The Sam Harris Delusion (The God Series Book 22)

Table of contents :
The Sam Harris Delusion
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Copy Without An Original?
The Freedom Double Whammy
Mythos Madness
Mythos and Logos
The Denial
The Soul Atom
The Question
Free Will and Abrahamism
Christian Freedom?
The Science Delusion
Neuroscience
Where’s the Evidence?
Eastern Wisdom?
Free Will and Sam Harris
Sam Harris Contra Free Will
The Unconscious
Daniel Dennett
The Libet Experiment
The Language Deception
Living in the Past?
The Two-Stage Model of Free Will
The Free Will Illusion
Karma
Different Types of Atheist
Science versus Pseudoscience
The Betrayal of Reason
Capitalism and Science
Randomness
Seeing is Believing
The Cure for Science
The Design Flaw
What’s the Point?
Horizontal and Vertical Causation
The Karma Delusion
The Epistemic Fallacy
Revelation?
The Cosmological Argument
The Insult
Failure To Launch
Manmade Global Warming?
“Scenario Fulfilment”
An Inconvenient Truth
Aunt Sally
The Skeptics
The Useful Errors
Nietzsche on Cause and Effect
Atheism = Nihilism
The Parable of the Madman by Nietzsche
The Formula for Success
Ragnarok
The Hollow Men
The Proper Definition of Atheism
Mind Blindness
The Soul Equation
Nescience
The Perversion of Language
Souldust or Stardust?
Prophecy?
End the Madness
Mind Phase
Are you Enlightened?
Satisfaction?
The Smart Ones
Enlightenment
The Miracle
Video Games
The Mysterians
Peer Review
The Killers
The Scientific Inquisition
In the Name of God
The Four Ways
Monsters
The Cosmic Murderer
God’s Truth?
The Multi-Denial
Evil Atoms
The Wisdom of Murphy’s Law (Arthur Bloch)
Your Story
The Shooters
Mummies
Ritual
Zombie Ideas
The Tree of Life or Death?
The Abandonment
Teleology
Darwinism versus Hegelianism
Lamarckian Evolution
Dogs
Scientism
Kant’s Third Antinomy (of Freedom)
Evolution and Chance
The Unwisdom of Sam Harris
The Blind Leading the Blind
The Cult of Sam Harris
Rational Religion
Natural Selection?
Atheism and Chance
Kant on Compatibilism
What Kind of Person Are You?
Transcendental Freedom
Automata
The Newton of the Mind
The Sophists
The Darwinist Fallacy
The Causal Flow
The Existential Deception
Science = Sophistry
Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics
C. S. Lewis
Life without Free Will
The Nature of Reason
Plato versus Science
The Harris Fallacy
The Two-Stage Model of Free Will
Behaviourism
Humans and Hidden Variables
Flying Transcendence
The Irrational Ones
The Disaster
The Error
Conclusion

Citation preview

The Sam Harris Delusion M P

H H

B

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

Table of Contents The Sam Harris Delusion Table of Contents Introduction The Copy Without An Original? The Freedom Double Whammy Mythos Madness Mythos and Logos The Denial The Soul Atom The Question Free Will and Abrahamism Christian Freedom? The Science Delusion Neuroscience Where’s the Evidence? Eastern Wisdom? Free Will and Sam Harris Sam Harris Contra Free Will The Unconscious Daniel Dennett The Libet Experiment

The Language Deception Living in the Past? The Two-Stage Model of Free Will The Free Will Illusion Karma Different Types of Atheist Science versus Pseudoscience The Betrayal of Reason Capitalism and Science Randomness Seeing is Believing The Cure for Science The Design Flaw What’s the Point? Horizontal and Vertical Causation The Karma Delusion The Epistemic Fallacy Revelation? The Cosmological Argument The Insult Failure To Launch Manmade Global Warming?

“Scenario Fulfilment” An Inconvenient Truth Aunt Sally The Skeptics The Useful Errors Nietzsche on Cause and Effect Atheism = Nihilism The Parable of the Madman by Nietzsche The Formula for Success Ragnarok The Hollow Men The Proper Definition of Atheism Mind Blindness The Soul Equation Nescience The Perversion of Language Souldust or Stardust? Prophecy? End the Madness Mind Phase Are you Enlightened? Satisfaction?

The Smart Ones Enlightenment The Miracle Video Games The Mysterians Peer Review The Killers The Scientific Inquisition In the Name of God The Four Ways Monsters The Cosmic Murderer God’s Truth? The Multi-Denial Evil Atoms The Wisdom of Murphy’s Law (Arthur Bloch) Your Story The Shooters Mummies Ritual Zombie Ideas The Tree of Life or Death?

The Abandonment Teleology Darwinism versus Hegelianism Lamarckian Evolution Dogs Scientism Kant’s Third Antinomy (of Freedom) Evolution and Chance The Unwisdom of Sam Harris The Blind Leading the Blind The Cult of Sam Harris Rational Religion Natural Selection? Atheism and Chance Kant on Compatibilism What Kind of Person Are You? Transcendental Freedom Automata The Newton of the Mind The Sophists The Darwinist Fallacy The Causal Flow

The Existential Deception Science = Sophistry Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics C. S. Lewis Life without Free Will The Nature of Reason Plato versus Science The Harris Fallacy The Two-Stage Model of Free Will Behaviourism Humans and Hidden Variables Flying Transcendence The Irrational Ones The Disaster The Error Conclusion

Introduction There are two kinds of intellectual: Philosophers and Sophists. The former seek the absolute truth while the latter seek the “practical” truth that brings them worldly prestige and success. The Philosophers develop positions that rely on the highest intelligence and are as far removed as possible from the “common sense” of the mob. The common herd hold Philosophers in more or less complete contempt. The greatest Philosopher of all was Leibniz, a man unknown to the general public, and relatively obscure even within intellectual circles. Sophists are those who are forever invoking common sense arguments, making direct appeals to the mob, producing arguments based on sensory “evidence” (which they regard as unarguable truth rather than highly arguable interpretation), and who rubbish all reference to an invisible noumenal world of things in themselves underlying the phenomenal world of appearances. Precisely for these reasons, the weak-minded are far more influenced by Sophists than Philosophers, to the severe detriment of the intellectual progress of humanity. Philosophers have a position based on rationalism, idealism, metaphysics and mathematics, while Sophists hold a position reflecting empiricism, materialism, physics and science. One of the most prominent Sophists in today’s world is Sam Harris, an American controversialist who supports scientism, atheism, and the claim that free will is illusory. All of his positions are closely connected, and the purpose of this book is to expose the fallacies that lie at the heart of the Sophists’ worldview, and Harris’s in particular. Ultimately, the difference between Philosophy and Sophistry reduces to the difference between mathematics and science, and how each relates to ultimate reality. Even many professional mathematicians perceive math as a weird abstraction with no connection to the real world, while science is seen as giving us substantive knowledge of reality. In fact, science is the systematic misinterpretation of mathematics through the distorting lens of the human senses. Mathematics describes the world of noumena – things in themselves, shorn of any appearance. Science describes the world of phenomena – things as they appear to our senses. Science is nothing but sensory

mathematics: mathematics processed, interpreted and understood via the senses. Mathematics is what underlies and underpins science, hence it’s no surprise to find mathematics at the core of science, and that the deeper science probes reality, the more mathematical it becomes. M-theory – a candidate for science’s “theory of everything” – is an enormously complex quasi-mathematical theory, more complex than mathematics itself! The Absolute Truth of existence is what is left precisely when you remove the delusional, fallible, unreliable human senses from consideration, leaving nothing but hyperrationalist, a priori, analytic, noumenal, ontological, deductive mathematics, which reflects the eternal truths of reason and the principle of sufficient reason. Sam Harris is on the side of science, empiricism and materialism, hence wholly opposed to the rationalist, mathematical worldview. Many people believe that science and religion are the two great enemies. In fact, mathematics offers complete support for a transcendental religious view – predicated not on “God” but on the immortal, indestructible soul (the mathematical monad = a Fourier frequency singularity) – and mathematical rationalism is the true opposite of scientific empiricism. In quantum mechanics (QM), a rigorous, rationalist mathematical treatment leads to a deterministic system based on analytic, mathematical “hidden variables” (involving complex numbers and autonomous, immaterial, monadic Fourier frequency domains outside space and time). The standard scientific view of quantum mechanics is, however, that there are no mathematical hidden variables of any kind, and scientific QM thus supports a fundamentally indeterministic worldview. (Ironically, the QM wavefunction itself is a formally unobservable hidden variable, but scientists never comment on this fatal logical contradiction in their worldview.) In other words, mathematics and science are 100% opposed and imply 100% different ontologies and epistemologies. Mathematics, considered ontologically, is totally causal and deterministic. Modern science, on the other hand, is totally acausal and indeterministic. Logically, they have completely parted company with each other. Science needs to return to what it was classically – a deterministic subject – and that can be accomplished only by abandoning the failed ideology of empiricism and materialism, turning instead to rationalism and idealism, which means embracing rational, mathematical hidden variables. To adopt mathematical hidden variables is to leave science behind and

switch to mathematics outright. That’s the only way to save science ... by converting it to ontological mathematics. It’s intellectually offensive to find scientific empiricists and materialists such as Sam Harris laying claim to math and reason when in fact any philosophical analysis shows that the mathematical and scientific understandings of reality are diametrically opposed. Math is all about rationalism, while science is all about empiricism, and these two positions have been at war since the ancient Greeks (especially in the person of Plato, on the side of rationalism, and Aristotle on the side of empiricism). The conflict became even more polarised following the work of Descartes who famously divided the world into mind (unextended substance) and matter (extended substance). The rationalists and idealists took the mental domain as fundamental, and the material domain as its product, i.e. they got rid of Cartesian dualism by asserting that matter was really a particular manifestation of mind. The empiricists and materialists took the opposite view and regarded matter as fundamental, with mind as an illusion or epiphenomenon of matter. Ontological mathematics lines up with the mental, intellectual worldview, and science with the material, sensory worldview, and thus they are direct enemies. The supreme irony, of course, is that science would be hocus pocus without math, and is wholly unable to explain why an empiricist subject predicated on observations of the world has as its engine the quintessential rationalist subject (math), which involves no observations of the world at all. This fundamental contradiction is immediately apparent to Philosophers, but the Sophists – such as Sam Harris – ignore it since they have no interest in the Truth, but only in what worldly success and power science can bring them. There’s nothing more cynical than science, a subject that purports to tell the human race about reality, but can’t even explain what mathematics is and why an empiricist subject (science) relies on math, the most rationalist of all disciplines. Sam Harris waffles on about free will being illusory and never once sees fit to challenge the central contradiction of science – the presence of unexplained mathematics at its core. How can Harris make any claims on behalf of science if he’s either unaware or heedless that ontological mathematics provides an entirely different conception of reality, without any of science’s fatal inconsistencies? This is the classic stance of sophistry

– rushing forward to make populist arguments while failing to address any of the disastrous assumptions deployed by science in the first place. To make comments on free will is to imply that you understand the ultimate way that reality is configured (because how can you make statements for or against free will if you are ignorant of how reality is constituted?), but this automatically means that you must be able to specify what role mathematics plays in reality. Neither science in general, nor Harris in particular, has ever defined what mathematics is ontologically. Given that the existence of free will, or otherwise, depends entirely on the ontology of mathematics, to know nothing about ontological mathematics is to have nothing valid to say about free will. Gödel proved that all approaches to defining mathematics – other than that proceeding by way of ontology – are incomplete and/or inconsistent. Science itself is just a special kind of applied mathematics and it too falls into Gödel’s trap because it uses math, yet not in an ontological manner. This means that all statements made by science are incomplete and/or inconsistent. Indeed, the history of science shows that it’s an ever-moving target. Countless theories have come and gone, countless more will come and go, and there will never be any end to this process. All scientific theories are required to be “falsifiable” and that ipso facto means that none can be true since Truth, by definition, is unfalsifiable. Equally, all scientific theories are required to be verifiable, but nothing can ever definitively verify any scientific theory, and Truth is not in any case something that requires any synthetic a posteriori verification, only analytic a priori proof – the complete opposite! Science is a pragmatic, instrumental subject. It’s the science of appearances, not the science of ultimate reality, of things as they are in themselves, beyond appearance. Only ontological mathematics can address that noumenal, hidden reality. Science is undeniably good at producing theories that allow us to manipulate the “seen world”, but it’s just as bad at producing theories that allow us to manipulate the “unseen world” – which is the religious world in which humanity has always been most interested. All scientific arguments are mired in contingency, interpretation, hypothesis, conjecture, belief and opinion. If you find such arguments compelling, it’s because you too are a Sophist and not a Philosopher. Philosophers seek definitive, absolute, infallible knowledge. They aren’t

interested in arguments predicated on human experiences, senses, feelings, faith, meditation and introspection. It’s reason or nothing. A rationalist will never find any empiricist argument convincing or compelling. This book is about using philosophy and rationalism to obliterate Sam Harris’s sophistry and empiricism. He relies on science, and we rely on ontological mathematics. It’s the senses versus reason. Which side would you rather be on? Let battle commence!

The Copy Without An Original? Can the universe simulate something that doesn’t exist? If the universe doesn’t know what freedom is (because freedom does not and cannot exist, as Harris contends), how can it create the illusion of free will? How can you create a simulation, copy or simulacrum of something if you don’t first have the thing itself? Imagine that the world were entirely deterministic. How could you simulate indeterminism in such a system? The universe wouldn’t know what indeterminism was in the first place in order to have the capacity to create the illusion of it. Yet this is the type of lunatic assertion made by the likes of Harris when they argue that the illusion of free will is real while free will itself is unreal. In a world devoid of free will, how could the illusion of free will ever emerge? It has no conceivable basis or precedent. In a world purely of green things, how could the illusion of red things arise? It’s formally impossible. Occam’s Razor forbids us from multiplying entities unnecessarily, yet this is what free will deniers do when they insist that free will doesn’t exist, yet the illusion of free will does. Rationally, if there’s no free will, there can be no illusion of it either. Equally, if there’s no determinism, there can be no illusion of determinism. If the universe isn’t rational, there can be no illusion that it is. And if the universe weren’t mathematical, it would be impossible for us to use mathematics to describe it so accurately. A worldview such as that of Harris suggests that the universe, to use a postmodernist phrase, is making copies without originals. It’s simulating things that don’t exist. Where in any equation or law of science is this creative ability to fantasise and deceive? To deny free will while accepting the illusion of free will amounts to a kind of insanity. You can’t have copies without an original. You can’t have things that are like things that don’t

exist. You can’t have illusions of things that don’t exist. It would be impossible to imagine that we are free if there is in fact no such thing as freedom. There could be no basis for the belief, no possible reality from which the illusion could be projected or take hold. If we don’t have freedom, there is no way we could delude ourselves that we do. The concept wouldn’t occur to us. It would never enter the “mind” of a computer executing a program that it could do something contrary to its programming. That concept could not exist for it. There is no code for it. All arguments denying free will are specious and fallacious manipulations of language, attempting to demonstrate that a human program carrying out predetermined steps could conceive the belief that it might do something differently. On what basis would this belief arise? Where is there any scope for it or source for it? What circumstances could possibly trigger it? How can an entity inexorably carrying out predetermined steps conceive the notion that there are other, non-determined steps it might execute? The deniers – such as Harris – never say. Plato asserted that ultimate reality is all about perfect Forms. Everything in the sensible world was, he said, an inferior copy of a Form or Idea in the intelligible world. Sam Harris has abolished the perfect domain of Forms, yet has continued to endorse Plato’s imperfect simulacra in the sensible world. So, there is no Platonic Form of Free Will, but there’s a pointless, illusory copy of this non-existent Form! Work that one out.

***** To reiterate, why would the universe create the illusion of something without the thing itself? How would it even know what illusion to create? What would the illusion be modelled on? What is Sam Harris’s illusion of free will an illusion of, given that he claims that free will doesn’t and can’t exist? How can something inherently unfree have the experience of being free? What does that claim even mean? Freedom is such a singular, unmistakable thing, that the experience of freedom can only mean that freedom actually exists. This is a zero-sum game. If the experience of freedom exists, free will is true. If free will doesn’t exist, there can be no experience or illusion of free will either. Either you have freedom or you don’t. You can’t have the illusory experience of freedom in a world without freedom.

Go and ask anyone in jail if their imprisonment is just an illusion. After all, if freedom is an illusion, so is imprisonment, since if you don’t have true freedom nor can you have the true denial of freedom in a jail cell. It’s all just an illusory state of mind. Would Sam Harris like to explain how everyone in jail is as free as everyone not in jail, since freedom is nothing but an illusion? Not many prisoners would agree with his arguments.

Simple Logic If X doesn’t exist, not-X can’t exist either. If there were no belief in God, there could be no atheists either. If freedom does not exist, not-freedom cannot exist. The dialectic opposes a real antithesis to a real thesis. It doesn’t create antitheses to theses that don’t exist. Sam Harris claims that even though freedom does not exist, the illusion of freedom can exist. How? If freedom does not exist, on what is the illusion of freedom based? When people in a desert see mirages and hallucinate that there’s an oasis just ahead, they at least know that oases are real things, hence there really could be an oasis just ahead. How could you hallucinate freedom if there’s nothing in the world to which it corresponds? Just to contemplate freedom means that freedom exists since you could not contemplate such a concept if it were absent from the world. The same goes for God. You could not contemplate God unless there was some basis for this concept. The basis for a perfect God is in fact a perfect God Equation, defining perfect ontological mathematics. Religion is simply the personification and anthropomorphication of perfection. Without actual perfection, there could never be any notion of God. As Descartes argued, a cause must have at least as much reality as an effect. For us to be able to contemplate perfection must mean that perfection exists; otherwise, thinking about perfection (the effect) would have no cause (perfection itself). We would be able to contemplate things that don’t exist, but, as Parmenides pointed out, it’s impossible to think or talk about what does not exist. Go ahead, try and think about something to which you can assign no properties or qualities because it doesn’t exist. The error of mainstream religion is to see perfection in Mythos rather than Logos terms, as a person rather than as a system. All of the classical arguments concerning the proof of the existence of God can simply be redeployed to prove the existence of a God Equation. As soon as God is no

longer conceived as an eternal, invisible Sky Being and Creator, it ceases to be intellectually offensive and simply becomes a consideration of analytic mathematics, the most rational enterprise you can undertake.

***** Sam Harris attempts to contradict Descartes by claiming that we can think about free will (the effect), without there actually being any free will (the cause). In this case, an illusion is said to exist (the illusion of free will), but not the thing of which it’s an illusion (free will itself).

The Freedom Double Whammy Sam Harris denies that free will exists and says that it’s an illusion. However, that means that he’s also claiming that whenever we do not feel free then that’s also an illusion. After all, if there’s no freedom then the notion that we are unfree must be just as illusory as the notion that we are free since you can’t feel unfree unless you’re comparing it with the state of being free. So, Harris has to explain not only why freedom is an illusion but why we can turn this illusion on and off, i.e. why is it that we only feel free sometimes (when we imagine that we ourselves are choosing what we do, although, of course, it’s Harris’s thesis that we are never in fact choosing anything and what we think we “chose” was inevitable all along), and at other times we feel unfree (when we imagine that we are being prevented from doing what we would otherwise choose to do). If we are unfree at all times – because freedom simply does not exist – is it not then an extraordinary fact that sometimes we think we are free (when we are the supposed authors of the decisions that affect us) and sometimes we think we are not free (when others are plainly the authors of the decisions that affect us). Why should our illusion of freedom be so specific, so well matched to the set of circumstances? That is, why should we feel free when a particular set of criteria play out, and not when a different set apply? If free will is an illusion, corresponding to nothing real, why don’t we have a universal experience of this illusion of free will, i.e. why don’t we feel free no matter if we are deciding for ourselves, or others are deciding for us? After all, it’s all just an illusion, allegedly. Why is the illusion only turned on in certain situations, and why, astoundingly, is it turned off in others? How can an illusion have an on/off switch ... a very

precise on/off button? Since when have hallucinators been able to turn off their hallucinations in an exact, systematic manner? The reason why we experience dreaming and waking differently is that they are ontologically different states. If there is no difference between “free” and “unfree” states – because freedom does not exist – how have we managed to construct a systematic illusion that corresponds exactly to the philosophical position known as compatibilism, where free will and determinism can rationally co-exist without contradiction? All that is required for compatibilism to be true is that free will and determinism should both be governed by an identical equation, and this is exactly what ontological mathematics supplies via the God Equation. This operates individually (which is when it supports free will), and collectively (which is when it supports scientific determinism), and the two modes are of course compatible due to their underlying mathematical commonality. To be more exact, free will relates to autonomous, immaterial Fourier frequency domains (souls), outside space and time, while scientific determinism relates to the material Fourier spacetime domain that the monads collectively construct, and which no monad can individually, freely control (since it’s up against all other monads). The most it can do is direct the actions of the physical body it individually controls in spacetime. Harris strenuously argues against compatibilism, yet is in fact arguing for his own illusory version of compatibilism, i.e. the illusion that we have free will must be compatible with the equal illusion that we do not have free will (when we are in jail, for example) because otherwise we would be insane, thinking ourselves free in situations where no rational person would ever say we were. Or is Harris arguing that if we are put behind bars, we suddenly and miraculously perceive the “reality” that we are not free and never have been? Yet, the illusion kicks in again as soon as we are released! Imagine that we randomly (indeterministically) experienced the illusion of freedom. We could be sitting in a prison cell thinking ourselves unfree, and then, an instant later, be convinced we were in fact free. This illusion of free will – as it operates in reality – has to be remarkably consistent and know when to turn itself off, and it does so exactly in those situations where we could not objectively consider ourselves free. Harris’s thesis is bizarre. Invoking Occam’s Razor, it’s much easier to conclude that when we experience freedom it’s because we are genuinely free, and when we don’t experience freedom it’s because we are genuinely

not free. What could be simpler? We don’t have to invent any theories about the mysterious operations of illusions. Harris can’t explain why if freedom is an illusion, that illusion does not apply permanently. If we are in fact as unfree out of jail as we are in jail, why should the illusion of freedom turn itself on when we leave jail? How can an illusion judge when to turn itself off, and, moreover, turn itself back on again, in exactly the right pattern that corresponds to what any rational person would regard as the genuine existence of freedom. This is the most complex illusion imaginable – and much harder to explain than actual freedom! But Harris is of course a fundamentalist scientific materialist atheist and nihilist who believes in a purposeless, meaningless, pointless world, and freedom totally contradicts everything he believes in, hence he has no option but to deny that it is real. Harris reasons backwards. He starts with his materialist conclusion that freedom is false, and, from then on, he’s committed to explaining away our real experience of freedom as an illusion. It never once occurs to him to start from the position that freedom is actually true. No materialist with any degree of consistency can ever defend the concept of free will. Free will is true only in an idealist universe of eternal souls (inherently uncreated, uncaused causes), and no materialist will ever accept that worldview!

Mythos Madness Aldous Huxley said, “Man is so intelligent that he feels impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic.” Man can’t see causes, so he invents theories of causation, or, in the case of the empiricism of David Hume and modern science, denies that causation exists at all, which in fact is just another theory of causation, namely anti-causation or non-causation. Classical science was ultra deterministic and proposed rigid laws as the basis of causation. Modern science has replaced deterministic laws with statistical and probabilistic laws, in which causation has been formally eliminated, i.e. we cannot identify any specific cause and its specific, mandatory effect. Religion has provided the most insane theories of causation, including unseen spirits (animism), an unseen God

(Abrahamism), unseen karma (Hinduism and Buddhism), and unseen love or cosmic consciousness (New Ageism). Once a Mythos belief has been constructed and accepted, it’s then fantastically difficult to overthrow. As James Harvey Robinson said, “Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.” In philosophy, Schopenhauer replaced “God” with an invisible cosmic Will as the cause of everything. Nietzsche proposed an unseen Will to Power. In psychology, Freud gave causal agency to an unseen personal unconscious, and Jung extended that to an unseen Collective Unconscious. Humanity has proved adept at inventing causes and inept at understanding actual causation. Actual causation derives entirely from noumenal, ontological mathematics. For the universe to be rational – which it is – it must be grounded in systematic, ubiquitous, flawless, rational causation, and only perfect analytic mathematics provides this. Modern science emphatically doesn’t, and it’s impossible to comprehend how science imagines it can explain an ordered, rational universe on the basis of randomness, chance, chaos, indeterminism, acausality and “spontaneous creation” (as opposed to causal creation). It’s an unquestionable fact that we can’t perceive causation. It’s not sensible. It is, however, entirely intelligible, and thus we can work out what it is, and how it operates, via our mathematical reason. Causation is not mystical, emotional or sensory. It’s wholly rational, wholly mathematical ... wholly mental! It’s easy to understand reality when you eliminate all Mythos explanations based on feelings and faith (Abrahamism), mystical intuition (Eastern religion), and the senses (science). All that remains is reason, and that’s the correct answer. Reason never errs, as long as it’s expressed mathematically, and is not pressed into the service of Mythos, of the feelings, mystical intuitions or the senses. As Virgil said, “Happy the man who has been able to learn the causes of things.” Only ontological mathematicians can be justifiably happy. All the rest of humanity are lying to themselves. They don’t want to see the truth, or are too stupid to see it. It’s ironic that Harris refers to free will being illusory since the supreme illusion is in fact the scientific materialist one in which he believes. It generates its illusion by misinterpreting mathematics in terms of the contingent, fallible, delusional senses. The senses themselves are the

authors of Maya ... illusion. Maya is overcome by overcoming our devotion to the senses, and then the Truth is revealed to our liberated, rational minds. That’s when we become “enlightened”. Either free will or materialism is illusory and the task is to rationally work out the answer. Ontological mathematics supports free will as real, and shows that materialism is just a projection of Fourier minds, hence is illusory, albeit a well-founded, rational, mathematical illusion.

***** Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.” Strong men know that ontological mathematics defines causation. Shallow men – scientists – believe in luck (chance, accident). Religious men – hollow men – believe in Mythos causes and Mythos effects (magic, witchcraft, superstition, gods, demons and devils). Are you deep or shallow? Go on, explain causation!

***** Blaise Pascal said, “Reason is the slow and torturous method by which those who do not know the truth discover it.” Don’t kid yourself. There are no short cuts. There are no easy paths. Only hard, challenging, daunting mathematical reasoning can allow you to discover the truth of existence. Humanity has much preferred the easy path, the path of least resistance. All too often, humanity has chosen the Mythos, religious path: the path of stories, or feelings, or mystical intuitions. Or the scientific path of the senses. It has never accepted the mathematical path of Truth, the path paved with reason and logic. Marcus Aurelius astutely said, “He is a true fugitive who flies from reason.” Everyone other than ontological mathematicians is a fugitive. Maya ensnares everyone who rejects Reason.

The Concept The concept of the illusion of free will has all the same properties as the concept of free will, while simply removing the actuality of free will. Yet in a universe without any actual freedom, how could the illusion of freedom exist? How can we experience freedom if it doesn’t exist? It’s impossible.

The notion that you can have the experience of freedom without the actuality of freedom is incoherent. When it comes to freedom, the experience of freedom is freedom. You can imagine an oasis that isn’t there. You can’t, however, experience freedom if freedom isn’t there. Kant argued that the concept of a hundred thalers (German coins) that don’t exist is exactly the same as the concept of a hundred thalers that do exist. He wrote, “A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers. For as the latter signify the concept, and the former the object and the positing of the object, should the former contain more than the latter, my concept would not, in that case, express the whole object, and would not therefore be an adequate concept of it. (...) For the object, as it actually exists is not analytically contained in my concept, but is added to my concept ... synthetically; and yet the conceived hundred thalers are not themselves in the least increased through thus acquiring existence outside my concept.” In other words, existence does not add to or subtract from the concept, it merely instantiates it. Thus, Kant concluded, existence is not a predicate. When we apply the same reasoning to Harris’s claim that free will is illusory, we arrive at the following: the concept of “real” free will and the concept of “illusory” free will are in fact exactly the same; however, according to Harris, real free will can never be instantiated, while unreal (illusory) free will can be instantiated. In Kantian terms, this amounts to arguing that existence is a predicate since things can be instantiated in either an unreal (illusory) way or a real way reflecting actual existence. But how are we supposed to tell the difference? If a hundred imaginary thalers can be instantiated just as well (or better!) as a hundred real thalers – and treated as real things – what’s the difference between them? If imaginary free will has all the same characteristics as real free will, why are we calling it imaginary? If someone says he freely chose X rather than Y, why would we doubt him? Moreover, what would our doubt mean if, in fact, we, like him, had no free will? Doubt is as illusory as free will!

***** How can the thing not exist, and yet the illusion of the thing can exist? How can you have the illusion of something without first having the something, or something on which the illusion could be plausibly based? How can you have a copy without the original? How can you have an authentic fake?

Why did Nature decide not to implement freedom, but, rather, the illusion of freedom? Yet even to implement the illusion of freedom, you would first have to understand freedom, yet how can freedom be understood in an inherently unfree universe? The concept literally couldn’t be thought or conceived, so nor could the illusion!

Mythos and Logos Logos in ancient Greek had a variety of meanings: word, speech, discourse, argument, explanation, doctrine, esteem, numerical computation, measure, proportion, plea, principle, meaning, rational account, thought, reason (human or divine). It was always contrasted with Mythos. Mythos in ancient Greek meant speech, thought, story, myth, tale, account, anything delivered by word of mouth. It was always opposed to a rational explanation (Logos), which was usually based on writing things down. Mythos came first and Logos evolved from it, just as writing evolved from speech. Mythos was the “knowledge” contained in songs and oral stories, but not yet written down (because writing didn’t exist when humanity first became conscious). People had to memorise these songs, poems and stories if they wished to reproduce them. Logos originated with the advent of writing, i.e. it was defined by the written rather than spoken word. Writing changed human consciousness ineradicably. It allowed study and analysis. It broke the tyranny of the spoken voice, the storytelling voice. It gave humanity an external memory that anyone who could read could consult at any time. Mythos was concerned with faith, while Logos was concerned with reason, and thus with truth and reality ... with this world rather than the unseen, mythic world of the gods. Logos came to be associated with the rules governing physics, and, in due course, the rules governing metaphysics. Then it came to be associated with God, with the “Word of God”. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is actually referred to as the Logos. This is one of the supreme ironies given that Christian faith is the opposite of reason.

*****

For the Greeks, Mythos and Logos defined two different aspects of the world: the unknowable and the knowable, the world of faith, and the world of reason (knowledge). Of necessity, these are dialectical enemies (thesis and antithesis) in a zero-sum game. As the domain of Logos expands, that of Mythos shrinks, and vice versa. It’s catastrophic for Mythos to be associated in any way with Truth, yet all mainstream religions have made exactly this association, and have rejected Logos truth – the real truth. Mythos has only one place in human affairs: entertainment ... Hollywood.

***** Some commentators have said that Heraclitus regarded Logos as a material force related to fire, which gave (and gives) rational order to the universe. Like the Nous of Anaxagoras, this could be regarded as a force rapidly approaching pure Mind – the force of mental reason, order and organisation. This force is now seen to be none other than ontological mathematics. To put it another way, reason and intellect constitute a force every bit as real as gravity, and conveyed mathematically, just like gravity. In fact, gravity and all other “scientific” forces are simply different manifestations of this single force of Logos/Nous – the grand unified force of mathematics. Mathematics provides our thoughts about the universe, the rational structure of the universe, and the source of that structure, the arche. The laws of the mathematics are the changeless something from which all change emanates, and which Mythos types have, in their ignorance, called “God”.

The Denial Science denies any eternal, rational order, whether God or Math. It denies causation and determinism. This is what you subscribe to if you become a believer in the religion of scientific materialism (scientism).

The Soul Atom Imagine how much the world would change if it were accepted that there’s a Soul Atom (the monad), with atomic number zero, which comes before hydrogen in the Periodic Table of Chemistry.

The Soul Atom is the mind; hydrogen is the first material atom, the firstborn of mind. The Soul Atom is dimensionless, hydrogen dimensional. It’s all in the math!

The Question If free will is absent from Nature, why would Nature conspire to make the illusion of free will present? Why would unfree, deterministic, uncreative Nature, freely, indeterministically, creatively and inexplicably invent illusions? Explaining the illusion of free will is infinitely harder than simply accepting free will as real! Here’s a task for all deniers of free will. Instead of trawling for arguments against free will, why don’t you advance a case for why Nature conspires to create the pointless illusion of free will? You can be certain of one thing. This is a zero-sum game. If free will is not an illusion then idealism is true and scientific materialism is ipso facto false. That’s why scientific materialists hate free will so much. It spells the end of their false rule. The deniers should forget the existence of free will (which they deny in any case) and instead explain how and why lifeless, mindless, material atoms assemble themselves into biological machines that suffer from an absolutely redundant and useless delusion that they are free? Good luck with that, Sam Harris and all your loyal disciples!

***** To repeat the question, if free will does not exist, why does unfree Nature seek to pointlessly simulate this non-existent thing? How does it even know what to simulate since there is no such thing? What is accomplished? It might be said that if nothing is free then Nature itself is compelled to produce the illusion of freedom since, apparently, it has no freedom not to do so (!). This means that Nature must have, as one of its properties, the generation of delusions that have no bearing on reality. And that means that anyone who holds this position has thereby denied the possibility of gleaning any truth at all from Nature. Nature, it seems, is a born liar. It exists to deceive us. Go on, Sam Harris, explain it to us! Enlighten us.

Sam Harris is about as useful as the Buddha at explaining reality to us, and that’s no use at all. Eastern religion is of course predicated on Nature actively deceiving us, of deliberately (rather than accidentally) presenting an illusion (Maya) to us. No wonder so many scientific materialists love Eastern religion so much. They’re singing from the same hymn sheet. Just ask “spiritual” Sam Harris.

***** Scientific materialists such as Sam Harris are the sort of people who would deny that the colour blue exists. They would point out that colour blind people can’t see blue, that colour is classed as a secondary and not primary property of matter (hence is merely caused by matter but does not exist in matter), that people experience blue subjectively and no two people can know they are having the same experience of blue. The materialists could no doubt advance a whole host of specious arguments of exactly the kind they deploy against free will, and convince all of the weak-minded masses that there is no such thing as blue. Yet they would still be absolutely wrong because we all experience the colour blue, hence we all know it exists.

Free Will People who deny that we have free will – the ability to make our own choices for our own reasons – have abandoned the power of reason. There are no rational arguments at all for the denial of free will unless you are claiming that we live in a meaningless machine universe – programmed since the beginning of time – and that we suffer from an inexplicable and extraordinary delusion that we could do x rather than y, when, in fact, we were always going to do x no matter what. Are we androids rather than humans with no choice at all regarding what we do? Or perhaps we are random behaviour generators that do things for no reasons. You couldn’t get any position more opposed to ours than one that denies that we have free will. If we have no free will, it means that we live in a machine world ordained at the beginning of time, or a randomist world where things happen miraculously, for no reason. A liberal atheist such as Sam Harris who denies free will yet condemns Islam is no better morally than a Jihadist who beheads people. After all, both are machines subject to inevitable

forces. If Sam Harris doesn’t have free will then nor is he free to condemn Islamic Fundamentalism. The fact that he does, was, given his belief system, inevitable since the Big Bang, or happened through random processes, and was nothing to do with him. Equally, the Jihadist could never have chosen not to behead people since he’s just a machine for whom no choice has ever existed. A universe without free will is by definition a meaningless, purposeless universe with no possible point to it, exactly as all scientific materialists have concluded. The meaning of life is the one we which freely chose to invest in it, but if we have no choice then we can give it no meaning, or only a programmed, illusory meaning, which is no meaning at all. Can a computer assign meaning to the universe? On what basis? If we have no free will, if hard determinism is true, everyone is simply acting out a script, and every opinion expressed by everyone is not an opinion at all but a statement prepared at the Big Bang, billions of years before the first person even existed. There is in fact only one occasion when we don’t have free will – at the conclusion of a Cosmic Age when the Force of Reason acts irreversibly to impose Absolute Reason on everyone, whether they like it or not. Reason – expressed through ontological mathematics – is as much a cosmic force as gravity or anti-gravity. In fact, reason could be regarded as the mental aspect of gravity – that which draws things together and unites them, while unreason is anti-gravity, driving people apart in terms of individual faith, opinion, belief and interpretation. What is the self-evident refutation of the denial of free will, apart from our own unarguable conscious experience that we are not in any way constrained to act in one particular way? It’s the fact that decisions take time. If we were devoid of free will, all decisions would be made instantaneously since there’s nothing to prevent immediate decisionmaking, Our decision-making is often slow exactly because we are weighing every angle using our free will. Free will slows down thinking because it generates viable alternatives, which we then have to ponder and evaluate before deciding what to do.

Free Will and Abrahamism

Some people think that free will is the essence of Abrahamism. On what planet? Abrahamism asserts the existence of a Creator God who made each and every one of us. Therefore, we are entirely dependent on him and caused by him, hence we can have no autonomy and no free will. God is alleged to have complete foreknowledge of what we will do. Again, this cannot be consistent with free will. In Christianity, the whole of humanity – including all unborn generations – are branded with Original Sin by God, i.e. a collective punishment is administered to humanity for the actions of Adam and Eve. An ineradicable stain is imposed on every soul. This is entirely inconsistent with free will and personal moral responsibility i.e. with being accountable for our own actions and not those of others. If the sons are punished for the sins of the fathers, there is no free will since we cannot control the behaviour of others. According to many Protestant sects, our fates were determined at the beginning of time (predestination), before we’d been born, before we’d done a single thing. This is absolutely incompatible with free will. According to Christianity, we need God’s “grace” before we can do anything good, and otherwise we are irredeemably evil. We are simply incapable of good works. This utterly contradicts free will. According to Islam, all things are the will of Allah, a position that cannot accommodate free will. The medieval Crusaders also said, “God wills it.” If God wills it, and not us, then there is no free will (except in the unique and inexplicable case of God). It’s absurd to assert that Abrahamism is based on free will. In fact, it’s based on the same denial of free will to which Sam Harris subscribes. Where Harris says we are the puppets of scientific forces, Abrahamism says we are the puppets of God. Either way, we are not free, and not in control of our destiny. Science is simply religion with a deterministic God replaced with deterministic (or indeterministic) laws of science. Abrahamists and scientists alike despise free will. Anyone who supported free will would never posit a Creator God – a single first cause – and nor would they support objective, external scientific laws with no conceivable subjective, private, internal, or individual aspects. As for Karmism being based on free will, what a joke! We are all either paying for our karmic misdeeds of past lives, or being rewarded for our karmic good deeds of past lives. In other words, we are the puppets of

deterministic karmic forces from the past that prevent us from having free will in the present.

Christian Freedom? Christians have no freedom because they are told what to do, what to believe, and are commanded to always obey. The point of the tale of the Garden of Eden is that if you disobey God, you go to hell. Ergo, all Christians are never free to disobey God (if they wish to avoid hell), hence are puppets and slaves.

The Science Delusion “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: ‘you’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’ This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can be truly called astonishing.” – Francis Crick And astonishingly absurd. Can a “vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” behave? Can lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms with no desires, will or agency behave? In what conceivable way? Francis Crick – one of the Nobel Prize winners for discovering the structure of DNA – never suggested a mechanism for how lumps of matter are able to create life and generate purposeful minds. Because people such as Crick are materialist fundamentalists, they simply believe it must be true that life and mind come from matter. They refuse to consider any other possibilities. If all you’ve got is matter then plainly life, mind, consciousness, purpose, and free will (or the illusion thereof) cannot be “explained” in any other way than materially. The fact that no connection whatsoever can be made between matter and any of these mental things is disregarded. Materialists are left to claim that all of these things inexplicably “emerge” from matter. They might as well invoke magic and miracles ... or even God! It couldn’t be any crazier.

Do neurons tell us what to do? That’s what people such as Harris, Dawkins and Crick claim. Who has the intelligence – us, or our neurons?!

Authorship Are you the author of your own life, or merely a puppet or actor performing a pre-written role? Sam Harris asserts the latter, but that means that he himself isn’t actually making any arguments, but merely mouthing words put in his mouth by scientific determinism.

Neuroscience “...the classical notion of conscious free will [is that] conscious thoughts cause our brain activity, which produces our actions.” – Patrick Haggard (neuroscientist), UCL So, what about the classical notion of unconscious free will, and that our unconscious thoughts cause our brain activity even more so than our conscious thoughts? “I don’t believe in free will because I can’t. As a neuroscientist, you can’t really believe in free will. The key brain event is the firing of a nerve impulse in a neuron and it obeys the classical laws of physics.” – Patrick Haggard For neuroscientists such as Haggard (and Sam Harris), the mind is just the software that runs on the hardware of the brain. However, it’s not at all clear what this means. Brains made of atoms are material objects. Where exactly is the software? Who writes it? Where is it stored? What language is it written in? How is it accessed and run? The analogy collapses as soon as you drill into it. The claim being made is either that there’s an untenable Cartesian dualism involving software and hardware, and they can miraculously interact, or that software miraculously emerges from hardware and writes itself, using some magical, unexplained process.

Hard Determinism If hard determinism is true, we have no choice about what we believe. But that means that those of us who accept the reality of free will have been

compelled to accept this delusion. Yet it also means that those who reject free will and “know” that it’s an illusion have equally been compelled to accept this “truth”. They didn’t arrive at it through any choice or analysis. It was literally just given to them by the laws of science. But this means that the laws of science are insane and actually indeterministic (contrary to the original assumption) since they can produce different, totally contradictory results, seemingly at random, with no rhyme nor reason. Hence the original thesis is false, and scientific hard determinism can be formally disproven by simple logic. If Nature is able to compel us (or some of us) to believe the opposite of what is true, how can we ever know anything for sure? Why should Nature deterministically provide some people with the “truth” (that hard determinism is true), and the vast majority with the “lie” (that free will is true). This is an infinitely greater mystery than simply accepting than free will is true! It violates Occam’s Razor by asserting that hard determinism somehow sets out to falsify itself in the minds of most people ruled by hard determinism! The very fact that some people can accept free will and others reject it is proof that hard determinism is false since hard deterministic laws couldn’t possibly generate two mutually exclusive outcomes. This means that either compatibilism or incompatibilism must be true.

Where’s the Evidence? What do people mean when they ask for “evidence” or “proof”? Almost invariably, they mean something that satisfies their senses or even feelings (a reassuring religious Mythos, for example). What they absolutely never accept as evidence or proof is an airtight rational or mathematical argument, which is regarded as some sort of abstraction or empty tautology with no bearing on reality. If Wittgenstein – a professional philosopher – couldn’t accept analysis rather than synthesis as the incontestable basis of existence, what hope for all the dunderheads infinitely less intelligent than Wittgenstein? The fact is, we can’t persuade irrational people of anything at all since they simply don’t accept reason as reality and are always seeking sensory and emotional solutions instead. There’s no point in arguing with such people. If they can’t

appreciate a rational proof, it’s not because the proof isn’t true, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand it. Reality is Reason. However, if you’re not rational, you will never grasp that. You will remain mired in empiricism, emotionalism and delusion forever, and, whenever anyone presents you with a rational proof, you will look at it in blank incomprehension or active disbelief, and say, “You haven’t proved anything.” Of course, we have. You haven’t understood the proof, and that’s because you’re not rational or intelligent enough. Proof is a purely intellectual activity. It has nothing to do with what you sense, what you feel, what you experience, what mystical intuitions you have, or any other irrational, Content-driven notions. When you ask for evidence or proof, where’s your evidence or proof that you have the vaguest idea what you’re talking about? Don’t appeal to some contemporary “authority” such as Sam Harris as your justification – just because you have similar opinions to him and like him. After all, where’s his evidence and proof? He doesn’t have any. Nothing he says is grounded in ontology, epistemology, rationalism or mathematics. Every argument he presents flows from fanatical materialism. Some people seem to regard Harris as “spiritual”. In what way can anyone who defends to the hilt scientific materialism be spiritual? Who cares if he “meditates”? What does meditation have to do with spirituality? If, as the result of your meditations, you reach the false, empiricist conclusions drawn by the likes of Sam Harris and the Buddha, what good is meditation? Ontological mathematics is an analytic system. If you can’t accept analysis as the truth, stop reading our books. You will never understand them. They are all about rational Form, pure Reason ... but you are locked into empirical Content, which is the other side of the coin from Reason, and entirely alienated from it. We can’t help you if you refuse to be rational, or are incapable of being rational. If reality has an answer then that answer must be analytic, providing a closed solution where everything proceeds by analysis of atomic, basis definitions in a system of pure tautology. If you reject this answer, you’re automatically swallowed by Nietzsche’s statement of unconditional skepticism: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” You have rejected reason and definitive answers and chosen to rely on opinions, conjectures, beliefs, and hypotheses that can never be proved true, by any means at all.

Nietzsche is a trillion times smarter than the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking. If you reject the rationalist world of ontological mathematics, you must embrace the skepticism of Nietzsche and David Hume, and stop pretending you have any knowledge at all. You know nothing, Jon Snow!

***** Stupid people say to us, “But you’re simply stating your own opinion. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your proof?” We ask all of these people whether the statement 1 + 1 = 2 is an opinion? If they say “yes” then they have denied any possibility of true knowledge, so all “evidence” and “proof” is never anything other than opinion, belief, guesswork and interpretation. If they say “no” then they have agreed that there’s a certain type of rational knowledge that transcends opinion ... and that’s the whole point of ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the ontological exploration of 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 – 2 = 0. What do such statements mean in terms of the fundamental basis of existence? That’s what ontological mathematics probes. We are not stating any kind of opinion. We are stating the eternal, unarguable, immutable, eternal, Platonic truths of reason, with which no rational person can argue. Only the irrational can take issue with such truths of reason, or regard them as non-ontological or abstract (unreal). We can lead you to the underlying, noumenal, ontological, mathematical world of absolute Truth. What we certainly can’t do is make you understand it, or accept it, or have any respect for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which governs the entirety of existence and is ontologically expressed through the mathematical God Equation. The Truth isn’t for everyone. If you’re not rational, it definitely isn’t for you. You will cling to all of your little Mythos beliefs, or your mystical “intuitions”, or the “evidence” of your unreliable, delusional senses. Sorry, we can’t help you. Our message is for rational people alone, and can be understood by rational people alone. The irrational will find every silly, spurious, specious, meretricious way to disregard what we say. They will turn, as usual, to Abrahamism, Karmism or scientific materialism. We don’t care about stupid people. The dialectic – the mathematical process that increases conscious reason in the world – will in the end destroy everyone who opposes reason. The Omega Point of the dialectic is

the Absolute State of Reason, where the Content of the universe has become perfectly aligned with its Form, where Absolute Knowledge is attained via perfect monadic, sinusoidal symmetry.

Eastern Wisdom? “Wisdom is not knowledge. It cannot be learned from books, for it is intuitive understanding that arises from close observation of experience. It is insight into reality, into the nature of things as they are.” – Eastern Mysticism Oops! Thus speaks the unadulterated gospel of empiricism! Wisdom is knowledge. It can and must be learned from books, from hard study, from education. It is not intuitive understanding. It is rational understanding, with intuition feeding into reason and not being separate from and independent of reason. Wisdom comes from close analysis of eternal truths of reason, and has nothing to do with experience, with interpretation, opinion, faith and the senses. Has any “wise” person ever understood quantum mechanics or ontological mathematics simply by closely observing experience? What does “observing experience” even mean? You can analyse your experiences for all eternity and still be no closer to the Truth. You are simply locked into Mythos, and Logos is as alien to you as it has always been. Have you had a thousand different experiences or the same experience a thousand times? You can never get any insight into the nature of things as they really are by ignoring books. Who are the people who have such contempt for books? They are those who are opposed to reason, intellect, philosophy and mathematics. Every great genius in the modern age has committed their thoughts to books. Only the biggest fools on earth would prefer to meditate under a tree rather than read those books. That’s the fast track to unenlightenment, ignorance and self-delusion. Reason tells us what reality is. Nothing else does. The Buddha certainly doesn’t. He didn’t read nearly enough books! The people who say that wisdom isn’t knowledge are those who hate intellectualism, and want to claim to be learned while doing none of the hard intellectual graft that learning truly requires.

Zen Zen Buddhism is all about meditation. One of its tricks is to use paradoxical riddles to sidestep rational thought and thus achieve, supposedly, “sudden enlightenment”. The insane hypothesis here is that it’s rational thought that’s blocking your path to wisdom and understanding. The exact reverse is true. It’s your irrational thoughts that are your worst enemy ... it’s your Zen Buddhist beliefs! Zen Buddhism claims to be a doctrine that cannot be put into words. How ridiculous! What a recipe for obscurantism, irrationalism and charlatanry. No wonder so many “gurus” promote Zen ideas. What better way to fleece the sheep? Reason holds people to account, so those who don’t want to be held to account promote unreason, and declare reason the explicit enemy. There’s precious little difference at core between Zen Buddhists and Martin Luther who declared that reason is the Devil’s whore. The game is always the same – to deny and castigate reason in order to open the door to faith, mysticism and irrationalism. How much science and mathematics have been produced by Zen Buddhism? Where is its engineering and technology? You would need to be a total Luddite and hate modern progress to be in any way attracted to Zen. Zen shuns books and reason. It worships meditation, which it says you can’t learn from any books. This is anti-intellectualism at its worst, and, naturally, it greatly appeals to stupid, ill-educated, “spiritual” people who have no interest in books and reason. All systems that despise reason and education have to offer some miraculous means to salvation that has no basis in reason, books, education and learning. Protestantism, one of the worst offenders, says that you simply require “faith” and you will be saved. Zen is right up there too. It says that meditating under a tree is the way to salvation. Er, no, that’s how to be a pathetic, passive, parasitical waste of space, getting further from enlightenment by the moment. One Zen saying is, “Just sit.” You might as well say, “Just shit!” Zen has been said to transmit teachings outside words. There is only one subject that transmits truth beyond words, and that’s mathematics, which transmits truth via numbers and their relations. When you’re trying to articulate what Zen is about, you are dealing with a system that refuses to articulate what it’s about! This is mysticism at its

most egregious. If all of humanity were to convert to Zen, humanity would perish in one generation. If this is rational universe, Zen is false. It’s as simple as that! One Zen master said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road to enlightenment kill him.” If you meet Zen on the road to Truth, kill it. It’s Falsehood itself! You must absolutely avoid the temptation to repudiate reason in favour of irrational meditation. Your reason will set you free. Your delusions won’t.

