no sufficient reason for there to be any mismatch in time and space dimensionality.

Einsteinian Time Paradoxes “With time as well as space up to odd tricks in relativity, one aspect of relativity that still provokes arguments amongst physicists is Einstein’s notion of the slowing of clocks. A clock, in motion, he said, keeps time

more slowly than a stationary one. In fact, all phenomena that change with time change more slowly when moving than when at rest, which is the same as saying that time itself is slowed. At ordinary speeds, the effect is negligible, but at 163,000 miles per second, a clock would seem (to an observer watching it fly past) to take two seconds to tick off one second. And at the speed of light, time would stand still. The time-effect is more disturbing than those involving length and weight. If an object shrinks to half its length and then returns to normal, no trace is left behind to indicate the temporary change, and opposing viewpoints need not quarrel. Time, however, is cumulative.” – Isaac Asimov According to Einstein, an observer moving at 0.87 percent of light speed is permitted to think that a stationary observer has a clock ticking half as fast as his own (he regards himself as stationary and the other as moving). The stationary observer thinks it’s the other way around. So, who’s right? Over twenty years, each would think that the other was ten years younger because time was passing half as fast for the other. How can this make any sense? Apologists for Einstein come up with various seemingly ingenious ways out of this paradox, but are their arguments in fact specious? One attempt is to say that the rest of the universe agrees with the stationary observer, so he must be right. But the whole point of Einstein’s relativity principle is that an observer moving at constant speed in a straight line must be allowed to consider himself stationary. Now, it seems, a claim is being made that the rest of the universe outvotes him – “consensus reality”, so to speak. This “universal democracy” argument is invalid according to Einstein’s own logic because it is saying that someone’s motion can be absolutely determined by an “absolute” criterion – a majority vote (50.1% to 49.9% will suffice). Therefore, there is no such thing as relativity if we simply have to call for a vote. We can always use this method to determine who is moving and who is not. All frames of reference are NOT equal if this is the case. Another alleged escape route is to assert that if the two individuals never meet then they will never be able to find out who is right, but this is surely just evading the issue. A third approach is to say that the one moving fast will have to accelerate to get to that high speed and then decelerate to return to earth. This introduces an asymmetry into the relationship and this asymmetry is

then used to explain the paradox, but of course it has merely explained it away: it has not addressed the fundamental issue at all. The fundamental issue is that each observer is entitled to consider that the other is moving, and acceleration and deceleration are irrelevant to this issue. Let’s reframe the paradox to make it crystal clear how it undermines the basis of Einsteinian relativity. Consider a spaceship that always travels in a straight line at a constant speed of 0.87 of light speed, and consider another spaceship, identical to the first except it is always stationary. So, after one million years, which spaceship will have aged by that amount and which by only five hundred thousand years? Now, age is something that affects everything in the physical world. Will the moving or the stationary spaceship show the ravages of a million years of existence, compared with only five hundred thousand years for the other? According to Einstein’s relativity principle, one of the unshakable keystones of modern physics, both spaceships must be right because each is entitled to consider itself stationary and the other moving. But both spaceships CANNOT be right because time for one is passing half as fast as it is for the other. Therefore Einstein is refuted. In Illuminism, there is no paradox. There is only, unarguable, objective reality. In Illuminism, the moving spaceship experiences objective mass increase, length contraction and time dilation and is in no way identical to the stationary spaceship, which experiences none of these things. The two spaceships are different and nothing about them is swappable. According to Einstein, the two spaceships are identical insofar as each can regard the other as the moving one and itself as stationary. This is nonsense and it’s staggering that scientists have taken it seriously for over 100 years. In the famous “Twin Paradox” where one twin goes on a space journey and one remains on earth, great emphasis is placed on the asymmetry between them; in fact this is used to explain the apparent paradox that they age differently. But the real paradox involves two inertial frames of reference moving at different speeds that never in fact come together. Which one ages more? Einstein’s theory can’t actually provide an answer to this thought experiment. Each inertial frame can consider itself at rest with time passing normally for it, and can claim that the other is moving and suffering time dilation. If relativity is a coherent, objective theory it ought to be able to provide an answer, but it can’t. There is no reality in this theory. Contradictory outcomes can be simultaneously true.

Why has science made itself so blinkered? Why has it accepted Einstein as if he were some kind of mouthpiece of God, incapable of error? Much of the conceptual basis of Einstein’s thinking is transparently ludicrous. How did supposedly objective scientists manoeuvre themselves into the position where they rejected the Reality Principle and instead accepted Einstein’s Relativity Principle? With Einstein, science formally abandoned objective reality. Einstein liked to ask quantum physicists if the moon was there when no one was looking at it, but he himself rendered the concept of the moon, as an objective reality, absurd. According to him, an object travelling close to light speed could legitimately regard the moon as a tiny speck with an enormous mass and experiencing incredible time dilation effects, and close to becoming a black hole – not exactly our usual conception of the moon. The “moon” is removed from objective reality and turned into something very different depending on what frame of reference it’s being viewed from. Einstein was the deadliest enemy of objective reality there has ever been. He more or less single-handedly destroyed it. The way that Bohr and Heisenberg thought about quantum mechanics was similar to the way that Einstein thought about relativity theory. In each case, they were happy to ditch objective reality and replace it with an observer-defined subjective viewpoint. It’s time for the rebirth of reality. Any scientific theory that rejects the Reality Principle is ipso facto refuted. The world is there when we’re not looking at it, and its primary properties are objective, not waiting to be defined by observers.

Laws of Motion In the absence of any external force, a body travels at a constant velocity, k: v=k If k = 0 then the body has zero velocity and is stationary. “Rest” is therefore a special case of constant velocity, the case where velocity = 0. This was Galileo’s first law of motion. It was later taken over by Newton and became his First Law of Motion, and was also known as the principle of inertia: every body persists in a state of uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled by an external force to change to change that state.

When a body is acted upon by a constant external force, its velocity is v = kt where k is a constant and t is time elapsed. The velocity increases the longer the constant force is applied. If the force is gravity then: v = gt where g is the acceleration due to gravity. On earth, where everything is subject to the same gravitational force, everything falls at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum where there is no air resistance, a feather will fall as rapidly as a cannonball). Newton took Galileo’s equations of motion and applied them to the heavens as well as the earth, and thus came up with the general, universal laws that dominated physics until Einstein. Galileo and Newton both assumed that motion is relative to an absolute rest state. But where is this absolute rest state to be found? After all, everything in the universe is moving in one way or another (we are all moving at an incredible speed thanks to the movement of the earth as it orbits the sun). In fact, a state of absolute rest is impossible within the physical universe, so if such a state exists it must be external to the physical universe. Only one thing can be external to the material world – the mental world. So, the entity that defines physical existence and makes it possible in the first place is the Monadic Mind Field, also known as the ether, or the Cartesian coordinate system. This dictates both Einsteinian relativity (or those parts of Einstein’s theory that are valid) and quantum mechanics.

The Singularity Any Grand Unified Theory of Everything in scientific terms must be comprehensively founded on the concept of the Singularity. The Big Bang itself is a Singularity, and so are black holes, so scientists have all the clues they need. What they don’t have is the conceptual boldness to break out of the current paradigms that dictate their thinking. Scientific materialism is faced with the biggest possible obstacle and paradigm shift – it must acknowledge that mind, not matter, is the ultimate reality. Until it faces up to the truth, it will just go on committing ingenious

errors such as M-theory – an aggressively materialistic theory; in fact the supreme culmination of materialism. Don’t hold your breath. Scientists make progress in their careers only by writing many scientific papers and sticking rigidly to the orthodox paradigm (the head of the science department will never be anyone who doesn’t uphold the establishment position). Only a true genius can break out and true geniuses are of course rare. Science shuts down “heretical” thinking. Science is deeply conservative and hostile to any thinking that contradicts the prevailing paradigm. The ether is a superb test of the scientific paradigm. It’s conceived as filling all of space (providing a plenum), being at perfect rest and providing a medium in which light can travel. Nothing physical was discovered that had these properties, so, thanks to Einstein, the hypothesis was abandoned (which corresponded to the abandonment of objective reality because everything was now “relative” and based on infinitely many frames of reference, each of which was as valid as any other). However, objective reality can be restored if the ether is defined as mental. The ether is the Monadic Mind Field providing a Cartesian grid of mathematical points. It is a plenum, it is perfectly at rest and it provides an irreducible mathematical medium for the whole of existence. If the ether, defined in these terms, is resurrected, objective science is saved. Otherwise, it remains stuck in subjectivity and observer-created reality, with all of the attendant contradictions and paradoxes. In a letter, Newton himself suggested something akin to Illuminism, and suggestive of the immaterial monadism of his great rival Leibniz: “It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe ‘innate gravity’ to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain

laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” (On another occasion, Newton asserted that gravity was caused by the will of God. That’s not as ridiculous as it sounds if “God” is a mathematician, composed of monads.)

***** “Einstein realized that according to Newton, gravity exerts its influence from place to place, from the sun to the earth, from the earth to the moon, from any-here to any-there, instantaneously, in no time at all, much faster than light. And that directly contradicted special relativity.” – Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos “Physical” influences are transmitted no faster than light speed. Mental influences are transmitted instantaneously (infinitely fast).

The Michelson-Morley Experiment In the famous Michelson-Morley experiment that was designed to use accurate measurements of the speed of light in various directions to detect the motion of the earth through the ether, it was assumed that a beam of light emanating from a light source on earth would, when travelling in the same direction as the earth, have a speed of c (speed of light) + v (speed of the earth). When it was travelling in the opposite direction, it would have, relatively, a speed of c – v. In other words, the measured speed of light would always be an apparent speed, depending on the speed of light in relation to the speed of other objects (such as the earth) involved in its measurement, and their direction of travel. Einstein famously got rid of these additions (c + v) and subtractions (c – v) to light speed: it was always the same (c) no matter what. All measurements would yield exactly the same result. This was interpreted by Einstein to mean either that the ether didn’t exist at all or was irrelevant and had no observational consequences. However, there is nothing to stop both statements being true: the ether exists and c is always measured to have the same value.

Why Mass Increases As Speed Increases

“Lorentz worked out a theory that the mass of a particle with a given charge is inversely proportional to its radius. In other words, the smaller the volume into which a particle crowds its charge, the greater its mass. …The mass of a particle is inversely proportional to its radius.” – Isaac Asimov As a particle’s speed increases, its radius (hence volume) contracts. As its radius contracts, its mass increases. The question is does the same mass squeezed into smaller and smaller volumes register as higher and higher measured mass? In that case, mass is a measure of the energy of compressed space. When energy is compressed into zero volume is has infinite mass, which is equivalent to infinite energy. But viewing mass in this way reveals an astonishing fact: mass doesn’t exist at all. “Mass” is simply the relationship of energy to space, so energy and space are the true reality. Mass is a scientific fabrication: a way of describing different patterns of energy-space relationships. But is such a concept helping or hindering? By introducing a derived concept – mass – and talking about is as a real thing, aren’t we hiding the real truth that all that exists in the physical universe is energy and spacetime?

Lorentz Transformations A Lorentz transformation is, as Einstein said, an “instrument to translate data from one reference system to another in a state of uniform motion with respect to the first.” Either Lorentz transformations are absolute, caused by different speeds of bodies with regard to a stationary ether and an invariant light speed, or there is no ether and Lorentz transformations are relative, exactly as described by Einstein. The idea of an ether supports the existence of a Cartesian coordinate system which provides a precise mathematical basis for reality. If there is no ether, there is no Cartesian coordinate system, and it become highly contentious that anything can exist at all without a proper Cartesian underpinning. How do you perform mathematical operations without a coordinate grid? With regard to what are the operations being performed?

*****

“In general relativity, the gravitational field and the structure or geometry of space are identical.” – Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics How can space be structured in the absence of a Cartesian framework (an ether)? Imagine trying to do mathematics without a continuous array of mathematical points i.e. imagine gaps in the number line. How can mathematics be possible if all numbers are not present? Mathematics requires the existence of a Cartesian framework, in which ALL numbers are present in their appointed place on the number line. This is a precondition not just for mathematics but also for physics. Relativity, by abandoning the ether, abandons any universal Cartesian space and seeks to replace it with infinite relative Cartesian spaces (inertial frames of reference). This is reminiscent of Multiverse theory. Are there infinite universes or one? Are there infinite Cartesian spaces or one? Occam’s Razor tells us that we should always favour the simplest explanation if there is no sufficient reason not to. Both the Multiverse theory and relativity defy Occam’s Razor in the most extreme way possible, and neither theory provides any compelling reason for doing so.

Fields and Particles “The striking new feature of quantum electrodynamics arises from the combination of two concepts; that of the electromagnetic field, and that of photons as the particle manifestations of electromagnetic waves … [with] each type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these ‘quantum field theories,’ the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium, which is present everywhere in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field.” – Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics It’s not much of a stretch to generalise quantum field theory to Mind Field theory (the formation of a continuous cosmic mental field), with matter as local condensations of mind. If we call the Mind Field the ether then everything is ultimately a product of the ether. As Anaxagoras said, “The ether is the most subtle substance in creation: the mother of all phenomena.”

The ancient Greeks used to speak of the four elements of matter, with ether as a mysterious fifth element of a radically different character – the famous quintessence. It was the perfect element, the divine element, and more or less immaterial. We can easily conceive of the four material elements (symbolising the modern Periodic Table of the Elements) as originating from the quintessence. After all, what could be more mysterious than the whole material universe popping out of a baffling Big Bang singularity outside space and time? Is the Big Bang not the moment when the quintessence disgorges the material elements?

The Relativity Principle versus the Reality Principle The Relativity Principle is entirely subjective. It destroys the concept of an objective reality. Einstein’s views are close to Kantian idealism and the concept of mindcreated reality. His relativism is contrary to the whole basis of classical (Newtonian) scientific materialism, and unwittingly turns science into a subjective phenomenon, mediated by Lorentz transformations between different frames of reference. Kant would have had no difficulty with this notion, regarding it as simply a refinement of his system of time and space being mental rather than physical systems. It’s impossible to have an objective reality within the Einsteinian worldview. He himself sabotaged the idea that the moon is still there when we’re not looking at. With relativistic thinking, the “moon” cannot be consistently defined and is radically different depending on what speed an observer is travelling at. An observer travelling at light speed would have no concept of “moon” at all. The Reality Principle, by contrast, is entirely objective. There is an absolute frame of reference by which everything is defined. This is the classic, rationalist view of science that has been subverted by the current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. Illuminism removes the subjective elements of relativity and quantum mechanics and reframes them in an absolute framework. The critical difference between the classical science view and Illuminism is that Illuminism identifies a core nonlocal zone – a singularity

– within the absolute reference frame and thus introduces nonlocal effects on a universal basis, effectively introducing a cosmic mind into the heart of the material world.

The Mathematical Chosen Ones The gate of Plato’s Academy in Athens bore the inscription, “You are not allowed to enter here unless you know geometry.” COOL!!! The Academy was modelled on the secret Pythagorean schools of the Illuminati which emphasized mathematics above all things. Quite simply, if you want to know the truths of the world, learn mathematics. If you don’t want to know, but prefer to pretend to know, read “holy” books by bearded prophets of long ago and place your absolute faith in them. You will be 100% deluded and wrong, but if you think faith is something to be admired then truth is clearly not something on which you place a high value. Faith is the opposite of truth and knowledge. Truth is a Logos subject. Faith is pure Mythos. “The Greeks believed that their mathematical theorems were expressions of eternal and exact truths about the real world, and that geometrical shapes were manifestations of absolute beauty. Geometry was considered to be the perfect combination of logic and beauty and was thus believed to be of divine origin. Hence Plato’s dictum, ‘God is a geometer.’” – Fritjof Capra In fact, the Cosmic Mind is pure mathematics and God’s mind must reflect the Cosmic Mind if God is to have absolute knowledge of existence. God is constrained by mathematics. He can’t operate outwith mathematics. Mathematics sets the entire framework of existence. There is nothing outside that framework. There are no non-mathematical entities. Mathematics is everything. The sooner that is realized, the sooner humanity can start planning to be a divine race, with mathematics as their Philosopher’s Stone that transforms base metal into gold. When science gives up on objective reality, it can easily degenerate into a kind of mad subjectivity: “It took an Einstein to make scientists and philosophers realize that geometry is not inherent in nature, but is imposed upon it by the mind. In the words of Henry Margenau, ‘The central recognition of the theory of relativity … is a construct of the intellect. Only when this discovery is accepted can the mind feel free to tamper with the time-honoured notions of space and time, to survey the range of

possibilities available for defining them, and to select that formulation which agrees with observation.’ Eastern philosophy, unlike that of the Greeks, has always maintained that space and time are constructs of the mind.” – Fritjof Capra Science, in this view, is just a sophisticated form of Eastern mysticism, or a return to Western idealism where the existence of the material world is formally denied. Yet how many scientists are aware that they’re subscribing to such a position? Einstein himself had no idea that this was what he was advocating, and still saw himself as a strict objectivist. Most scientists remain wedded to scientific materialist ideology and don’t bother to contemplate what science has actually become: a highly dubious and philosophically naïve system. In Illuminism, everything is ultimately a product of the mind, but that doesn’t imply that space and time are illusions. Objective reality – an absolute frame of reference – can still exist and science can remain an objective enterprise, not subjective as Capra and others claim. Only mathematics and the existence of a perfect Cartesian arena in which the events of the material world unfold, guarantees a reality on which all observers can agree, regardless of their individual frame of reference. Einstein, with his principle of relativity, destroyed science as an objective undertaking. That’s why it’s essential that his relativity principle should be repudiated. Otherwise, science becomes nothing but sophisticated Buddhism. “It is important to realize that it makes no sense to ask which is the ‘real’ length of an object. … what is true for lengths is also true for time intervals.” – Fritjof Capra This is the KEY to relativity. Quite clearly, if there are no “real” lengths, there is no objective reality, only a subjective, mind-created illusion. “The real revolution that came with Einstein’s theory … was the abandonment of the idea that the space-time coordinate system has objective significance as a separate physical entity. Instead of this idea, relativity theory implies that the space and time coordinates are only the elements of the language that is used by an observer to describe his environment.” – Mendel Sachs

In Illuminism, the space-time coordinate system is not physical; it’s mental. That, paradoxically, the only way to save objective reality. Otherwise reality dissolves into subjectivity. Mathematics itself is the source of objectivity, and that’s because it can define a single Cartesian arena in which the whole material world can unfold. We might say that the Cartesian arena (Cosmic Mind) provides an absolute framework in which all individual minds exist. We will be examining this crucial issue in much more detail in a later book.

Chinese Philosophy “In Chinese philosophy, the field is not only implicit in the notion of the Tao as being empty and formless, and yet producing all forms, but is also expressed explicitly in the concept of ch’i. This term played an important role in almost every Chinese school of natural philosophy and was particularly important in Neo-Confucianism; the school which attempted a synthesis of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. The word ch’i literally means ‘gas’ or ‘ether’, and was used in ancient China to denote the vital breath or energy animating the cosmos. In the human body, the ‘pathways of ch’i’ are the basis of Chinese medicine. The aim of acupuncture is to stimulate the flow of ch’i through these channels. … As in quantum field theory, the field – or the ch’i – is not only the underlying essence of all material objects, but also carries their mutual interactions in the form of waves.” – Fritjof Capra If Chinese philosophy embraced mathematics, it would be startlingly similar to Illuminism. The Tao takes the role of the infinite ocean of monads (zeros) from which all things emerge. However, it cannot be considered “formless”. Rather, it is perfectly formed in terms of producing a flawless, noumenal Cartesian grid in which the whole of phenomenal existence then unfolds. Each monad is the source of infinite energy. This energy can become physical by entering the domain of space and time. Equally, it can remain dimensionless (mental). The theory of ch’i may provide useful and genuine insights. Ch’i can be both physical and mental (psychic) energy. The West should pay much more attention to Chinese medicine and create a synthesis of Western and Eastern approaches, producing a renaissance in medicine. Jungian

psychology, highly compatible with Chinese thinking, could be introduced into the mix to bring medicine much closer to psychology via the common element of ch’i.

The Most Important Problem in Physics? “What is very frustrating is that string theory does not seem to fully incorporate the basic lesson of general relativity, which is that space and time are dynamical rather than fixed, and relational rather than absolute. In string theory, as it has so far been formulated, the strings move against a background spacetime which is absolute and fixed. The geometry of space and time is usually presumed to be fixed forever: all that happens is that some strings move against this fixed background and interact with one another. But this is wrong, because it replicates the basic mistake of Newtonian physics in treating space and time as a fixed and unchanging background against which things move and interact. As I have already emphasized, the right thing to do is to treat the whole system of relationships that make up space and time as a single dynamical entity, without fixing any of it. This is how general relativity and loop gravity work.” – Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity It is never sufficiently stressed by the scientific establishment that Einstein’s theory of relativity, the second most successful theory of all time, and quantum mechanics, the most successful theory of all time, are wholly incompatible. As Smolin points out, Einstein uses a dynamic and relational background while quantum mechanics uses a fixed and absolute background. Contrary to what Smolin says, it’s unquestionably Einstein’s relativity theory that is wrong. Einstein’s prized relativity principle destroys objective reality (the reality principle) and removes from existence any standard, agreed framework to which all matters can be referred (an absolute framework). Without an absolute framework, everything dissolves into subjectivity. Anyone can claim that their frame of reference is right, meaning that time and space cease to have an objective meaning. No one can ask what the length of a ruler is in an absolute sense because this statement is meaningless in the Einsteinian universe. A ruler has a particular length only in a particular frame of reference, and when observed from a different frame of reference it has a different length, even though it’s

considered to be exactly the same ruler. In other words, the ruler is not an objective entity. From the viewpoint of different observers in different reference frames, the ruler is ever changing as it viewed from one framework and then another. According to Einstein, everything is both fixed and not fixed. A one-metre ruler is always a one-metre ruler in any particular reference frame, but will always be observed to NOT be one metre long from any other inertial reference frame. So what is it? Is it anything? Einstein’s theory is accepted only because within a particular reference frame, such as ours on earth, everything appears consistent. However, if we were creatures that regularly moved at constant speeds from zero up to light speed, and we could “see” all the different reference frames at once, the world would be baffling and indeed incomprehensible. We wouldn’t be sure of anything at all. The concept of certainty wouldn’t exist. The Einsteinian universe is a madhouse. It’s impossible for the universe to be configured that way. It doesn’t make any sense. Everything can be saved – the whole mathematical success of Einsteinian relativity – simply by establishing an absolute spacetime framework to which all other spacetime frameworks are relative i.e. every one of them is defined by an absolute framework and makes complete, objective sense in relation to that. Without such a framework, every framework becomes as valid as any other and there’s no objective basis of comparison. Einstein’s universe is equivalent to one where everyone gives a different answer to 1 + 1 … and all of them are right! Science can make no further progress until it definitively answers the question of an absolute framework (quantum mechanics) versus a relative framework (Einsteinian relativity). It must also establish a definite dimensionality for the universe. Finally, it must answer the question of whether zero is “nothing” or “something” (ontological zero, containing infinity). Illuminism has answered all of these questions. Ours is the definitive framework for science and indeed for existence itself.

Monads: Dimensionless Points When properly understood, both relativity (via the abolition of an absolute reference frame) and M-theory (via the replacement of point particles with 1-D string loops) are attempts to construct a scientific materialist version of

mathematics not based on mathematical points – the building blocks of mathematics. The idea that mathematics (or physics) can exist without mathematical points is laughable. The ultimate scientific question is why is Nature revealed to be so staggeringly mathematical if it is not in fact mathematical? If it is mathematical, it must be based on numbers. And what are numbers? They are, in the most obvious technical definition, just Cartesian mathematical points. Every single point on a Cartesian axis is a distinct number. Mathematics is about nothing other than numbers; performing operations on them, linking them up into organised shapes, and so forth. Mathematics, in its most basic sense, is the study of an organised array of mathematical points, and functions flowing through them. Science is an offshoot of that study. It doesn’t replace it with some indefinable empiricist mathematics devoid of points/ numbers. Scientists must address these philosophical and technical questions if their theories are to be anything more than moonshine. Once it’s accepted that existence is mathematical and based on mathematical points, each of which is dimensionless (hence not part of the physical world and in fact part of the mental world according to Descartes’ brilliant definition of mind as non-extended in contrast with extended matter), everything else flows from that basic view. Existence, based on mathematical points (monads) is fundamentally mental and matter is what is created when flowing mathematics (“energy”) is allowed to move around in a static six-dimensional Cartesian arena of absolute spacetime (formed by three real and three imaginary axes). Scientific materialists cannot explain life because they keep denying the most important number of all: zero. However, as soon as zero is accepted as ontologically real, the mind instantly becomes more important than matter – indeed the origin of matter – and materialism must be abandoned. That’s why scientists are so resistant to ontological zero. They have a visceral hatred of it because it creates the platform in which religion, God, souls, the afterlife and even paranormal phenomena are things they have to start taking seriously. Ontological zero shatters their worldview forever. They will fight to the end to resist ontological zero. In other words, they will never confront the basis of reality. They have become the equivalent of religious fundamentalists, dogmatically refusing to countenance any challenge to their “holy” texts of materialism.

They are the new generation of Inquisitors, persecuting the new generation of Galileos. Oh, the irony!

***** “Einstein didn’t ‘prove Newton wrong’; he transcended Newton’s theory by incorporating it into something more profound, and with wider applicability. It would actually have been better (and would have obviated widespread misunderstanding of its cultural implications) if his theory had been given a different name: not the ‘theory of relativity’ but ‘the theory of invariance’. Einstein’s achievement was to discover a set of equations that can be applied by any observer and incorporate the remarkable circumstance that the speed of light, measured in any ‘local’ experiment, is the same however the observer is moving.” – Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers “Well the special theory of relativity still has absolutes. Absolute spacetime is a feature of special relativity which, contrary to popular belief, does not claim that everything is relative. Although velocities, distances, and time intervals are relative, the theory still sits on a postulated absolute space-time. In special relativity observers moving at constant velocities relative to each other would not agree on the velocity of a bucket moving through space, nor would they agree about the time that has elapsed in the bucket experiment, but they would all agree on whether the bucket was accelerating or not.” – J J O’Connor and E F Robertson “Its name notwithstanding, Einstein’s theory does not proclaim that everything is relative. Special relativity does claim that some things are relative; velocities are relative; distances across space are relative; durations of elapsed time are relative. But the theory actually introduces a grand, new, sweepingly absolute concept: absolute spacetime. Absolute spacetime is as absolute for special relativity as absolute space and absolute time were for Newton, and partly for this reason Einstein did not suggest or particularly like the name ‘relativity theory.’ Instead, he and other physicists suggested invariance theory, stressing that the theory, at its core, involves something that everyone agrees on, something that is not relative. … [Even] if devoid of all material benchmarks for defining motion, the absolute spacetime of relativity provides a something with respect to which objects can be said to

accelerate. … Spacetime, not space alone, provides the benchmark.” – Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos When we refer to “absolute” spacetime, we mean that there is a static, privileged coordinate system by which all moving frames of reference are defined. When others talk of an Einsteinian “absolute” spacetime, they mean that the speed of light is invariant for all observers, the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and that accelerated motion can always be detected. They omit, however, any notion of a static, privileged coordinate system. This distinction must be borne in mind whenever you come across the term “absolute spacetime”. Our definition is in the spirit of Newton’s absolute space and absolute time; Einstein’s isn’t.

Newton and Leibniz “I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as they are well known to all. Absolute space by its own nature, without reference to anything external, always remains similar and unmovable.” – Newton “It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover and effectually to distinguish the true motions of particular bodies from the apparent, because the parts of that immovable space in which these motions are performed do by no means come under the observations of our senses.” – Newton “So Newton leaves us in a somewhat awkward position. He puts absolute space front and centre in the description of the most basic and essential element of physics – motion – but he leaves its definition vague and acknowledges his own discomfort about placing such an important egg in such an elusive basket. Many others have shared this discomfort. … [Henry Moore] believed that if space were empty it would not exist, but he also argued that this is an irrelevant observation because, even when devoid of material objects, space is filled with spirit, so it is never truly empty. Newton himself took on a version of the idea, allowing space to be filled by ‘spiritual substance’ as well as material substance, but he was careful to add that such spiritual stuff ‘can be no obstacle to the motion of matter; no more than if nothing were in its way.’ Absolute space, Newton declared, is the sensorium of God.” – Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

Despite the bitter enmity between Newton and Leibniz, their positions were, as Leibniz realised at the end of his life, much closer than they had once seemed. The ocean of monads in his Monadology, if organised in a Cartesian grid, became the equivalent of Newton’s absolute space: it was a perfect mathematical space in which all events could happen, yet it was not itself physical. In fact, given that monads were both mathematical points and minds, the monadic ocean also constituted a mental environment – the sensorium and cognitorium of God, no less. Bear in mind that although we can talk of an “ocean” of monads (thus implying some physical distribution), this is just a pictorial metaphor. Strictly speaking, the whole of Leibniz’s system never departs from a single point – a cosmic Singularity. EVERYTHING is PERMANENTLY located within the Singularity. Apparent physicality and individuation is mediated numerically: by labelling monads with unique coordinates. As long as other monads in the Singularity all know what each other’s unique coordinates are, all monads can seem to be physically separated even if they’re all in the same location (i.e. in the Singularity – a mental, not physical domain). Everything about the world can be constructed by assigning unique coordinates to monads (an Exclusion Principle applies, like Pauli’s Exclusion Principle in quantum mechanics). This then creates a precise, objective arena in which the material world can take its place. It’s a mental world, but it has objective reality. When people refer to the “physical” world, what they really mean is an “objective” world that everyone can agree on, and that existed before us, will exist after us and continues to exist when we’re not observing it. All of this is accomplished by objective mathematics – by the relations between monads with unique coordinates. “Physicality” can’t be anything other than mathematical. There is no such thing as an object that isn’t constructed on a precise mathematical basis. Quantum mechanics and relativity – these are entirely mathematical theories. Scientists think they are dealing with physical objects that can be described mathematically; in fact, they are dealing with mathematical objects that can be thought of as if they were physical … but they’re not. There are no physical objects at all. The universe is entirely mental and defined entirely mathematically. “Mind” and “matter” are just terms we use to describe different features of mathematical existence. Neither truly exists. At root, there is nothing but dimensionless mathematical entities

(monads) and their mathematical relations (which are dimensional). There is nothing else. The whole of monadic existence unfolds within a cosmic Singularity. We can call this a mental Singularity since it occupies no physical space, but in truth it is just a mathematical space containing an infinity of zeros – monads. The universe is never anything other than zero: an infinite number of them, an infinite repetition of zero. Zero is the number of the universe, of the soul, of the afterlife, of God – of existence itself. There is no number more important, yet it’s the number most vehemently denied by scientific empiricist materialism. The universe is zero forever. All of its properties are zero overall. The universe is “nothing” and remains so permanently. What we call mental and material existence are simply convenient labels we attach to the mathematical properties of zero, expressed dimensionally or dimensionlessly. Above all, zero has the extraordinary property of containing infinity – all other numbers without limit – and it is this hidden infinity within zero that gives rise to the infinite universe that science rather inadequately tries to describe. Monads are both objective (they’re dimensionless mathematical points with unique coordinates) and subjective (they’re living entities that experience the world). We ourselves are monads. We are objective (our bodies) and subjective (our minds). As above, so below! When you see reality as it truly is – the unfolding of mathematics – it’s overpoweringly beautiful and majestic. Existence is just one infinitely large equation relentlessly solving itself. The answer it is looking for is GOD! What could be more plausible than that existence consists of “nothing”, an infinity of nothing? The universe is born from nothing, grows from nothing and returns to nothing – exactly like us! What were we before we were born? “Nothing.” What will we return to when we die? That same nothing. Over and over again, “nothing” cycles between birth, life, death and rebirth – the endless wheel of samsara – the lifecycle of NOTHING. Each time round, “nothing” becomes more powerful, more like God. The universe, when viewed from the right perspective, never changes from nothing. All of its objective features, averaged over infinity, equal zero. Existence remains zero forever. That’s why existence is inevitable, why there can be no such thing as non-existence. Existence is effortless –

because it is “nothing”. It requires nothing. It doesn’t need any Creator or first cause or anything external to it. Zero defines existence. Zero is the most remarkable thing because a higher truth reveals that it is also infinity. Zero and infinity are the flip sides of the same coin. As soon as you have zero you have infinity. An infinity of zeros is the same as an infinity of infinities. Nothing but mathematics can achieve this paradoxical outcome. “We are equal beings and the universe is our relations with each other. The universe is made of one kind of entity: each one is alive; each determines the course of his own existence. That is really all you need to know to understand this book or write your own.” – Thaddeus Golas

Energy Energy is the movement of a mathematical point: a point in perpetual motion. If energy is dimensionless i.e. it involves no movement in time/space/spacetime, then it is mental movement (thought). If energy is dimensional i.e. it involves movement in time/space/spacetime, then it is “physical”. A dynamic mathematical point is the ultimate perpetual motion machine. It has infinite energy that can never be destroyed or exhausted, hence it will endure forever. A monad is a static point, but it contains infinite dynamic points, each with a different energy. Energy is ontological: it exists; it’s something – it’s the activity of a dynamic mathematical point. In terms of dimensionless energy, energy and thought are one and the same thing. In terms of dimensional energy, energy moving through imaginary space experiences the passage of time, and energy passing through real space experiences the passage of space. There are two types of “space”. There’s the perfect, non-physical, monadic Cartesian space (or spacetime, to be more exact) which defines the objective mathematical arena of existence. Then there is the physicalisation of that spacetime via the energy that came from the monads. That energy is both real and imaginary. Real energy moves through real space and imaginary energy through imaginary space (time). So, what is “mass”? It must be related to what we have just mentioned i.e. it’s not some weird new ingredient. Mass is a particular manifestation of

real energy in real space in the spacetime arena, and imaginary mass is the corresponding manifestation of imaginary energy in imaginary space. If real energy moving through real space consists, in its purest form, of perfect waves, mass corresponds to a distorted, compressed wave. Mass, in a manner of speaking, is a deformed, malformed wave in which the proper features of the wave have been severely constrained. Therefore, pure energy should be thought of as properly formed waves that do not interact with the Higgs field (which confers mass on particles), and massive particles as improperly formed waves whose distortions have been caused by the Higgs field, or whose distortions cause it to interact with the Higgs field and thus acquire mass.

***** Atheism is the assertion that there is no dimensionless world, no soul, no God, no afterlife, no eternal existence – because all of these are impossible in the dimensional, material framework to which atheists subscribe. But once ontological zero is accepted, that stance is automatically refuted. Atheists are rightly repelled by Abrahamism and karmic religions – what sane person wouldn’t be? – but they should not let that understandable hostility blind them to the rational, mathematical truth that zero is real. Zero has nothing to do with mad religious beliefs. The Illuminist train is an evolutionary train, and none of the stations at which it stops belongs to the irrational world of faith. Illuminism is interested only in the acquisition of absolute, impregnable truth and knowledge, and atheists ought to be committed to the same goal. Kierkegaard encouraged all Christians to take a “leap of faith”. We encourage all atheists to leap into the void, the abyss … into nothing. And thereby discover zero, the soul, God and immortality! What do they have to lose? NOTHING!!

The Pentagram One of the main symbols of the Pythagorean Illuminati is the pentagram. It has several features that make it supremely prized by the Illuminati. For one thing, it is a symbol of infinity. Smaller and smaller pentagrams can be drawn inside it: an infinite regress. Secondly, the pentagram is imbued with the golden ratio. Thirdly, five is the symbol of the union of male and

female. The first female number is 2 and the first male number is 3. Together, they make five, represented by the pentagram.

Horizon For each observer in spacetime, the horizon is the surface beyond which they cannot see and from which they cannot receive any signals. In physical terms, the ultimate horizon is the Mind Horizon, or the Soul Horizon. No observer will ever directly “see” a soul since it’s a dimensionless point outside the physical world. Only death itself takes you to the soul world. The Death Horizon is like the event horizon of black holes. Nothing ever comes back from outright death. When a soul “returns”, it’s in a brand new body and brand new life (reincarnation). Why are scientific materialists so determined to deny the existence of souls and minds? Why don’t they accept the existence of a “horizon” (the Gnostic horos – boundary) beyond which they can have no direct experimental or sensory knowledge?