***** What kind of people are attracted to Zen? – irrationalists, mystics, and people who despise mathematics. Your beliefs reveal everything about you, and are a direct gauge of your intelligence.

Free Will and Sam Harris Atheist, fundamentalist materialist Sam Harris wrote a book called Free Will, presumably ironically since he denies that free will exists. In our book Free Will and Will to Power, we refuted all arguments advanced against free will by materialists. It’s a simple fact that Harris has no conception of what free will is. This is because he has no idea what a mind/soul is. He’s greatly sympathetic towards Buddhism, another belief system that has no idea what a soul is, and denies that it exists (just as science does). If your ontology is false, every statement you subsequently make about anything fundamental is also false. Since free will is possible only if there are uncreated, uncaused, eternal souls, then a denial of the soul automatically leads, in any consistent system, to the denial of free will. Harris uses backwards reasoning. He starts off with the materialist dogma that existence cannot have a meaning and purpose (all materialists deny teleology since lifeless, mindless atoms can have no purposes and cannot give rise to any meaning), in which case there can be no free will since free will is associated with both meaning and purpose: we freely choose to do those things that serve our purposes and which have meaning for us; we don’t do meaningless and purposeless things; we don’t act randomly; we don’t do things for no reason. Harris begins from the materialist assumption that there is no soul, hence he literally doesn’t give any thought at all to how his arguments would

change if there were eternal mathematical souls (monads). His central argument is almost childish. He asserts that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, hence can’t exist. Well, no rational advocate of free will ever suggested that free will consists of doing things indeterministically. All rational advocates of free will do say that free will involves determinism – our own, and not that imposed on us by things external to us. Harris, as a fundamentalist denier of the soul, simply cannot conceive of subjective agency, of internal determinism as opposed to external determinism. As a scientific materialist to the core, he brings everything back to lifeless, mindless atoms subject to inescapable scientific laws, and, of course, if such material things were indeed the basis of reality, his conclusion that there’s no free will would be absolutely correct. However, if we were actually made of such things alone, we would be machines, and it would never enter our minds that we were free (no more than it would enter the “mind” of a computer), and there would be no such thing as a “free will” hypothesis. Even to be able to discuss the concept of free will requires free will (and refutes the claim that we don’t have free will), just as to be able to ponder consciousness requires consciousness (no animal ever thinks about consciousness!). The materialist claim that reality is made of contingent matter – contingent atoms – is 100% false. Given that our entire interaction with the world is conducted mentally, and could never be conducted in any other way, there’s literally not one shred of evidence that anything independent of the mind exists, i.e. everything we “know” about the world comprises ideas, and all ideas are obviously mental, as Bishop Berkeley pointed out so acutely. Berkeley presents knock-out arguments against materialism. Unfortunately, stupid people don’t go down even when they have beaten to a pulp. Reality is based on necessary monads, not contingent atoms. How can anyone reach any sensible conclusions regarding free will if they have failed to comprehend basic ontology? Everything we say about ultimate reality is false if our ontology is false, and exactly the same goes for science, religion and philosophy. The question of free will cannot be rationally addressed in the absence of a comprehensive ontology. People such as Sam Harris have no such ontology and just trot out the standard,

contingent, ad hoc, synthetic, inductive, a posteriori nostrums of scientific materialism. Science relies on there being absolutely no necessary, analytic elements. It’s a system of pure contingency and provisionalism, of endless interpretation. It denies free will because free will requires souls and there are no souls in science. It’s astounding whenever any atheist or scientific materialist defends free will given that it’s impossible within the materialist paradigm. Sam Harris is being completely true to his fundamentalist materialist views when he denies free will. It’s his materialism that’s false, and if he became an idealist and ontological mathematician, he would then have no problem with free will. What you believe literally determines what and how you think. Self-evidently, no materialist is thinking correctly if, in fact, we live in an idealist universe. If the world is fundamentally rationalist, all empiricist thinking is wrong, false and deluded. That’s a fact. Harris says we are made of stardust. No, we’re not. Our bodies may be made of stardust, but our individual mind, on the other hand, is a monad and is made of mathematical sinusoids. (And, of course, stardust is also made of mathematical sinusoids when properly analysed.) Harris and his ilk sweepingly deny free will, and label it an “illusion”. However, this claim of “illusion” is astonishingly problematic. Consider Harris’s claim that free will is compatible with neither determinism nor indeterminism. It automatically follows that either determinism or indeterminism (or indeed both) must be compatible with illusion since Harris calls free will an illusion. So, if we are to consider the “free will as illusion” theory as true, and the “free will as real” theory as false, it must be fully explained why free will cannot be accommodated by determinism or indeterminism, yet the illusion of free will can be accommodated by determinism and/or indeterminism. Is the theory that lifeless, mindless atoms (obeying either deterministic laws or probabilistic laws of indeterminism) produce weird, unfathomable, ineffectual, pointless, mental illusions supposed to be more convincing than that we have genuine free will? The whole notion that a world made exclusively of matter, as materialist fundamentalists such as Harris insist, can suffer from illusions, delusions, hallucinations, mental illness, mental breakdowns, mental disorders, is so spectacularly silly that no sane person could ever take it seriously.

Harris, in his pathological determination to rid us of free will, has posited instead a world of delusional atoms in need of psychiatric help! What, do electrons hallucinate? Do protons have delusions of grandeur? Do quarks imagine themselves free? Are 1D-strings narcissistic? If none of these things is true, how on earth does Sam Harris propose that if humans are made of atoms alone, we can suffer from such illusions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Harris doesn’t offer any evidence at all! Nor does he propose any scientific mechanism for his “matter suffering from delusions” theory of existence, yet we are supposed to take this seriously rather than the compatibilist theory of free will, showing that free will is compatible with determinism, a theory championed by many of the greatest intellectuals in history, and fully explained in great detail by us in Free Will and Will to Power. He gives us nothing but feeble, easily refuted scientific materialist arguments. Er, no thanks, Sam. Harris expects us to dismiss free will as an illusion, whilst he fails to comprehend that he has generated a much greater mystery, namely, if matter can’t be free, how on earth can it suffer from delusions and illusions that it is free? Why are illusions of free will more scientifically plausible than free will? Where’s the scientific theory for this? There simply isn’t one. Harris has proposed that the “rational” alternative to free will is collections of atoms subject to mental illness. WTF! If free will is false, why should the illusion of free will be true? What a bizarre claim. The thing isn’t true, but the illusion of the thing is true. That’s what Harris literally says! If free will is false, why should there be any illusion of free will at all? Why should mindless atoms suffer from delusions? The reason why Harris has to say that free will is an illusion is that he knows that everyone on earth believes themselves free. So if, as he claims, free will is false, then there’s nothing left but to claim that we are all deluded in considering ourselves free. Yet that simply begs the question. If free will is false why would any sane person then expect the world to manifest the illusion of free will? Harris has blatantly violated Occam’s Razor. In denying the existence of one thing, he has multiplied the difficulties by asserting the existence of something predicated on the first thing, which he has already claimed is non-existent, i.e. he has generated an existent (the illusion of free will) on the basis of something that he claims is nonexistent (free will). The

universe, especially the scientific materialist universe, does not go around inventing pointless phenomena as antidotes to non-existent phenomena! Only irrationalists such as Harris and his disciples do that. The very fact that we believe ourselves free, means, by the strict application of Occam’s Razor, that we are free. To argue otherwise is to make the insane claim that the real world, for no conceivable reason or purpose, invents illusions. (In terms of Occam’s Razor, it multiplies entities unnecessarily; it adds things aimlessly and meaninglessly). If that were true, we could never know anything at all because absolutely everything could be an illusion. We would be living in the fantasy world created by Descartes’ malevolent demon, but there would be no Cartesian God to get us out and guarantee us objective truth. In rather similar terms, fundamentalist materialists propose that a more rational alternative to the concept of “God”, which they say explains nothing, is scientific randomness. However, randomness also explains nothing since it operates via miracles happening for no reason, and is even more of a mystery than God! Not surprisingly, Harris is a fundamentalist atheist. Again, he has no rational basis for this free choice of his. (Since he denies free will, he of course didn’t choose to be an atheist, and all of his arguments used to defend atheism aren’t freely chosen by him but, according to his own logic, are either deterministically or indeterministically placed in his mouth.) The arguments of materialist fundamentalists are invariably comical, and so bizarre that these people end up claiming that unobserved cats can be simultaneously dead and alive, that there are infinite clones of us in infinite parallel worlds, and that existence can randomly jump out of non-existence for no reason at all. That’s what happens when you deny the principle of sufficient reason and reject concepts such as free will. No rational person could ever take scientific materialist arguments seriously. Many scientists are driven by the same kind of extremist empiricist skepticism as David Hume (who denied God, the soul, the material world, and even causation). Sam Harris, in common with Buddhists, continually asks people to reflect on their experiences. He never asks his gullible audience to deploy the principle of sufficient reason. He never refers to first principles. He has no theory of ontology and epistemology. You would have to be irrational to take his claims seriously.

Science dismisses many things as “mere” placebos. It says that if people get healed by a faith worker, or by homeopathy, or by a sugar pill that they believed was a new medicine, it’s purely because of the placebo effect. Yet what is this placebo effect? It’s the ability of people’s beliefs to cure physical ailments from which they suffer! It’s mind over matter in action. Yet there is absolutely no scientific explanation of how mental beliefs can effect physical cures. In other words, science has once again replaced one mystery (how can homeopathic medicines, for example, bring about a cure) by a still greater one: how can mental beliefs bring about material cures? Would Sam Harris like to provide the scientific mechanism of the placebo effect? If he can, we could get rid of the whole of scientific medicine and cure all our ills with the power of our minds! Why don’t you work on that, Sam, instead of wasting your time talking fundamentalist materialist drivel?

***** One of the most extraordinary features of atheists is that they consider a miraculous “God” as no explanation of anything, yet they also consider miraculous “randomness” as the explanation of everything! Both are total non-explanations. The only possible rational explanation of everything is the principle of sufficient reason. By definition!

Sam Harris Contra Free Will It’s possible to understand Sam Harris’s entire position regarding free will from just a single sentence, namely: “Where is the freedom in doing what one wants when one’s desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating?” Deconstructing this, we can identify the following assertions made by Harris: 1) We are not free because we did not choose to exist, hence we are unfree prisoners of our prior existence. 2) We are not free because we did not choose our desires, hence we are unfree prisoners of our prior desires.

3) We are not free because we are unaware of prior events, and did not choose those prior events, hence we are the unfree prisoners of prior events. 4) We are not free because we had no hand, no causal agency, in creating our own existence, our own desires, and all prior events relating to us, and thus we are the unfree prisoners of all of these things. 5) We are not free because we do many things for reasons of which we are not aware (unconsciously), hence we are unfree prisoners of our own unconscious. In the context of the debate concerning free will, and what people understand by their own freedom and how they experience their own freedom, Harris’s claims are preposterous. Let’s take them one by one: 1) No one who claims that free will is compatible with determinism (i.e. a compatibilist) requires us to be able to freely choose our own existence. Such a claim is ludicrous because, to be able to choose our existence, we would first have to exist, and thus we are trapped in circular logic: we cannot choose to exist unless we exist, and if we don’t exist, we can’t choose to exist. All compatibilists begin from the position that, given our existence, we are we free to do what we want (and not what others want). 2) Like our existence, our desires are who we are. In order to choose our desires, we would have to already have desires (to determine what we will choose), but we can’t have desires if we haven’t chosen them yet. Again, Harris is trapped by circular logic. What compatibilists say is that given our desires and wants, we are free to pursue them, and not the desires and wants of others. 3) We are all uncreated, uncaused first causes. We have existed forever and are indestructible. There are no events prior to our existence, so we are not determined by prior events. We are not determined, created or caused by “God” or anything else (which would indeed render us fundamentally unfree). Nothing forced us to be as we are. We are not the inevitable product of some inescapable chain, external to us. We are inherently causal agents.

We are free to initiate new causal chains. We are not prisoners of the causal chains of things external to us. Ergo we have free will. 4) Free will is not about choosing our own existence, our own desires, and all prior events relating to us – a logical impossibility. It’s about being free to decide what we want to do next, free of any external constraints, forces or compulsions. Nothing that originates within us makes us its prisoner since those things that originate within us are what we are, and free will is not about changing what we are (to be something else completely different from what we are). 5) If you do something because of your unconscious mind rather than your conscious mind, do you believe that you are the puppet of something external to you, over which you have no control? That’s basically Harris’s claim. He sees the unconscious as some enemy of ours rather than the primary essence of who we are! Obviously, you will never consider yourself free if you are alienated from your own unconscious. To any normal person, we are free if we are doing what we have chosen, and that’s a product of consciousness and the unconscious. Normal people do not experience any kind of conflict between consciousness and the unconscious, but a smooth marriage. We would all be insane if we really thought our unconscious was our closest and most dangerous enemy: the traitor within! We do not have to be aware of all of our choices (those made by our unconscious rather than conscious mind) to consider ourselves free – as long as it’s our mind that’s doing the choosing and not someone else’s mind. The Freudian Id, and the Jungian Shadow are often characterised as our unconscious enemy, yet we couldn’t live without these, and they are the source of most of our energy, drive, creativity, passion, individualism, and rebelliousness. In short, everything Harris says about freedom and free will is misconceived, involving catastrophic problems of logic. His version of freedom is impossible, and no one would want it, yet it’s this ludicrous misconception of freedom that he uses to attack compatibilism. Given that his definition of freedom is false, all that he says about freedom is false. If

you start from the wrong ontology and epistemology, from the wrong definitions, you are invariably going to talk nonsense.

***** No one denies that we are influenced by genes and environment. What is denied is that we are determined by our genes and/or environment, that we are literally puppets that cannot act differently, that we have no moral agency, no personal accountability, that we are mere machines. No one who accepts the eternity of the soul can regard our current body, and current environment, as what makes us what we are. Only atheists and materialists hold such ideas. To deny free will is to deny the soul. Without the soul, we would indeed be machines. To put it another way, the reality of free will is the proof of the existence of the soul (since free will is impossible otherwise). People such as Sam Harris require free will to be false because, if it isn’t, his materialist belief system is false. No one is more heavily invested in the denial of free will than scientific materialist atheists. This nihilistic religion mandates that we are meaningless machines in a meaningless universe. After all, if reality is made of nothing but lifeless, mindless atoms, obeying laws that possess not one iota of subjective agency, everything that Sam Harris says follows automatically. It’s irrational to accept the existence of the soul (the agent of subjectivity), yet to agree with Sam Harris that there’s no free will. To agree that there’s a soul and then deny free will is a category error, a contradiction in terms.

The Unconscious Sam Harris defines freedom as consciously choosing everything that makes us who we are, which is of course automatically impossible since we first come into the world as unconscious babies. Harris maintains that, to be free, we must consciously choose to do x rather than y, and that we must also consciously choose every antecedent factor involved in selecting x. There can be no unconscious involvement because, so Harris concludes, we then did not choose it: it chose us. Ergo we are not free. At a stroke, Harris denies that our unconscious mind, the entity most reflective of our eternal soul, which was unconscious long before it became capable of consciousness, is the main player in who we are.

Going back to the likes of Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Freud and Jung, the unconscious mind is far more of a determinant of who we are than our conscious mind. Would you disown an action chosen by your unconscious mind? Would you deny that it was “you” that chose an action if you granted that your unconscious was responsible for the choice and not your conscious? If the pupils of your eyes unconsciously dilate when you see a certain person (a sign of attraction to them), are you going to conclude that it wasn’t “you” that found the person attractive if, consciously, it turns out that you are repelled by the person? Well, if it wasn’t you, who was it?! What’s so difficult about the notion that we have multi-nodes within our mind? After all, Freud said that we have an ego, id and superego, and Jung insisted that we have a whole host of mental nodes: the persona, ego, shadow, anima/animus, mana personalities, and the Self. Our consciousness is the integrator, the unifier, the harmoniser, the orchestrator, the conductor, of all these nodes. What the conscious mind is required to do is maintain a consistent narrative. We tell ourselves a long and complex story about our choices. We each have a Mythos mind. When our pupils dilate when we see an attractive person we happen to consciously dislike, we either simply deny that we found them attractive, or we might say, “Yes, she’s pretty, but she’s also an evil bitch ... or boring ... or she smells ... or she’s a slut...” We have to construct a reason to explain to ourselves why we are rejecting our obvious physical attraction to them. We are forever rationalising after the fact why we did what we did. One of the key jobs of consciousness is to make up these retrospective stories that justify what we do and how we behave. Sometimes we say, “I don’t know what came over me”, or “I was acting out of character” or “I have no idea why I did that.” Yet some part of us always knows. Everything we do has a reason. We are incapable of acting without reasons. Even when Dice Man chooses to use a dice roll to decide what to do, he has still provided himself with a reason for his actions (he’s experimenting with chance and seeing where it leads, and how it changes his life). Any intelligent, self-aware person acknowledges the power of the unconscious mind, and knows how strongly it influences us. Apparently, Sam Harris finds this intolerable. He wants no part of freedom unless it’s

conscious freedom, which would of course require there to be no unconscious mind at all – an impossibility. Harris is determined at all times to render free will impossible. He wants to drive free will into a prison from which it can never escape and is finally forced to admit that it was never free and only ever suffering from the most implausible delusion conceivable. Can an unfree machine that does everything by the book imagine that in fact it does everything freely, through choice? No self-aware person would deny that our conscious mind often makes up reasons for what we do, but that’s not to claim that the acts we performed were not ours, not chosen by us (by our unconscious). You don’t choose to be you. You are you. You can’t choose to be someone other than you. You can change your behaviour but you are still you. You are the one choosing to change. You can seek to become a new you, but that’s your choice. The unconscious mind comes first, not consciousness. The unconscious is the original repository of our nature, character, desires and preferences. Our consciousness is the latecomer. Since consciousness has language, but the unconscious doesn’t, this raises an immediate communication problem. Why, for example, are dreams so hard to understand? It’s because our unconscious mind is communicating with us via symbols, whose meaning we don’t fully grasp. Our conscious mind has no option but to make up reasons for actions chosen by our unconscious mind (for reasons known only to our unconscious). That’s partly why humans are such good liars. We’re lying to ourselves all the time, making up reasons for what we did, sometimes wildly different from the ones the unconscious had in mind when it chose to act. We are a Mythos species, a lying species. The best liars are of course the best at deceiving themselves. After a while, they come to fully believe their lies ... and they’d go insane if they ever admitted the truth. That’s why people repress things, why they bury them deep in the unconscious. Yet the unconscious knows the truth. You can’t escape your own lies. That’s why so many people need to see shrinks. What they are doing is investigating the history of the big lies they have told themselves. Imagine the scale of lies Catholic priests told themselves while they were abusing children. Somewhere along the line, those lies would have been leaking out of them. They would not have been happy people, at peace

with themselves ... well, unless they were psychopaths who couldn’t care less about other people. Once the conscious evolves from our unconscious, it has no option but to believe itself to be in charge 24/7. All humans would be insane if they believed they were being controlled by a second mind (the unconscious mind), and that this other mind frequently took over for long stretches. It would be as if we were all suffering from dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality syndrome), where we had no idea of what each personality was doing, and we “blacked out” when the others were in charge. So, to avoid this, consciousness does something simple ... it takes responsibility for the choices of the unconscious mind. It rationalises these choices after the fact. It makes sense of them. It places them into a narrative – the story of our life. Our unconscious mind prompts us to do x, and the conscious mind is then required to construct a reason why we did that, which may have nothing to do with the real reason. That’s why life is so messy. We are Mythos creatures. We are always telling ourselves a story. We’re designed that way. We produce a continuous narrative even though we have (at least) two minds – conscious and unconscious, each making a separate contribution, as we can see most clearly with split-brain patients, i.e. those who have had their corpus callosum severed. These people literally have two minds capable of independent action: the conscious mind in the left hemisphere, and the unconscious mind in the right hemisphere. Given that we are so good at making up reasons for why our unconscious prompted us to do certain things, we are of course just as good at attributing ridiculous reasons to explain why others behave as they do, and even why Nature behaves as it does, hence all the ridiculous Mythos religions, philosophies and sciences that have plagued the human race and hidden the Truth from us. Some people are so bizarre that they have even told themselves the lie that they have no free will. Once you’ve done that, you don’t have to accept responsibility for anything, and you don’t have to trouble yourself with the meaning of life. You have rendered yourself a meaningless machine. Well done, Sam Harris, a man so self-deceiving he lied his own freedom out of existence. An uncreated, uncaused mathematical monadic mind can’t be anything other than free, if by that we mean “free” to pursue its own objectives for its own reasons – and what else could “freedom” possibly mean? Sam Harris’s

concept of freedom is so perverse, it’s incredible he isn’t laughed off the stage. It’s no wonder he doesn’t believe that something as ridiculous as his conception of free will exists. Who would?!

Sam Harris’s Free Will Sometimes, Amazon provides a wonderful forum for the trashing of utterly fallacious books such as Sam Harris’s Free Will. Here are a few Amazon reviews we came across that provide excellent critiques of Harris’s book in their one-star reviews of his work. Two of the reviews are actually written by fans of Harris’s other work, demonstrating how poor this book is: even his own followers have rejected his claims.

***** “Sam Harris is a master of the polemic. He has written very eloquently and convincingly concerning atheism in his books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. ... Mr. Harris is an important force for secularism in the United States. “But his latest offering, Free Will, a scant 66 page essay in book format (with some 7 pages of notes,) is lacking in many essential ways, particularly in the matter of evidence for his claims. Harris states there is no free will, that it is an illusion, but offers no proof for his assertion. In fact, on Pages 13, 38, 39, and 40, he states that the sources of our intentions, desires, actions, and wants are unknown, a mystery, inscrutable or obscure. He seems to be asserting that because we do not know the sources for our thoughts and actions, it necessarily follows that we do not have free will. Such a flimsy connection is not proof. He cites some well-known experiments, such as the Libet, all of which are inconclusive, and does not provide the reader with strong scientific evidence to back up his assertions. “Mr. Harris critiques compatibilism way too often, for such a short essay, emphasizing the differences between himself and Daniel Dennett, the philosopher who has written Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves. In fact, Dennett makes a very cogent case for the compatibilism and coexistence of determinism and free will in human beings. One of Mr. Harris’s breezy dismissals of compatibilism on Page 16 is that the ‘free will compatibilists defend is not the free will most people feel they have.’ Such a statement seems to imply that Mr. Harris sets aside the fine and scholarly work of many philosophers such as Dennett, because it does not accord with some

popular misconception of free will. Populism would appear to trump scholarship in this book. “On Pages 10 and 24, Harris apparently infers that if we had exceptional machines and brain scanners to monitor our action sequences and choices, we would be astounded to discover that we were not in control of them. However, we do not yet have experiments that might be conclusive. To state that one knows the outcome of future experiments is nonsense. In fact, neuroscience is at the beginning of a long voyage of discovery about the brain, the mind and consciousness. “Another difficulty with Free Will is the author’s shift to prescription rather than description. Such a segue is yet another example of the philosopher David Hume’s famous and much discussed Is/Ought problem concerning Ethics. Harris suddenly advocates what the justice system should do. On Page 54, he writes: ‘Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved with morality itself.’ Why should any of us assume, given Mr. Harris’s assertion that choices are not in our control, that most citizens will agree about changes to our justice system? Many people, if not in conscious control of their belief and ethical systems, may reach opposite conclusions. Mr. Harris is not the only champion of determinism who seems to dismiss reason as a motivating factor, and then to advocate change based on conscious reasoning. [MH !!!] “My opinion, after reading this small book, is that Sam Harris has done very little to advance understanding or forward the argument in the contentious and knotty issue of free will and determinism. With all due respect, I regretfully cannot recommend his Free Will to readers.” – James R. Taylor

***** “At about 10 minutes after noon yesterday, an ineluctable series of causal events that no doubt began before the dawn of humanity compelled me to sit for an hour in a Barnes and Noble reading this predetermined collection of words from someone whose parents had been programmed to name him Sam Harris. I regret that this is the way I ended up spending an hour, though of course it’s useless to regret what one could not help but do, and, moreover, the ‘I’ that I imagine I am is just along for the ride anyway.

“Being predetermined, I can’t choose to say that one part of this collection of words was more worthwhile than any other (a sentiment with which Harris would agree, though ‘agreement’ itself seems superfluous) but if free will were possible, I would choose footnote 15, on the next to last page of the book, in which biologist Jerry Coyne notes that no possible scientific experiment could test whether any action was free from compulsion by previous events or influences. [MH !!!] I believe that to be correct and so believed before the predetermined hour I spent reading Harris’s book, which seemed to add nothing to the question but inanity and confusion, both delivered with a rather self-congratulatory air – but then, as Harris pointed out near the end of the book, his choice to type or go drink a beer was all alike, and his book proved it. “Why Harris didn’t simply point out what was in footnote 15 at the outset and then leave the publisher to bind 80 blank pages together is mysterious to me until I remembered that he couldn’t help himself. In his case, unknown influences had caused him to believe that even in the absence of free will, it is still useful, not only to talk about choice but to argue against fatalism because our choices have outcomes. This is trivially true in his framework of mental events, though what ‘choice’ could signify in such a framework beyond a polite fiction, the vestige of the very illusion Harris thinks he is exploding, is not apparent. “Other causal factors moved Harris to mention existentialism once, in which he found little use but which he was caused to congratulate for its emphasis on taking personal responsibility for creating meaning in one’s life. It happens that I am predetermined to imagine that I am preferring existentialist thinking (or mental event processing) in this regard to Harris’s own thoughts, which strike me as laughably facile. “In my predetermined view, we do well to choose, and seek to live by, values that optimize our potential as humans. Such choices may be as simple as taking up walking for fitness and losing 35 pounds, or they may involve something more, such as learning chess or reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I suppose Harris would not object to this (indeed, it is hard to see how he could ‘object’ to anything at all, though he certainly does so [MH !!!]) but would simply argue that one cannot take credit for such choices, however fortunate, or suffer blame for them, even if they are criminal.

“One reason that Harris seems to harp on this so much is that he is predetermined to fear that assigning moral ‘blame’ leads to a largely punitive and inhumane society; specifically, he claims to be unable to find anything in a religious framework that enables the observer of a criminal act to reflect that he, too, might be capable of similar behaviour. Actually, such a remedy exists and would have been discovered by Harris had he ever been predetermined to read the simple Christian reflection, ‘There but for the grace of God, go I.’ In any case, Harris may be vindicated (if ‘vindication’ even matters) by reflecting (or being caused to reflect) that even the act of reading this review may cause you either to avoid the book or to spend the same time reading it as I did.” – Michael Huggins

***** “I’m a Sam Harris fan – loved The End of Faith. But this essay is so trite and silly to warrant relatively little critique (it doesn’t rise to a bar to warrant more). The premise is obvious and pointless, the writing repetitive (it’s a basic point – not deep or hard to grok – and he makes it over and over and over) and even at that the premise is unsupported by either evidence or logic in his presentation. At the end of the day this essay is pure garbage in that he twists the concept of free will by locking on to an uncontroversial semantics angle. So, yeah, if you want to define free will as requiring that the laws of physics don’t apply and that we mustn’t be impacted by our previous experiences, then, sure, we don’t have free will. But who defines free will that way? [MH !!!] Just as no one would say you don’t have free will because you can’t breathe under water if that’s what you want to do, no one begins with Harris’ premise. Wish I hadn’t wasted money on this tedious, pointless essay.” – Scott

***** “Free will is a problematic concept – difficult to spell out, and in conflict with our assumption of causation of everything in the world. Causation itself is not well defined either, but we at least have a better understanding of the term. I have always been interested in how to reconcile Free Will with the physical world, and I was excited that a clear thinking modern philosopher had something new to say on the subject. But Sam Harris, in Free Will, has produced an extremely disappointing piece of sophomoric reasoning.

“His thesis, summarized, is that: * human action can be either caused or random, and neither allows for free will * therefore our perception of our free will is delusional * supporting evidence for this is that neuroscientists see evidence of our actions seconds before we decide we will act * therefore we reach decisions independently of our ‘will’. “Every bit of this argument is problematic, and a thinker of Harris’s depth should have punctured it, not EXPOUNDED it. “Taking his points from the top, the first bullet of his thesis is a false dichotomy. That he repeats this fallacy over a dozen times in this short work just lead me to shake my head over his blindness. Human THINKING is geared toward categorizing things as either deterministic or random, but our predilection for these two categories does not make them exclusive options for the world. In actuality, macro level objects are rarely modellable as deterministic – influence applied over a background randomness is how almost everything we deal with behaves. And subatomic particles likewise break this paradigm, behaving like a probability distribution within a waveform. While neither of these models are really any more compatible with free will than the two of his false dichotomy, their obvious refutation of his fallacy indicate that self reflection did not trouble Harris’s mind in the contemplation of his own reasoning here. “For the second bullet, our perception of our own free will has developed over an extended evolutionary process, and the default position of evolutionary reasoning is that evolutionarily refined beliefs and behaviours provide real benefits. FALSE perceptions of the world very very rarely provide benefits, and supporting such a claim requires strong and convincing evidence for how false beliefs in this case would of necessity be evolutionarily beneficial. [MH !!!] “He provides no such argument beyond his false dichotomy. Basically, we have a conflict between two mental frameworks that humans have evolved – our tendency to assign everything to the caused/random pigeonholes, vs. the belief in free will. While it is possible that BOTH are delusions, we know that caused/random pigeonholes are NOT reflected in the real world, so if one must reject just one, then one should reject the

refuted false dichotomy, and declare the belief in such pigeonholes to be the delusion. This makes Harris deluded, not those whose beliefs he seeks to challenge. “For the third point, yes, Harris cites valid test data which demonstrates it takes seconds to organize our nervous system to perform actions. But Harris makes a major error in the next step of his reasoning. He assumes consciousness and the mind is unitary, and that evidence we prepared for one action means that we were not simultaneously preparing for multiple actions we did NOT take. [MH !!!] That he asserts this, while also citing the researchers and mind theorists who have refuted his assumption, is bizarre. He repeatedly quotes Daniel Dennett, and even cites personal conversations with Dennett, yet Dennett’s Multiple Drafts model fully explains how one could make conscious decisions between options seconds after the brain started organizing around several of them. He also cites Libet’s work, and Libet conducted tests showing that people prepared mentally for an action they then chose NOT to execute! [MH !!!] That Harris could be unaware that multiple mind thinkers have refuted the unity of consciousness, Libet’s work, or the central feature of Dennett’s thinking is almost inconceivable, for a major philosopher writing on the mind. “The fourth point of his thesis, that we decided beforehand, and in fact everything is decided beforehand, he repeats dozens of times in the work. If one assumes determinism, as he does, then free will is impossible. Asserting a conclusion that is embedded in one’s starting assumptions is classic circular reasoning. To repeat this fallacy dozens of times in one short work is a travesty. “So, four points, two of which are fallacies, one of which neglects evolutionary principles, and the third of which neglects the last half century of mind research. This short work was worse than disappointing.” – dcleve

***** “...to my greatest surprise, Harris ends with saying that ‘Where people can change, we can demand that they do so.’ What? I had to reread that statement numerous times because it was so incongruous with his line of reasoning. How did he get from criminals only doing what any of us would do if we were given the exact same biology and exact same experiences to asserting that we can demand people change? The former view is nihilism,

to be sure, but this later view is fascism, is it not? Would he advocate demanding that I give up my religion because he determined that I can change my mind about that? Either people can choose or they can’t and if we can’t (as is the bedrock for this book!) then there is no reason to advocate attempts at change! If people can (and do! – we all know people do change!) then there IS Free Will. Harris unties his entire case himself!” – Just a Putz in WI

***** It’s incredible that anyone can take seriously what Harris says about free will. Let’s just consider a single point he makes: human action can be either caused or random, and neither allows for free will. What, really? Firstly, no one would say that a person acting randomly was acting freely. They would say he was acting insanely. Freedom is not insanity. And, in fact, even the insane have their reasons, and do not act randomly (!). Secondly, Harris makes no attempt whatsoever to distinguish between two different types of causation: external and internal. For sure, if only external causation existed, no one could be free, and we would not be having any debate about free will since no one would know what “freedom” was – it would literally be an unthinkable concept. Free will exists because of internal causation – our ability to initiate our own causal chains for our own reasons. Freedom is exactly our capacity to do this. Of course, Harris, as a nihilist, atheist scientific materialist, has no concept of autonomous mind, hence doesn’t even bother to consider the possibility of internal causation. Like a Catholic pope, he refuses to consider anything outside his chosen paradigm – the sure sign of a ferocious anti-intellectual. Genuine intellectuals take on the best arguments of their opponents, not the worst, and nor do they simply ignore any arguments inconvenient to their thesis. There’s nothing clever about Harris’s position. It’s as about simplistic and unimaginative as you can get, packed with sophistry.

Daniel Dennett We agree with Harris on one thing – Daniel Dennett’s defence of free will is incredible given that Dennett, like Harris, is a fundamentalist scientific

materialist atheist who denies the existence of the soul. Harris is right that there can be no free will in an exclusively material word (i.e. a world without souls). Dennett argues that there can be free will in a scientific materialist world. This is impossible. No wonder Harris rejects Dennett’s specious, meretricious arguments. These two riders of the Non-Apocalypse are as bad as each other!

The Libet Experiment “Neuroscience of free will refers to recent neuroscientific investigation of questions concerning free will. It is a topic of philosophy and science. One question is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions or decisions. As it has become possible to study the living brain, researchers have begun to watch decision-making processes at work. Findings could carry implications for moral responsibility in general. Moreover, some research shows that if findings seem to challenge people’s belief in the idea of free will itself then this can affect their sense of agency (e.g. sense of control in their life). “Relevant findings include the pioneering study by Benjamin Libet and its subsequent redesigns; these studies were able to detect activity related to a decision to move, and the activity appears to be occurring briefly before people become conscious of it. Other studies try to predict a human action several seconds early. Taken together, these various findings show that at least some actions – like moving a finger – are initiated unconsciously at first, and enter consciousness afterward. “In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. It has been suggested that consciousness mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious, so its role in decision-making is experimentally investigated. Some thinkers, like Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele, say it is important to explain that ‘free will’ means many different things; these thinkers state that certain versions of free will (e.g. dualistic) appear exceedingly unlikely, but other conceptions of ‘free will’ that matter to people are compatible with the evidence from neuroscience.” – Wikipedia

Daniel Dennett is right that free will envisaged in Cartesian dualistic terms is incoherent and impossible. He’s absolutely wrong that free will is compatible with scientific materialist monism. Free will is, however, entirely compatible with dual-aspect ontological mathematical monism involving an immaterial Fourier domain outside space and time, and a material Fourier domain inside space and time, the two domains being mathematically compatible via forward and inverse Fourier transforms. Only the Illuminati have ever understood that any compatibilist understanding of free will (compatibilism being the assertion that free will and determinism are compatible) must be achieved via Fourier mathematics, and that any other compatibilist suggestion, especially any rooted in scientific materialism (such as that of Dennett), is absurd and mathematically impossible.

***** “...the brain ‘decides’ to initiate or, at least, to prepare to initiate the act before there is any reportable subjective awareness that such a decision has taken place” – Libet “Libet himself argued that there was still room for a veto over a decision that may have been made unconsciously over 300 milliseconds before the agent is consciously aware of the decision to flex a finger, but before the action of muscles flexing.” – http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html “Benjamin Libet has argued for a pair of striking theses about free will. First, free will never initiates actions. Second, free will may be involved in ‘vetoing’ conscious decisions, intentions, or urges to act. Elsewhere, I have argued that Libet and others fail to provide adequate evidence for the first thesis and even for the related thesis that conscious intentions to flex a wrist never make a causal contribution to the production of a flexing action. My topic here is Libet’s thesis about vetoing. To veto a conscious decision, intention, or urge is to decide not to act on it and to refrain, accordingly, from acting on it. Libet associates veto power with some pretty fancy metaphysics.” –Alfred R. Mele “The finding that the volitional process is initiated unconsciously leads to the question: Is there then any role for conscious will in the performance of

a voluntary act. ... The conscious will could decide to allow the volitional process to go to completion, resulting in the motor act itself. Or, the conscious will could block or ‘veto’ the process, so that no motor act occurs.” – Libet The Libet experiments are some of the most controversial in scientific history. Interpreting them correctly is on a par with interpreting quantum mechanics. There is nothing “self-evident” about these experiments. Firstly, the details of the experiments are generative of a huge literature, even before you get into the interpretation of the results. We will consider just a couple of points. If Libet’s tests do indeed show that people prepare mentally for actions that they then choose not to execute then it can never be argued that they “prove” there is no free will. The exact reverse is true. Libet’s experiments may indeed show that many of our choices are not consciously initiated but that’s a very old idea going back to the ancient Greeks (many of whom conceived of the unconscious in terms of gods or spirits directing some of our actions, while Pythagoras and Plato thought we had reincarnated many times, hence that we had a vast store of mental contents that we couldn’t easily access), and it became very prominent in the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and then in the work of Freud and Jung. It is not and never has been part of the free will case that decisions have to be consciously initiated. Our unconscious is as much who we are as our consciousness is, so the fact that many of our actions are freely chosen by our unconscious mind and then retrospectively justified by our conscious mind does not speak to the question of free will at all, but merely to the relation between our consciousness and unconscious, and how they integrate with each other. This is a fascinating and complex subject in its own right, but it has nothing to do with free will. As for “vetoing”, it is suggested in some places that we can unconsciously initiate an action and then veto it before consciousness knows anything about it. This would demonstrate that the unconscious, never mind the conscious, can change its mind, meaning that there’s even more freedom in the system than previously imagined! Even our unconscious mind is free to contradict itself and do something else. If we prepare for actions that we do not execute just as much as we prepare for those that we do execute – vetoing all but one at the last moment – this is the very definition of free will and free choice, and makes perfect sense in terms of keeping all of our options open up to the last

possible instant. This complex arena would be where mistakes get made in terms of fast-reaction sports such as tennis. The player who can keep his unforced errors to a minimum wins. With Libet’s experiments, freedom’s scope seems to be expanding, not shrinking. The only issue raised by Libet turns out to be the precise relation of free will to our conscious and unconscious. No one ever suggested that was easy. That people such as Sam Harris should deploy Libet’s arguments against free will is ridiculous. There’s no evidence at all for that conclusion. Quite the reverse.

***** “We don’t do what we want, but we want what we do.” – Wolfgang Prinz Sam Harris would say that Prinz’s assertion involves the denial that humans have free will. In fact, it’s difficult to attribute a formal meaning to Prinz’s statement. To will something is to do something, and we will what we want. The very act of “doing” involves a willed action that we have chosen over alternatives. You cannot separate doing from willing and wanting. They are all the same thing. Prinz has divided our actions into two: first we want and then we do, or first we do and then we want what we have done (this latter option is manifestly false since frequently we wish we could have done a different thing given the bad consequences of our actions). There is no such division. One way of thinking about this problem is through Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Schopenhauer said that the body was the phenomenal form of the will, and our will the noumenal form of the body. Therefore, it’s not a question of your mind choosing something and then making your body move. Rather your body automatically expresses what you are willing. They are one and the same action, viewed from two different perspectives (noumenal and phenomenal). Willing and doing are exactly the same thing. We don’t will our arm to move and then it moves. Rather, our arm moves as soon as we will it. The moving doesn’t follow the willing; it accompanies it! In fact, it’s the same event, occurring in space and time (the domain of body) rather than outside space and time (the domain of will). So many modern accounts of free will founder on the inability to conceive of the world in any other terms than those of Cartesian dualism, or

scientific materialist monism (where there is no such thing as autonomous mind). The whole debate concerning free will would alter if it were instead conceived in terms of dual-aspect Fourier mathematical monism where we can conceive of the same action being represented in two different but equivalent ways: one in spacetime (the material world), and one in the frequency domain (the mental world). As ever, most errors in interpreting reality flow from an ignorance of mathematics, a false schema of reality (whether Cartesian dualism or scientific materialism), and being overly concerned with words and manmade languages, which are inherently ambiguous and imprecise (i.e. it’s all very well to use words such as “wanting”, “willing”, “doing”, and so on, but what do these words mean ontologically, what do they correspond to mathematically or scientifically, and how can we draw radical conclusions about the nature of reality from them if we can’t define them clinically?). Can you define exactly what every word means ontologically in the statement “We don’t do what we want, but we want what we do”? Can we freely “do” things we don’t “want” to do? Must we “want” the things we do? How are “wanting” and “doing” separated? What does each word mean in terms of “free” and “will”? This is anything but a clear-cut exercise. As Wittgenstein said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” That’s true of science as much as philosophy. Manmade languages, unlike ontological mathematics, are hopelessly imprecise and ambiguous, full of “junk DNA”, i.e. accumulated nonsense from our primitive, religious past. Only analytic mathematical tautology is precise and true. Everything else is inaccurate and interpretive. Manmade languages cannot be used to communicate precise scientific and mathematical truths. Only mathematics itself can. Anyone can play around with language and invent clever little phrases. Whether they have any real meaning is an entirely different matter.

The Language Deception “In the actual use of expressions we make detours, we go by side-roads. We see the straight highway before us, but of course we cannot use it, because it is permanently closed.” – Wittgenstein

“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” – Wittgenstein “Language is a labyrinth of paths. You approach from one side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and no longer know your way about.” – Wittgenstein It’s extraordinary that Wittgenstein believed mathematics to be “empty” tautology that taught us nothing about the world. The truth is that it’s language that’s empty, or, rather, tells us nothing meaningful about the world. As Wittgenstein himself said, language bewitches us, it doesn’t enlighten us. No amount of analysis of language (such as that performed by the Anglo-Saxon analytic school of modern philosophy) will help. Language is mired in error, delusion, imprecision, ambiguity, unstable meaning, different contextual meanings, and so on. None of that is true of analytic ontological mathematics. Wittgenstein couldn’t have been more wrong to make philosophy about language rather than about mathematics. Of course, it was hardly surprising that this would occur given that philosophers are good with language, and poor at mathematics. “Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf If our minds were consciously mathematical, mathematics would shape the way we think and determine what we can think about. Unfortunately, mathematics is unconscious. We use it all the time without knowing it. And whenever we use it consciously, most of us are hopeless at it – because we are so stuck in the manmade language mode. “In language, the ignorant have prescribed laws to the learned.” – Richard Duppa In mathematics, the learned have prescribed laws to the ignorant (who have promptly ignored them). “Any language is necessarily a finite system applied with different degrees of creativity to an infinite variety of situations, and most of the words and phrases we use are ‘prefabricated’ in the sense that we don’t coin new ones every time we speak.” – David Lodge Finite language is indeed inadequate to cater for infinity. Only math can do infinity.

“Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation.” – Noam Chomsky Language is ideal at producing Mythos, and hopeless at producing Logos. “Language is incomplete and fragmentary, and merely registers a stage in the average advance beyond ape-mentality. But all men enjoy flashes of insight beyond meanings already stabilized in etymology and grammar.” – Alfred North Whitehead If normal languages are “ape languages,” what is the “God language”, the perfect language? It’s ontological mathematics! “Language is the biggest barrier to human progress because language is an encyclopaedia of ignorance. Old perceptions are frozen into language and force us to look at the world in an old fashioned way.” – Edward de Bono It’s exactly right that we are prisoners of language. It doesn’t liberate us. It closes down what we are able to think, especially in any rational context. Math is the language of reason. Nothing else is. “Language is intrinsically approximate, since words mean different things to different people, and there is no material retaining ground for the imagery that words conjure in one brain or another.” – John Updike Language is highly subjective. Only math offers objectivity. “The language is an intermediate object between sound and thought: it consists in uniting both while simultaneously decomposing them.” –Roland Barthes Language is sensory, especially with regard to the mouth and ears; math isn’t. “Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born – the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people’s experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so

that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things.” – Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception We are victims of the languages and cultures in which we are raised. There would be no Muslims in the world without the Arabic language and Islamic culture. These are machines for breeding Muslims. “Language is an anonymous, collective and unconscious art; the result of the creativity of thousands of generations.” – Edward Sapir Or the confusion, madness and religious mania of countless generations. “As Horne Tooke, one of the founders of the noble science of philology, observes, language is an art, like brewing or baking; but writing would have been a better simile. It certainly is not a true instinct, for every language has to be learnt. It differs, however, widely from all ordinary arts, for man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write. Moreover, no philologist now supposes that any language has been deliberately invented; it has been slowly and unconsciously developed by many steps.” – Charles Darwin All children are instinctive mathematicians. To catch a ball is to practise math. “I am not yet so lost in lexicography as to forget that words are the daughters of earth and that things are the sons of heaven. Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote.” – Samuel Johnson As Jacques Derrida demonstrated so brilliantly, everything stated in manmade language can be deconstructed, and its underlying biases exposed. (And that is of course true of the God Series too: ideally, we would express Illuminism entirely in ontological mathematics, but then we would have more or less no audience.) “Language is a cracked kettle on which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, while all the time we long to move the stars to pity.” – Gustave Flaubert Language is for clowns, charlatans and poets.

“Language can also be compared with a sheet of paper: thought is the front and the sound the back; one cannot cut the front without cutting the back at the same time; likewise in language, one can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound.” – Ferdinand de Saussure Form and Content can be described as the front and back of a piece of paper, and a different language is required for each: rationalism for Form, empiricism for Content. “Language is the mother of thought, not its handmaiden.” – Karl Kraus Language is the mother of Deception; Mathematics is the father of Truth.

***** Philosophy, thanks to charlatans such as Wittgenstein – the Kabbalistic rabbi of philosophy – turned philosophy away from precise math and towards imprecise language. Science, thanks to charlatans such as Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Born and Heisenberg, turned science away from precise math and towards the imprecise senses. Religion, thanks to charlatans such as Abraham, Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and Luther turned religion away from precise math and towards imprecise Mythos, feelings, faith, mysticism and revelation. Humanity will not become divine until it turns to ontological mathematics. Nothing could stop a human race of seven billion ontological mathematicians. We would discover every secret of the universe.

Living in the Past? According to the common interpretation of the Libet experiment, our consciousness is living in the past (things have already been decided before it knows about it). However, clearly, with regard to our long-term planning, it’s living in the future. This is the paradox of consciousness. It lives in the past with regards to decisions taken by the unconscious, and has to make up retrospective reasons to account for why we did what we did. Our unconscious mind, without language, cannot communicate with us directly, so that means we can never be sure why our unconscious chooses any course of action, hence we are always inventing conscious reasons to tell

ourselves about the actions taken by our hidden mind. Our conscious mind thinks tactically in this regard. Our conscious comes into its own with regard to strategic planning. It’s the conscious mind that’s in charge with regard to teleology, and the unconscious mind then has to approve or disapprove of the plans consciousness places before it. It does not do so rationally (because it cannot understand language), but emotionally and wilfully in response to the images our plans generate in our minds.

The Will Why do we refer to “free will” at all? Why not just “will”? After all, if our will is free than it’s always free, hence “free” is a superfluous qualifier. If we are obeying someone else’s will then we are not using our own will, so we are ipso facto not free. Freedom does not come first, and then will. The will is always acting freely because it’s our own will, uncreated and uncaused by anything else, hence free of anything else and self-determining. In fact, we should replace “free will” with “will to power”. The freedom of our will is built into the concept of will. What is not built into the concept is what will is seeking to accomplish. As Nietzsche realised, it’s teleologically directed towards gaining more power.

***** There is no such thing as unfree will, i.e. a will that is not inherently free when it acts. We can be subject to someone’s superior, more forceful will, but that simply means that our will to power has been defeated in a contest with another will to power, i.e. the other’s will has prevailed. If we end up obeying someone else’s will, it wasn’t because our will wasn’t free; it was because it was defeated. This is why Nietzsche saw reality as an immense contest of wills, all striving for more power. Actually, there is one vital sense in which will to power is not free. It’s not free to seek to minimise our power, to negate our power.