The Cosmos The universe is zero. All of its intrinsic, objective properties are zero (in total). Only its subjective properties are non-zero (and these are heading for infinity – DIVINITY). In the debate between mind and matter, there is in the last resort only a mental universe. The whole of existence is nothing but a mental Singularity composed of infinite dimensionless points (monads, minds). The true duality is between subjective and objective mathematics, with the latter providing all of the characteristics that we associate with a physical, material, objective reality. It’s mathematical “objectivity” that people erroneously regard as “physicality”. Yet all of us can only ever have a mental relationship with the world, as we all know from our own experience. When he formulated the special theory of relativity, Einstein declared ether to be a superfluous hypothesis: there was no means of ever observing it even if it existed. By the same token, the material world is a superfluous hypothesis. We can accept the existence of an objective mathematical world that serves all of the functions of the material world and is a place of objective laws independent of our subjective ideas, yet this mathematical world is

entirely mental. It’s just a kind of hologram. It’s not that all of the information about a 3D world (of real dimensions) is contained in a flat 2D surface (which is the human experience of a hologram); rather, a 6D universe (of real and imaginary dimensions) is contained in a Singularity. A hologram in the world of human experience is an interference pattern created via two laser beams. In the Singularity, the hologram is created by an infinite interference pattern created by infinite waves emanating from the infinite mathematical points of which the Singularity is composed. Unlike the holograms of our experience, the universal hologram is dynamic and evolves through time. It’s as if the whole cosmic hologram is projected from a point – the Mind Singularity – to create the phenomenal world of our experience. “It is not enough to say that the world is a hologram. The world must be a network of holograms, each of which contains coded within it information about the relationships between the others. In short, the holographic principle is the ultimate realization of the notion that the world is a network of relationships. Those relationships are revealed by this new principle to involve nothing but information. Any element in this network is nothing but a partial realization of the relationships between the other elements. In the end, perhaps the history of a universe is nothing but a flow of information.” – Lee Smolin This is strikingly like a description of Leibnizian monads. Each monad can be considered an individual hologram, showing the whole universe from its perspective. Each is part of the whole and the whole is contained in each. The universe consists of the mathematically mediated relations between monads. Space and time are manifestations of these relations. In the Leibnizian Monadology, everything is about pure information systems (monads) and their relations. There isn’t anything else. What could be simpler? This is the universe reduced to its most basic possible form. All of the complexity of the universe emerges from monads and their relations. Each monad has its own unique perspective of the universe and is uniquely evolving. Elementary monadic units, their relations and how they evolve … that’s the story of the universe. The whole thing proceeds mathematically. Full stop. Smolin wrote, “I argued that when we get down to the fundamental theory there will be no things, only processes. If we believe this, we cannot

believe in any principle which expresses the world in terms of things. We should reformulate the principle so that it makes reference only to processes. This is what the weak holographic principle does. It states that we are mistaken to think that the world consists of Things that occupy regions of space. Instead, all that there exists in the world are Screens, on which the world is represented. That is, it does not posit that there are two things, bulky things, and images or representations of them on their surfaces. It posits that there is only one kind of thing – representations by which one set of events in the history of the universe receives information about other parts of the world. In such a world, nothing exists except processes by which information is conveyed from one part of the world to another.” Monads are not bulky “things that occupy regions of space”, to use Smolin’s expression. They do not occupy any space at all. In fact, they are just containers for information processes. To that extent, the Monadic universe is an infinite set of interconnecting processes, exactly as desired by Smolin. Yet Smolin’s analysis is wrong. Just as Leibniz recognized that motion presupposes that which moves and therefore cannot constitute its essence, a process presupposes that which is processed and therefore cannot constitute its essence. A process cannot exist independently any more than motion can. You can’t have motion without things that move and you cannot have processes without things that are processed. A process must be grounded in something else. Monads are the “something else”. They are not physical things, but they are still things. They are mental – pure informational central processing units. Smolin, with a bit more thought, would see that monads provide exactly what he is looking for. The conversion of mind (quality) into an apparently physical world (quantity) is one of the primary features of reality. The purpose of “matter” (quantity) is then to enhance the expression and power of mind (quality). The mental quality at the end of the dialectical process is infinitely higher than that at the beginning. In particular, consciousness has emerged from unconsciousness. That is the whole point of the material world. It’s the arena in which minds can achieve individual consciousness. Without the material world, all the monads would be linked forever unconsciously and would NEVER attain consciousness. Individuation is a prerequisite of consciousness, and only a material world of time and space can provide it.

The Evolution of Information The universe is an information system that evolves from minimum information to maximum. The maximum information possible corresponds to Absolute Mind: God. God is the informational apex of existence. Information begins as an impersonal, unconscious abstraction and ends as a personal, concrete, decision-making consciousness. The universe is an evolving mind proceeding by the type of dialectical process brilliantly defined by Hegel. The objective of the cosmic mind is simple: to become the Absolute, the Mind of God. It’s the strangest thing that scientific materialists regard idealists as wrong-headed “mystics” when in fact the world of mind is the only thing of which we can be certain. Not for nothing is Descartes’, “I think therefore I am”, one of the most famous statements in the history of thought. He didn’t say, “I have a body therefore I am.” The existence of the material world is at best always an inference. It’s something wholly unknowable by direct experience. We are creatures of the mind and we only ever have mental experiences. There’s no such thing as an experience independent of mind. So, shouldn’t the materialists be the ones accused of mysticism and belief in unprovable, supernatural entities? Aren’t they true believers rather than hard-nosed rationalists? Isn’t it remarkable that unprovable matter is taken more seriously than provable mind? Materialists try to find the origin of mind in something (matter) that in many ways is a Kantian noumenon – something that we can never “know”, even if it exists. The materialists have mistaken their belief system as an objective, factual system. They think it’s factual because it obeys firm mathematical laws and can be subjected to repeated experiments that yield the same results over and over again. You can make measurements on the material world and get the right answers. Of course, it’s mathematics, not materialism, that is the source of this objective order, organization, regularity, lawfulness, cause and effect and experimental repeatability. The materialists have illicitly commandeered mathematics to the materialist cause. The central point of Illuminism is that mathematics is the essence of mind and has nothing to do with any weird, unprovable material world. (Even science – via subjective relativity and observer-shaped “Copenhagen” quantum mechanics – has given up on strict, objective materialism.)

We have rebranded the so-called material world as the objective mathematical world, and we assert that it is entirely mental – hence why it is fully knowable by our minds. There is no mysterious, noumenal material world made of “non-mind” stuff. There is just objective mathematics and subjective mathematics and nothing else. Both are entirely mathematical and entirely mental. Can any materialist propose even one argument to demonstrate that the “material” world is anything other than objective mathematics? What experiment would they propose to perform that would distinguish the alleged material world from the objective mathematical world of pure mental construction? If our experience of the world is purely mental i.e. via our thoughts, why should we perversely relegate mind to the construct of matter when it is impossible for anyone to offer any definition of matter that is not in fact 100% mathematical? Where do we perform pure mathematics? In our minds! We don’t need any physical senses to ponder the mathematical cosmos. So why wouldn’t we conclude that we can have 100% knowledge of the world by asserting that it is mathematical and that mind and so-called matter are both entirely mathematical? Any other inference is philosophically and rationally absurd. It’s crazy to define two substances – matter and mind – that have nothing in common. They must be the same thing viewed from two different perspectives, one being the objective view and the other the subjective. We are all subjects and yet the world outside us is objective. That means that we even treat other subjects as objects. For each of us, we are the only true subjects. We can regard other human beings as subjects only by an act of empathy and sympathy. Without that, we regard them as objects to whom we can do what we like. The Nazis never regarded the Holocaust Jews as human subjects: they were objects to be exterminated, like rats or cockroaches. Serial killers have no interest at all in the welfare of their victims, and see them merely as “pleasure-generating” objects, with which they can indulge themselves as they see fit. The rich see the poor as objects. By the same token, the Jewish God didn’t hesitate to order a father (Abraham) to murder his son (Isaac). To this monster, all human beings are objects and he can dispose of them as he likes. What is “hell” except a place where human beings are treated as objects by the God who created them? Where is his love for them? Where is his empathy for them, his sympathy? Human beings, for Jehovah, are objects who must obey him at all times or

suffer eternal punishment. Abrahamists have turned themselves into objects. That’s how tenuous the “subject” is. Our whole universe is, ultimately, purely subjective (monadic) and yet, judging by appearances, it’s almost entirely objective. When we talk of people “becoming God” we are actually saying that they will become unambiguous subjects with complete control over the objective world.

Motion Newton’s system asserts that there’s an absolute difference between a body at rest, in motion, or under acceleration (these are the only three possible states of “motion” for any Newtonian body). Such a system requires the concept of a fixed frame of reference, such as the “fixed stars”, to define the absolute space relative to which bodies move or accelerate. In Illuminism, the fixed frame of reference is the monadic plenum that forms a perfect cosmic Cartesian grid. The grid cannot be seen or detected in any scientific way. It is the ultimate “ether”.

The Copernican Principle The Copernican Principle = Earth does NOT have a privileged position in the universe (implying that there is no Creator with a particular interest in humanity). The Cosmological Principle = Earth occupies an average position in the universe i.e. it is nothing special. The universe looks much the same from any viewpoint i.e. it is homogeneous and isotropic. Two leaders of Protestantism condemned Copernicus. Calvin said, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” and Luther declared of Copernicus, “This fool wishes to reverse the whole science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth.” These absurd attitudes are still prevalent today in Protestant, Creationist America. Note how Calvin refers to the authority of an unseen, unheard being and regards it as incontestably true that this silent, invisible ghost should be preferred to hard science. All believers are confronted with this choice.

Will you accept “unchallengeable” revelation over facts, evidence and reason? Where is the Holy Spirit’s book of science? It doesn’t exist. Where are the Holy Spirit’s scientific facts, observations, evidence and theories?

Nowhere Which sane person would reject the highest human reason in favour of a supernatural being whose very existence is no more than a belief or fantasy? Of course, we know which side Calvin and his ilk take. In a world of science, they are powerless. In a world of believers in the Holy Spirit, Calvin and co. have power. All theologians play the power game, not the truth game. As for Luther, he made a ridiculous story in an old book the centrepiece of his “science”. This, of course, is not science at all. It’s Bible Studies masquerading as knowledge. Stupid Mythos people believe in Biblical tales as truth; intelligent Logos people stick to the facts, evidence and rational arguments of science and mathematics. It’s a tragic fact of life that life evolved under the pressure to survive, not the pressure to find the truth. Sensory organs evolved, but not organs of rational truth. If religious faith rather than accepting the truths of science helps people to survive and reproduce more successfully then it will spread while science will struggle to gain widespread acceptance – and that’s exactly what has happened. Most people are too stupid for science but easily smart enough for faith. The latter requires the suspension of intelligence and reason, and humans have proved themselves adept at ditching intellect in favour of will. Humanity is a species of Will, not a species of Reason, and that’s why the world is the way it is.

The Mystery The Big Bang: all effect and no cause. Science cannot establish what caused the Big Bang. It studies its effects, nothing more. The Big Bang is loosely attributed to some “random fluctuation”, although what was fluctuating and what it was fluctuating in are matters of supreme conjecture.

Alien Visitation?

“In all history, nothing is so surprising or so difficult to account for as the sudden rise of civilization in Greece. … They invented mathematics and science and philosophy.” – Bertrand Russell Our debt to the Greeks is infinite, and to one man in particular: Pythagoras. How was such a man possible? How was such a culture as ancient Greece possible? Amidst all of the Mythos mumbo jumbo, fully formed Logos minds appeared for the first time. In ancient Greece, humanity took a vast evolutionary step forward, but the rest of the world couldn’t keep up, and the Greeks themselves fell back. It’s time for a new Pythagoras, a new Greece, a new world. Imagine a world free of Mythos nonsense masquerading as truth. Mythos should be put where it belongs – in the entertainment industry. It belongs nowhere near explanations of reality.

Gravity “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high.” – Einstein “In his general theory of relativity Einstein proposed that gravity was not a force, as Newton and his followers believed, but a matter-induced distortion of space-time itself. Bodies moving under the influence of gravity, according to Einstein, are truly force-free and move in straight lines (called geodesics), that is lines as straight as a gravity-warped geometry will allow.” – Nick Herbert, Faster than Light

Freefall “We [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.” – Einstein You’re falling freely. It’s the gravitational field you’re moving through that’s changing. You are NOT accelerating. Rather, the relationship of your motion to the field you’re moving through is changing, and giving the appearance of acceleration.

“Being at rest on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines. From this principle, Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. Objects in free-fall really do not accelerate, but rather the closer they get to an object such as the Earth, the more the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object (this is gravity). An object in free-fall is in actuality inertial, but as it approaches the planetary object the time scale stretches at an accelerated rate, giving the appearance that it is accelerating towards the planetary object when, in fact, the falling body really isn’t accelerating at all. This is why an accelerometer in free-fall doesn’t register any acceleration; there isn’t any. By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force. This force draws objects having mass towards the centre of any massive body. At the Earth’s surface, the force of gravity is counteracted by the mechanical (physical) resistance of the Earth’s surface. So in Newtonian physics, a person at rest on the surface of a (non-rotating) massive object is in an inertial frame of reference. These considerations suggest the following corollary to the equivalence principle, which Einstein formulated precisely in 1911: Whenever an observer detects the local presence of a force that acts on all objects in direct proportion to the inertial mass of each object, that observer is in an accelerated frame of reference.” – Wikipedia Although the equivalence principle guided the development of general relativity, it is not a founding principle of relativity but rather a simple consequence of the geometrical nature of the theory. In general relativity, objects in freefall follow geodesics of spacetime, and what we perceive as the force of gravity is instead a result of our being unable to follow those geodesics of spacetime because the mechanical resistance of matter prevents us from doing so. Einstein’s equations describe the precise amount of curvature of spacetime for a given amount of mass. Matter tells spacetime how to curve and then spacetime tells matter how to move – and this is what gravity is. Contrary to the Newtonian view, there are no forces in play. The whole thing is dictated by the curvature of spacetime – which is a staggeringly mathematical view of reality. To gain an impression of how complex the universe is, imagine the type of cosmos envisaged by the first philosopher – Thales – which consisted of nothing but water. Picture a vast cosmic ocean filled with water in its three

phases: water (liquid), steam (gas) and ice (solid). Imagine currents of steam managing to force their way intact through the water. Imagine huge icebergs floating in the water. Imagine fast-flowing water currents, whirlpools and eddies, white-water rapids, stagnant pools, geysers, steam pools, steam vents – all existing at once. We can conceive of the steam as high-energy waves, the water as medium energy waves and the ice as low energy waves. The key thing to note is that the ice is concentrated, bound energy – apparently solid but in actuality just a lower energy version of the liquid water by which it is surrounded. Mass is not something that sits in space, independently of it. Rather, like the ice, it is made of the same thing as the stuff in which it is immersed, but it has gathered and concentrated this stuff. It is not independent of this stuff. It is actually an intense localisation of it. Any liquid water that comes near the ice will feel a cooling effect that we might loosely compare with gravity. A powerful water current might be able to “orbit” a spherical iceberg without freezing over. There might be such a thing as a preternaturally concentrated iceberg – the equivalent of a black hole. Any water that gets too close to this type of iceberg will instantly freeze and become part of it. Myriad different processes are going on at any one time in this imaginary ocean. Everything is flowing in and out of everything else. It is one enormous dynamical system. Just like the weather (which is really just a system of water relations such as we have been discussing – hot water warmed by the sun, cold water cooled by icebergs, hot and cold currents, hurricanes and cyclones, rain clouds, storms, jet streams etc.), it’s a chaotic system where the butterfly effect applies: tiny changes in one place can have immense consequences far away. Matter, “physical” spacetime and energy are really all just the same thing, like the cosmic ocean we have been describing. It’s wrong to talk of matter or energy existing IN physical spacetime, as if physical spacetime were a container. Rather, physical spacetime IS energy and matter. To be more exact, it is imaginary and real energy, imaginary and real mass (bound energy), all travelling at different but dynamically coupled speeds. Physical spacetime must be thought of as a fluid, an ocean, a dynamic systems of relations, not a static container as Newton once imagined it. However, there IS a static container – the unobservable, undetectable, monadic Cartesian arena in which physical spacetime sits, and which

provides the mathematical basis for physical space and time to come into being.

Gabriel’s Horn

Is this what a black hole really is? We can imagine the broad, circular end as the flat event horizon, and the narrowing tube as leading to a final singularity at an infinity point. Anything that falls in is heading straight for the singularity. Once there, it will never escape. The name of this object comes from the fact that it resembles a horn or trumpet, and the Archangel Gabriel is traditionally regarded as the angel who will blow the horn that announces the arrival of Judgment Day. Gabriel’s Horn has the remarkable feature of having an infinite surface area while enclosing a finite volume. The infinite aspect might be associated with God, and the finite part with man. The apparent paradox of an object having both an infinite and finite aspect is well explained, in physical terms, by Wikipedia: “The paradox can also be considered from a non-mathematical perspective. If Gabriel’s Horn existed in reality, it could be filled with a finite amount of paint since it has a finite volume. But then too, it has an infinite area; so an infinite amount of paint would therefore be required to cover its inner surface. It seems nonsensical to be able to completely fill a space with paint, yet fail to cover all that space’s surface. The real-world solution to the paradox is that paint is not infinitely divisible; at some point, the throat of the Horn will become too small to allow even a single paint molecule to pass. When considering the Horn to this limited length, the practicably paintable surface of the inner surface is less than the amount of paint needed to fill it to that point.” The mathematical explanation is that the surface area is described by an infinite series that does NOT converge (hence spirals off to infinity), while the volume is described by an infinite series that does converge (hence reaches a finite number). This is perhaps the best example of a divergent

and convergent infinite series both being present in a single mathematical object. In relation to a black hole, the question arises as to whether it is a singularity that distorts the surrounding spacetime or whether the whole structure from the event horizon all the way down to the singularity is the true black hole. In the latter case, there is no such thing as all the mass being concentrated in the singularity. Rather, the mass (energy) is distributed throughout the whole structure and in fact there is no mass at all in the singularity. In this view, the singularity is where the mass has run out rather than where it is located. The singularity is actually where the black hole makes contact with the dimensionless mental domain. The singularity is the black hole’s mind, not its mass. We might say that light can’t escape because it has infinitely far to travel from the singularity to the event horizon, or because it is forced to become part of the black hole structure itself and can no longer be considered as light.

Special Relativity versus General Relativity The essential difference between Einstein’s two theories is that the special theory describes a universe in which there are no forces. Everything moves at a constant speed in a straight line. There is no acceleration, no gravity. Paul Dirac unified quantum mechanics with special relativity in 1928 (and in the process he predicted the existence of antimatter). The search for science’s Grand Unified Theory of Everything seeks to go one better and unify quantum mechanics with the general theory of relativity to create a theory of quantum gravity. The fact that many of humanity’s greatest scientific geniuses have worked on this project since Dirac’s time, with success as elusive as ever, ought to have alerted them to some catastrophic problem with one or both of the theories. They cannot be brought together because they are conceptually incompatible. Progress is not going to come from further tinkering with equations. It can come only from a profound philosophical analysis of the two theories, and identifying where their respective conceptual models are radically in opposition. Sadly, scientists are not intellectually suited to this task – they are not philosophically minded – and philosophers are insufficiently scientifically literate to be able to make any significant contributions. This is why an impasse has been reached.

It takes one monumental insight to break the logjam, and Illuminism provides it. It makes mathematics rather than science the tool for describing existence (existence is nothing but mathematics, to state it more strongly). Mathematics guarantees objective reality. Einsteinian relativity destroys it. Mathematics assigns ontological reality to zero and infinity. Science regards both as “unscientific”. Mathematics neatly identifies space and time as manifestations of real numbers and imaginary numbers, respectively. Spacetime is therefore the arena of complex numbers. Science rejects imaginary numbers as ontological entities, and regards them as mere phantom instruments for helping certain equations to work more effectively. Complex numbers are algebraically complete; real numbers are not, yet science chooses to define “reality” in terms of real rather than complex numbers. Here, then, we have listed the disastrous mathematical flaws that go to the heart of scientific materialism. Scientific materialism contradicts mathematics, so if mathematics is the true language of existence, it’s no wonder at all that science has hit the buffers. It’s insufficiently mathematical. In its attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, it has finally run up against the fundamental mathematical incongruities that have been inherent in science all along. Science has always had an inbuilt bias in favour of all real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. It uses imaginary numbers all the time, yet regards these as “fairy” numbers – kind of spooky, voodoo numbers that do not correspond to anything real but nevertheless help to facilitate getting the right scientific answers. You would have thought it would occur to scientists that the reason imaginary numbers keep showing up is that they are fundamental to existence, and aren’t “away with the fairies”. How can serious intellectuals remain so philosophically naive as to think that vital calculating instruments are just “mental scaffolding” and don’t actually bear on reality in their own right? The last problem science must overcome is its own delusion that it’s the best means of describing reality. Until it realizes that it is the servant of mathematics rather than the other way around, it will never grasp the final truths. Here is a very simple mathematico-philosophical rule: all entities that appear in scientific equations MUST have ontological significance,

otherwise they wouldn’t be there. The last great problem is this – what is the status of mathematics? What is its connection with reality? Geniuses such as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes and Leibniz understood that mathematics IS reality. Most scientists, on the other hand, continue to regard mathematics as just a weird abstraction, a construction and tool of the human mind that, by some incredibly unlikely happenstance, proves perfect for giving form to science in terms of scientific laws and formulae. Only those who grasp what Pythagoras was first to articulate – that all things are numbers – are capable of solving the problems of existence. The Illuminati alone have pursued Pythagoras’s divine insight to its logical conclusion. That’s why Illuminism is the true Grand Unified Theory of Everything, uniting mathematics, science, religion, philosophy and psychology in one grand synthesis, with mathematics providing the glue that binds everything. The scientific world must embrace Illuminism if it wishes to complete its task. It really is as simple as that. The first nation that becomes Illuminist will ipso facto become the most powerful in human history, and dictate the future of humanity. The nation most temperamentally suited to the task is GERMANY. Germany produced nearly all of the best idealist philosophers, and nearly all of the world’s best mathematicians. The Illuminati were, of course, headquartered in Germany for centuries.