The Two-Stage Model of Free Will

“A two-stage model of free will separates the free stage from the will stage. In the first stage, alternative possibilities for thought and action are generated, in part indeterministically. In the second stage, an adequately determined will evaluates the options that have been developed. If, on deliberation, one option for action seems best, it is selected and chosen. If no option seems good enough, and time permitting, the process can return to the further generation of alternative possibilities (‘second thoughts’) before a final decision. A two-stage model can explain how an agent could choose to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances that preceded the first stage of the overall free will process.” – Wikipedia This model sounds quite plausible at first sight, until you realise how vague it is. Regarding the first stage, we are not told how “alternative possibilities for thought and action” are generated, and we are emphatically not told in what way any of this can happen “in part indeterministically”. What does that even mean? This simply begs the question of what indeterminism is and what produces it, and just throws it in in the hope of creating some scope for libertarian indeterminism. It’s complete nonsense. Daniel Dennett appeals to a two-stage model in his version of compatibilism, and it’s easy to say why Sam Harris finds it so unconvincing. In fact, it’s every bit as unconvincing as Harris’s own position on free will! Can the two-stage model be given a rationalist makeover? Let’s imagine the brain as our own personal internet in our head. It’s full of nodes (neurons) interacting with each other. These neurons aren’t just linked but hyperlinked, i.e. neurons don’t just have local links to the surrounding neurons (a spacetime, physicalist conception of neuroscience), but can actually link to any other neuron in the brain, i.e. non-locally, outside space and time and the physicalist model. This can happen because the brain is in fact holographic, something that mainstream neuroscience refuses to contemplate (because neuroscientists are clueless about ontological Fourier mathematics and blindly committed to a physicalist model of reality). Where does anything begin and end in the internet? Everything is happening strictly deterministically and yet it could easily seem to a naive observer that the internet was generating information almost at random (indeterministically). But there is no indeterminism. Absolutely everything that happens on the internet is dictated by the principle of sufficient reason: everything has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise, hence is fully

determined and deterministic. So, to refer to indeterminism in the first stage of the two-stage model of free will is simply wrong. The “appearance” of indeterminism stems from the vast amount of activity taking place, with no central command and control. The brain is nothing but a thinking organ. All it does is generate thoughts, and it does so across the whole brain at all times. Certain parts of the brain might become much more heavily used than others at various times, just as particular internet servers, routers, cables and so on might see huge spikes in activity, but activity is still ubiquitous in the brain. There are no inactive parts. Simply having a vast amount of mental activity going on is, of itself, no good. Most of it is just ineffectual “noise”. A teleological organism must be able to assess the information being generated and act on the best of it, or what it personally regards as the best of it (another organism might take a very different view). So, how can progress be made? Imagine a person looking at all of the activity on the internet. How would they make any sense of it, or be able to do anything with it? How would they know what was important and significant? They would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data coming in. However, there are certain things going on that allow us to determine what’s “hot” on the internet. Programs can identify “trending lists”, i.e. those things that are producing disproportionate activity. The brain has its own equivalents of trending lists, and these are the stage-one items that are put forward for consideration by stage two of the two-stage model. All the rest of the content, no matter how potentially brilliant, is ignored for the time being because it hasn’t yet managed to make enough of an impact. (The God Series of books is currently ignored, but one day that will radically change). The internet’s trending lists tend to be dominated by trivial nonsense: chatter, gossip, jokes, celebrities, weird events, sport, and so on, i.e. all the stuff that dominates people’s daily interactions with each other. You never find anything mathematical or philosophical on the internet’s tending lists. It’s all Mythos and no Logos. For the average human being, the issues on which they focus – their personal trending lists – are full of the stuff of day-to-day life: relationships, emotions, jobs, careers, sex, entertainment, relaxation, family, friends, lovers, hobbies, religious devotion, and so on.

Something has to sift through all of this and decide what the person is going to do, what actions they are actually going to perform rather than merely think about. This is where stage two begins. Wikipedia says, “...adequately determined will evaluates the options that have been developed.” What does the qualifier “adequately” mean? This is just moonshine. A will is either deterministic – fully determined – or indeterministic – not determined at all (in which case it acts randomly). There are never any vague, intermediate states (“adequate states”). A philosopher is always in trouble when he has to resort to these weak qualifiers (which never make any sense). The will that decides what to do is of course the Will to Power. We choose what to do after evaluating all of the items on our trending list and deciding which is most compatible with the increase in our sense and feeling of power. No one ever acts so as to deliberately decrease their power. This is literally impossible. People may make utterly ridiculous decisions about what option to choose, but this is because they are irrational, not because they are not obeying the Will to Power. All of us are always engaged in trying to maximise our power, and the same is true of the whole universe. Maximum cosmic power is attained at the Omega Point – where we all become Gods! Wikipedia says, “A two-stage model can explain how an agent could choose to do otherwise in exactly the same circumstances that preceded the first stage of the overall free will process.” This is total nonsense. In exactly the same circumstances, we would always do exactly the same thing. There are no indeterministic, libertarian elements that can be smuggled into the system. It’s totally deterministic, but incredibly complex. It’s because the will to power has to evaluate and choose between multiple competing options that we experience the notion of freedom, and do not feel we are being compelled to do any one thing. Given slightly different circumstances, we could easily have chosen differently. How would an android continuously generate countless different courses of action? How would it organise all of this activity into tending lists? How would it evaluate the items on its current list with regard to future, teleological states of power? Would some nerdish programmer somewhere be able to write a program that got anywhere near simulating the complexity of our brains and minds? You must be joking.

When someone such as Sam Harris thinks about free will, he has in mind humans as programmed androids. When we think of free will, we have in mind humans as staggeringly complex organisms, ruled by immortal mathematical souls with infinite capacity. Self-evidently, Sam Harris can’t reach any of our conclusions about free will if he’s using an entirely different model of reality. The question, then, is not whether free will is true or false, but whether our ontology or Harris’s is correct. Once the correct ontology has been established, the question of free will is resolved almost trivially!

***** The will to power is free because it’s not determined by anything outside itself, and is permanently engaged in choosing between options presented to it by the brain-mind complex, none of which is automatically guaranteed to be selected, i.e. it’s impossible to know in advance what choice will be made, hence we are free.

The Free Will Illusion If free will doesn’t exist, as Sam Harris claims, why does the illusion of free will exist? The latter makes sense only as a response to the former. If the former doesn’t exist, there’s no point or meaning to the latter since it’s predicated on the former. In other words, to talk about the illusion of free will is already to have accepted the concept of free will. You must have the concept of free will before you can have the concept of the illusion of free will.

The Two Choices Ontological mathematics says that first causes are eternal. This accounts for a rational universe of determinism, causation and the principle of sufficient reason. Monads are the eternal, uncaused first causes. Science says that “causes” jump out of nowhere. This renders the universe irrational, indeterministic, acausal, random, spontaneous and without a sufficient reason. Well, which is right – science or ontological mathematics? Is the universe irrational or rational? Is it acausal or causal?

The Challenge We refuted the arguments against free will in our book Free Will and Will to Power. So, we challenge the free will deniers to attempt to refute us, i.e. to try to refute ontological mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. Who but an irrationalist would even believe it was possible to do so? Anyone who supports Sam Harris is an atheist, skeptic, scientist, fundamentalist materialist and nihilist. All of these positions automatically flow from the denial of teleological mind as the fundamental reality (the stance of idealism), and the assertion that existence is predicated on purposeless atoms (the materialist stance). We can provide you with rational arguments. What we can’t do is persuade you of their truth if you’re irrational. The irrational can’t even recognise that we have furnished rational arguments, and will deny it to their dying breath.

***** Here’s a list of the things that no materialist can accept as true: 1) The soul 2) God 3) Immortality 4) The afterlife 5) Purpose 6) Meaning 7) Free will 8) Spirituality People such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris reject all of these. And so, logically, must all of their followers.

The Free Will Set DF: “The environment and previous history determines ‘what people might do’ (which can be thought of as a set), but not what they will do (which is

an individual element of the aforementioned set). That is, unless the set has a single element. Is modal logic that hard, people?” DF: “I’m pretty sure the ‘set model’ covers all possible options, if worked out thoroughly. The set of things you ‘might do’ is not the same as the ‘set of things you think about for doing’. If you think about something and exclude it, then the set of ‘might do’s’ thereafter doesn’t have that possibility. Also, it’s not that the set of ‘might do’s’ gets necessarily larger, it just get’s different. The aim is not the largest set of possibilities, but the best one ... in the sense that a rational person would not act irrationally. Free will doesn’t happen ‘in’ thought, it happens ‘between’ thought. It’s just one of those things that has to be assumed as default (the null hypothesis).” Exactly right.

Causal Agents Free will follows from the definition of causal agents as those that act freely whenever they are the ones supplying the causation and are deciding from amongst a set of potential actions. They are not acting freely if they are not supplying the causation; if others, or external forces, are supplying the causation. To deny free will is to claim that this definition is false, i.e. to assert that we are not free when we causally decide what to do from a range of possible options. Such a claim is incoherent. There are things we can imagine doing – such as stripping off and running naked into the street – that we will never do. There are things we might do with low, medium and high probability. In practice, we ponder only the high probability options. We choose one after a processing of rationally evaluating all of them. We don’t choose them randomly or indeterministically. We don’t choose them robotically (as if we have no choice and are entirely determined by external factors). The very fact that we ponder choices proves that we are exercising free will. If we weren’t, we would act instantly, either through an indeterministic selection or a deterministic choice forced on us by external agents or agency. Souls aren’t caused. Souls are causes. Souls are the causal agents. Hence it’s absurd to say that human beings (ensouled subjects) have no free will. This would be to claim that either humans beings act without cause (the indeterministic view), or are caused by other things (the scientific

determinist view). If souls are causal agents (which they are), both of these claims – the claims of the likes of Sam Harris – are false. Free will means that souls are the cause and choose what they want to cause. Unfree will would mean that souls are not the cause, but something else is (in which case souls would be redundant, exactly as we see in scientific materialism and Buddhism). To be free means that you are the causal agent. As an exclusively casual agent, you are always acting causally and never uncausally. The only complication is that if you are one soul amongst many then you are surrounded by other causal agents, and their causal acts will definitely impact on you, as yours will on them. The key point is that the causation of other agents certainly influences you. What it does not do is determine you, as scientific determinism claims. You can always supply your own chosen causation regardless of all other causal agents, and that capacity is what freedom is, and what allows you to experience the idea of freedom. Freedom is not freedom from causation. It’s freedom from causation that is not your own. What could be more obvious? People such as Sam Harris argue that you are not free if you enact your own causation. They claim that you can be free only if you can be free to be not you (!), if you can freely choose to behave other than you would behave. In other words, they say that if you obey yourself, you are ipso facto not free because you didn’t choose yourself. Harris says, “Where is the freedom in doing what one wants when one’s desires are the product of prior events that one is completely unaware of and had no hand in creating?” Actually, our desires, our will, are who we are, and, if you accept the existence of the immortal soul, you are ipso facto accepting that the person you now are was shaped long before you were born in this lifetime. Those who oppose free will claim that, to be free, we should be able to design and define our own nature, using our current, temporal, contingent consciousness. It’s wholly preposterous to say that we should be able to design who we are given that it is who we are that has brought us to where we are now, thinking the thoughts we do. We didn’t randomly magic ourselves out of nothing (the sort of idiotic claim that irrational scientists such as Harris typically make). We have an eternal history, and who we are now is the product of that eternal history. Any thoughts we have are entirely conditioned by that history, and it’s ridiculous to claim that we are free only

if we can repudiate that history (none of which we, in our present body, chose apart from the events of our current life) and make ourselves something brand new, without any precedent. Harris’s definition of freedom is unattainable and fundamentally incompatible with the existence of an immortal soul (of course, Harris, as a materialist fundamentalist and Buddhist sympathiser, denies the existence of the immortal soul, and thereby denies that we have subjective causal agency). The freedom Harris wants is the freedom to choose our immortal soul, and to reshape its nature at any time – a ludicrous concept of freedom. You can be free only as yourself. You can’t be free to be someone other than you! Harris’s lunatic definition of freedom is that we must be free to consciously choose our own nature, character and personality, desires, will, and, moreover, be free to continuously change these whenever we want, reflecting a kind of Multiverse conception of the self, where we can be all possible things, no matter how incompatible. Of course, just as the concept of the rational universe is destroyed by the concept of the Multiverse reflecting all possible conditions, no matter how crazy, so the concept of the Self is destroyed by the concept of the MultiSelf, reflecting all possible versions of you, no matter how dissimilar to your current self that you consider to be “you”. People regard freedom as being able to do what they want. They do not regard freedom as being able to be someone else entirely different from themselves, with completely different desires. This, however, is Harris’s understanding of freedom. It’s a perverse conception of freedom and heavily influenced by scientific materialist notions of randomness, indeterminism, Multiverses, the non-existence of the mind in its own right, and so on. Harris denies that we are free because our existence precedes our consciousness, and conditions our consciousness, and our consciousness had no say in our existence. If we did not choose our existence and the nature of our existence and how it gave rise to our consciousness, then we are, according to Harris’s “logic”, prisoners of ourselves, of our own existence. For anyone to assert that we are unfree because we are who we are, but didn’t consciously choose who we are, is surely to furnish the most

grotesque misinterpretation of free will there has ever been, and the most feeble counter-argument ever advanced against free will. We are free, Harris says, only if, starting right now, we can design ourselves from scratch, making every decision consciously, and without any prior conditionality, and without any reference to any pre-existing self, and pre-existing desires, will, nature, character, personality, and so on, and most emphatically without any reference to an uncreated, uncaused, immortal mathematical soul (monad = immaterial, autonomous Fourier frequency singularity, outside space and time). This is the technical basis of Harris’s denial of free will, and it’s preposterous in every way. It has no link with the common conception of freedom, i.e. that we are free when we do things for our own reasons. Harris is guilty of exactly what he accuses Dennett of – inventing a version of freedom that no normal person would recognise. No supporter of free will is complaining, as Harris is suggesting, that we are not free to be Sam Harris. (Thank God!) Harris is conceiving of freedom as something that cannot be determined in any way, including by ourselves for our own reasons. He wants freedom to be something like the Multiverse version of reality where everything that can happen will happen, where everything not forbidden is compulsory, i.e. we can randomly explore any possibility at any time, without any constraints, most especially from our own history, environment and fundamental nature. We must, according to Harris, be free not to act according to our own reasons that reflect who we are! We must be free not to have the desires we have, the will we have, the nature we have, the character we have and the personality we have. If any of that were true, if we could change all of those things at any time, we would not be “us” at all, but chameleon, random beings, with no identity ... indeterministically leaping from one possible reality to the next, with no continuity. Harris, a Buddhist sympathiser and “meditator”, requires us, in order to satisfy his belief of what freedom is, to have no essential self and be able to be anything at any time, and if we cannot achieve that then we unfree in his book. Well, we’re perfectly happy to have no freedom if that’s what freedom is. However, freedom is nothing like that. Freedom is simply doing what we want for our own reasons, whether our own conscious reasons or

unconscious reasons. No free person has any desire to be free to have a different soul, a different self.

***** It’s absurd for any scientific materialist to refer to free will at all, or to consciousness, the unconscious, mind, life, subjective agency, qualia, awareness, illusion, and so on, since there is absolutely no reference to these in any laws of science, and they are underivable from the laws of science. There is not even the germ of them in any scientific law, and they are undefinable in terms of scientific materialism, and materialism in general. How will science ever explain mind when neither mind nor anything remotely mental plays any role in the prevailing scientific paradigm?

Karma “Karma is perhaps the least understood concept in Eastern mysticism. One often hears spiritual seekers refer to a particular event (usually something tragic) as ‘that’s his or her karma.’ On the surface of it, such statements look innocent enough, especially when saints and sages from India have spoken (since time immemorial) of a person’s fate in terms of the inexorable law of karma, the moral equivalent of Newton’s law of cause and effect, action and reaction, etc. However, there is a very curious problem in the haphazard use of the word karma that is for the most part glossed over or neglected. “Even if we accept the idea of karma and its apparent universal applicability, we can never truly discern any one thing as not karmic since the implication in Eastern philosophy and mysticism is that everything is karmically bound. Thus karma as a concept cannot in any singular case be utilized as an explanation of some event, some action, some retribution. Or, if we do dare to use it as such, we are more or less speaking gibberish. A crude example may illustrate this better for us: let’s say that a person gets infected with influenza. We learn about it later and with our newfound vocabulary we immediately say something like ‘Well, that’s karma.’ Yet, if we are to be consistent in our understanding we must also say that everything preceding the event of getting sick is also karmic – even our statement to the effect that ‘that’s karma’ is itself karmic.

“What do we have here? It’s really quite simple: we have an all or nothing proposition that has absolutely no discerning force in explaining anything that can occur. We might as well say that everything is caused by ‘I don’t know.’ Because in a strange twist of phrase, if everything is karmic (for simplicity’s sake, say everything is significant or has meaning), then nothing in particular is karmic (or is significant or has meaning), since all karma is interconnected. In other words, if everything is significant, then nothing individually is significant. That is, nothing stands apart from anything else; nothing has peculiar or distinctive meaning. We are caught in an intractable web and anytime we try to isolate one event from another and pontificate on its titular importance we lose a vital chain in its ultimate interdependence. Thus when we say something is karmic, we are (unconsciously, no doubt, and not with any evil intention, of course) acting like we know something profound and we are saying something brilliant. We are doing neither. We are simply illustrating how genuinely confused we are over the immensity of the concept. Because to truly understand karma is to realize that we cannot at any stage distinguish one event from another and then extrapolate and pass judgment on that one ferreted out sequence. More simply, if karma is indeed karma, it is inextricably intertwined with an almost infinite matrix of other sequences – none of which can be divorced from each other. “What is quite intriguing about all of this is that if we truly understand that everything has meaning (everything is distinguished, let’s say again, in exchange) then we could just as easily say that nothing (read: no thing – with an emphasis on the no and emphasis on the space between no and thing) has meaning or nothing has significance. No-thing, in other words, is karmic. Which leads us to this: if no thing has meaning, then we could just as easily say that all events are the result of chance. And by chance, I mean that we cannot properly adjudicate any one event and give it a truly causal basis. Rather, we could only give it a probable explanation – not dissimilar to quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty...” David Christopher Lane, Why Karma Theory is Nonsense Lane is of course correct. Karma theory is total nonsense and it’s amazing that so many people still subscribe to this claptrap, every bit as silly as Christian “grace”.

“... anytime we try to isolate one event from another...” It’s vital to realise that in an extended material world, everything is automatically connected to everything else, so it’s impossible to isolate one event from another. Thus it is with “karma” too. The only way to have isolatable events is to have selfcontained, autonomous units that do not belong to the extended material world. These units are of course dimensionless, immaterial monads: souls. Plainly, souls are not determined by so-called karmic forces any more than they are by material forces. This is what allows them to be free (i.e. undetermined by external forces).

Different Types of Atheist There are several types of atheist: 1) Nietzschean radicals who want a higher calibre of humanity: Supermen atheists. 2) Anti-Nietzschean liberal humanists who want everyone to be “nice”: Last Men atheists. 3) Scientific materialist atheists who deny free will, mind and meaning: Machine Men atheists. 4) Randroid Libertarian atheists who promote selfishness and individualism as the supreme good: Solipsistic atheists. 5) Schopenhaueran atheists who regard existence as evil and want to cease to exist: Nihilistic atheists. 6) David Hume atheists who deny all meaningful knowledge: Skeptical atheists. 7) Existentialist and Absurdist atheists who focus on our absurd existence in a meaningless universe that cares nothing for us and who say we are condemned to be free (as Sartre put it): Depressive Atheists. These different types of atheist have little in common, and entirely different notions of reality. The only atheists who could ally themselves with Illuminism are the Nietzschean atheists. Only they are radical enough and are interested enough in perfecting the human race.

Anti-Determinism It’s inconceivable that anyone would claim that we are free only if we do not cause our own actions, if we do not determine what we do, if we do not have reasons for doing this rather than that. Incredibly, many opponents of compatibilism – the doctrine that there is no contradiction between free will and determinism – subscribe to exactly this definition. One of the great problems regarding the free will debate is that different parties are using their own definitions, and attacking other positions using their definitions, which are not accepted by their opponents. How can you reach a conclusion when the very definitions people are using are incompatible?

***** One of Harris’s fans said that Harris corrects widespread misunderstandings. In fact, he generates and perpetuates them.

***** We came across the following illuminating internet debate: Q. “How one can believe in free will and determinism still baffles me – if every single action/thought of humans is fully determined and would happen exactly the same way (barring quantum indeterminacy) if we ran the tape over again a million times, where on Earth is free will? Daniel Dennett [a compatibilist] can redefine the term all he wants, but I’m not buying it....” A. “What is it that makes you think that you could have acted differently if all the variables in a given situation were the same? Nothing makes us compatibilists think that! Compatibilism is just as thorough an embracing of determinism as incompatibilism is. This is one of the slightly tiresome aspects of the debate. The incompatibilists always suspect the compatibilists of reneging on determinism, and never actually engage with compatibilism. Whenever they do realise what compatibilism actually is, they just say, in a rather puzzled way, ‘but that doesn’t give you contracausal free will’, which of course the compatibilists already knew.” The latter contribution is spot on, while the first contribution is what is all too typical of the opponents of compatibilism. They just can’t accept that

freedom and compatibilism can ever be associated. They can’t think their way past their own prejudices. They can’t accept that we are free if we are the determinants, and not being determined by others. That’s all that compatibilism means: as long as it’s our determinism, it’s free. If the determinism belongs to anything else, we are not free. And this means that we are free only if we have uncreated, uncaused, autonomous, immortal souls. Of course, what the anti-compatibilists cannot understand is exactly this existence of the soul. The classic statement, “...if every single action/thought of humans is fully determined ... where on Earth is free will?” completely fails to distinguish between two types of determinism: determinism by you (internal determinism) versus determinism not by you (external determinism). We are free when internal determinism is true – we are deciding what to do – and we are not free when external determinism is true – the not-us is deciding what we do. All fundamentalist scientific materialists have no concept of internal determinism. When they use the word “determinism”, they invariably mean external determinism only, in which case there is indeed no possibility of free will. However, compatibilism is all about internal and external determinism co-existing and being compatible with each other. We are all being subjected to external deterministic influences (which would be fully deterministic if we were strictly passive in the face of them), but we are not determined by them, unless they are overpowering – such as someone shooting us dead, or if we are caught up in a hurricane. In most benevolent circumstances, internal determinism is always available to us, and we can always act freely (via self-determination rather than other-determination, i.e. we can be active rather than passive). As ever, people enter debates aware only of their own schemas, and hostile to all other schemas, especially those that most contradict theirs. Enemies of compatibilism have never taken the trouble to understand what it actually is, what it implies about ontology and epistemology, and how it contradicts scientific materialism.

The “Visser” Type Frank Visser, a one time fan of Ken Wilber, now relentlessly attacks Wilber using scientific materialist arguments. Plainly, Visser is an embittered enemy of Wilber (not a constructive, critical friend as he likes to portray

himself). Visser is unquestionably a scientific materialist who is in denial and thinks he’s something else. This is pure bad faith. We notice that we get quite a few people in Illuminist circles who endorse fanatical scientific materialists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The views of these two individuals are just as opposed to Illuminism as those of Abrahamists and Karmists. Anyone who agrees with Dawkins and Harris is an out-and-out scientific materialist, exactly as Dawkins and Harris themselves are. It’s bad faith to claim to be any kind of Illuminist when actively promoting the ideologies of atheism and scientific materialism. People have to choose. If you want to be an atheist or scientific materialist, that’s fine, that’s your choice – but you have ipso facto chosen not to be an Illuminist. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do nothing for Illuminism. Why should Illuminists be promoting Dawkins and Harris? That’s entirely selfdefeating.

Science versus Pseudoscience We came across a chart from the “Skeptics’ Organisation” comparing science with pseudoscience. Oh how we laughed. It’s a pity the skeptics are so unskeptical when it comes to their own propaganda. Below, we list what they say about pseudoscience, together with what they say about science (their Myth of science), and what the real truth of science is:

***** Pseudoscience: Starts with a conclusion then works backwards to confirm. Science (the Myth): Follows the evidence wherever it leads. Science (the Truth): Starts with a Feynman guess, which is then manipulated by brute force until it fits. Scientists have no idea what they’re doing and why ... just check out how Max Planck “discovered” Planck’s Constant. Science uses rationalist mathematics to address empiricist observations, even though mathematics has no connection with empiricism and, in fact, is the exact opposite. Why aren’t scientists skeptical about the use of rationalism within empiricism? Where is their proof that this

approach can lead to Truth rather than contingent, ever-changing interpretations?

***** Pseudoscience: Hostile to criticism. Science (the Myth): Embraces criticism. Science (the Truth): Any scientist who strongly opposed the scientific consensus and groupthink would have all of their funding cut and be expelled from science. How much funding does Rupert Sheldrake get from the science establishment? When has any scientist ever responded to any of Sheldrake’s criticisms of science, or indeed those of anyone else? The only “criticism” science accepts is from its own members, just as the Catholic Church listens only to senior officials in the Church. The Catholic Church, like science, never responds to critics.