***** “√-1 enters quantum physics as a physical fundamental and not merely an elegant technique.” – Eugene Wigner So, why hasn’t science accorded imaginary numbers ontological status?

Irrational Infinity “An irrational number is not a true number but lies hidden in a cloud of infinity.” – Michael Stifel Of course, an irrational number IS a true number, like any other, but it is indeed infinite – which is rather problematic for physicists given their hatred of infinity. Given that irrational numbers are everywhere, so is infinity. The key number π has infinite definite places.

The Timelike World Everything is moving at the same speed. If you’re not moving through space, you’re moving through time. We, as essentially static beings, are moving overwhelmingly through time. We are timelike beings. What does it mean to be moving through time? It means that we possess a large amount of imaginary energy which propels us, if we’re stationary in real space, at a constant rate through imaginary space, which corresponds to our experiencing the passage of clock time. If we start accelerating through space, we lose imaginary energy and gain real energy. If we could accelerate to light speed, we would lose ALL imaginary energy and time would stop for us. We would now be moving only through space. But if time is not ticking then we are at all points at once since there is no temporal way of distinguishing between one point and another. In Schrodinger’s Kittens, John Gribbin wrote, “The Lorentz transformations tell us that time stands still for an object moving at the speed of light. … And under such extreme conditions, the LorentzFitzgerald contraction reduces the distances between all objects to zero. You can either say that time does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it is everywhere along its path (everywhere in the Universe) at once; or you can say that distance does not exist for an electromagnetic wave, so that it ‘touches’ everything in the Universe at once. This is an enormously important idea, which I have never seen given due attention. From the point of view of a photon, it takes no time at all to cross the 150 million km from the Sun to the Earth (or to cross the entire Universe), for the simple reason that this space interval does not exist for the photon. Physicists seem to ignore this remarkable state of affairs, because they know that no material can ever be accelerated to the speed of light, so no human (or mechanical) observer is ever going to experience this strange phenomenon. Perhaps they are simply so stunned by what the equations say that they have not fully thought out the implications.” So, the extraordinary thing is that the universe is viewed radically from a photon’s perspective than it is from our time-based point of view. The photon doesn’t experience time and is everywhere at once. What does this really mean? That it experiences the Universe as a dimensionless point! It has entered the mental domain, or we might say the frequency domain (they are equivalent). Photons are mental, pure frequency entities in their own

frame of reference, but we see them as particles travelling through space and time from our perspective in space and time. We won’t pretend for a moment that the universe thus described is easy to imagine. Only mathematics clarifies what’s really going on. The key point you need to grasp is that the universe yields a bewilderingly complex topology and things are frequently vanishing into singularities. There’s an unceasing energy flow between singularities and spacetime, and back again. There is an equivalence between the two processes of being accelerated to light speed and black hole gravitational collapse. In both cases, time stops and a singularity is created.

No Moon Niels Bohr, one of the key architects of quantum theory, was quite happy to conclude that the moon wasn’t there when we weren’t looking at it. As he pointed out, it’s impossible to prove that it’s there when unobserved. By exactly the same token, the whole world beyond our immediate sensory awareness does not exist! Bohr’s view is regarded as a credible position. In fact, it amounts to exactly the same insanity as that espoused by the idealistic philosophy of Bishop Berkeley. It’s pure solipsism. Objective reality is abandoned in favour of the “infallibility” of sensory observation. Unobserved things cease to exist, and then exist again when they are observed! And this is what passes as a serious philosophical position in the scientific community! These people are almost as bad at philosophy as the Abrahamists.

Universal Semen! Newton thought there was a universal semen in the cosmos, a sort of panspermia. Monads – as living minds – could be said to fulfil exactly the function Newton had in mind. What a fertile universe we inhabit. Do the gods ejaculate, and the goddesses become pregnant? Do they give birth to planets, stars and galaxies? Was the Big Bang the ultimate ejaculation? Is the physical universe the cosmic womb in which perfect Gods are gestating?

Spacetime Spacetime is all about topography. Spacetime is the most astounding, everchanging ocean where everything is continually changing. It’s an astonishing ocean of contours, gradients, patterns, eddies, streams. Every part affects every other part. The whole thing is centrally orchestrated via the Singularity. It’s full of feedback loops and feedforward loops. It’s a kaleidoscope, a soundscape, a sensescape, an energyscape.

Speed Light speed is finite in finite environments and infinite in infinite environments. The future is controlled by the slowest environment, by the slowest speed. If you think of a messenger carrying vital information to you, his speed is the key to when you will receive the information. Just as the fate of a chain is determined by its weakest link, so is the speed of an information chain dependent on its slowest link. Any infinitely fast connection is usually redundant and ticking over because it has to wait for the information from the slow sources before it can react (and when it does react it does so instantaneously).

Chaos Aristotle regarded “chaos” as the pre-philosophic concept of space.

The Infinite Human Spinoza believed that human ability is potentially infinite in capacity.

Action at a distance Newton envisaged interactions between particles other than solely through contact. His concept of “force” is all about action at a distance. Einstein regarded action at a distance as “spooky”, yet it was a central paradigm of science for 200 years!

The Mystery of Light

Light waves in what? Can light travel without any medium to support it? If so, what use is spacetime at all? Who needs it? Light must travel through something. It travels through an immaterial, mathematical ether.

Pi The number pi – characteristic of circles and waves – keeps cropping up in mathematical problems, showing that circles and waves are embedded in the material world.

White Hole and Black Hole A white hole is a reversed black hole. The black hole is an ultimate sink for matter; the white hole is an ultimate matter source. Instead of sucking in matter, a white hole spews it out. White holes are membranes that keep incoming matter out rather than pulling it in. A black hole is an attractive singularity and a white hole is a repulsive singularity. White holes and black holes are both one-way membranes.

Matter “Matter is like a small ripple on a tremendous ocean of energy.” – David Bohm Energy is to mass as water is to ice. Mass is a different state of energy, as ice is a different state of water. “The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content” – Einstein. Mass is a measure of energy’s spatial content. Mass is compressed space. Imaginary mass is compressed time (imaginary space).

The Ether Wind As the Earth moves through the ether, it generates a kind of “ether wind” on the Earth’s surface. Imagine a car without a windscreen. The faster it goes, the more the wind blows through it. It was thought that a very sensitive

apparatus on the surface of the earth should be able to detect the ether wind. Michelson and Morley found no such wind.

John Bell John Bell was one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. He died unexpectedly at aged 62, unaware that he had had been nominated for a Nobel Prize, which he would unquestionably have won had he lived. His greatest achievement was the “Bell Inequality” which demonstrated that any viable interpretation of quantum mechanics must involve non-locality i.e. faster-than-light communications, which Einstein had declared impossible with his special theory of relativity. The full impact of the Bell inequality remains unfelt – because the scientific community refuses to face up to its consequences. Bell proved definitively that the universe cannot be both “local and real” i.e. if it obeys Einstein’s speed limit, it cannot be objectively real, and if it is objectively real then it must exhibit faster-than-light communications. Something has to give, and the science establishment has as yet refused to make its choice. For anyone who accepts objective reality independent of the observer, the Bell inequality disproves Einstein’s relativistic thinking and signifies that there is a catastrophic error at the heart of Einstein’s logic. Bell’s inequality has been proved correct experimentally, yet the science establishment refuses to pronounce Einstein’s theory of relativity dead. What this means is that the science establishment is not committed to objective reality and is content to countenance a universe of subjective relativity. It’s well known that quantum mechanics – the most successful theory of all time – cannot be reconciled with Einstein’s theory of relativity to create a theory of quantum gravity and thus a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. It’s easy to understand why this is the case: relativity is wrong! When you try to meld relativistic physics with non-relativistic physics, it’s literally impossible to overcome their inherent contradictions as soon as gravity is added to the mix. Some relativists are therefore trying to recast quantum mechanics as relativistic. In the unlikely event that they could achieve this, they would simply have abolished objective reality and invented a fantasy universe of subjectivity. Wouldn’t you rather live in the real world? If you accept objective reality then your focus must be the opposite of that of the relativists. You

must seek to de-relativise Einstein’s theory and recast it in the same nonrelativistic terms as quantum mechanics. Einstein came up with one superb idea – the fusion of space and time to create spacetime – and one disastrous idea – the abolition of a stationary reference frame (the “ether”). The spacetime ether is in fact the essence of objective reality. That’s what Bell’s inequality is really saying. You cannot have objective reality without an absolute, stationary reference frame. Newton posited absolute space and absolute time as his fixed stage in which objective reality would unfold. Einstein got rid of absolute space and time and replaced them with relativistic spacetime. What is needed now is ABSOLUTE spacetime. Newton’s absolute space and time was thought to be filled by a mysterious substance called the ether. In other words, the ether was a physicalisation of an absolute stage. When no experiment revealed the slightest trace of the physical ether, it was deemed that it didn’t exist or was simply irrelevant. Einstein’s special theory of relativity dispensed with it altogether. The existence of the ether became a proxy for the existence of an absolute reference frame. If no ether could be found then, so the logic went, there could be no absolute reference frame. The question of the ether is fascinating because it shines a light on the underlying core ideology and dogmatism of the scientific establishment. It draws science into the territory where it definitely doesn’t want to be: METAPHYSICS. Science, as currently practised by scientists, is scientific empiricist materialism. It refuses to engage with anything upon which it can conduct no experiments. It refuses to accept any non-physical reality. This is not the only available approach to science. Leibniz, the greatest genius of them all, was a scientific rationalist idealist. He was prepared to privilege reason over experiment and mind over matter i.e. he was fully willing to engage with metaphysics but only in a precise context – that of mathematics, the true basis of all science. The deep, underlying issues are these – is mathematics closer to conventional scientific empiricist materialism or Leibnizian scientific rationalist idealism? Is mathematics the perfect tool for metaphysics, and do

mathematical metaphysics trump conventional, experiment-driven materialist physics? In the terminology of Leibniz and Kant, mathematics is about necessary analytic truths while science is about contingent synthetic truths. Mathematics is a quintessentially a priori subject while orthodox science is quintessentially a posteriori. When science places such heavy reliance on mathematics, it ought to make scientists much less willing to place so much emphasis on experiments. After all, mathematics requires NO EXPERIMENTS. Scientists are facing a terrible dilemma: should they regard mathematics (a non-experimental subject) as the key to science, or experimentation? What really defines science: mathematics or experiments? It can’t be both because they are diametrically opposed. Mathematics fits perfectly with scientific rationalist idealism – indeed it’s the essence of that type of science (it’s all about a priori, necessary, analytic truths) – but it sits uneasily with scientific empiricist materialism which relegates mathematics to a secondary role and promotes experiments to the high altar of science. Scientific rationalist idealists put mathematics first and use experimentation as a “reality check”. Scientific empiricist materialists put experiments first and seek to mould all theories to experimental data. Of course, if the experimental data changes because of new ways of doing things, better equipment, higher accuracy, greater purity, and so on – then all of the old theories are immediately falsified and must be abandoned or refined. This is a moving target world where the last theory is only as good as the last experiment and there is never any conceivable absolute truth. So, do we want science to be about truth or not? It never will be if we let experiments dictate to mathematics. ONLY mathematics is about incontestable, eternal truths. Scientific empiricist materialism has a strange revulsion for things that seem beyond sensory detection, or the reach of any experiment. This attitude has a remarkable effect when it comes to mathematics. Science accepts only a small subset of mathematics as having any connection with “reality”. In particular, it accepts only “real” numbers greater than zero and less than infinity. This means that it rejects imaginary numbers, negative numbers and the numbers zero and infinity as having any ontological reality.

This is extraordinary. What sufficient reason – other than their own dogmatic ideology and paucity of imagination – allows scientists to dismiss the bulk of mathematics? What sufficient reason do they have for asserting that real numbers have ontological significance and all other numbers don’t? In fact, they have no reason whatsoever. No scientist has ever addressed the peculiar status of mathematics within science. Imaginary numbers appear everywhere in science and engineering equations but they are dismissed as “fairy” numbers whose only purpose is the instrumental one of allowing the right answer to be calculated. No scientist has ever explained why it is permissible to use imaginary numbers in equations and then dismiss them as having any reality. Science throws up its hands in horror if it ever encounters any number divided by zero – because then dreaded infinities are generated. No scientist has ever explained why division by zero should be ontologically impossible, and why the numbers zero and infinity should be nonontological. This is all the stranger given that the Big Bang singularity and black hole singularities are all about zero and infinity. Big Bang theory literally states that the universe emerged from NOTHING, yet nothing is formally denied as an ontological state. It makes no sense at all. As for negative numbers, don’t they simply correspond to an “antimatter” version of our world? Quite simply, ALL of the numbers of mathematics are valid ontologically: real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative, zero and infinity. The sooner science ends its obsession with real numbers, the better. Experiments, of course, never reveal anything other than real numbers – so the worship of experimentation constitutes the denial of mathematical ontology. Mathematics and experimentation are radically opposed, leaving science with a catastrophic dichotomy at its heart. Science without mathematics is absurd, and science without experiments is absurd. At the moment, mathematics is given a supporting role and science revolves around experiments. That must change. Mathematics must be given the primary role and experimentation used for the verification or falsification of those aspects of science amenable to direct, empirical testing. However, in true science there will be theories based on robust mathematics that will be impossible to test experimentally. Science’s

current stance towards such theories is to dismiss them as metaphysical. Yet mathematics – when it comes to numbers such as zero and infinity – is WHOLLY metaphysical. Humanity’s understanding of reality will ultimately depend on its attitude to rational mathematical statements that cannot be subjected to any experimental confirmation. Will it accept or reject such statements? A final, definitive answer to the nature of existence can ONLY be provided by mathematics since its nature is that of necessary, analytic, immutable, eternal Platonic truths. Experimental science on the other hand is contingent, provisional and synthetic and has no connection whatever with absolute, incontestable truth. Newton’s original conception of absolute time and absolute space was metaphysical: he did not expect any experiment to directly prove its existence. It could only be inferred. He thought that his “bucket” experiment involving the centrifugal force associated with rotation could be explained only with regard to an absolute reference force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation#Rotating_bucket However, an immaterial, metaphysical reference frame that could be inferred only circumstantially and not conclusively was no use to scientific empiricist materialism. So, the Newtonian absolute reference frame came to be physicalised as the “ether”. When the ether proved as elusive as Newton’s absolute space and time upon which it was conceived, Einstein felt he could safely dispense with it. But, crucially, he didn’t simply abolish the ether, he also abolished the absolute frame of reference upon which it was predicated, and thus he gave rise to the calamity of relativity – the most ingenious error in history. To be clear, the absence of a physical ether is neither here nor there as far as the existence of a non-physical ether is concerned. Only “physicalists” think that if the ether is non-physical then it’s non-existent. Relativity is exactly what you would expect a scientific empiricist materialist to arrive at because it makes no reference to anything unobservable, and that’s exactly its problem. It introduces all sorts of mindboggling relativistic nonsense in its place – such as clocks running fast and slow, and rulers measuring short and long, depending on who’s doing the observing. (In relativity, an observer in one inertial reference frame is entitled to consider himself stationary, hence that his clocks and rulers are “normal”, while those of an observer in another inertial frame moving

relative to him are considered to be experiencing time dilation and length contraction – yet the other observer is entitled to take exactly the opposite viewpoint and consider his clocks and rulers normal and those of the first observer suffering from time dilation and length contraction.) Einstein thus replaced objective reality (i.e. one in which clocks are either running fast OR slow for all observers, but certainly can’t be doing both) with subjective reality mediated by a mathematical instrument called a Lorentz transformation which could allow either observer to understand the other observer’s spatio-temporal position – but which could not allow both observers to experience the same reality. Each was locked into their own subjective “Lorentz space”. Incredibly – and apparently unnoticed – Einstein got rid of physical reality and replaced it with an ingenious, infinite set of subjective inertial frames – perfectly mathematical in their construction, and perfectly comprehensible mathematically (but definitely not physically!) via the mathematical Lorentz transformation. It was a mathematical tour de force, yet all it did was get rid of a physical ether and put in its stead a mathematical hall of mirrors with no physical reality at all. Einstein thought he was a champion of physical reality and was highly critical of the views of the leading exponents of quantum mechanics who seemed to be replacing the real world with a nebulous dice game of things that seemed to flicker in and out of existence. Yet Einstein himself killed objective reality. Relativity is incompatible with objective reality and instead creates a subjective reality of infinite different viewpoints, linked via an objective mathematical Lorentz transformation, which gives the cunning illusion that there is something objective about the whole scheme. In fact, the Lorentz transformation links a madhouse. We would all be literally insane if we could all travel at any speed we liked up to light speed. Time and space would cease to have any meaning at all for us, and we would be completely detached from others in different inertial frames. It’s only because we are all more or less in the same inertial frame that we have similar experiences of time and space. If we all inhabited radically different inertial frames, only then we would we realise that “reality” had become entirely subjective and possessed no objective features whatever. None of us would bother to perform Lorentz transformation calculations regarding our neighbours in other inertial frames. They would become completely detached from us and

incomprehensible to us. THAT is what Einstein achieved. It’s just as well he was completely wrong. Paul Dirac, the brilliant Nobel Prize winner who married special relativity and quantum mechanics said in Nature in 1951, “In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced by Einstein’s discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws. It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether was abandoned. Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has changed. If one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether. .... We now have the velocity at all points of spacetime playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.” The concept of the ether refuses to die, while the evidence against relativity steadily mounts – yet the science establishment continues to allow this radical falsehood (relativity) to be taught as one of the keystones of physics. Lee Smolin said, “Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about. For another 10 years, as the world of physics slowly absorbed special relativity, Einstein pursued a lonely path away from it.” Einstein himself intuited that something was hideously wrong with his crowning achievement. It’s a pity no one listened. Science still turns a deaf ear to all critics of relativity.