***** Pseudoscience: Uses vague jargon to confuse and evade. Science (the Myth): Uses precise terminology with clear definitions. Science (the Truth): Mathematics uses precise terminology with clear definitions. Science emphatically doesn’t. Science can’t define anything ontologically and epistemology. It uses, vague, circular, instrumental definitions, defining a second thing in terms of the first, and the first in terms of the second (e.g. E = mc2). Science cannot say what time is ontologically, or energy, or space, or mass, or matter, or, indeed, what anything actually is. Science is absolutely ad hoc and empiricist, with no analytic features at all. It deals with contingent interpretations of fact, and never with necessary truths of reason, which it repudiates as mere tautology. Science cannot define why rationalist mathematics is at the heart of empirical science. It’s an entirely bogus subject.

***** Pseudoscience: Grandiose claims that go beyond the evidence Science (the Myth): Claims are conservative and tentative.

Science (the Truth): Yeah, right! Science makes grandiose claims that cats can be alive and dead at once, that there are infinite universes and infinite clones of us, that the moon isn’t there when no one is looking at it, that existence randomly jumps out of non-existence, that unreal wavefunctions are the basis of reality, that there’s no free will, that the universe is made of matter and not of mind. All of these absurd claims go way beyond the evidence. What planet are these people living on? These are wild, irrational claims and there’s not one jot of “evidence” to support any of them.

***** Pseudoscience: Cherry picks only favourable evidence; relies on testimonials or weak evidence Science (the Myth): Properly considers all evidence and arguments. Science (the Truth): Considers arguments only by recognised authorities in the field, rejects all “heretical” thinking, accepts only thinking and arguments associated with the ruling paradigm (paradigms change only as those holding them die); demonstrates total groupthink; fanatically based on empiricism and materialism and rejects everything else without a second thought. Rubbishes everything that disagrees with it. The claims of science are typically conformist and driven by groupthink and paradigmatic thinking.

***** Pseudoscience: Uses flawed methods with unrepeatable results. Science (the Myth): Uses rigorous and repeatable methods. Science (the Truth): Uses relentless observational bias; countless flawed experiments; ever-moving targets; countless refuted theories once supported by the evidence; only studies what the prevailing paradigm says can be studied; uses groupthink in the interpretation of results.

***** Pseudoscience: Lone mavericks working in isolation. Science (the Myth): Engages with peers and community.

Science (the Truth): Virtually every genius in history was a lone maverick, rejected until proved right by the moronic scientific groupthinkers! All freethinkers, heretics and geniuses are rejected by science as mad mavericks. What epithet was regularly applied to Einstein and Feynman, two of the most revered scientists? – “maverick” (oops, guys!). Scientists are conformist drones, and they think this is a good thing. Catholic cardinals engage with peers and the community. So what?! In any case, scientists never properly engage with the public, they speak in an arcane, impenetrable technical jargon, and most of them are semi-autistic.

***** Pseudoscience: Uses inconsistent and invalid logic. Science (the Myth): Follows careful and valid logic. Science (the Truth): Science doesn’t use any logic at all. It uses Feynman guesses, trial and error, and rejects anything other than empiricist and materialist dogmatism. Completely rejects analysis, and is based on nothing but the empiricist interpretation of experimental data.

***** Pseudoscience: Dogmatic and unyielding. Science (the Myth): Changes with new evidence. Science (the Truth): “Science progresses one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck. Science is totally paradigmatic, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, and defends failed paradigms to the dying breath. Dogmatic and unyielding. Subject to astonishing groupthink and conformism; absolutely opposed to freethinking. Enormously ideological. Driven by fashionable paradigms.

***** Pseudoscience is to science what science is to ontological mathematics. No rational person would ever take science seriously in terms of the truth of reality. Pseudoscientists are often much nearer to the Truth than scientists when it comes to claims about ultimate reality. Science regards philosophy as little more than pseudoscience. It suffers from a serious delusion that it’s as analytic and rational as mathematics,

which it definitely isn’t. Science is a mockery of mathematics. It’s mathematics through the distorting lens of empiricism rather than the focusing lens of rationalism.

***** Science is itself a pseudoscience, and just as the believers of pseudoscience uncritically accept all of the propaganda of their particular pseudoscience, so “skeptics” and scientists swallow without any resistance all the propaganda of theirs. Skepticism is exactly what they are lacking. True skeptics are those who realise that everything is garbage – pure opinion, belief, conjecture and interpretation – except the eternal, analytic, tautological truths of mathematics. It’s ridiculous that scientists and its groupies imagine that science has anything to do with true reality. It’s just a Mythos like all the other pseudosciences it condemns. There is only one true science – ontological mathematics.

***** “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.” – Thomas Kuhn Would any “skeptics” like to answer Kuhn? Would they like to address the problem of observer bias and paradigmatic thinking – or is skepticism only to be extended to non-science, while the absurd claims of science are to be accepted with total credulity?

***** It’s amazing how many “skeptics” and fans of science have never actually studied science at a high level and know more or less nothing about science and how it operates. They ought to start studying the philosophy of science and learn how to be proper skeptics – regarding scientific propaganda! But they’re true believers, so they won’t be doing that. It’s equally amazing that some “spiritual” people support scientific skepticism. Science regards people such as Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilber, Jesus, the Buddha, Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and Jung – who all styled or style themselves as mystics, gurus and spiritual teachers

– as every bit as bad and mad as pseudoscientists, as maverick, shameless charlatans peddling lies and acting as dangerous cult leaders. These people are deemed guilty of all the sins listed under the “pseudoscience” heading. How much cognitive dissonance is involved in supporting any of these figures and also scientific materialism? Frank Visser, erstwhile fan of Ken Wilber but now his relentless critic (via scientific materialism), could no doubt tell us, or, rather, fail to tell us.

The Betrayal of Reason “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.” – Kant Yet Kant did nothing but undermine pure reason! “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” – Carl Sagan Science is a bad way of thinking, contrary to reason. It doesn’t provide any true, ultimate knowledge at all. “Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” – C.S. Lewis Only reason supplies meaning. “Once the people begin to reason, all is lost.” – Voltaire On the contrary, that’s when all is won. “The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.” – Benjamin Franklin The way to see by Reason is to shut the Eye of Faith, Feelings, the Senses and Mysticism. “Being unable to reason is not a positive character trait outside religion.” – Dewey Henize Science doesn’t rate reason either.

“What I conclude is that religion has nothing to do with experience or reason but with deep and irrational needs” – Richard Taylor Very true. And so does science. It relates to sensory rather than emotional needs, and ignores rational needs. “The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason” – Blaise Pascal Nothing is beyond reason. That’s the supreme conclusion of reason. “Although nature commences with reason and ends in experience it is necessary for us to do the opposite, that is to commence with experience and from this to proceed to investigate the reason.” – Leonardo da Vinci If nature commences with reason, it must end in reason, and reason must be the way to investigate it. “The last function of reason is to recognize that there are an infinity of things which surpass it.” – Blaise Pascal The first function of reason is to recognise that nothing surpasses it. “The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” – Bertrand Russell Nothing does more harm than the modern denial of the law of causality – the gospel of irrationalism and anti-mathematics. “I have tried to read philosophers of all ages and have found many illuminating ideas but no steady progress toward deeper knowledge and understanding. Science, however, gives me the feeling of steady progress: I am convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics), and it has taught us new methods of thinking (complementarity) which are applicable far beyond physics.” – Max Born Dream on, Max!

Capitalism and Science Capitalism is all about random, “free” markets, hence is a natural partner of randomist science. Rationalist ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is all about design, as is Plato’s Republic. What’s it to be – a randomist world or a designed world; an unintelligent, irrational world, or an intelligent, rationalist world?

***** “Markets”, of course, aren’t “free”, and certainly aren’t transparent. They are underpinned by a noumenal world of banks, hedge funds, corporations, sovereign funds, pension funds, the super rich – all of which are massively manipulating and rigging the market, while the “little guy” in the market doesn’t have a clue or a prayer. So it is with science. Behind the so-called random, spontaneous events of science is a cosmic mathematical machine (or, rather, life-form) – the Singularity.

Atheism No one could be an atheist unless there was a concept of God. If no one had ever mentioned God, there would be no atheists. What is it that atheists are actually denying? Are they denying the silly gods of mainstream religion and mythology? Or are they denying a much more fundamental concept: that of perfection? What would happen if we could extract many of the fundamental properties attributed to “God” and, instead of associating them with an invisible Superbeing in the sky, we associated them with an eternal system? This is exactly what ontological mathematics does. Ontological mathematics is the God Equation, which is none other than the principle of sufficient reason rendered ontological, and is instantiated through countless immortal mathematical minds called monads. The God Equation/ Principle of Sufficient Reason is: a) perfect, b) immortal, c) indestructible, d) flawless, e) infallible, f) all-powerful, g) ubiquitous, h) universal, i) transcendent, j) immanent, k) the first cause, l) the prime mover, m) necessary, n) the source of all knowledge. In other words, it has all the properties of God but is not a person, although it is ontologically conveyed through potential persons (monadic minds). Would

atheists reject “God” so easily if God were defined as ontological mathematics? Where does our concept of God come from? Descartes proposed that we can have a concept of perfection only because perfection actually exists. His ingenious argument was that a cause must have at least as much reality as its effect. Since humans plainly aren’t perfect, we cannot be the cause of the concept of perfection, so something non-human, greater than human, must be the cause, and our notion of perfection is its effect. Since we are literally instances of the perfect, godlike God Equation, we all have an intuitive, instinctive, innate relationship with perfection. We all comprehend mathematical perfection. Moreover, we can all conceive of an omega point of a dialectal optimisation procedure. We can imagine a mathematical process converging on a perfect, Absolute state. We can imagine a living mathematical system solving itself, and what could the answer be other than perfection, the best of all possible answers, because why would the mathematical system ever stop at a sub-optimal answer? So, we can conceive of two types of perfection: 1) eternal, static perfection, and 2) temporal, dynamic, historical, evolutionary perfection, starting from an imperfect point and progressing inexorably to a perfect completion point. In other words, we can imagine both a perfect Omega Point, acting like a tractor beam and cosmically drawing all imperfect things towards it, and perfecting them in the process, and a perfect, timeless Singularity (Alpha Point), perfect in its mathematical laws. The Monadic Collective is both the Alpha and the Omega. If you look at all religious conceptions of existence, involving God, the soul, heaven, hell, enlightenment and the perfecting of the soul, you will see that they all reduce to the notions of the two types of perfection: static (eternal) and dynamic (temporal, evolutionary), or the interaction of the two. So, we wish to introduce a new concept of atheist. We define an atheist as someone who denies the existence of any kind of perfection. If you look at the central, randomist tenets of scientific materialism, any hint of perfection is exactly what’s absent. There is no perfect, eternal order; there is no perfect evolutionary process producing perfection; there are no perfect or perfectible beings; there is no perfect endpoint for the universe; there are no perfect laws; there is no perfect design; there is no best of all possible worlds (perfection). There is no perfect meaning, purpose or point in the

scientific materialist conception of reality. Nothing is striving to accomplish anything. There are no purposes or endpoints. Things happen spontaneously, for no reason. In other words, science is more than a denial of God, it’s a denial of all the properties that could ever be associated with God or any Godlike system. Our definition of an atheist as someone who denies perfection has an immediate corollary; he is also someone who denies meaning. If you think about it, meaning is entirely invested in perfection. We expect a perfect being to know the meaning of existence, and be capable of telling us. We expect a perfect evolutionary process to culminate with we ourselves being perfect and knowing everything. Our pursuit of perfection/God is the meaning of life. To be an atheist is to reject perfection, hence reject meaning. That’s why we brand all atheists as nihilists. They don’t believe in anything. They don’t believe in meaning. And that makes them no different from machines. They are not living beings, or they refuse to be living beings. They are unquestionably high on the autistic spectrum, and they see themselves and the universe as machines rather than living, evolving organisms, getting more and more perfect. Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, was obsessed with the concept of quality. We share his obsession, but we call quality perfection, i.e. people who are concerned with quality don’t want any old quality, but the best possible quality, which immediately entails perfect quality. That’s exactly what scientific materialism fails to deliver. Consider the theory of evolution. All non-atheist versions of evolution involve progress towards perfection. Atheist evolution (Darwinism) involves meaningless, random mutations being meaninglessly operated upon by natural selection to produce meaningless adaptations ... and in the end everything dies, all energy runs down ... and that’s it ... the end. There are no grounds at all to deny the existence of quality and perfection. Science chooses to be meaningless. It’s not God it hates and opposes. It’s meaning itself. You will see that absolutely no scientific theory is accepted unless it implies meaninglessness. All scientific processes and laws culminate in meaninglessness, whether it’s the random Big Bang, the random Multiverse, the random collapse of wavefunctions, the random mutation of genes in randomist evolution, the expansion of the universe, the Second

Law of Thermodynamics, the intermingling of life and death in an unobserved cat, and so on. At all times, teleology (purpose) is denied, and any scientific theory is rejected if it contains any trace of teleology. Science is formally and fundamentally predicated on meaninglessness. You cannot be a scientist if you believe in meaning. Hence you are an atheist and, indeed, nihilist. Go on, ask any scientist anywhere to point to anything in science that embraces meaning, purpose, quality, excellence, subjectivity, qualia, free will, autonomous mind and perfection? No such thing exists. However, there’s no end of appeals to non-mind, non-freedom meaninglessness, randomness, accident, chance, probability, statistics, indeterminism, acausality, non-design, imperfection, purposelessness, and pointlessness. Psychologically, science and atheism represent severe mental illness, and total pathology. Scientists and atheists are unquestionably autistic. There is no reason to believe in meaninglessness and to produce meaningless theories, yet scientists seek out meaninglessness and automatically reject meaning wherever they find it. What is more meaningless than the scientific Multiverse where everything that can happen will happen, where anything not forbidden is compulsory? The Multiverse is how scientists explain “everything”. They simply say that everything happens, if it can happen. Thus they need give no reason for anything. Whatever it is, it will happen without a reason, provided it’s not impossible. You would need to be a lunatic to sympathise with scientific materialism and atheism. They are actually worse than religion given that they oppose meaning and purpose. Nothing is more characteristic of the human condition that the search for meaning and purpose, so nothing is more inhuman than to deny that they have any authentic significance in terms of the operations of the universe. To a scientist, there’s no different between a shelf stacker and Leibniz in terms of meaning – neither has any connection with meaning since there is no meaning. Never forget, an atheist is not someone who rejects God, but someone who rejects meaning, purpose and perfection ... and that makes them insane.

Randomness

If the illusion of free will is science’s “antidote” to free will, and atheism is science’s “antidote” to God/ Meaning/ Design/ Purpose/ Perfection, what is science’s antidote to the principle of sufficient reason? If the principle of sufficient reason means that everything that happens has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise, the opposite is things happening for no reason at all – randomness! This is the entire basis of the scientific “explanation” of existence. Science is a formally irrationalist system opposed to the principle of sufficient reason. That’s why it’s astounding when people such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim to be on the side of reason. They plainly don’t know the meaning of the word.

***** Reality says “free will”. Science says “illusion of free will”. Reality says “perfection”. Science says “imperfection”. Reality says “meaning”. Science says “meaninglessness.” Reality says “purpose”. Science says “purposelessness.” Reality says “principle of sufficient reason”. Science says spontaneous randomness. Reality says “order. Science says “disorder.” Science is the opposite of reality. If religion, based on the irrational feelings, was the thesis, science, based on the irrational senses, was its antithesis (but with the inexplicable inclusion of hyperrationalist mathematics). The synthesis of religion and science is ontological mathematics, the rational basis of religion and science. It provides the perfect, eternal, immutable, a priori order required by religion and metaphysics, and it explains why science is all about math. Remove math from science and you would have nothing but a system of augury, divination and alchemy.

***** Scientific atheism → free will is an illusion. Scientific atheism → God is an illusion.

Scientific atheism → perfection is an illusion. Scientific atheism → meaning is an illusion. Scientific atheism → purpose is an illusion. Scientific atheism → order is an illusion. Scientific atheism → causation is an illusion. Scientific atheism → determinism is an illusion. Scientific atheism → reason is an illusion Scientific atheism → free will is false. Scientific atheism → God is false. Scientific atheism → perfection is false. Scientific atheism → meaning is false. Scientific atheism → purpose is false. Scientific atheism → order is false. Scientific atheism → causation is false. Scientific atheism → determinism is false. Scientific atheism → reason is false. Scientific atheism → randomness is true. Scientific atheism → indeterminism is true. Scientific atheism → acausation is true. Scientific atheism → infinite contingent regress is true.

***** Darwinism says that purpose and design are illusory. Evolution happens to no end. There is no evolutionary aim. The Multiverse says that the notion of one universe is illusory: there are infinite universes, hence any particular universe, including ours, is meaningless and totally insignificant, merely one amongst random infinity.

Wavefunction collapse says that causation and determinism are illusory. The ordered world is an illusion born of probability and statistics. Everything positive is an illusion as far as science is concerned. Science is an extreme negative ideology, trying to exterminate any trace of meaning, purpose, design, order, reason and ultimate explanation. Science is predicated on calling everything else an illusion, but, of course, science itself is the true Grand Illusion. Science is the wholesale rejection of reason, meaning, purpose and explanation. And what else could it possibly be given that it’s predicated on mindless, lifeless, meaningless, purposeless atoms that can be traced back to the random, spontaneous, miraculous generation of something from nothing for no reason (the scientific Big Bang). According to science (with its customary total contempt for logic), nonexistence has one property – instability – allowing existence to erupt from it for no reason. If science did the rational thing and attributed no properties whatsoever to non-existence, it would thereby have no means at all to produce existence. To say that non-existence is unstable – and give no reason why it should be, or how such a concept even makes sense – is to appeal to magic and miracles. It’s literally to invoke “God”, with God now being nothing but the principle of Creation itself, stripped of all qualities, purposes, design, intentionality, and so on, leaving nothing but the supposed capacity of nonexistence to spontaneously create existence for no reason. We can’t stress enough that when you analyse the fundamental basis of science, you discover that the whole thing rests on the alleged capacity of non-existence to be the source of existence – a logical impossibility, and one that the ancient Greeks scoffed at two and half thousand years ago. Science has learned nothing! With ontological mathematics, on the other hand, we have an eternal, analytic mathematical order, inherently capable of producing anything at all using mathematics. We have a complete explanation of reality, and a sufficient mathematical reason for everything.

***** There are effectively three worldviews: 1) Religion: an eternal being (“God”) is the source of everything = Thesis.

2) Science: the eternal instability of non-existence is the source of everything = Antithesis. 3) Ontological mathematics: an eternal rational system is the source of everything = Synthesis. Ontological mathematics is neither about a perfect being nor an imperfect non-existence, but about existence as a perfect, eternal system, ruled by the principle of sufficient reason. With ontological mathematics, no reference has to be made to any Mythos Creator, and no illogical claim has to be made that existence can come from non-existence. Mathematics exists forever, and is forever equal to “nothing” while always being “something”, thanks to the unique capacity supplied by mathematics to equate something and nothing, e.g. eiπ + 1 = 0. Any candidate to explain existence fails if it can’t show how something is equal to nothing. Religion fails, and science fails. Any rational person has nowhere left to go but ontological mathematics. Irrational people can go wherever they like – because they’re irrational!

***** You can’t have atheism without first having the concept of God or gods, the illusion of free will without first having the concept of free will, the illusion of order without first having the concept of order, the illusion of reason without first having the concept of reason, the illusion of design without first having the concept of design. Science is all about depicting as illusions all the things that imply reason, design, order, causation, freedom, meaning, purpose, determinism, perfection, completion, wholeness. Why is science so determined to eliminate all of these things, to expose all of them as alleged cosmic hoaxes? And how does it explain all of these cosmic frauds other than by asserting that everyone is insane, except the scientists, of course? They alone aren’t deluded. Sam Harris and his ilk see through all the bullshit. But, if you accept the principle of sufficient reason, then it’s the scientists who are deluded, the scientists who are the madmen, the scientists who have got it all wrong. Seriously, the entire basis of science is to find ways to deny meaning. What is Darwinism? It’s how to replace a designed universe with a random, purposeless universe that evolves to no end. What is the Multiverse? It’s a

way to avoid explaining this universe by asserting that every random universe is possible. What is indeterministic “wavefunction collapse”? It’s a way to avoid explaining causation and determinism. What is the claim that free will is illusory? It’s a way to avoid explaining subjective agency, avoid explaining the autonomous mind – the soul. There are no “innocent” theories in science. All of them are ideologically, dogmatically, paradigmatically designed to deny idealism, rationalism and any hint of religion. There is not a single scientific theory that is not wholly predicated on the denial of idealism, rationalism and religion. You would not be allowed to be a scientist if you ever openly advanced any idealist, rationalist or religious arguments. If you did, you would be fired, or marginalised, or called a crank. Your funding would definitely be cut. All of this makes science a pseudoscience, a quasi-religion, a Church of Meaninglessness, a faith in purposelessness, a cult of irrationalism. Outside mainstream religion, it’s the most closed-minded subject in the world. It’s the opposite of what its propaganda trumpets. It’s as bad in its own way as Islam. Science has become total sophistry, and the scientists are the Sophists are those who will do anything for success but who have no regard for the Truth, and stand in opposition to the rational, Platonic Philosophers. Noam Chomsky said, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum...” That’s exactly how science operates. Scientists imagine they are being open-minded because they have a “lively debate”, yet they are so stupid they have failed to realise how utterly limited the spectrum of acceptable scientific opinion is. Scientists, sad to say, are bureaucrats, functionaries, drudges and drones with almost no ability to think creatively and radically. There are no interesting scientists, and none with anything intelligible to tell humanity about ultimate reality. If you want to be a radical, creative thinker exploring incredible new vistas, become an ontological mathematician. Consider the God Series. Do you imagine that Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Stephen Hawking or Max Tegmark could have written anything like this?!

Subjectivity and Free Will

To have free will, it’s necessary to have subjects. Not just any old subjects: eternal subjects. But what are eternal subjects? They are souls. And the soul is exactly what science must deny, so virtually all atheistic scientists deny free will. They are programmed to do so. Subjects imply meaning and purpose, so science must eliminate subjects. That’s why science is all about objects, which have no meaning or purpose. Science is about mindless atomic matter, while ontological mathematics is about immaterial atomic minds (monads). There’s all the difference in the world. What’s mind-boggling is to find people who claim to believe in the existence of the soul, yet supporting the views of fundamentalist materialist nihilists such as Sam Harris, who wouldn’t contemplate the existence of the soul under any circumstances. If you endorse atheist materialists then you yourself are an atheist materialist, and it’s in total bad faith to claim otherwise.

Seeing is Believing “What the eyes see, the mind believes.” – Houdini Scientists are so childish that they believe exactly what their eyes see. You need to be smart to grasp that the world is nothing like how it appears. You need to have a sophisticated intelligence that can transcend your sensory biases. Your senses are 100% useless in revealing true reality to you. Reason alone can penetrate the mysteries of intelligible existence.

The Cure for Science What is the antidote to science? What is the cure for science? Ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is also the antidote to religion. It’s the replacement for God. It’s the only true perfection, the only true explanation, the only true reason for everything.

The Design Flaw Science is ideologically designed to ignore noumena – to presume they don’t exist – hence is entirely a science of phenomena (appearances). This

means that the inherent design of science prevents it from telling us anything at all about ultimate reality (which we can’t observe; which has no appearance). Kant criticised pure reason for exceeding empirical limits. In fact, it’s scientific reason he should have attacked. Science is great at telling us about the observable world because it’s designed expressly for that purpose. By exactly the same token, it’s useless at telling us about the unobservable world. Science errs as soon as it makes any reference to anything unobservable such as the Big Bang Singularity, black hole singularities, photonic singularities, unreal and abstract mathematical wavefunctions, wavefunction “collapse”, unobservable cosmologies, unobservable particles (“strings”), the Multiverse, parallel worlds, clones of us in other universes, Einstein’s relativity principle, unobservable random mutations and random events, and so on. This is all metaphysical speculation and conjecture that has far exceeded what observable, experimental science has any right to say. Never forget that science can’t even explain what mathematics is even though it’s totally dependent on mathematics, yet presumes to claim that it knows what the world is like. Plainly, if the universe is in fact mathematical, science has failed at the first hurdle. Consider something such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. How is this to be interpreted? It’s your ideology that will determine how you ponder this principle. The principle is often popularly depicted to say that the very act of observing something disturbs it and changes what we are observing. This sounds reasonable enough until you realise that this entire understanding of the principle is driven by the empiricist ideology of observation. But what does this principle mean in an immaterial, unobservable world of frequencies outside space and time? Scientists couldn’t begin to understand Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle from any perspective other than that decreed by scientific dogmatism based on empiricism, materialism and positivism. But if this dogmatism is false – which it is – then all interpretations that flow from it are ipso facto false too. That’s the whole problem with science: it’s making ideological, philosophical claims that are absolutely wrong if the basic conception of science is false. If there is no “God”, religion is false. If there is no randomness, science is false. It’s that simple!