The History of the Aether In ancient Greece, two views were held of the aether. One regarded it as formally immaterial and the other as the most highly rarefied expression of material existence. So, already we see the tension between aether as mental

or physical. For some, aether was what distinguished the immortal heavenly world from the mortal material world. The gods were said to breathe aether as mortals breathed air. In some accounts, the gods were made of aether, the divine substance. Aether was imperishable. For Aristotle, it could change only in terms of its motion (it always moved in perfect circles). Plotinus considered the aether to be immaterial and to fully penetrate the material world. A later thinker, Robert Fludd, characterised aether as “subtler than light”. Given how subtle light is, that’s pretty subtle. The aether was capable of providing a perfect plenum, filling every point of space. There could never be a vacuum because aether would always be present, though whether it could be detected was another issue entirely. Newton’s idea of absolute space was in the tradition of an immaterial aether. Newton’s successors then introduced the idea of a physical ether (and Newton himself had flirted with such an idea but couldn’t make it work as he wanted). Einstein, with his special theory of relativity, got rid of both the material and immaterial aether. However, with his general theory of relativity he introduced a warpable spacetime that seemed to be suspiciously like an old-style, material aether. So, the aether remains as enigmatic, elusive and hard to kill off as ever. The issue is so vital because if science engaged with an immaterial ether – a privileged, preferred stationary frame of reference – it would allow objective reality to be restored and relativity to be ditched. Relativity is a product not of strictly rational thinking, but of the desire to abolish the notion of an immaterial, unobservable mathematical frame of reference. Yet relativity, in defending a material, observable “reality”, actually kills off a universally agreed objective reality. Is that a price worth paying? Or is it an ingenious but mad manoeuvre that ensures that science will never get anywhere near the truth of reality? It’s the simplest fact that a perfect, absolute frame of reference against which all other frames of reference can be measured allows the solution of innumerable problems in physics that are otherwise inexplicable and unanswerable. The struggle to establish a grand unified theory of everything is being fought over the issue of background dependence versus background independence. “Background dependence” means the existence of an absolute frame of reference upon which all “foreground” entities depend. It is also a codeword for objective reality. “Background independence” means

the absence of any absolute frame of reference, so no reference frame is dependent on any other or subordinate to any other. All reference frames are equally valid. This is the essence of relativistic subjectivity, of a universe that is devoid of objective reality. “Background independence” is a codeword for subjective reality. Lee Smolin is one of its key proponents in the present day.

***** “Shall we be obliged to modify our conclusions? Certainly not; we had adopted a convention because it seemed convenient and we had said that nothing could constrain us to abandon it. Today some physicists want to adopt a new convention. It is not that they are constrained to do so; they consider this new convention more convenient; that is all. And those who are not of this opinion can legitimately retain the old one in order not to disturb their old habits, I believe, just between us, that this is what they shall do for a long time to come.” – Poincare′ “I have long thought that if I had the opportunity to teach this subject, I would emphasize the continuity with earlier ideas. Usually it is the discontinuity which is stressed, the radical break with more primitive notions of space and time. Often the result is to destroy completely the confidence of the student in perfectly sound and useful concepts already acquired...” – John Stewart Bell “It is my impression that those with a more classical education, knowing something of the reasoning of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincaré, as well as that of Einstein, have stronger and sounder instincts...” – John Stewart Bell “The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style. The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest, Einstein declares the notions ‘really resting’ and ‘really moving’ as meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept

Lorentz’s philosophy to accept a Lorentz pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive home the lesson that the laws of physics in any one reference frame account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than to hurry after each moving object in turn.” – John Stewart Bell

Galilean Relativity Newtonian physics, based on absolute space and time, nevertheless accommodates relativity: namely, “Galilean relativity”, which is governed by the “Galilean transformations”. In Galilean relativity, there is an absolute, stationary frame of reference, equating to Newtonian absolute space. All inertial frames of reference (i.e. frames of reference moving in a straight line at constant speed and never accelerating) are moving relative to the absolute rest frame. All of these Galilean reference frames are subject to Newtonian absolute time i.e. the tick of the clock in absolute rest space is the same tick of the clock for any inertial frame too. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in the universe and in every context. Now the key point is that anyone in any inertial frame, if they were hermetically sealed from any information coming to them from the outside world, would have no means of establishing the speed at which their inertial frame was moving, or indeed if it was moving at all. If you were inside a sealed train, travelling silently at a constant speed along a straight track, what possible experiment could you perform to prove that you were moving? Any experiment would be exactly the same as if you weren’t moving at all. So, Galilean relativity is a perfect example of relativistic thinking, while in no way contradicting Newtonian absolute time and space. All observers in Galilean inertial frames can define their frame as stationary – but can never KNOW that they are stationary (without referring to the outside world). One and only one frame of reference is genuinely stationary, but no one can experimentally determine what it is. When the idea of the stationary physical ether came into being – filling the stationary reference frame – then the possibility arose that moving reference frames could experimentally measure themselves with regard to this frame. The central idea was that if the speed of light was constant in the ether frame then its speed would be different in any inertial frame (theoretically, you would simply add the speed of the inertial frame to the

constant speed of light in the ether). Thus light should be measured to have a different speed in every inertial frame, even though the speed of light is actually constant (in the ether). Light emanating from a source on earth should move with a speed of c + v (the speed of the earth through the ether), and if the light was reflected in a mirror so that it travelled in the reverse direction (against the speed of the earth) then light should move with a speed of c – v. However, when experiments were devised to measure light speed in all sorts of different directions (which should have been variable if a physical ether existed), no variation was ever detected. This mess seemed to be most ingeniously, satisfactorily and elegantly resolved by Einstein’s idea of abolishing the physical ether and also Newton’s absolute space and time which underpinned it. The constancy of light speed is raised to a fundamental cosmic principle which unequivocally dictates our understanding of space and time. The trouble is that Einstein’s solution is only one possible answer, and is actually wrong! Getting rid of a physical ether does not mean that there is no ether. The ether can be non-physical (an option unacceptable to scientific materialists but not to scientific idealists). Secondly, although the concept of absolute space and time as completely independent and separate entities must be abandoned, there is no reason why absolute space and time per se cannot be retained, but now as opposite poles of a completely dependent and linked relationship. Einstein’s greatest success was to fuse space and time into spacetime, but because of his relativistic mentality he failed to grasp what this truly meant. Consider the following scenario. Let space and time be orthogonal to one another i.e. if space corresponds to the x-axis of a Cartesian graph, time corresponds to the y-axis. Each axis represents the absolute condition i.e. the x-axis is space WITHOUT TIME, and the y-axis is time WITHOUT SPACE. What we have done here is to radically alter Newton’s conception of absolute space and time. For Newton, time always existed, regardless of space, and space always existed, regardless of time. In the view being presented here, absolute time can exist only in the absence of absolute space (all rods measure zero distance), and absolute space can exist only in the absence of time (all clocks have permanently stopped, at zero).

Absolute space and time are now mutually exclusive. When you have entered one, you have left the other. You can never be in both at once. So, what about the region BETWEEN absolute space and absolute time, between the x-axis and the y-axis? This is the classic spacetime region where elements of space and time are indissolubly linked, in different mixtures depending on how close you are to either the x-axis or y-axis. The closer you are to the x-axis, the more you are in a space-rich environment, and the closer you are to the y-axis, the more you are in time-rich environment. If you could get all the way to the y-axis, you would leave space entirely, and if you could reach the x-axis, you would leave time entirely. Otherwise, you will be moving around in a dynamic spacetime environment where your experience of space and time is continually changing in terms of the relative proportions of space and time. The more the time share goes up, the more the space share goes down, and vice versa. Space and time are dynamically coupled. What mix of space and time you encounter is determined by two things. The first is your relative speed (remember that speed is simply defined as distance travelled divided by time taken), and the second is the absolute speed possible in spacetime – the speed of light. That is the only constant. Our experience of spacetime is thus determined via a relative speed and an absolute speed, the perfect synthesis of relativistic and absolutist thinking. One extraordinary feature of this scheme is how things behave in the x-axis or the y-axis. In the x-axis, time has stopped (or rather never existed in this context). That means that anything in this environment is everywhere at once because there is no temporal means to prevent that outcome. For something to be spatially everywhere at once means that it is either infinitely large in all directions, or infinitely small in all directions. Since it would be absurd for a physical, dimensional thing to be everywhere at once (it would engulf the whole universe), then anything in the x-axis domain must be dimensionless: it is OUTSIDE space and time; it belongs to a SINGULARITY; it belongs to the SOUL DOMAIN! To escape from spacetime to the x-axis of absolute space is to leave physical, mortal existence and enter mental, immortal existence. This is true purely and simply because of mathematics. It has nothing to do with faith or Holy Scriptures. It has nothing to do with “God”. In the y-axis domain, distance doesn’t exist (and never existed in this context). This means that anything in this environment is temporally

everywhere at once because there is no spatial means to prevent that outcome. For something to be everywhere at once temporally can only mean that it is either infinitely large in all temporal directions (i.e. encapsulates the whole of time: past, present and future), or infinitely small in all temporal directions i.e. dimensionless. Since it makes no sense whatever to say that the future has already happened (it wouldn’t be the “future” if it had – it would be the past!), then anything in the y-axis domain must be dimensionless: as with the spatial case, it is OUTSIDE space and time; it belongs to a SINGULARITY; it belongs to the SOUL DOMAIN! Dimensionless space belongs to a spatial singularity; dimensionless time belongs to a temporal singularity. What is a spatial singularity? It is HERE. Everything is here, in this one point. What is a temporal singularity? It is NOW. Everything is here in this present instant. This is the true meaning of absolute time. Absolute time defines one of the most bizarre things of all: the present, the now, this instant, this sliding thing, this moving target, this thing that separates past from future. Absolute time defines the present moment for the whole universe; all clocks are synchronised. Simultaneity is absolute in this specific environment, in contrast with Einstein’s “relativity of simultaneity” where clocks in different inertial frames cannot be synchronised and no present moment – no “now” – can be consistently defined. So, the temporal singularity provides the perfect “now” that Einstein declared impossible. Of course, the fact that it exists does not mean that we can actually experience it in our world. In practice, all people who are moving slowly through space are experiencing a very slightly different “now” from those who are stationary. At the incredibly slow speeds at which humans move (relative to light speed), the effect is so minor that it can be ignored. In physics, the Higgs field (mediated by the Higgs boson) confers mass on those particles with which it interacts. Otherwise, it has no effect, and particles remain massless. Only massless particles can travel at maximum speed in spacetime. In fact, it’s the only speed at which they can travel. Anything affected by the Higgs field, on the other hand, must travel at subluminal speeds. A crucial point is that to be in space and time with a particular speed means to possess a combination of real and imaginary energy. Real energy is linked with your journey through space and imaginary energy with your

journey through time. The more you move through space, the less you move through time, so you shed your imaginary energy and gain real energy. If you are stationary, it means that you are full of imaginary energy propelling you through time. When you are stationary, the only “real” energy you have is contained in your atoms. This is your “rest” real energy. When you start moving through space, you are reducing your speed through time and acquiring “dynamic” real energy. If you were accelerated to light speed in space, you would no longer have any imaginary energy (no time component). You would be purely spatial – and you would of course be dead! In our day-to-day lives, we are all travelling at close to light speed through time – except light speed through time passes at the rate of one second per second i.e. regular time! We are in the timelike zone of spacetime and we’re full of imaginary energy – something whose existence mainstream science denies. Conventional science has no idea how to understand time. It has no conception that time is a form of energy and, in particular, it is imaginary energy, whereas spatial energy is real energy. Consider the three Lorentz transformations as they appear in Einstein’s special theory of relativity (where the “m” subscript refers to moving and the “r” subscript refers to at rest): Length Equation A) Lm = Lr√(1-(v2/c2)) Time Equation B) Tm = Tr/√(1-(v2/c2)) Mass Equation C) Mm = Mr/√(1-(v2/c2)) Consider what happens when, hypothetically, something goes faster than the speed of light. Relativistic time and space both become imaginary. What this actually means is that time and space have swapped places. This, of course, is impossible. Nothing can exceed light speed.

The Light Speed Paradox An observer travelling uniformly at 99.9% of light speed in a straight line is, according to relativity theory, entitled to consider himself stationary. An observer travelling at 99.99999999999999999999999% of light speed can likewise consider himself stationary.

Now, you will typically read in a physics textbook that you can’t reach light speed because it would require an infinite amount of energy. Yet this argument is entirely fallacious. It’s actually applying an absolutist argument to a relativistic situation. If an observer travelling at any uniform speed arbitrarily close to light speed can consider himself stationary, his mass remains the same as it has always been. It’s an observer in a different frame of reference who sees the first observer’s mass increasing towards infinity, but frankly, who cares what he thinks?! As far as the first observer is concerned, nothing has changed. So, why shouldn’t he be able to travel at light speed itself if he can get arbitrarily close without noticing any difference at all? The objection to his travelling at light speed doesn’t come from him, but from other observers. There is actually no formal barrier at all to anyone travelling at light speed in relativity theory – nothing at all would change for them, just as it didn’t change for them at any other speed. The issue is to do with the anomaly that would be caused for another observer who considers himself stationary. This other observer would see the first observer gaining infinite mass and vanishing from space and time. (Equally, the first observer would think the same of the second observer.) So, it’s in order to prevent their respective perceptions from being anomalous that it has to be concluded that no one can reach light speed. The argument against observers reaching light speed isn’t a technical one at all, but one of subjective perception and internal consistency of the theory. Can that be called science?!

***** What is the fundamental error in Einsteinian relativity? It’s that Einstein regards all inertial frames as being equivalent insofar as any inertial frame can consider itself at rest. What he failed to realise was that the concept of “spacetime” is logically bounded by space and time, as two completely separate entities. An inertial frame based on time alone has no possible identity with an inertial frame based on space alone. All inertial frames are moving, but they are moving in TWO ways, not one. They are moving through space and they are moving through time. If you stop all motion through space then you will have an inertial frame moving through time alone. If you stop all motion through time then you will have an inertial frame moving through space alone.

Galileo could get away with treating any inertial frame as stationary in space since, as became clear later, his system was Newtonian, and space and time were absolute and separate. As soon as space and time become dynamically coupled – as in Einsteinian spacetime – you cannot arbitrarily redefine any inertial frame as being stationary in space because you are thereby illegally changing its relationship with time. It didn’t matter for Galileo because time is always the same in his scheme. It does matter for Einstein because time is never the same (it’s different in every inertial frame). NO INERTIAL FRAMES CAN BE CONSIDERED EQUAL IN SPACETIME yet Einstein made them all equal in the sense that all of them were entitled to consider themselves stationary! All inertial frames in spacetime are in fact unique because they have a unique mixture of space and time components. With Galilean relativity, all inertial frames had an identical time component. With Einsteinian relativity, that’s no longer the case. Einstein is saying that a particle’s motion through spacetime can be equivalently regarded as motion through space alone. (Time is reset to zero i.e. as in Galilean relativity; an illegal operation for Einstein to perform). This ipso facto changes the particle’s relationship with space and time: it absolutely changes it, hence space and time are no longer equal partners in spacetime. In essence, Einstein overlooked motion through time alone, and thought only of motion through space. If travelling in a straight line at a constant speed can be relativistically considered equivalent to being stationary, Einstein is right. But Einstein is ignoring the consequence of his own theory whereby time is now fused with space. They are no longer separate – they are intertwined and directly affect each other. The particular speed at which you are travelling dictates your relationship to space AND time. “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.” – John von Neumann

Imaginary Numbers and Time

“In 1905–6 it was noted by Henri Poincaré that, by taking time to be the imaginary part of the fourth spacetime coordinate √−1 ct, a Lorentz transformation can be regarded as a rotation in a four-dimensional Euclidean space with three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate, representing time, as the fourth dimension.” – Wikipedia Linking imaginary numbers and time is not new in mainstream physics. What is extraordinary is that the link has been allowed to remain speculative and tentative, and really just as an “instrumental” technique for getting the right answers. Time is treated as if it is sometimes “like” imaginary numbers and can therefore be modelled using imaginary numbers in relevant situations. Time is not treated as 100% imaginary in all situations, as the ontological manifestation of imaginary numbers. In essence, the whole of physics needs to be recast with imaginary numbers always playing the role of time in any equations featuring time.

Lorentz Transformations Lorentz transformations are concerned with relating the coordinates and time variables pertaining to two different inertial frames. If an event takes place in one frame, the transformation allows the coordinates of that event to be calculated in terms of the other frame. The key to whether Einstein’s relativistic treatment of Lorentz transformations is correct takes place right at the outset of Einstein’s treatment of the problem. In order to get the inertial frames in a suitable state for comparison, it’s necessary to synchronise their clocks. Any description in a textbook will tell you that one frame is considered to be moving and the other stationary and that their coordinate axes will be taken to coincide at some time, which is taken to be t = t′ = 0. This of course is the critical moment of synchronisation, but is it physically valid? We can imagine a train moving at constant speed along a straight track and passing through a train station. We can easily align the train’s moving inertial frame with the stationary inertial frame of the station at some suitably chosen instant, exactly as required by Einstein. This is somewhat trivial, yet from it Einstein essentially builds his astonishing relativity claim. Hasn’t he simply found a means to smuggle in a mechanism for allowing time synchronisation to be treated in a Newtonian-Galilean

absolute fashion, thus allowing it to be conveniently factored out? But isn’t the whole point of relativistic thinking to avoid this kind of approach? The most general way of relating two inertial reference frames is via socalled Poincaré transformations, of which the Lorentz transformation is the particular case where the respective coordinate origins coincide at some instant, allowing their clocks to be simultaneously set to zero. Now, Lorentz transformations work perfectly with the concept of absolute spacetime where there is a perfect stationary reference frame. It’s not at all clear that they have any validity in terms of Einsteinian relativity. Einstein claims that 1) there is no absolute rest frame and 2) any suitable reference frame can claim to be at rest. The substantive issue is an exceptionally subtle one. All inertial reference frames automatically have a “time zero” link with an absolute rest frame, hence Lorentz transforms are automatically valid. With Einsteinian relativity, Einstein establishes a convenient convention that two different inertial frames can always share a “zero time”. If they can’t in reality, his relativity principle fails and he’s not entitled to use Lorentz transformations in his theory. Imagine an infinite number of inertial frames, each with a different speed, all moving in parallel. At what point do the coordinate origins coincide? They NEVER do, unless we assume a common origin, suggesting an originating frame. What Einstein does is to simply superimpose inertial frames without any proof that this mathematical operation can happen ontologically. If you do what he does, you get the results he gets, but if his manoeuvre fails ontologically then his theory, in terms of its key relativity claim, is nonsense. What Einstein is doing can be considered in terms of train stations and trains in different countries. It’s all very well for a train and a train station in America to have their coordinates aligned and clocks synchronised, but how can you align and synchronise the clocks of an America train and a European station, or a European train and an American station? For one thing, they’re in different time zones. For another, how do you carry out this procedure without relocating trains to different continents? Sure, you can mentally carry out this exercise effortlessly (we can place American trains on Mars if we want!), but ontologically – assuming American and European trains stay in their respective continents – it’s IMPOSSIBLE.

Einstein’s relativity principle was taken seriously because people considered it in terms of abstract mathematics rather than ontological mathematics. How, in reality, do you arbitrarily get ANY two inertial frames ever to coincide and to synchronise their clocks? Yet the essence of Einstein’s claim is that this can always be done. Our universe is said to originate from a Big Bang singularity. What’s that if not an absolute starting point at which all initial ontological inertial frames had their clocks synchronised? How is the Big Bang – an absolute event which created space and time – consistent with Einsteinian special relativity in which there are no privileged, preferred reference frames? The Big Bang singularity is the ultimate reference frame. These kinds of questions are glossed over or ignored in relativity textbooks. Not nearly enough critical examination takes place of Einstein’s original assumptions. Einstein’s theory works splendidly in terms of mathematical abstractions, but that’s a different thing from ontological reality. The Lorentz transformation isn’t concerned with time as a universal parameter. It relates a measurement of a spacetime interval in one frame with the same measurement of the same spacetime interval in another frame. Einstein seems to think that the Lorentz transformation is inconsistent with absolute time. It’s nothing of the kind. In fact, arguably, it can be coherently formulated only in the context of an absolute act of time synchronisation, which implies an absolute reference frame, contrary to Einsteinian relativity.

Minkowski Space Mathematician Hermann Minkowski converted Einstein’s special theory of relativity into a four-dimensional mathematical spacetime comprising three space dimensions and one time dimension (in notable contrast with Euclidean space, which only has three space dimensions).

Faith versus Knowledge Rational people want a rational answer to existence. People of faith want an emotional relationship with a super being who personifies the answer in his own being. In other words, rational people are dominant and people of faith are submissive. A rational person can imagine himself knowing the secrets

of God, so would he therefore not be a God himself? A submissive person cannot begin to imagine himself as God. He cannot imagine having all the answers. For a submissive, only a dominant can have all the answers. Who is the ultimate dominant? – GOD! Yet the most powerful God of all, for irrational people, is actually the Devil. The God of Abrahamism does not do a single thing that you would expect of a benevolent, loving, rational deity – but he does EVERYTHING you would expect of Satan, even to the extent of exterminating humanity bar his own personal favourites. Why would anyone be surprised by the Devil ordering a father to make a human sacrifice of his own son? – it’s exactly what you would expect. For the God of Goodness to give such an order is of course insane and unthinkable. Yet, the submissive people of faith – in search of the ultimate dominant sadist – don’t seem to expect God not to order fathers to murder their children. What’s for sure is that it presents no barrier to their belief, whereas it’s an insuperable barrier to any rational person. So, we see that dominance and submissiveness are driving everything, even how we think of the ultimate answer to existence. Submissives want to have an emotional relationship with the ultimate answer – hence they embody it in a super being. They want to RELATE to it. Dominants want to have a rational relationship with the ultimate answer. They want to KNOW it. Isn’t this division remarkable? Over and over again, we see humanity splitting into two different species. All DOMINANTS dream of being God. All SUBMISSIVES dream of serving God. A dominant could never subscribe to the religion of submissives, unless to exploit such a religion and thereby dominate the submissives for his own ends. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the archetypal slave religions, worshipping the supreme dominant – the Devil. Dominants in these religions are the priests, rabbis, imams, popes, preachers, prophets, and community elders who use religion to impose their will on the submissives. Illuminism is a religion for rational dominants. No one worships any super being. No one kneels, or prays, or refers to “holy” texts, or any of the rest of the slave mumbo jumbo of Abrahamism. What you define as the ultimate answer to existence defines you. Make sure you get it right.

Precision Physics invents non-mathematical terms such as “mass”, “speed”, “gravity”, “particles”, “time”, “spin” and then uses mathematics to define these rather mathematically imprecise terms. The task is to find the right analytic mathematical terms and then to define everything in those precise terms, not in the half-baked terms of physics. The physical universe is all about sinusoidal waves and symmetry. There really isn’t anything else. The whole of physics will one day be entirely replaced by ontological mathematics.

***** Science – the idolatry of real numbers! Do not worship false gods!

Metaphysics If the ether exists but is unobservable, it’s traditional to say that it belongs to metaphysics rather than physics. This is a fascinating issue for the simple reason that physics would be changed forever if it allowed the existence of permanent unobservables and metaphysical considerations. Imagine a final scientific theory of existence that contained some key metaphysical elements to consistently and coherently hold together the physical elements. Would the scientific community ever accept such a theory, no matter how successful? This raises a second and even more important issue. What is the status of mathematics? Is it physical, metaphysical or both? Mathematics as a complete system contains numerous elements that cannot be accommodated physically (according to conventional scientific wisdom): zero, infinity, imaginary numbers and negative numbers. These “forbidden” elements can certainly be accommodated metaphysically – which is why mathematics can provide the basis for the ultimate rational religion, based on perfect mathematical precision and truth. We assert that ALL of mathematics is ontological (has actual existence) unless there’s a sufficient reason why that should not be the case in particular instances (due to impossible energy requirements, for example), but that does not mean all of mathematics is physically observable or testable. Will humanity accept mathematical rationality and ontology over physical observability and testability? That’s the supreme question. For us,

the answer is self-evident. Mathematics is the only show in town, the only truth anyone can rely on.

Special Relativity “Albert Einstein published in September 1905 what is now called special relativity, which was based on a radical new view of the relativity principle in connection with the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference. In special relativity, space and time are relative and the aether doesn’t exist at all. Although this theory was founded on a completely different basis, it was experimentally indistinguishable from the aether theory of Lorentz and Poincaré, since both theories employ the Lorentz transformation.” – Wikipedia Note the key statement “experimentally indistinguishable”. This means that just as there are numerous different interpretations of the agreed mathematics of quantum mechanics, so different interpretations are possible of the mathematics of Lorentz transformations. Einstein’s interpretation has never refuted the rival interpretations; it has simply won the popularity contest amongst physicists. “In physics, the Lorentz transformation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, different measurements of space and time by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference.” – Wikipedia In fact, the truth of the Lorentz transformation is that it allows the interconversion of space and time measurements by observers in either a timelike or spacelike environment, the respective measurements being dynamically coupled. There is nothing “relative” about these measurements: they are absolute. If an observer is travelling at 0.866 of light speed through space, that means that he is travelling at 0.5 light speed through time. Using Pythagoras’s theorem, the observer’s total speed is √(0.8662 + 0.52) = 1 (light speed). To repeat, these are absolute measurements, not relative as Einstein claimed.

“The Lorentz transformations relate the space-time coordinates, (which specify the position x, y, z and time t of an event) relative to a particular inertial frame of reference (the “rest system”), and the coordinates of the same event relative to another coordinate system moving in the positive xdirection at a constant speed v, relative to the rest system. It was devised as a theoretical transformation which makes the velocity of light invariant between different inertial frames.” – Wikipedia “The laws of nature are independent of the state of motion of the system of reference, at least if the latter is without acceleration.” – Einstein On the contrary, the laws of nature – if by that we mean how they dictate an observer’s experience of space and time – are entirely dependent on the state of motion of the system of reference. There is technically no such thing as a frame of reference at rest – all inertial frames are in motion – but there is an absolute reference frame (the Cartesian grid itself) against which all the inertial frames are defined, so the Cartesian grid itself is the stationary “ether”. Every inertial frame is unique and defines an absolute, not relative, space-time relation. Space and time change ABSOLUTELY as one inertial frame is changed into another by rotation. Thus, a human being would actually die if he moved into an inertial frame radically different from the ones we normally experience on earth. “Let S and S′ be equivalent coordinate systems, i.e., these systems possess unit measuring rods of equal length and clocks running at the same rate, when compared in a state of relative rest. It is then clear that every law of nature which holds with respect to S, holds also with respect to S′ in exactly the same form, provided S and S′ are at rest with respect to each other. The principle of relativity requires the same perfect agreement also when S′ is in a state of uniform translational motion relative to S. Thus, in particular, we must obtain the same value for the velocity of light in vacuum, relative to both coordinate systems.” – Einstein The trouble for Einstein is that the same value for the velocity of light can be obtained in each inertial frame without invoking any relativity principle. Relativity is simply a hypothesis, not a proven fact of nature, and moreover it contradicts the reality principle that guarantees objective reality. With a system of absolute inertial frames each yielding the same value for the

speed of light, the reality principle is assured. With Einstein’s relative inertial frames, there is no objective reality, only subjective reality in each inertial frame. Einstein created the most ingenious error of all time, so brilliantly conceived that it has beguiled and deceived almost all of the finest minds of the last hundred years. No one should doubt Einstein’s genius. It took a true genius to be as dazzlingly wrong as he was – where it seemed to all of his peers that he was triumphantly right. “…the great problem of the nature and properties of the ether which fills space, of its structure, of its rest or motion, or its finite or infinite extent. More and more we feel that this is the all-important problem, and that’s its solution will not only reveal to us the nature of what we used to be called imponderables, but also the nature of matter itself and of its most important properties – weight and inertia … These are the ultimate problems of physical science, the icy summits of the loftiest range.” – Heinrich Hertz, 1888 “Its name notwithstanding, Einstein’s theory does not proclaim that everything is relative. Special relativity does claim that some things are relative; velocities are relative; distances across space are relative; durations of elapsed time are relative. But the theory actually introduces a grand, new, sweepingly absolute concept: absolute spacetime. Absolute spacetime is as absolute for special relativity as absolute space and absolute time were for Newton, and partly for this reason Einstein did not suggest or particularly like the name ‘relativity theory.’ Instead, he and other physicists suggested invariance theory, stressing that the theory, at its core, involves something that everyone agrees on, something that is not relative. … [Even] if devoid of all material benchmarks for defining motion, the absolute spacetime of relativity provides a something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate. … Spacetime, not space alone, provides the benchmark.” – Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

***** “If there are no instantaneous interactions in nature then there must be a maximum possible speed of interaction.” – Joseph Schwartz, Einstein

If the maximum speed of interaction isn’t infinite then it’s finite. Since the EPR Paradox reveals that interactions CAN be instantaneous then the implication is that everything is linked via two separate channels, one instantaneous (meaning that the speed of interaction is infinite) and the other non-instantaneous (meaning that the speed of interaction is finite, and no greater than a specific maximum). We might refer to these as mental and physical channels. The mental channel is outside space and time and the physical channel is inside space and time. The mental channel is the domain of infinity and zero, and the physical channel is the domain of everything above zero to a finite maximum. The mental channel is informational and interconnected while the physical channel is non-informational and disconnected (everything is physically individuated). This two-channel system is the basic model of the universe: one channel (the mental) is infinite and the other channel (the physical) is finite.

***** The Law of the Infinity Multiplier states that if there is no sufficient reason for something to be limited then it will be unlimited. If something is limited (finite) then there must be a sufficient reason for that to be the case. If something is finite, then how finite is it? If the physical universe does not permit infinite speed then it automatically follows that there must be a finite speed limit: an absolute, ironclad maximum that can never be exceeded. Why? Because there is no sufficient reason why any arbitrary finite number should be permitted. Why this number rather than that, this speed rather than that? And if there were no maximum speed limit then what would prevent an infinite speed from being reached? The fact that the physical universe has a maximum speed limit is a direct consequence of Leibniz’s Law of Sufficient Reason. If we take the speed of light as the universal speed limit then, frankly, it’s logically absurd to talk about superluminal speeds (except infinite ones). This has the most astounding consequences. We often talk of two domains: the mental and the physical. We say that zero and infinity define the mental domain and all the numbers between zero and infinity define the physical domain. This has a certain neatness and completeness that makes it appealing. Unfortunately, it’s not strictly true. In fact, there are THREE domains. The mental domain remains defined by zero and infinity, but the preceding discussion reveals that there are FINITE LIMITS in the physical

domain, so all the numbers between zero and the finite limit define the physical domain. That means that there is a third zone – a “forbidden zone” – between the finite limit and infinity. This is the domain where physical impossibilities take place, or rather don’t take place, but are imagined to transpire in various theories. Thus theories of faster than light travel belong firmly to this forbidden zone. Only in the imagination can such speeds ever be reached. A little further thought reveals that there is actually a fourth zone too (a second forbidden zone). Just as there are finite limits in terms of the very large, there are also finite limits in terms of the small, the domain of the Planck constant, h. So, the four domains are: 1) Mind: zero and infinity. 2) Forbidden zone of the small (all numbers greater than zero and less that the minimal finite limits). 3) The physical universe (all numbers greater than or equal to the minimal finite limit and less than or equal to the maximal finite limit). 4) Forbidden zone of the big (all numbers greater than the maximal finite limit and less than infinity). The numbers of the forbidden zone are not completely inaccessible. They can be found wherever “bad infinity” is to be found. The universe is infinitely large, so all numbers are explored in that context, both big and small. Quantum particles, in terms of their wave functions, explore a domain of infinite numbers. The forbidden zones exclude only those EVENTS that are PHYSICALLY impossible. All the events of scientific materialism can occur only within the physical zone and can never intrude into the high and low forbidden zones that apply to them. For example, no physical event can ever occur faster than the speed of light. The catastrophic error perpetrated by scientific materialists is to imagine that only the physical zone exists. They haven’t grasped that the physical zones is DEFINED by its place in relation to the other three zones, and makes no sense at all in their absence. All four zones constitute a complete

mathematical account of existence. All four zones are compulsory. No zone can exist without the explicit or implicit presence of the others (prior to the Big Bang there was no physical universe, only a mental universe, but the physical universe was implicit in the mental universe – it’s all in the math!).

***** We have presented the Theory of Everything – but it’s the “big picture”, and not all of the detail. For example, Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason declares that the physical universe should have a maximum speed limit. However, what should the precise value of that speed be? Science measures the speed of the limit and declares that to be maximum speed. However, a strictly mathematical theory should not have to make any appeal whatever to experimental data. Our assertion is that if ontological mathematics was understood in every particular, the speed of light would emerge as naturally as π or e. Similarly, the universal gravitational constant, G, and Planck’s constant, h, would all be on a par with π and e. Imagine a purely mathematical theory that didn’t make a single reference to experimental data and yet perfectly accounted for the values of c, G and h. With such a theory, we could simply program it into a computer and run a perfect simulation of reality. We could watch the Big Bang happen on our computer: the evolution of the universe, its relentless expansion and final death; all happening according to perfect mathematical laws. The only unknown would be the ultimate fly in the ointment – conscious free will. The universe devoid of conscious free will would unfold according to inexorable mathematical laws. An evolving universe producing conscious GODS with perfect understanding and control of mathematics – well, that’s an entirely different equation. So, are you smart enough to become a legend, a God? Can you dot the i’s and cross the t’s of our theory of everything? Will you be the one who can make the fundamental constants of physics appear effortlessly from a mathematical theory alone, without any recourse to experimental measurements? That is the holy grail of theories. Once humanity has the completed theory, we will stand on the verge of divinity. We will know exactly how the universe will unfold without our

intervention –and we will know exactly how and where to intervene to make ourselves GODS. Once we have the blueprint of existence – God’s mathematical design plan – then we ourselves have joined God. We know everything he knows. We could even start to design new universes with slightly different properties. This is possible ONLY when all of physics has been converted into mathematics, and experiments have become redundant. Physics is dumbed down mathematics that makes an appeal to experimental data to compensate for the catastrophic deficiencies in its mathematical understanding of reality. Scientists revere experiments. In fact, experiments demonstrate that scientists don’t know what they’re doing. Ultimate knowledge can have NO CONNECTION WHATEVER with experiments. Think of the Big Bang singularity. This was a 100% mathematical object made of infinite mathematical monads and containing the full laws of mathematics – and nothing else. The whole of reality was contained here. No experiments could be performed on it. Experiments are irrelevant to the Genesis Singularity. If experiments are irrelevant at the start of the universe then they are always irrelevant. If we understood the Big Bang well enough – its precise mathematical nature – why would we ever need experimental data? Just as we don’t need experiments to understand trigonometry or Euclid’s geometry, or algebra or arithmetic or calculus or topology or complex numbers or Fourier transforms or Riemann spheres or Riemann geometry, why should we need experiments to understand the universe? Experiments represent one thing and one thing only – a means of replacing scientists’ ignorance of the fundamental mathematical laws of nature with a set of ad hoc devices and measurements for describing “nature”. Scientists talk about the speed of light, but in fact there’s not really any such thing as light. If we could see “light” properly, we would understand that it comprises sine and cosine waves. Because scientists don’t understand what light actually is, they create a word “light” and then invent a theory of what light does and what its properties are. What they should actually be doing is trying to understand the pure mathematics of light based on nothing but sine and cosine waves.

Scientific Materialism – the Gospel of Irrationalism The ultra-materialist, empiricist and positivist Ernst Mach (who had a great influence on Einstein’s thinking) believed that a physical theory should be free of all metaphysical constructions. He said, “No one is competent to predicate things about absolute space and absolute motion; they are pure mental constructs that cannot be produced in experience.” In other words, Mach is denying that pure reason has any place in science. So, if it transpires that pure reason is the essence of truth then Mach has cut off science from truth because of his extremist ideology, which is itself actually a metaphysical position (since he is making claims about the nature of reality that he is incapable of proving – no materialist positivist can demonstrate that mind does not exist as an independent substance and no materialist positivist can prove that reason unsupported by experience is wrong). Mach asserted that a physical theory must be based only on primary sense perceptions. Given the unreliability of the senses, this is no kind of solid foundation for science. If all human beings had the genes for colour blindness, no one would ever have conceived that the sky was blue. Given that most of the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible to us, it fell to reason and theory, not our senses, to reveal its existence and allow us to expand our knowledge. Mach is a typical scientific empiricist materialist extremist. It’s impossible for Mach’s scientific stance to be valid unless his metaphysical assumptions are also valid, and he has absolutely no evidence for this. He is hoist with his own petard. Mach’s position amounts to the scientific fallacy that an absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence. Modern cosmology and string theory are utterly anti-Machian since they are predicated on numerous evidentially unsupported assertions.

***** One of Einstein’s famous thought experiments was to imagine looking in a mirror while he was travelling at the speed of light. Would his reflection disappear because the light leaving his face couldn’t catch up with the

mirror in order to be reflected? Since he thought it absurd that someone’s reflection should ever vanish, he started to work out what the properties of light must be to ensure that this non-disappearing act would be the case, and he reached the conclusion that the speed of light is the same for all observers, and nothing with mass can ever catch up with the speed of light. According to Einstein’s principle of relativity, it should be impossible for anyone moving at a constant speed in a straight line to know, without looking at the outside world, that they are moving. Anyone moving at a constant speed in a straight line is entitled to consider themselves at rest, hence if Einstein were moving at virtually the speed of light, he could just as easily consider himself stationary, so he would certainly be able to see his reflection in the mirror since no stationary person would ever have any difficulty seeing his own reflection. However, if he reached light speed itself, the whole universe would vanish, never mind his reflection! (It would vanish because all distances are reduced to zero and time stops.)

Double Mathematics Scientists have been futilely attempting for decades to combine quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Why is it proving so difficult? One of the key issues is that quantum mechanics is based on the Fourier mathematics of waves while relativity theory is essentially a theory based on particles. Quantum mechanics revealed a wave-particle duality at the core of existence but no one seems to have realised that this duality should also therefore apply to all scientific theories and equations. When you think of gravity, you almost certainly think of moons, planets and stars exerting a force of attraction on each other. You certainly don’t think in terms of waves. In fact, the ideas of waves exerting a gravitational effect on each other might seem rather hard to imagine. Newton’s Gravitational Law is F = GMm/r2, where F is the gravitational force, M and m are the masses of two gravitational bodies, r is the distance between them and G is the universal gravitational constant. There’s no suggestion at all of any waves. But is there in fact a hidden clue to the presence of waves? One of the critical features of Fourier Transforms – quintessentially concerned with waves – is that they have a degree of uncertainty associated with them and this is always defined by a constant.