How would science go about establishing that its basic conception of reality is unshakably, indisputably true? Science ideologically creates an ontological dichotomy: 1) what exists is observable; 2) the unobservable doesn’t exist. By definition, an ideology based on observation cannot address the unobservable. Science, if it were rational, would simply define itself as a subject that deals exclusively with appearances, and can say nothing about things (such as monads) that have no appearance (because they’re immaterial and outside space and time). However, science doesn’t say this. Science asserts that there is no unobservable, non-scientific world, i.e. rather than say that science has intrinsic limits, it instead concludes that science fully addresses reality and anything outside of science is ipso facto non-existent and pure fantasy. It illegitimately extends its domain to everything rather than staying within its strict domain of observations and experiments. In this sense, science is a religion. Kant should have written the Critique of Pure Science, outlining how science overreaches itself by seeking to apply scientific “explanations” to things that are inherently beyond science. Kant attacked pure reason for straying, in his opinion, beyond reason’s proper (empirical) bounds. In fact, if we live in a rational universal, it’s impossible for pure reason to err. If, however, we do not live in a scientific empiricist materialist universe (and indeed we don’t), then, by Kant’s own logic, science must be exceeding its legitimate limits and creating entirely bogus explanations for ultimate reality (of the kind that Kant accused metaphysics of creating; in fact, when science exceeds its empirical bounds then it becomes metaphysics!). Why does ontological mathematics succeed where science fails? Because it sets out from the beginning to address the observable and the unobservable, Content and Form, the Territory and the Map, the phenomenal and the noumenal, the empirical and the rational. Science chops off half of that agenda, hence is entirely false. It attempts to explain reality from only half of reality, a enterprise doomed to fail from the outset. Science, unquestionably, has all the characteristics of a dogmatic religious faith, and, in fact, of a pseudoscience. It operates from the presumption that science is right and everything wrong, a staggeringly arrogant position given that mathematics is the queen of the sciences, and science has zero ability to explain what mathematics is ontologically. If it can’t do that, how can it do anything else with any credibility?

Go on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking, explain what mathematics is and what it’s doing at the heart of science. If you can’t do so, then shut up and stop pretending you know anything about anything. You are the popes of unreason, pontificating on things about which you are absolutely clueless, yet you arrogantly believe you know everything. Socrates saw Sophists like you a mile off. He knew he knew nothing, hence he was smarter than the Sophists who claimed to know everything, but manifestly didn’t know a single thing. The whole of science founders on the subject at its core – mathematics – the rationalist subject that contradicts empiricism, and which is full of the “hidden variables” whose existence science emphatically denies. What is ontological mathematics? It’s the subject that recognises mathematics for what it is, and science for what it’s not. It sheds this false cloak of science, this pretender to knowledge, this false claimant. Science without mathematics is soothsaying. Ontological mathematics without science is ontological mathematics. Science needs math; math does not need science. Only a fool would fail to see the self-evident truth: reality is mathematical, not scientific. Do the math!

***** Raymond F. Jones said, “Logic hasn’t wholly dispelled the society of witches and prophets and sorcerers and soothsayers.” No indeed ... they’re now called scientists!

What’s the Point? What’s the point of condemning Muslim maniacs, and then, in the next breath, saying that we have no free will and are all machines that can’t help what we do? It beggars belief that Sam Harris and his ilk deny free will and then deliver polemics against Islam. Are we to understand that Harris delivers these rants simply because he’s a deterministic machine that can’t help itself (meaning that his rant has no substance or validity whatsoever). There’s no logic in the position of Harris and his supporters. His views represent a kind of insanity. If there’s no free will, there’s no moral accountability. It’s as simple as that.

The Video

Sam Harris gives a supposedly “definitive” account of free will in a YouTube video. Not once in the video does he mention the soul (the mathematical monad) or ontological mathematics, so it’s as far from definitive as you can get. It’s fundamentalist materialism from beginning to end. No attempt whatsoever is made to engage with non-materialist concepts. This is the height of intellectual laziness and arrogance. This person has plainly never read a word of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer and Hegel. No idealist could ever take Harris’s junk seriously. It shows how unintelligent humanity is that Harris is regarded as some kind of “intellectual”.

The Buddha The Buddha denied the existence of the individual soul. That makes him very close to a materialist and nihilist. Or he’s an advocate of monopsychism – the doctrine that there’s a single mind for the whole universe, which is actually a stance of solipsism. It’s staggering that any “spiritual” person could take an interest in Buddhism. Leave Buddhism to scientific materialists such as Sam Harris.

Horizontal and Vertical Causation Two different orders of causation can be identified: 1) horizontal (or tangential) causation, relating to “the world” (matter), and 2) vertical (or radial) causation relating to the subjective agent (mind). There is therefore always a competition between horizontal and vertical causation, tangential and radial, matter and mind. These considerations are wholly absent from science since science rejects the existence of teleological subjective agents (souls). There can be no free will without eternal souls. If materialism were correct, a materialist fundamentalist such as Sam Harris would be entirely right to reject free will. But materialism is false, hence Harris is wrong. Harris never entertains the concept of souls. They don’t enter his thoughts. Like all fundamentalists, he’s blind to anything outside his fundamentalist paradigm. That’s the deadly weakness of all such people. They aren’t thinkers. They look for the weakest arguments of their opponents rather than the strongest. You become super-smart by being able to refute the best your enemies throw at you, not the worst.

One of the disasters of scientific training is that scientists are taught to have contempt for philosophy and theology, and to dismiss them as nonsense. Yet anyone who reads almost any philosophy, or the theology of the Scholastics, will realise that these contain vastly more subtle and complex arguments than anything science has to offer. Overwhelmingly, the philosophical opinions expressed by scientists are childish, simplistic idiocy, already refuted hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. It’s incredible that science has as one of its central tenets the ludicrous claim that existence can spontaneously leap out of non-existence, although we’re being charitable to imply that scientists have even bothered to define existence and non-existence. Scientists have no definable ontology or epistemology. They have no first principles. What they have is a “method”, and this method involves nothing more than guessing mathematical formulae to fit to experimentally observed patterns. The outcome is that science has many useful, pragmatic, instrumental formulae but absolutely no meaning. Meaning is not required as part of science; if anything, meaning – any kind of meaning – must be explicitly absent. “Success” is the only demand. That’s why people such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris talk garbage most of the time. All they ever do is interpret ad hoc, contingent, arbitrary formulae through the prism of empiricism, materialism and positivism. Once you understand this, their arguments become comical. For a grown adult to tell you with a straight face that an unobserved cat can be both dead, alive and in living-dead mixed states, all at once, beggars beliefs. This is the sort of drivel and lunacy you get when thinking is detached from ontology, epistemology, rationalism and meaning and is instead tied to empiricist, materialist, positivist speculation and belief. No amount of craziness is denied to these people. Empiricism reached the end of the road hundreds of years ago when Hume denied the existence of the world, the self and causation, thus becoming a solipsistic, nihilistic nutcase. That should have been the final curtain for this ludicrous “philosophy”. However, something bizarre then happened. A rationalist mathematical engine was attached to empiricism, producing “science”. Exclusively thanks to the presence of mathematics, this system actually worked – spectacularly well. Moreover, the rivals of science did not use mathematics, and thus their systems remained ingenious

but speculative and useless. So, the lie developed that empiricism was true and everything else false. This is where we are stuck today. The genius of ontological mathematics is that it provides mathematics to the discredited disciplines of metaphysics, idealism, and rationalism, and thus permits a worldview entirely different from science’s, while fully explaining all of the results of science (via ontological Fourier mathematics, involving a mental frequency domain and a material spacetime domain). The absurdity of empiricism and materialism can now be fully exposed because rationalism and idealism at last have the ultimate weapon – mathematics – to use it against it. Science without math is useless, while math doesn’t need science at all. Look at how well-defined and precise mathematics is and how sloppy and ill-defined science is. There’s no comparison. The tyranny of science is ending and we are entering the Golden Age of rationalist, analytic, ontological mathematics – the age of the Truth itself!

Neuroscientists Neuroscientists such as Sam Harris like to quip, “Try thinking of something without your brain.” Well, try thinking of something without your mind! The neuroscientists don’t prove anything with their specious comments.

Consciousness It’s sometimes said, “All that we experience is within consciousness.” This is patently false. Everything we consciously experience is certainly within consciousness, but there are plenty of things we don’t consciously experience. When a man in a gorilla costume stands beating his chest in the middle of our field of vision in the famous basketball experiment to test awareness, we certainly experience his presence – we can’t miss him! – but we definitely don’t consciously experience his presence. That’s the whole point of the experiment. Therefore, a huge part of our experience is formally unconscious. Perhaps nearly all of our experience is unconscious, and conscious experience is just the tip of the iceberg. Subliminal advertising wouldn’t work if we had to be conscious of everything we see and experience. Body language wouldn’t work. It’s silly to equate experience and consciousness.

The Karma Delusion When Karmists describe karma as the law of cause and effect and claim that our actions, whatever they are, have inevitable consequences, they are formally denying the existence of free will since they are saying that we are subject to inescapable forces, as rigid as those of science. Some Karmists even ask us to consider karma in the same terms as gravity, or Newton’s laws, or electromagnetism. Well, where’s the formula for karma? Where’s the math?! The whole thing is Mythos baloney. In logical positivist terms, the doctrines of karma cannot be assigned any meaning at all. They are not logically provable, and nor are they verifiable or falsifiable, hence are junk. It’s rather telling that Sam Harris is sympathetic to Buddhism. No doubt his denial of free will is driven by his karma (!). It’s irrational to claim that the doctrine of karma has any connection with free will. Each of us, according to karmic theory, is conditioned by actions in past lives, meaning that we are the prisoners of our pasts and have no freedom in the present. We are either paying off karmic debts or being rewarded for karmic credits. In this life, we have no say in any of it. Freedom can enter karmic theory only at the start, before we have accumulated any karmic credits or debits. After that, we are always being rewarded or punished for things in our past.

Sam Harris “Journalist Chris Hedges’ book When Atheism Becomes Religion (originally published as I Don’t Believe in Atheists) targets Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as its two examples of the worst atheism has to offer. ... Commenting on Harris’s book Free Will, Daniel Dennett disagrees with Harris’ position on compatibilism, saying that Harris directs his arguments against an unreasonably absolute or ‘perfect freedom’ version of compatibilism, which Dennett describes as an incoherent, straw man version.” – Wikipedia Harris and Dawkins are the quintessence of fundamentalist materialism, of nihilist atheism, denying that the world has any purpose, meaning or point. “In 2007 Sam and Annaka Harris founded Project Reason...” – Wikipedia

Irony at its finest! fundamentalism.

There’s

nothing

rational

about

materialist

***** “While the philosophy of Advaita, and Ramana’s own words, may tend to support a metaphysical reading of teachings of this kind, their validity is not metaphysical. Rather, it is experiential. The whole of Advaita reduces to a series of very simple and testable assertions: Consciousness is the prior condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance within it; look closely for what you are calling ‘I,’ and the feeling of being a separate self will disappear; what remains, as a matter of experience, is a field of consciousness – free, undivided, and intrinsically uncontaminated by its ever-changing contents.” – Sam Harris Consciousness is not the prior condition of every experience. To say otherwise is to assert either that all animals and humans babies are conscious (self-evidently, they’re not), or that animals and babies have no mental experiences (self-evidently, they do). The Self is not at all an “illusory appearance”. It’s the most fundamental entity of all: the basic unit (monad) of ontological mathematics. “...look closely for what you are calling ‘I,’ and the feeling of being a separate self will disappear” ... WTF! Try looking closely for the “feeling of NOT being a separate self” and see how long you can sustain that delusion! “...what remains, as a matter of experience, is a field of consciousness – free, undivided, and intrinsically uncontaminated by its ever-changing contents.” ... Er, Sam, didn’t you write a book denying that we have free will? Why are you writing sympathetically about Buddhist mumbo jumbo? Are you receptive to the claim that some cosmic consciousness is free, but we – the allegedly illusory selves it underpins – are not? Harris, a nutty fundamentalist materialist, is here being supportive towards a kind of monopsychic, unitary, Collective Consciousness existing in the universe. What a load of hippy dippy, New Age bullshit. There’s not one shred of evidence, not a single “experience”, that points to the existence of a mystical, “free” field of consciousness underlying reality. And what on

earth does it mean to refer to consciousness separate from its contents? Consciousness is consciousness of mental contents! “While Harris doesn’t consider himself a Buddhist, he considers Buddhism to be almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom.” – Wikipedia In your dreams, mate. Underneath every Materialist Fundamentalist is a New Age hippie struggling to get out.

***** We can experience things without being aware of them. One of the greatest fallacies is that the capacity to experience and consciousness are synonymous. It’s absurd to contend that the unconscious mind is not having mental experiences. This single point exposes the flawed logic at the heart of the notion that consciousness is somehow essential to experience, to qualia, to purpose and meaning, and so on. Consciousness isn’t even essential to awareness. The unconscious mind is aware; it differs from consciousness solely by virtue of the fact that it’s not aware of being aware, i.e. it has no “meta awareness”.

***** Harris has a background in neuroscience. There’s not a single neuroscientist in the world who refers to mind or soul as an active, autonomous, causal agent. All neuroscientists are fundamentalist materialists. In fact, they are the most extreme materialists you can find. Neuroscience is a closed shop. No one with idealist views is accepted into neuroscience. Neuroscience is more or less the Vatican of the religion of materialism.

***** It’s remarkable how well Buddhism lends itself to scientific materialist nihilism, which is why so many scientists and materialists have a fondness for it. It merely confirms their existing prejudices. Schopenhauer, the person who made Buddhism into a coherent metaphysics within the Western tradition, showed that Buddhism is pure nihilism – the search for absolute nothingness and non-existence, which Buddhists call “nirvana”.

If you do not accept the existence of the immortal soul, and neither scientists nor Buddhists do, you are automatically committed to existence – your existence – ending definitively when you die. To say that your “energy”, or “atoms”, or whatever, goes on is meaningless since those are not you unless they are eternally and essentially you. “You”, in science and Buddhism, is simply a transient, ephemeral, contingent construct of some kind of underlying, undefined reality. For Schopenhauer, Buddhism reduced to a single, unitary, cosmic, noumenal, unconscious “Will to Exist”. In scientific terms, this is equivalent to saying that everything that can happen will happen; that anything not forbidden is compulsory. Any “spiritual” scientist would be well-advised to turn to Schopenhauer’s philosophy rather than Buddhism. Schopenhauer, like scientists, regarded existence as meaningless and pointless. He accepted that it had a “purpose”, but that purpose was merely to exist (and science wouldn’t disagree with that as the universe’s “teleology”). In fact, Schopenhauer regarded existence as evil since it generated so much suffering. Therefore, he understood that the best thing was not to exist at all, and thus one must try to refrain from willing and thereby remove oneself from existence. To succeed is to attain nirvana, which means you have ceased to will, hence ceased to exist at all. That’s the true message of Buddhism. It’s about extracting yourself from life, hence is the most antilife religion you can possibly get, and it has in fact merged with the meaningless, pointless, scientific materialist nihilism of Dawkins and Harris.

The Epistemic Fallacy “An epistemic fallacy is a mistake in how one has constructed ones knowledge of the world, such that what one believes to be a verified body of objective knowledge is actually a construction of the tools and instruments one uses, including the history and structures of one’s society and culture, rather than being a property of the world itself.” – Joe Corbett Science meets the criterion of an epistemic fallacy. Its worldview is predicated on its method and the measuring instruments it uses to implement its method. It concludes, with no justification, that anything not

susceptible to its method and measuring instruments ipso facto doesn’t exist. Therefore, its entire epistemology is false. It’s an epistemology based on the sensible, but rejects the intelligible (which invokes noumenal hidden variables and rational unobservables).

Revelation? Abrahamists believe that true reality must be understood via religious revelation, not via the senses (science) or reason (math). Scientists believe that true reality must be understood via the senses (empiricism), not via revelation or reason. Ontological mathematicians know that true reality is understood via reason, not the senses or revelation. Revelation would be the answer only if there were a God, and if he communicated a rational explanation of everything via his prophets. However, for that explanation to be complete, it would have to explain the existence of God himself. If fundamental randomness is the answer to everything, as science claims (randomness summons existence from non-existence, and existence, according to science, is sensory and empirical) then what is the explanation of randomness? There is no conceivable means by which randomness can be explained, or can explain itself. Rationalists assert that reason is the explanation of everything. But what explains reason? Reason, uniquely, is self-defining, eternally self-defining. Why? Because true reason comprises nothing other than ontological, analytic tautologies – those of mathematics. These can never be false or self-contradictory. True reason, enacted through ontological mathematics, is definition itself. It explains itself, by definition, through definition, using eternal, necessary, immutable, Platonic definitions. God and randomness are not self-defining. Reason is. God and randomness must be explained rationally. Rationalism doesn’t need rational explanation because it is rational explanation! When it comes to a rational explanation of reality, the only thing that requires no further explanation is the principle of sufficient reason itself. The principle of sufficient reason is that which furnishes the ground of any rational explanation of reality. Without the principle of sufficient reason, there could be no rational explanation of existence. Nothing is prior to the principle of sufficient reason. It has existed forever, perfectly. When people

refer to “God”, what they are actually doing is making the principle of sufficient reason into a person; they are personifying reason, anthropomorphizing it. The concept of “God” could be removed from existence and no damage would be done to the rational explanation of existence, i.e. “God” is not a truth of reason, and nor is it a necessary concept. It’s purely contingent. If, however, the principle of sufficient reason were removed from existence, existence itself would cease, or, at any rate, no longer have any possible rational explanation. The principle of sufficient reason is an eternal, necessary truth, a necessary concept. Without it, reason is dead. Randomness – Chaos – is what, if anything, would remain, and that of course is what science is predicated on ... things happening miraculously, for no reason. Science is a system of magic, a quasi-religious system, a fundamentally irrational system, not a system of logic and reason. It’s a non-explanatory system that rejects and defies the principle of sufficient reason. Science, formally, technically, is a non-explanation. It cannot explain anything at any fundamental level, which is which it appeals to things happening meaninglessly, purposelessly and randomly. Science works for one reason alone: it has the ultimate rationalist system – mathematics – at its core. No scientist on earth has ever explained what mathematics is doing at the heart of science – an empiricist, anti-rationalist, system – and, indeed, no scientist has even been intelligent enough to ask the question of what mathematics means ontologically, and how it can possibly relate to reality and to science. It’s extraordinary that science uses mathematics all the time to investigate the world, yet never once investigates what mathematics is. When you do the math, you finally grasp that mathematics is the world, which, naturally, is why it explains the world. It all flows from the principle of sufficient reason. Carl Sagan, one of the patron saints of science, said “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” If he had been true to his word, he would have abandoned science in favour of ontological mathematics. People such as Sagan are exactly those who persist in “satisfying and reassuring” sensory delusions. These people have a cheek to criticise religion!

The Cosmological Argument “The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an ‘unconditioned’ or ‘supreme’ being, usually then identified as God. It is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument or the argument from existence. Whichever term is employed, there are three basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: the arguments from in causa (causality), in esse (essentially) and in fieri (becoming). “The basic premise of all of these the concept of causality and of a First Cause. The history of this argument goes back to Aristotle, was developed in Neoplatonism and early Christianity and later in medieval Islamic theology during the 9th to 12th centuries, and re-introduced to medieval Christian theology in the 13th century. The cosmological argument is closely related to the principle of sufficient reason as discussed by Gottfried Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, itself a modern exposition of the claim that ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ attributed to Parmenides. “In modern philosophy, the argument was defended by William Lane Craig in his 1979 The Kalām Cosmological Argument. ... It comprises a contemporary defence of the Kalām cosmological argument. The book purports to establish the existence of God based upon the alleged metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. According to the KCA, given that an infinite temporal regress is metaphysically impossible and that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In a further analysis Craig’s book discloses that this cause is a personal creator who changelessly and independently willed the beginning of the universe.” – Wikipedia The cosmological error, when treated properly, is definitive. Unfortunately, it’s mired in fallacies in most treatments. Firstly, there is no requirement for the cosmological argument to terminate with a single first cause or uncaused cause. If one such cause is possible, then, by the principle of sufficient reason, infinite such causes are possible. These are “monads” = the basic mathematical units of causation. Next, there is no need for the first cause or uncaused cause to be a conscious, all-powerful being (“God”). In

fact, monads are unconscious, mathematical minds (beings), capable of evolving from total potential to total actualisation. It’s a fundamental principle of existence that “nothing can come from nothing” (from absolute nothingness; from non-existence). The scientific notion that existence can randomly pop out of non-existence for no reason repudiates this principle. Science is therefore false. It’s true that “an infinite temporal regress is metaphysically impossible”. Again, science places itself on the wrong, irrational side of this argument. Science posits an infinite regress of contingency. There is no analytic “foundation” to science. It’s a bottomless abyss, hence has no explanation. Stephen Hawking said, “A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: ‘What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.’ The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, ‘What is the tortoise standing on?’ ‘You’re very clever, young man, very clever,’ said the old lady. ‘But it’s turtles all the way down!’” The trouble with this story is that science is actually in total agreement with the woman’s central point: it’s contingency all the way down! Bertrand Russell said, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” This is fallacious. The proper argument is: “Everything that is not a first cause or uncaused cause must have a cause.” This does not apply to God if he is defined as a first cause or uncaused cause. The question here is whether such a definition can be legitimately applied. Is there anything about the concept of an eternal, all-powerful, conscious Superbeing that has any logical necessity? There is none. The concept of God is entirely contingent. The concept of monads, on the other hand, is wholly necessary. The cosmological argument is an argument about necessary things versus contingent things To avoid infinite regress of contingency (“Turtles all the way down!”), there must be a necessary foundation of existence. This must comprise necessary things. These are mathematical monads mandated by the principle of sufficient reason. They are not gods or God conjured up by religious faith and mystical speculation.

The cosmological argument is the proof of the existence of ontological mathematics, not of “God”. Ontological mathematics is the first cause, the uncaused cause, the all-powerful source of all perfection, Truth, Knowledge and necessity. Religion, like science, has systematically misunderstood and misinterpreted mathematics. It has called it a Superbeing rather than a Supersystem. As for science, it has rejected rational necessity and opted for infinite contingent regress, which is incapable of explaining anything. Science is the worst conceivable explanation of reality since it’s the one that most violates the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the argument from design, the argument from eternal truths, and Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor demands that we find the most economic solution. Science with its infinite universes (Multiverse) and infinite contingent regress, rejects Occam’s Razor to the greatest possible extent, hence is absolutely false. No rational person would ever take science seriously as an ultimate explanation of reality.

Logic Logically, anyone who supports Sam Harris’s take on free will is thereby a materialist, atheist and nihilist – exactly like Harris himself.

Seeing “Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” – Albert Szent-Gyorgyi It’s not enough to see the truth. You have to know you have seen it. Otherwise, you will simply look at it, then walk on by.

The Insult If, in the name of “freedom”, Abrahamists are allowed to wear items of clothing and symbols that are extremely offensive to non-Abrahamists, then non-Abrahamists must be allowed to wear items of clothing and symbols that are extremely offensive to Abrahamists. Of course, when that happens, non-Abrahamists are called “blasphemers”, and, in several Abrahamic countries, are put to death. That’s exactly why Abrahamism should be

banned. Its instinct is to ban everything else, hence it itself must be banned in any tolerant society, intolerant of intolerance.

Eternity No one can invent 1 + 1 = 2. That has been true forever. Given that math is eternal, no one created math. Ergo math created everything else!

God and Design If God designed the world, who designed God? Math did. Math alone needs no designer because math is design.

The Illusion If, as Sam Harris says, freedom is an illusion, why do people in prison believe themselves unfree? Surely the illusion – if illusion is what it is – should work whatever your circumstances. To believe otherwise is to accept that there is an objective standard for freedom, hence it is real and not illusory.

***** Isn’t it odd that this illusion of free will can also convince you that you are not free in jail, and also that you don’t possess this illusion of free will? Sam Harris plainly doesn’t suffer from this “illusion” Go on, Sam, tell us again how lifeless, mindless atoms can suffer from delusions, and that the closing of a cell door can make a set of atoms cease to suffer from the illusion that it has free will.

Incredible What’s truly incredible is that scientists can refer to things such as chance and chaos and think they are explaining something. Explaining what, exactly? Chance and chaos don’t explain anything. They are the opposite of explanation and go hand in hand with miracles and magic. They contradict the principle of sufficient reason, and Occam’s Razor.

Convincing? People are convinced by whatever they already believe, and what they are capable of understanding. You need to be highly intelligent to grasp

Illuminism and defend Illuminism, hence it’s for the few only – for Higher Humanity.