We can write this uncertainty relation in the general form of ∆A*∆B = C, where the uncertainty in entity A is ∆A and the uncertainty in transform entity B is ∆B, and C is the constant that defines the uncertainty. So, because C never changes, if ∆A goes up (increasing uncertainty) then ∆B must come down (decreasing uncertainty), and vice versa. This is the basis of the famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation of quantum mechanics, and the constant in this case is Planck’s constant, h. Any equation that can be boiled down to a relation such as ∆A*∆B = C may reveal a disguised, underlying Fourier relation, hence one based on waves. With the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the more accurately we know a particle’s position, the less accurately we know its momentum, and vice versa. Now think about gravity. The smaller the distance between two particles, the larger the force they exert on one another. The larger the distance between them, the smaller the force. In the Heisenberg relation, we can think of every particle as having a “ghost” or a shadow. No experiment can tell the difference between a particle and its ghost, so the experimenter can’t be sure where the particle actually is. Only when the distance between the particle and its ghost is reduced to zero do we know for sure where the particle is. However, by bringing the particle and its ghost together, we have had to use an enormous amount of energy, and as soon as we “let go”, the particle and ghost fly apart and we lose all information about where the particle actually is. This is a repulsive energy effect. With gravity, as two real particles get closer, the attractive force becomes infinite and they can’t be separated. If they are infinitely far apart, they exert zero attractive force on each other. In this view, gravity acts as the opposite of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. With the Heisenberg relation, position and momentum have, we might say, a repulsive relationship towards each other. With gravity, position and force have an attractive relationship towards each other.

Time and Space For Kant, time and space do not exist independently of our consciousness. Although this is not a tenable position – time and space are in fact completely independent of consciousness – it’s nevertheless the case that time and space are produced by mind (monads), but in an objective, not a subjective sense.

***** Is it possible to think of space as NOT being a mathematical grid? If space isn’t absolutely uniform, as in a mathematical grid, then that implies that space has different qualities and properties in different regions, meaning that we might expect different physical phenomena to manifest themselves. All sorts of strange, random, spatial effects might be expected, but none are actually observed. Nothing is more fundamental to the stability, regularity and predictability of the universe than it should be set on the most solid and reliable of foundations. What would be better than a mathematical grid? There simply isn’t an alternative. Nothing else can provide the necessary certainty. Imagine trying to perform calculus if there wasn’t an assumption of an absolutely regular and dependable mathematical grid underlying all aspects of calculus. Calculus wouldn’t be viable if there were no grid. Space is completely mathematical or it’s unintelligible – it’s as simple as that. If space is both mathematical (based on Cartesian axes) and ontological (it has real existence) then space is an expression of mathematical ontology and that means that all mathematical points are actual things. How could it be otherwise? If our universe isn’t founded on an infinity of mathematical points – Leibnizian monads – then what are the alternatives? According to stringtheorists, the fundamental unit of existence isn’t a monad but a vibrating 1dimensional string (either a looped or open string). But an infinity of 1-D strings does not comprise a plenum. There will always be gaps. Gaps of what? If you do not have a plenum covering all of space then you have some sort of non-existence intruding into existence, and that’s impossible. There is only one way to have a plenum – a Cartesian grid of monads.

The Modern Aether The Monadic Mind Field, creating a perfect Cartesian coordinate grid in which all of the events of the material world occur, constitutes the rebirth of the old idea of the ether upon which physics was based before Einstein. Contrary to what many people think, Einstein never disproved the existence of the ether; he simply rendered it a superfluous hypothesis in relation to his special theory of relativity. However, the ether in the terms in which we are

defining it – as a Monadic Cartesian grid – is physically undetectable. It is mental, not material. Kant argued that our minds create reality. He was right that mind is essential to the organisation of reality. However, it is not our individual minds that “create” reality. Rather, it is the collective mind of the cosmos that generates the objective reality experienced by each individual mind. Kant argued that space and time were given to everyone as a priori pure intuitions, without explaining where they came from. It is in fact the cosmic mind that provides them, and it does so via Cartesian coordinates. It provides the arena, the context, the environment, in which everything must take place. Nothing can be external to this domain. While the individual mind is subjective, the collective cosmic mind is not: it provides the objective stage for the unfolding of reality. Although the stage is mental, it is rendered physical when energy flows across it, filling all of it. (In a deeper sense, the physical is just a particular manifestation of the mental, mediated by the properties of mathematics.) For Kant, space and time necessarily preceded sense impressions. Indeed any such impressions were impossible without first being framed by space and time. With space and time taken care of, Kant then proposed that the way we apprehend reality is structured by twelve categories of thought: unity, plurality, totality (which constitute quantity); reality, negation, limitation (quality); substance, causality, interaction (relation), possibility, existence and necessity (modality). All of these categories in fact reflect the mathematical properties of the cosmic mind (which is itself entirely mathematical). So, the individual minds with which Kant was preoccupied are necessary reflections of the collective cosmic mind. Each individual mind gazes out on an objective, mathematically configured world and uses its own inherent mathematical configuration to interact with it and comprehend it. All of reality is mathematical. Mathematical units (monad minds) inhabit a universe of other such minds, all configured in exactly the same way mathematically. The entire set of mathematical minds comprises a collective cosmic mind which provides the objective mathematical framework upon which all subjective minds can agree. The noumenal domain (of unknowable “things in themselves”) and the phenomenal domain (of things as we mentally experience them) that Kant regarded as separate are in fact united, flowing seamlessly in and out of

each other using the laws of mathematics. There is no unknowable domain, and no unreachable things in themselves. If we can’t reach the soul physically, we can certainly reach it mentally and rationally. It’s just a mathematical entity like all those of the physical, phenomenal world. Its particular mathematical properties set it apart from the material world (since the soul belongs to zero and infinity and the material world belongs to everything greater than zero and less than infinity), but the soul world and the material world together constitute the complete, whole and necessary mathematical universe. What Kant refers to as noumena are, when properly understood, just Leibnizian monads. Monads create phenomena, and they do so mathematically. Kant’s philosophy is really just a disguised version of Leibniz’s. Leibniz’s philosophy – or rather that part of it which appeared in the public domain – was too “weird” and abstract for ordinary mortals. Nevertheless, it was well established in the philosophical circles of Germany, and Kant was well acquainted with it. What Kant did was rebrand it in an ingenious way that seemed to address the philosophical skepticism of David Hume. But Leibniz’s true philosophy in fact already stood as a complete refutation of Hume.

Dimensionless versus Dimensional Illuminism is based on certain key definitions. If you accept these, everything else logically follows. A critical idea concerns dimensionality. A point is defined as a dimensionless entity. A straight line is defined as one dimensional. In terms of ontology, the key question is this: can a universe of 1-D objects (such as the strings of M-theory) spring into existence from a mathematical point (the Big Bang singularity)? How is it possible to leap straight from zero dimensions to one dimension (as must have happened in order for strings to emerge from a singularity)? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? The Big Bang singularity represents the worst possible problem for materialism because materialism doesn’t accept the ontological reality of zero dimensions, of which the Big Bang singularity is the ultimate example. Materialism must somehow banish the singularity and replace it with something where 1-D entities always exist. Yet now it has a second problem. An infinity of dimensionless points can be fitted into a singularity

but there is no structure into which an infinite number of finite entities can be fitted without itself being infinite. So, if the universe started from some very small but finite structure, that structure cannot have contained all of the material of the potentially infinite universe but must have started creating it as it went along. But created it from it where? We are again left with zero-dimensional existence being the source of 1-D existence, a contradiction in terms in relation to materialist ideology. In Illuminism – an idealist rather than materialist system – all 1-D entities are constructed from points (zero-dimensional entities). In fact, it is impossible in Illuminism for a 1-D entity to exist that is not composed of 0D points. In other words, in Illuminism the 1-D strings of M-theory are impossible if they are envisaged as the smallest entities possible. 1-D strings were the means materialists devised to escape from division by zero, but that’s no way to conduct science. The universe couldn’t care less whether scientists have the capacity to divide by zero in an effective way. Philosophically and mathematically, a 1-D entity must be preceded by and comprised of 0-D entities. To jump to 1-D without having any 0-D entities is a magic trick: it’s creating “stuff” out of thin air. The universe MUST be constructed from mathematical points – Leibnizian monads. This fundamental ontological rule can be combined with Descartes’ definition of mind as non-extended substance i.e. as zerodimensional. If a mind has zero dimensions and there are infinite minds then we are led inexorably to Leibniz’s Monadology: existence consisting of an infinite number of mathematical points that are also minds. If we accept these two axioms i.e. that the basic units of existence are zero-dimensional and that a zero-dimensional entity is a mind then, with no further elaboration, we have arrived at Leibniz’s position. Moreover, if 1-D entities are constructed from 0-D entities then matter is made of mind too! That is the key to everything. Any challenge to this position is philosophically and mathematically incoherent and untenable. This is the only way the universe can be. Any position that is inconsistent with Leibniz’s Monadology is logically and rationally false. The Big Bang singularity fits perfectly with Leibniz’s Monadology. It is 100% incompatible with any materialistic stance. If the universe started from a Big Bang singularity then materialism is refuted and mind is the basis of existence.

It’s not difficult to arrive at Leibniz’s position. The only thing preventing the absolute triumph of Leibniz is the difficulty people have in conceiving of dimensionlessness, something of which they can never have any physical but only mental experience. Dimensionlessness – undetectable by any experiment or the human senses – goes against the whole grain of empiricist materialist science, which is why scientists are so resistant to it. Leibniz placed reason infinitely higher than experiment. What about you? Will you accept the position of science when it comes to the experimentally unverifiable basic units of existence (monads), or will you accept the truths of reason? It’s your choice. If you accept the ontological reality of monads, you have entered the domain of religion – the afterlife, immortality, the soul, God. If you don’t, you logically ought to be an atheist because you have made religion impossible. You have allowed nowhere for the soul to have its domain. Ask yourself these questions. Where are thoughts located? Can you point to one? Can you touch one? Can you see them being formed? Can you specify a thought’s energy configuration, its coordinates, its momentum? Why do they seem so emotional? Where in atoms are emotions located? Materialism is clueless regarding these questions. Illuminism has no difficulty. Thoughts are not located in physical space: they belong to the dimensionless world outside space and time. Thoughts are inherently concerned with will, desire, feelings and reason. All of the information about the physical universe is encoded in the mental universe. The universe is like a human being except on a cosmic scale. The physical universe is the body and the mental universe is the mind. As above, so below. “I want to say that life, mind and inanimate matter all have a similar structure.” – David Bohm We say that they are all mathematical; that’s what structurally binds them.

Relativity “Any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments.” – Galileo

This principle of relativity is reasonable when the speed differential between the two observers is small – as it always is in common experience. It’s completely false when the speed differential is very large. In other words, there’s no genuine principle of relativity at all: there seems to be simply because absolute differences are negligible at low speeds. If an observer were travelling inside a windowless spaceship that was moving away from the earth at constant speed, then, according to Galileo’s view, no mechanical experiments could be performed inside the rocket that would tell the occupants that the rocket was moving. The question, “Are we moving?” is meaningless unless a reference frame is specified e.g. “We are moving with respect to that planet.” This principle is a cornerstone of Einstein’s theories of relativity. However, it’s false if there is in fact an absolute frame of reference against which everything is moving. In such a case the observer in the moving spaceship would definitely know he was moving when he reached a certain speed, because, as a result of length contraction as an absolute effect, his body would literally start to compress and he would eventually die! Galileo concluded that free bodies are uniquely characterized by moving uniformly at constant speed (including zero speed: rest is a special case of constant speed) in one direction (i.e. a straight line). Prior to Galileo, a perennial question was, “What keeps a body moving? Why doesn’t it slow down and stop?” According to Galileo’s relativity principle, this was the wrong question since if uniform motion in a straight line is not necessarily distinguishable from being stationary, hence how do we know which observer is genuinely moving? All observers can legitimately claim to be stationary and therefore not to be using any kinetic energy at all. For Galileo, the right question was, “What would prevent a body from moving uniformly in a straight line?” And the answer, as explored thoroughly by Newton, was “force”. Yet Newton’s system was absolute rather than relative – which means that the question returns of what keeps a body moving. Leibniz realised that motion was inherent to the universe, one of its essential properties. Everything is permanently moving. If something isn’t moving through space then it’s moving through time. Force simply changes the manner in which the motion is expressed. It cannot stop motion.

*****

Newton’s First Law of Motion: The velocity of a body remains constant unless an external force acts upon the body. Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed on it. What’s wrong with this Law? – it’s incomplete. There’s no such thing as “being at rest”. A body at rest with regard to space moves at a constant rate through time unless the body is acted upon by an external force which will then cause some of its motion to be redirected through space, and it will then travel through spacetime at a constant rate unless acted upon by an external force, which will simply cause it to move through spacetime at a different constant rate (reflecting a different ratio of space to time). It’s vital that the concept of “being at rest” should be formally eliminated from physics. The reason why this is so important is that it’s continually stated by physicists that any frame of reference corresponding to movement in a straight line at constant speed can consider itself stationary. No, it cannot, because there is no such thing as a stationary state. To arbitrarily say that something can consider itself stationary IN SPACE (as relativists do) is thereby to state that all of its motion is directed instead THROUGH TIME. Therefore, the relativist has redefined its motion without making any reference to any causal force that brought it about. He has simply declared it to be stationary by diktat (because he has failed to consider the time aspect of the situation). This is why the principle of relativity is fundamentally false. Everything is always moving in an absolute context. No body or frame of reference can ever by fiat be declared to be stationary since there is no such physical state in a spacetime continuum. This means that the other two Newtonian laws of motion must be recast: Newton’s Second law: The acceleration, a, of a body is directly proportional to the net force, F, and inversely proportional to the mass, m, i.e. F = ma. Imaginary Force (temporal force), imaginary mass (temporal mass) and imaginary acceleration (temporal acceleration) must all be included to provide complete and rigorous conservation of forces. Space can never be privileged over time. The two must always be equal partners. Newton’s Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. To every action there is an

equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. This must accommodate temporal as well as spatial forces. It’s true that there’s one enormous practical difference between spatial and temporal forces. We can ACTIVELY change a spatial force by increasing it or decreasing it (and it will have an equal and opposite effect on the temporal force), but we can only PASSIVELY change temporal force (via what we do with spatial force). If we slow something down spatially, we are increasing its temporal force. If we speed something up spatially we are decreasing its temporal force (and at the cosmic spatial speed limit there is no temporal force at all i.e. time has stopped; likewise when there is no spatial force then there is no movement through space, only through time). We can never directly alter temporal force because this is the default state in our timelike world. We can affect it only through the manipulation of spatial force. Otherwise, it proceeds relentlessly at a rate of one second per second (i.e. “1”, the unit time movement).

***** The principle of relativity says that equations describing the laws of physics should have the same form in all admissible frames of reference. But it’s not clear what this actually means. Newton was as able to talk about frames of reference as well as Einstein, and yet Newton’s system was absolutist and Einstein’s relativistic. In what way are the laws of physics different in any Newtonian frame of reference? Certainly, the measured speed of light is not constant in Newton’s system, but nor is it random. It can be properly calculated, implying the uniformity of physical law. Wikipedia says of the special principle of relativity in relation to Newtonian mechanics, “The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo’s ship. Newtonian mechanics added to the special principle several other concepts, including laws of motion, gravitation, and an assumption of an absolute time. When formulated in the context of these laws, the special principle of relativity states that the laws of mechanics are invariant under a Galilean transformation.” Therefore, the principle of relativity is in no way inherently inconsistent with an absolutist model of the universe. It does not imply, as many seem to

believe, that Einstein is vindicated and Newton refuted. “Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K′ moving in uniform translation relatively to K.” – Albert Einstein: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Part A, §1 Galileo would have agreed with this. Any physicist would agree with it. But is it in fact false? Is it accepted as true simply because it’s such a good approximation to what we normally experience on earth? The fallacy it contains is one that Einstein, more than anyone else, should have noticed. He is treating space (as measured by coordinates) differently from time (as measured by “movement”) even though he himself was the person responsible for the concept of the fused spacetime continuum. If he had dynamically coupled to his system of space coordinates, K, a system of time coordinates, T, dependent on the precise speed of any uniform motion, he would have seen that his principle was no longer valid, or was true in a radically different way from what he was suggesting. The key consequence of Einstein’s principle of relativity, as he stated it, is that any framework moving in “uniform translation” can be considered stationary, i.e. by arbitrary diktat a moving framework can be regarded as stationary, thus challenging the whole concept of “movement”. Is something moving or isn’t it? For Einstein, in an arena of objects moving in uniform translation, it’s impossible to tell since any frame of reference can treat itself as stationary. Consider what this means in terms of kinetic energy (“motion” energy). Imagine a stationary universe and a single observer moving at constant speed in a straight line close to the speed of light. Does the stationary universe have zero kinetic energy and the observer a huge amount of kinetic energy? Yet what if the observer defines himself as stationary? He then has zero kinetic energy, but the rest of the universe, relative to him, is now moving at close to the speed of light and must be considered to have some simply enormous amount of kinetic energy. How can energy be conserved? It’s not clear that kinetic energy has any meaning in such a system.

*****

No Newtonian who believed in an absolute space and time framework ever suggested that the laws of physics were different for different observers. It’s certainly true that in Newtonian physics, the speed of light can be measured differently for different observers but, given that light speed is measured to be invariant, this does not ipso facto disprove the existence of an absolute framework and nor does it prove the correctness of Einsteinian relativity. Rather, it refutes the particular absolute framework described by Newton. That is not the only possible absolute framework. There is an alternative absolute framework based on absolute spacetime rather than absolute space and absolute time. Absolute spacetime DOES accommodate an invariant speed of light.

***** The Principle of Relativity: all observers see the same laws of nature. This seems profound, but when did anyone ever suggest the contrary position? Has anyone ever argued that some observers experience different laws of physics? Without any contradiction, this principle could equally well be labelled as the “Principle of Absolutism” because any Absolutist maintains that there is only one set of physical laws and they apply to everyone. Isaac Newton, the archetypal Absolutist, never claimed that different observers see different laws. There are actually three schools of relativity: 1) Galilean Relativity: No mechanical experiment can distinguish a state of absolute rest from uniform straight-line motion. A corollary is that a car travelling at 100 kilometres per hour crashing into a stationary car will experience the same effect as if it were travelling at fifty kilometres per hour and crashed head on with another car travelling at fifty kilometres per hour. (We could define one of the cars as being at rest, in which case the other must be thought of as approaching it at double the speed.) Velocities are additive. 2) Special Relativity: Einstein’s treatment of the consequences of the Principle of Relativity for observers moving at constant velocities relative to one another. The theory was built around the fact that all observers measure the same speed of light, even

when the light is in an inertial frame which is in motion relative to the observer i.e. Galilean relativity is shown to be wrong and is superseded. It is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light, since no such differences are ever observed. 3) General Relativity: Einstein’s extension of special relativity to uniformly accelerated reference frames. It is based on the principle of equivalence which Einstein stated as: “We shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and the corresponding acceleration of the reference frame.” There is no way to distinguish uniform acceleration from a gravitational field. They are functionally and mathematically equivalent. The difference between Absolutism and Relativity can be defined very precisely. An Absolute framework exists only if one frame of reference is always “at rest.” A Relative framework exists if any frame of reference can validly consider itself “at rest”. The question of which of these two views is correct goes to the heart of material reality. Because of Einstein’s towering reputation in physics, people have an inbuilt bias towards favouring the Relativistic view without truly understanding what its implications are. Objective reality DOES NOT EXIST if Einstein is correct. Objective reality – the existence of a Reality Principle – is consistent only with an Absolute framework where we know what absolute state everything is in, i.e. everything has an objective meaning and definition. In the relativistic arena, this is no longer true. Something moving at a constant speed in a straight line can just as well be defined as stationary i.e. it is no longer objectively meaningful to talk about something’s “movement”. If every single object in the universe were moving at some constant speed or another in a straight line in any direction, we could define any one of them to be stationary, and we would thereby have to redefine the speeds of everything else to accommodate this. So, nothing can be said to have a definite direction or a definite speed at all. It’s all relative. There are no true, objective facts. Everything is a matter of definition. Nietzsche famously said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This fits in perfectly with Einsteinian relativity. There is no “reality” other than

the one we create through our relative interpretation. The only way to save reality is to reject relativism, and this can be done only via an absolute framework where there is no ambiguity about anything. Everything is an absolute fact.

The Science of Feelings? “In special relativity, Einstein’s main focus was on observers who move with constant velocity – observers who feel no motion and hence are all justified in proclaiming that they are stationary and that the rest of the world moves by them. … Neither perspective is more correct than the other. But accelerated motion is different, because you can feel it. You feel squeezed back into a car seat as it accelerates forward, you feel pushed sideways as a train rounds a sharp bend, you feel pressed against the floor of an elevator that accelerates upwards.” – Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos Isn’t it bizarre that science invokes HOW YOU FEEL to determine what forces you are experiencing? What do subjective feelings have to do with true, objective science? We’re told that if you feel pressed against the floor of an accelerator that it must be accelerating upwards. But this is relativity we’re talking about. Why can’t we imagine different scenarios? Let’s say that the elevator isn’t moving at all, but instead it’s the rest of the world that’s moving, and the “force” you feel is the “backwash” of the rest of the world as it moves away from you. You yourself are stationary; it’s the rest of the world that moves, just as in special relativity. In the scope of relativity, that doesn’t sound too outlandish, does it? Yet if it were shown to be a valid interpretation, it would destroy Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Something like the twin paradox, which relies on a clear asymmetry between the two twins in order to explain the age difference between the them, would no longer make any sense if both twins could construct a valid scenario where, in effect, each remained stationary, and all the movement was done by the other. In that case, both ought to be exactly the same age. And isn’t the scenario we have presented more in tune with the spirit of relativistic thinking than the standard version?

*****

Imagine a person in a sensory deprivation suit, preventing him from experiencing any gravitational or acceleration effects, or from observing the external environment. Such a person would never know if he was moving or stationary. According to relativistic thinking, this person would never have the vaguest idea what was happening to him! In an absolutist system, absolute effects would happen to the person, even in his suit. Length contraction would kill him if we were travelling at a high enough speed. Remember, if you bury your head in the sand, relativity theory can’t get you! (In an episode of South Park, the whole of America buried its head in the sand so that it couldn’t be held responsible for a cartoon of Mohammed appearing on American TV!)

The Null Zone Einstein seemed to pay almost no attention to the fact that the speed of light is infinite if viewed from the “null” zone. It’s quite extraordinary that he was so uninterested in light from its own perspective. Had he shown any interest, he would have had no problem understanding the EPR paradox that he himself helped to formulate. The EPR paradox involves correlated particles – separated by potentially enormous distances – being able to respond instantaneously to each other. That would be no problem at all in the null zone where all distances are zero and time has stopped.

The Ether Blunder “It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.” – Einstein And that is exactly the catastrophic blunder made by Einstein, the product of his empiricist materialism. He couldn’t conceive of an ether whose only “physical” property was immobility. There are two points to make here: 1) The CRITICAL property of the ether that defines what makes it infinitely essential to a theory of everything is precisely that it is absolutely fixed and immobile.

2) Nothing physical can have that property. The ether is MENTAL, not physical. It is immaterial, not material. That’s why no one detected it. The ether is the ultimate refutation of materialism. That’s why Einstein got rid of it in his special theory of relativity.

The Unobservable Ether Lorentz attributed all motion to particles and the ether was the motionless medium through which they moved. That’s exactly right, except it’s a motionless mental medium, not physical. “The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.” – Einstein So, even Einstein left the door open to an unobservable, motionless ether. “Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ‘Ether’; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.” – Einstein That’s right. There are imperceptible things whose existence must be rationally accepted if various perceptible things are to make any sense at all. Einstein, as a Machian positivist, was uncomfortable with this and produced relativity theory as his attempt to shut the door on the imperceptible. Yet even he recognised that he wasn’t disproving the existence of imperceptible – so why do people worship relativity so much when it is merely a hypothesis that may be radically false? Einstein himself became increasingly ambivalent about his own theories and baffled by quantum mechanics – so why is he held up as some sort of great authority? No one’s denying that he was a genius, but he wasn’t a genius of the calibre of Leibniz and perhaps John Bell will come to be recognised as a much more important scientist of the twentieth century – the man who burst the Einstein bubble.

The Fallacy Einstein’s special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems (these are reference frames that move uniformly in a straight line). There are no preferred inertial systems i.e. no reference frame is privileged over any other; in particular there is no absolute reference frame against which all other reference frames are measured. When one reference frame moves with constant speed with respect to another, the processes of nature will obey the same laws of physics in either reference frame. 2) The speed of light, c, in a vacuum, has the same value in all inertial systems: the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. Einstein’s boldest claim was that anyone moving at constant speed in a straight line could consider themselves at rest, hence their frame of reference was in fact the formal equivalent of the supposed ether frame of reference. Because anyone in any such reference frame could make the same claim, the supposed absolute ether reference frame was rendered incoherent. Since anyone could claim that their reference frame was the stationary ether frame, that frame was no longer an objective, absolute reference frame, but a subjective, relative reference frame. In which case, why refer to it at all? It had become an empty concept. Einstein had effectively abolished it. No one in any “stationary” reference frame would experience any length contraction or time slowing down, but they would observe that everyone else moving with respect to them would be experiencing just such length contraction and time slowing down. However, the others in their moving reference frames would observe no such odd effects. All observers would believe that the strange effects were happening to others, and not to themselves. At a stroke, this eliminates objective reality agreed upon by all and creates an infinity of subjective realities depending on the relative motion of your particular reference frame with respect to those of others. In summary, relativistic physics states that there is no preferred frame of reference but every inertial frame of reference will have exactly the same characteristics as the proposed absolute ether rest frame. Relativity’s

credibility depends on this statement being indisputably true. As we have seen, it’s not.

***** Consider two objects, one stationary and one travelling at 0.9 light speed. According to Einstein, each can in fact consider itself stationary and the other to be moving at 0.9 light speed. But there’s a fundamental problem with this. The stationary reference frame isn’t stationary at all. It’s actually moving at light speed through time (which equates to moving at the normal rate of one second per second). If you suddenly declare that a frame of reference is stationary because that’s a seemingly permissible thing to do with any frame of reference moving uniformly in a straight line at constant speed, you have forgotten about movement through time. Incredible though it may seem, Einstein misinterpreted time when he formulated his relativistic model. He tried to remove time as a factor by arranging the synchronisation of clocks and setting them all to zero, but time behaves differently in every reference frame, depending on the speed of the reference frame. Einstein went wrong right from the get-go.

The Two Choices The mathematics of Lorentz transformations is correct, but that doesn’t imply that Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct. You have two choices, each entirely consistent with the Lorentz transformations, yet one is absolute and the other is relativistic, hence provide entirely different views of reality. 1) Choice 1 – the Absolute. The speed of light is invariant. There is a static, absolute background – the Cartesian coordinate grid itself – and all Lorentz transformations are measured absolutely with regard to this framework. You would die as you got close to light speed because your body would literally be crushed. This is the “objective reality” view, obeying the reality principle. Each speed is associated with a unique trajectory through spacetime. There is no question of a speed being one thing for one observer and something else, relatively, for another observer.

2) Choice 2 – the Relative. The speed of light is again invariant. However, this time there is no static, absolute background. Any suitable frame of reference can define itself as stationary. All Lorentz transformation calculations are relative rather than absolute. A person travelling at close to light speed in a straight line could legitimately consider himself stationary, hence would be in zero danger of dying. This is the “subjective reality” view where the reality principle has been abolished and replaced by Einstein’s relativity principle. The key to the two different interpretations is the “ether”. Since no physical ether could be detected by any experiment, Einstein got rid of it, but thereby also got rid of objective reality. The absolutist view does have an ether, but it’s inherently undetectable because it’s mental rather than physical. So, objective reality can be saved, but only by appealing to a mental ether (anathema to any materialist). The situation brings to mind the two principles that John Bell brought into direct opposition: 1) The objective, external world, independent of our observations. 2) “Locality”: no signal can be passed between two points faster than the speed of light. Bell’s Inequality invites us to abandon objective reality or Einsteinian locality. Non-localism is a MENTAL phenomenon. So, given that nonlocalism is associated with objective reality and Einsteinian localism isn’t, we once again have to choose between absolutism based on mental aspects of reality, and relativism that gets rid of not just the mental but objective reality itself. What will you choose? 1) Objective reality – obeying the reality principle – but which also necessarily calls on unobservable mental elements of existence. 2) Subjective reality, which eliminates reference to any mental components of existence, but thereby gets rid of any absolute frame of reference, gets rid of non-localism and gets rid of objective reality. Bell – a genius – preferred objective reality to Einstein’s relativity and localism. We don’t see how any sane, rational person can do otherwise. Bell’s Inequality PROVES that reality has a mental component. Why is that

something to be feared or even skeptically scoffed at? It’s the most wondrous news of all – divine news – that reveals that there’s an extraordinary domain beyond our senses. Leibniz wouldn’t so much have blinked at Bell’s Inequality, but it DESTROYS empiricist, positivist, materialist science. Leibniz was a rationalist idealist science who gave primacy to mathematics, and it’s exactly to Leibniz’s worldview that mainstream science must now return. It took its flirtation with empiricist, positivist, materialist science as far as it could possibly go (and even further into the domain of ideological fanaticism). Now it must accept the facts. Bell’s Inequality proves the truth of non-localism, and non-localism cannot be accommodated by the conventional materialistic paradigm of the science establishment. The debate is over. The facts are in. Materialism has been formally refuted. If science refuses to accept the full ramifications of Bell’s Inequality then it’s simply a faith-based religion and has cut itself off forever from reason. Henry Stapp called Bell’s Inequality Theorem “the most profound in science”. That’s exactly right – because it singlehandedly overthrows the Einsteinian relativity paradigm that has dominated science for the last hundred years. Einsteinian relativity is the main obstacle getting in the way of the overthrow of Machian empiricist, positivist, materialist science. Quantum mechanics is wholly non-local. The wavefunction itself is nonlocal and embraces the entire universe. Everything is connected to everything else. Wavefunction collapse is non-local. We now assert that any scientific theory that is NOT non-local is NOT science. Relativity theory is the highest profile example of a local theory. It has no non-local features, hence is false. Science must now be rationalist and idealist rather than empiricist and materialist. As Bell always pointed out, Einstein’s special theory of relativity never disproved non-relativistic interpretations of the invariance of light speed. Einstein’s view simply won a popularity contest amongst scientists. But now Einstein’s relativity has fallen. Materialist localism has fallen. The mental domain has been scientifically proven. Let’s move on.

***** “A large section of the intelligentsia seems wholly devoid of intelligence.” – G.K. Chesterton

Was he talking about the science establishment?

The God Equation It’s all very well to point out the flaws of relativity theory, but the real issue is what we’re going to put in its place. We have to put up or shut up, don’t we? Otherwise, we’re just blustering fools and carping critics. We’re not going to duck out of the challenge. In “The God Equation” – the next book in this series – we will show how to unite quantum mechanics and relativity. But we will do so using the only acceptable basis of unification – mathematics. The God Equation is not a scientific equation (although scientists use it all the time). It’s arguably the purest, most analytic mathematical equation of all. It will assuredly make your jaw drop when you see its astounding, divine power. Once you understand the God Equation you will know that humans can be Gods.

Illuminism In the last resort, what is Illuminism? It’s the replacement of science with mathematics. Where empiricist materialist science rejects all unobservables as non-existent, mathematics accepts all mathematical unobservables as existent. These rational, mathematical unobservables are precisely what permits mathematics to be the prime supporter of non-localism and unseen religious, spiritual and even paranormal domains. That’s not to say that religion, spirituality and the paranormal aren’t the uttermost nonsense when cast in terms of faith, Mythos and irrationality. These subjects are meaningful only when described in rationalistic, mathematical terms and otherwise they are junk (just as science says). Science is itself ultimately irrational because it privileges irrational senses over rational reason. In a conflict between the two, it always takes the side of irrational, sensory observables over rational, mathematical unobservables. Science goes to all of the trouble of constructing empiricist mathematics – a strange subset of true mathematics designed to be compatible with the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. Whatever gave scientists the belief that they could do whatever they like with mathematics, and cut out huge

chunks of it at their whim? How can these people claim to have any understanding of mathematics at all? You can’t pick and choose what parts of mathematics you like and what parts you don’t. It comes as a single package. Mathematics offers ALL of the eternal certainty that science manifestly fails to provide. Mathematics is the divine subject, the language of God, of existence itself, of absolute, incontestable truth. Only a fool would set himself against mathematics. It’s time for all rational people to take a decisive step – to abandon empiricist materialist science and embrace ontological mathematics as the only route to an explanation of EVERYTHING. If the First Enlightenment was about the triumph of science over religious superstition, the Second Enlightenment must be about the triumph of rational mathematics over irrational, senses-obsessed science. Religion promotes belief in unobservables based on irrational faith. Science rejects faith and unobservables, and places its trust in the irrational human senses and what they can observe. Mathematics resurrects unobservables but only in the strict context of rationality. The Illuminati always take the side of rationalism over empiricism (reason over the senses). Rational unobservables are always to be preferred over sensory rejection of such unobservables. That’s why the Illuminati define themselves as “hyperrationalists”. When scientists say, “Prove it”, they mean prove it to the satisfaction of the human senses. When we say, “Prove it”, we mean to the satisfaction of reason, in the specific context of mathematics. (As for religious people, they require no proof, only “faith”.) So, which side are you on? – scientific worship of the fallible and irrational human senses or mathematical rational certainty based on reason? It all comes down to one simple issue – do unobservables exist or not? What sufficient reason is there for excluding unobservables?

***** Mathematics is derived from an ancient Greek root meaning “to learn”; mathematics is “that which is learnt”. Science is derived from a Latin root meaning “to know.” science is “knowledge”. Its ancient Greek equivalent is gnosis, though gnosis has come to mean “special, higher knowledge of spiritual mysteries.”

Philosophy is derived from an ancient Greek root meaning “love of knowledge, wisdom.” Mathematics is the ultimate learning, yielding the ultimate knowledge, the ultimate wisdom, the ultimate knowledge of scientific and spiritual mysteries. Everything is unified in mathematics. The Illuminati are Pythagorean-Platonists. Pythagoras, the first official Grand Master of the Illuminati, was the first person to understand that existence is mathematical. Plato, a one-time Illuminatus himself, created the astonishingly beautiful Theory of Forms, which is the ultimate epistemological theory. When cast in purely mathematical terms, it becomes the absolute truth of existence.

***** The extraordinary thing about Illuminism is that it isn’t some weird new metaphysical theory, or some new scientific hypothesis, or a bizarre new religion requiring your zealous faith. We haven’t introduced you to any “sacred” texts or “holy” books, to any prophets, priests, popes or messiahs, to any “miracles”, to anything requiring your belief or suspension of reason. In fact, Illuminism could not be simpler. It asks of you only one thing: to rationally accept MATHEMATICS, the most rational subject of all, as the explanation of existence. Indeed, as existence itself. That’s why Illuminism is hyperrationalism, Unlike scientists, we completely reject the evidence of human senses as any route to absolute truth and certainty. And we reject faith 100%. We accept only one thing – mathematical rationality. Mathematics is the very last subject that opens the door to mumbo jumbo and woo woo. Mathematics is all about right and wrong. There’s nowhere to hide if you’ve made a mistake. You can’t bullshit your way out of it. You can’t come out with weasel words. You can’t appeal to faith or divine forces or say you’re waiting on new experimental data. Facts are facts. Right answers are right answers and wrong answers are wrong answers. It’s black and white: truth and falsehood. There’s no ambiguity. Mathematics is all about certainty – eternal, rational certainty. It’s not vague, ad hoc, provisional and contingent like science. Illuminism requires of you that instead of seeing mathematics as an abstraction, you see it as ontological – REAL. It is the only possible basis

of existence since a non-mathematical reality is rationally inconceivable. The universe is, objectively, an entirely rational place operating according to rational laws. Mathematics alone can be the source of such eternal laws of existence. There is no other rational candidate – only irrational, fantastical, Mythos inventions of the human mind such as the Abrahamic “Creator God”. Mathematics is the true Immaculate Conception. It is the true virgin that gave birth to God – in fact to infinite Gods. It is both the mother and the father of the universe, the cosmic sperm and cosmic egg. It is the source of all, and all is mathematics. There is nothing but mathematics. Mathematics is the true source of “magic” – rational magic, because numbers themselves have “magical” properties. There is nothing more wondrous, beguiling and miraculous than mathematics. Mathematics is the DIVINE subject. If you’re going to worship anything, worship mathematics – the eternal domain of Platonic perfection and absolute truth. Mathematics has all of the qualities that the True God ought to possess. Imagine a world that didn’t worship superbeings but placed its 100% confidence in reason itself, in the adamantine, indestructible edifice of mathematics. What could humanity not achieve if it had temples to mathematics rather than synagogues, mosques and churches to a God who orders fathers to murder their own children? Mathematics is the purest of all subjects. It is also the least forgiving. It despises error. It’s infallible. “[Mathematics is] the severest of all disciplines.” – Abraham Flexner

***** “I don’t believe in natural science.” – Kurt Gödel Science is simply an ad hoc collection of hypotheses and theories that have no necessary connection with each other. General relativity developed in a wholly different way from quantum mechanics, and it has proved impossible to reconcile them exactly because of that. Nothing in science is necessarily connected to anything else. In mathematics, everything is automatically, necessarily and permanently connected to everything else.

“…the visible matter we see around us (including the mountains, planets, stars and galaxies) makes up a paltry 4 percent of the total matter and energy content of the universe.” – Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds There you have it: science understands only 4% of the universe and the rest is swallowed up by the mysteries of dark energy and dark matter. Why do people place their trust in a subject (science) inherently lacking coherence, certainty and unity? Mathematics is all about UNITY. Every part supports every other part. It’s a single system. When the Illuminati champion mathematics, they have chosen the sole subject that is eternal, certain, interconnected, and accommodates everything. Mathematics is not a theory; it’s a reality – the ONLY reality. Religion is a hypothesis, metaphysics is a hypothesis, science is a hypothesis. Mathematics alone stands above hypothesis. Mathematics is certainty. Unlike religion, metaphysics and science, mathematics is not something human minds invent; it is something human minds discover all around them, something in which they are existentially immersed. There’s nothing provisional or ad hoc about it. “I believe that mathematical reality lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theories which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our ‘creations’, are simply notes of our observations. This view has been held, in one form or another, by many philosophers of high reputation from Plato onwards... It may be that modern physics fits best into some framework of idealistic philosophy.” – G. H. Hardy “Who ever became more intelligent by reading Voltaire’s writings?” – Gödel, comparing Voltaire and Leibniz. “I am writing for a race of men which does not yet exist: for the lords of the earth.” – Nietzsche

THE END