***** If you’re too smart for Abrahamism and Karmism, but not smart enough for Illuminism, what happens to you? – you become an atheist and scientific materialist and start blabbering on about chance and chaos as the mystical “explanation” of everything. You can even keep a straight face while you’re telling people that existence miraculously jumps out of non-existence for no reason. You regard yourself as a rational genius. The human capacity for self-delusion is infinite!

Enlightenment? If Buddhist meditation techniques are so great, why have they made zero contribution to the development of ontological mathematics – the science of Truth and Ultimate Enlightenment?

Failure To Launch If you can’t understand Euler’s Formula, analytic sinusoids, the principle of sufficient reason, and ontological Fourier mathematics ... if it all becomes too much for you, too overwhelming ... what better way to “cure” yourself than to withdraw into the gibberish of chance and chaos, of things happening for no reason at all? Spooky, dude! Pass the dope!

Manmade Global Warming? The hypothesis of manmade (anthropogenic) global warming is becoming a serious test of the entire scientific paradigm. If the hypothesis is true, it should be able to make accurate predictions about future climate events, but it’s unable to do so. Moreover, where it has made long term trend predictions, these have thus far been decisively refuted. The climate hasn’t done anything like what it was supposed to do since Al Gore was first making his dire predictions. Short-term weather forecasting is rather good, suggesting that science has an effective theory of “tactical” weather conditions. However, long-

term accuracy falls dramatically a few days out, meaning that science cannot provide a “strategic” weather-forecasting system. It’s thwarted by “chaos”, which is essentially sensitivity to starting conditions, and not any kind of violation of the deterministic laws of classical physics. Wikipedia says, “Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behaviour can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then appear to become random. The amount of time for which the behaviour of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty we are willing to tolerate in the forecast; how accurately we are able to measure its current state; and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time. Some examples of Lyapunov times are: chaotic electrical circuits, ~1 millisecond; weather systems, a couple of days (unproven); the solar system, 50 million years. In chaotic systems the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. Hence doubling the forecast time squares the proportional uncertainty in the forecast. This means that in practice a meaningful prediction cannot be made over an interval of more than two or three times the Lyapunov time. When meaningful predictions cannot be made, the system appears to be random. ... for a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, it must ... be sensitive to initial conditions.” Now consider the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Has a single successful prediction been made? When the predictions are refuted by the facts on the ground, scientists then say, “We’re still gathering data and need to refine our models ... that’s what science is all about.” But hold on a moment. If a theory can be neither verified nor falsified, and is continuously being adjusted to “fit”, how can it be called “science” according to science’s own self-proclaimed definitions of what counts as science? When does anyone reach the conclusion, “Sorry, this theory is simply false”? Is science capable of admitting that the hypothesis of manmade global warming might be false? If not, it’s not science but religion. Can science state right now what factors would falsify the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Shouldn’t it be required to do so? If it can’t, then the hypothesis can no more be falsified than the Christian God can be for Christians. We’re in the world of faith, not of science. Given that the world has experienced tropical ages and ice ages in its past – regardless of any activities of human beings – the climate plainly has

an extremely wide range. What climate model is able to accommodate this natural range that exists independently of human action, and filter out its effects, leaving only what actual difference humanity is making to the climate? It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the scientific consensus is nothing but horrific groupthink and that there are no viable scientific climate models at all. Science can’t tell us a single thing about the climate that can be definitively and unambiguously attributed to human activity. Why isn’t the scientific community demanding testable predictions from climate scientists? If no predictions can be given, or are actually falsified by the evidence, then this is simply not science. When is science going to get real? Science must put up or shut up regarding climate change. There are people all over the world who pray for the return of Jesus Christ, but he never returns. When will that theory be abandoned? Is manmade global warming any different? We support many of the measures demanded of governments by climate scientists, but we do so for political reasons, not scientific reasons (i.e. we do so because we wish to undermine global capitalism). Even if 99.9% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic global warming stance, it doesn’t prove a thing. After all, 99.9% of scientists would probably deny that free will exists and that mind has any autonomous reality, independent of matter.

Weather versus Climate “The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere ‘behaves’ over relatively long periods of time. When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in longterm averages of daily weather. ... In addition to long-term climate change, there are shorter term climate variations. This so-called climate variability can be represented by periodic or intermittent changes related to El Niño, La Niña, volcanic eruptions, or other changes in the Earth system.” – NASA Weather is what is happening today or tomorrow, or in the short term. Weather averaged across very large time-periods constitutes the climate.

Here’s the problem. Although short-term weather forecasting is generally very good, long-range weather forecasting is little better than an educated guess; its accuracy drops off precipitously. If scientists can’t predict the weather a few days, weeks or months out, what makes them think they can predict the weather a few years, or decades, out (i.e. to predict the climate)? If weather prediction gets worse and worse the further out you go, why do climate scientists believe they can predict the very long-term weather (i.e. climate)? Has anyone in climate science even asked that question? Why should it be easier to predict climate behaviour than the weather a few days out – which is the tacit claim of climate science – if climate is based on weather and weather is inherently chaotic? What is the basis of the claim that climate scientists can accurately and definitively isolate a manmade contribution to the climate? Isn’t that science’s version of finding a needle in a haystack? Isn’t climate science the modern equivalent of examining the livers of dead animals to divine the future? Is it science at all? To be considered science, it must make credible, testable predictions, and, if it can’t, it’s soothsaying! We might as well consult the weather gods. Weather forecasters talk about “weather bombs”. Isn’t it time someone started using weather bombs to do some carpet bombing on the assumptions and claims of climate science? It wasn’t so long ago that some climate scientists were talking about Global Cooling and a possible imminent Ice Age (!). And what about this from www.theozonehole.com ... “The collapse of the earth’s magnetic field, which both guards the planet and guides many of its creatures, appears to have started in earnest about 150 years ago. The field’s strength has waned 10 percent to 15 percent so far and this deterioration has accelerated of late, increasing debate over whether it portends a reversal of the lines of magnetic force that normally envelop the earth. ... A weak field ... could let solar storms pummel the atmosphere with enough radiation to destroy significant amounts of the ozone that protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet light.” In a “chaotic” system such as the weather, where tiny changes can have radical snowball effects, how do we know which changes are actually driving the system?

Climate science is one of the most difficult and complex sciences of all. Is the typical climate scientist up to the task?

Toasty When freak weather occurs, you hear people saying, “Oh, it’s global warming. Humanity is ruining the world.” What conceivable evidence do they have? Are they any better than the ancients who described freak weather conditions as the result of angry wind, rain and thunder gods, and furious volcano deities? As Nietzsche said, scientists describe better than ever, but explain not one jot better. For humanity to claim it understands the climate, it must be able to do exactly what astronomers do – predict events precisely (such as eclipses). Self-evidently, the existing mathematico-astronomical models must be excellent to yield such accurate predictions. Equally self-evidently, climate scientists cannot predict any specific events whatsoever. Nor can they definitively attribute any climate trends unambiguously to manmade causes. So, this is not a science. It’s a philosophy or a political viewpoint. The hypothesis of manmade global warming is, as things stand, neither verifiable nor falsifiable, hence no more qualifies as science than M-theory or Multiverse theory. When will scientists start being honest about what constitutes science and what is pure speculation?

The Industry The hypothesis of manmade global warming is a lucrative industry (as is the position that denies this hypothesis!). It’s a commercial activity. It has a professional career structure. Your stance on this hypothesis can make or break your career. If you have a family to support, are you going to contradict the consensus and risk your job? People have invested a huge amount in this hypothesis either way, and none of them are going to back down. This is now a religious and political war. It has precious little to do with science.

The Manmade Global Warming Hypothesis Case 1: The Skeptical Case “(CNSNews.com) – In an interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet

the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or ‘very close to zero.’ “‘That hasn’t happened,’ Storch said. ‘In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.’ “Spiegel asked Storch why the Earth’s temperature has not risen significantly in the past 15 years despite 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities. “‘So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,’ said Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. “‘We’re facing a puzzle,’ Storch said. ‘Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. “‘As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years,’ he added. “‘That hasn’t happened,’ Storch said. ‘In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero. “Storch said the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have to address these facts in its next climate assessment report due out late next year. “The interview includes this exchange about what this 15-year data showing virtually no rise in the Earth’s temperature means going forward. “SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now? “Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. “SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

“Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modelled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. “In the interview, Storch also addressed the ‘hysteria’ over global warming by some advocates. “‘Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?’ the interviewer asked. “‘Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate,’ Storch said. ‘There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, “Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!” over any natural disaster. “‘But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones – and that’s a good thing,’ Storch said. “Storch, however, did not dismiss global warming completely when asked if changes in how scientist measure and predict the Earth’s climate will throw the whole concept into doubt. “‘I don’t believe so,’ Storch said. ‘We still have compelling evidence of a manmade greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.’” – Penny Starr http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-closezero-over-15-years

***** Case 2: The Orthodox Case “Claim 1: There has been no temperature increase for 18 years. Earth’s average surface temperature has indeed risen since 1996. Even using 1998 as a starting point, which was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Niño, the rate of warming has been around 0.04°C per decade. While this is lower than the 0.11°C warming per decade for the total period since 1950, the warming has not stopped. “Short-term, unpredicted fluctuations in temperature are to be expected, and scientists typically use longer periods (30 years or more) to identify

robust climate trends. As a result, this temporary slowdown has not yet been long enough for scientists to lower their projections of climate change to 2100 and beyond.” “STATUS: Rejected. Temperatures are still increasing on the timescales relevant for identifying long-term climate change risks, which determine the need to reduce emissions.” – http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Owen-Patersonsspeech-to-the-GWPF-the-CCCs-response1.pdf

***** Note how the skeptical case is far more balanced and rational than the orthodox case. The orthodox proponents reject the unexpectedly stable temperature data of the last 15 to 18 years as having any bearing at all on their hypothesis. Despite their denials, the hypothesis of manmade global warming is clearly in trouble, and the science community is using sophistry to avoid concluding that its hypothesis hasn’t already been falsified.

***** Climate scientists refer to 30-year periods in which to test the validity of their claims. Why not five years, or ten, or fifteen? Well, if you use a 30year period, you have given yourself a means to put off being refuted for most of your career. At the end of that period, if you’re still wrong, you just need to say that a 50-year period is actually required, hence you can finish your entire career unrefuted!

***** Start thinking for yourselves. Stop believing the hype. Stop listening to the propaganda. Stop listening to the sophistry. The same people who are behind the theory of manmade global warming are behind the denial of free will, the denial of autonomous mind, the denial of the ontology of mathematics, the denial of teleology, the claim that existence is predicated on randomness, that existence can jump out of non-existence for no reason, that complex numbers don’t exist in reality, that the moon isn’t there when no one is observing it, that unobserved cats can be simultaneously alive and dead, that there are infinite clones of us,

that there are infinite meaningless universes (the Multiverse), that the principle of sufficient reason is false, that Occam’s Razor is false, that objective reality is false, that unreal wavefunctions collapse indeterministically to create actual reality, that observers are need to make the world objectively real, and so on. It’s a litany of woo woo, mysticism, irrationalism and insanity. The claims of atheism and scientific materialism regarding ultimate reality are even crazier than those of Abrahamism and Karmism.

***** The universe is either rational or irrational. If rational, it’s governed by the eternal principle of sufficient reason, expressed through ontological mathematics. If it’s not rational, believe whatever you like because, in that case, existence has no answer. It’s rationalism or nothing.

The Eclipse Astronomy is wondrous. It predicts eclipses and they happen exactly on schedule. What about the hypothesis of manmade global warming? Have you seen any unambiguous, testable predictions? How can this hypothesis be part of science at all? It’s pure speculation.

“Scenario Fulfilment” Scenario fulfilment is the name given to situations where a group of highly trained people under time pressure, and with their lives possibly in danger, carry out their training to the letter in a “live” event, believing it to be “reality” (i.e. exactly what they were trained for), while ignoring rational and sensory information that contradicts the scenario, i.e. which indicates that they are in fact dealing with a false alarm. The world is full of scenario fulfilment errors ... often deadly. When white American cops gun down African Americans for no valid reason, it’s invariably a scenario fulfilment event, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The police have been trained to expect African Americans with “attitude” to be criminally oriented and to pose a deadly threat. So, given the slightest reason to believe that scenario, they then execute – fulfil – what they have

been exhaustively trained to do in those circumstances, making it almost a reflex action. Soldiers, police, bodyguards, security personnel, etc. are much more likely to shoot and ask questions later. Highly trained people are often robotic, conformist, regimented automata – brainwashed Manchurian Candidates – who have very little ability to use their reason and look for any disconfirming data for the scenario they believe they are in. They look only for data that verifies their beliefs, and never for any that falsifies them.

***** The entire point of constant training, drills, simulations, live exercises, rehearsing ad nauseam until each person’s responsibilities are second nature and instinctive, is to create automata who know exactly what to do when what they have trained for actually happens. The problem is how do you know that what you have trained for is genuinely taking place? Have you really checked? Have you put any substantive effort into contradicting your belief? It’s a miracle that the human race survived the Cold War. The stakes were so high, however, that people had no option but to check again and again. After all, would you want to be the person who destroyed the world?

***** Military training is designed to make soldiers believe the worst and be ready for it. They are trained to follow orders, not to doubt orders, ask questions, ask for more data, seek confirmation. You get what you pay for – machines that can’t think for themselves! Machines – soldiers – carry through the drill, the mission, to completion. That’s what they do. That’s what they are trained to do and paid to do. They’ve trained for it a thousand times. They’ve never been trained to doubt what they are doing. They are all about fulfilling the scenario. That’s the objective. That’s the logical end. If your life is potentially at stake, what are you going to do – what you have been trained to do, or what you have not been trained to do? How many people who use their own judgment and initiative prosper in rigid, hierarchical organisations? Freethinkers, heretics, rebels and outsiders never succeed in such setups.

*****

The theory of manmade global warming is a version of scenario fulfilment. Science is a hierarchy, full of highly trained, conformist, regimented individuals, locked into a paradigm that they believe with religious conviction. Science has almost no heretics and freethinkers in its ranks. Such people simply do not last long in science. Typically, their ideas are regarded as “cranky” and thus they do not receive funding for their research and are driven out of the profession by default. Anyone who practices science knows what their fate will be if they depart from the orthodoxy, so they all toe the line. They have an overwhelming belief in the correctness of scientific consensus. Once a consensual paradigm has been established in science, it becomes as difficult to topple as any religion. At all times, the disciples look to verify the paradigm, and never seek to falsify it or disconfirm it. So, for example, the theory of manmade global warming predicted relentlessly rising global temperatures, but the temperatures have not risen for the last eighteen years. This is not deemed a falsification of the theory. Rather, the followers of the theory then claim that there is some aspect of the theory that they are failing to model correctly, and they need more data. This process can continue indefinitely. Any inconvenient facts can be dismissed as “anomalies” that will be rectified in due course. If the theory of manmade global warming were proper science, vast numbers of climate scientists would now be seeking to refute the theory since the plain evidence now points in the direction that it’s false. Instead, as with classical cognitive dissonance, the believers now become even more fanatically committed to their religion. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have predicted the date of the end of the world several times. Self-evidently, they have got it wrong every time. However, this weird religion still exists despite having been indisputably falsified. Rather than abandon their religion after putting so much effort into it, the Jehovah’s Witnesses simply conclude that they have performed their calculations wrongly. The theory of manmade global warming is now rather similar. Its adherents never doubt the theory, only their calculations. There’s nothing you can do to stop the believers from continuing with their error, their delusion. All the evidence and proof in the world will not suffice to change their minds.

*****

We are living in an ocean of scenario fulfilment – of automata who can’t escape their training, their indoctrination, their brainwashing. Look at Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs – everything they do is predicated on the “truth” of their religious scenario. The same is now obviously true of scientists and atheists too. These people simply can’t think rationally and clearly. They are fanatically locked into their paradigms, their scenarios, their schemas. They spend all of their time trying to verify their belief systems, and none trying to falsify them – exactly as in religion. They are all about the completion, the fulfilment, of the scenario to which they have committed themselves.

An Inconvenient Truth The hypothesis (speculation) of manmade global warming is, as things stand, unverifiable. All contrary data is dogmatically deemed not to falsify it. This, therefore, is not a scientific theory at all. Science now formally resembles the “dismal science” – economics. 99.9% of professional economists were in agreement at the start of 2008 that the world economy was fine. By the end of the year, the global economy was in catastrophic meltdown. How many economists lost their jobs as a result of their failure to predict a disaster (equivalent to astronomers failing to predict eclipses)? Not one! How many heretics and freethinkers have prospered in economics since 2008? Is the world full of new economic theories and a new brand of economists? You must be joking. The Old Guard are still fully in place. In other words, even manifest failure changes nothing. The hierarchy and ruling paradigm remain untouched. So it is with science, and, especially, with climate scientists. No skeptics are rising to the top of climate science. There are no freethinkers, heretics and rebels, just functionaries, bureaucrats, drudges, drones and conformists. There is simply no mechanism to allow this hypothesis to be overthrown. You can’t change anything until you have changed the ruling paradigm and ruling hierarchy. Capitalism died in 2008 as surely as Communism did in 1989, yet it’s as if nothing has changed. All the same people are still in power. The world is still following the same, failed paradigm, and obviously expecting a different outcome. That’s the definition of insanity!

If economists cannot predict economic disasters, they should all be fired. Similarly, if climate scientists cannot make specific predictions about the climate, they should be fired. There have to be consequences for failure. When a football player isn’t performing, he’s substituted. Why can’t we just as easily substitute failed paradigms and their failed practitioners? The reason is power. Powerful people want to stay in power, and there’s no mechanism – other than revolution – to get rid of them. That’s why, in a meritocracy – a results-driven system that must deliver substantive progress – a central feature will be to make it easy to remove failed paradigms and failed people in power. 100% inheritance tax destroys the power of old regimes, old ways of doing things, and lets new ideas breathe. Everyone gets a fair chance. New paradigms are possible, and getting new people into power. Isn’t that what we all want?

The Arctic Problem Arctic sea ice is not melting as rapidly as predicted. It has stabilised, and can even show increases season on season. Oops! So, we say again, under what conditions can the hypothesis of manmade global warming be falsified? If the climate is so complex that we could never reasonably isolate any manmade contribution – and vary that while keeping everything else constant (which is of course impossible in relation to the weather and climate), in order to determine the manmade contribution’s specific effects – aren’t we dealing with something other than science ... with politics, religion or philosophy? Why isn’t the case against manmade pollution of the atmosphere conducted on anti-globalist terms, anti-capitalist terms, and proenvironmental terms? What does science have to do with it? There is no clear cut scientific evidence – and there never will be – that human pollution is driving the climate rather than all of the factors that drove the climate in the past, covering an absolutely immense range of climate variation entirely naturally (i.e. regardless of anything done by humanity). Let’s take science out of this. Let’s oppose manmade pollution on the basis of its links to private elites, to unregulated industries, to the endless production of junk, to damage to human health, to predatory capitalism. The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is just the continuation of anti-capitalism by other means. But we don’t need these other means. We

just need to stand up to the capitalist private elites that are ruining the world in order to enrich themselves.

Merchants of Doubt “Merchants of Doubt is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the climate change debate and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case ‘keeping the controversy alive’ by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached, was the basic strategy of those opposing action. In particular, they say that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues. ... “The book claims that these scientists have challenged and diluted the scientific consensus in the various fields.... “The book lists similar tactics in each case: ‘discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt’.” – Wikipedia Obviously, any rational person would condemn the dissemination of false information and the spread of confusion, especially by right-wingers, private corporations and banks, seeking to make money, no matter what, no matter how much damage they do to the world. However, what if some of the doubts these people raise are actually valid? Have they been definitively refuted? Where’s the evidence? Imagine how sinister Merchants of Doubt would become if its subtitle was You Must Accept the Consensus, Regardless of Its Validity. A consensus by itself is meaningless. It was once the consensus that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the stationary earth, that the Catholic Church was the source of all Truth, that Jesus Christ was God, and that classical physics was almost perfect, bar a fee minor details. All great advances have come about by overturning the consensus. That’s actually the definition of a great advance! To say that no one should be allowed to challenge or doubt the consensus is just about the most serious anti-science statement that anyone

can make. That’s turning science into religion, a faith that no one is allowed to question! It’s a simple fact that no matter what the scientific consensus is – and science has been wrong about countless things in its history, and even defines itself according to the principles that all of its claims must be capable of falsification or verification, hence it always places a doubt over itself – the consensus can be completely misguided and mistaken. The dogmatic assertion that it is wrong to spread “doubt and confusion” after “a scientific consensus had been reached” is simply chilling. This is the quintessence of the paradigmatic, blinkered scientific thinking attacked by Thomas Kuhn. The hypothesis of manmade global warming is not robust, has not been verified (and indeed much of the currently available evidence seems to falsify it), and it’s not even clear that this hypothesis is even capable of being falsified since it’s so vague, and no one has ever provided any criteria for falsifying it (in which case, people could search to see if those falsifying criteria have been met). There’s nothing wrong with attacking a right-wing conspiracy designed to undermine a scientific position for non-scientific, mercenary and political reasons. There’s everything wrong with suggesting that there’s anything inappropriate about raising valid questions and doubts about dodgy science. The authors of Merchants of Doubt seem to have tipped over into madness or religion with their implication that no one should be allowed to question or doubt “scientific consensus”. This is the opposite of true science, and it’s staggering – and, sadly, all too predictable – that the scientific establishment has not utterly condemned Merchants of Doubt! This is a “remedy” that’s as bad as the disease.

***** The authors of Merchants of Doubt accuse their opponents of “misdirection” (“...a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.” – Wikipedia). But the whole of science could be accused of that. Science misdirects us away from ontological mathematics, and from the fact that mind is primary and matter its epiphenomenon.

Aunt Sally The religious “God” is science’s Straw Man or Aunt Sally for a much more serious opponent – mathematics! Mathematics has all the fundamental properties of “God”: perfect, eternal, infallible, necessary, indestructible, flawless, the source of all power and all knowledge, the quintessence of Truth, the definition of existence, the source of existence, the seat of all reason, the prime mover, the first cause, the last cause, the uncaused cause, the source of all motion, the source of all energy, the source of all design, transcendent and immanent, ubiquitous, unifies and harmonises everything, the repository of all the laws of existence. The only difference between “God” and mathematics is that the latter is not a being and has nothing to do with morality and with rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. “God” is in fact personified, mythologized mathematics: “God” is what you get when you add a suit of Mythos to the essence of rationalist Logos. It’s spectacularly easy to attack the Mythos aspects of God – mere manmade stories and projections – but our challenge to all atheists is to attack the unadorned Logos aspects of God, which are none other than the properties of mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason that they enshrine. Scientists are not so much those who disbelieve in “God” as those who reject the ontology of mathematics and irrationally deny the principle of sufficient reason. All atheists in the present day are scientific materialist zealots, yet science would be nothing without math. Math is something undefined by science – which means that science has a mystery at its core. This mystery is none other than “God”, or, rather, the God Equation. Atheists are not rational. They are the opposite. They are believers in sensory reality, and they reject intelligible reality and the rule of reason. They are enemies of the Truth, and, like Abrahamists and Karmists, far too dumb and dishonest to see how dumb and dishonest they are.

***** We challenge scientists to disprove the existence not of “God” but of the God Equation, i.e. of ontological mathematics. Nearly all of the same arguments deployed in favour of God can be applied instead to mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason.

The war between science and religion is really the war between science and mathematics, between false rationalism (science) and true rationalism (mathematics). It’s not religion that’s the stupid, self-evidently false ideology: it’s science! Religion – true religion – is none other than mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason, the adamantine quintessence of rationalism. What is science? – the claim that reality comprises irrational, inexplicable, magical, miraculous randomness, and infinite regress of contingency. Which side are you on? Are you a friend or enemy of reason? Only mathematics is consistent with a rational universe, with providing a closed, definitive, analytic solution to existence. Anyone who opposes math is on the side of mystery, mysticism and faith. All scientists and atheists are enemies of math, and most of them are such idiots that they don’t even realise it!

***** “God” is a Straw Man put up by science. It stands in place of math, a much more serious target for science to attack. We challenge all scientists to forget God and instead make their anti-religion case against mathematics. Only then will they start to realise how wrong and irrational they are. They will see that they stand on the side of unreason, irrationalism, randomness and the denial of objective reality.

Models Models are only as good as the assumptions on which they are based. If the assumptions are false, the model is nonsense. While the mathematics of quantum mechanics are successful enough, the standard model used to interpret QM – that of the Copenhagen school – is wholly false. Many other interpretations have been advanced, several of them enormously more plausible than the standard interpretation, so why aren’t they the default? A fascinating aspect of science is that it doesn’t treat all of the interpretations on a par – even though they all agree with the mathematics of QM and all of the available experimental data. Clearly, non-scientific criteria are being deployed to assess the merits of the rival interpretations. What is at stake is the philosophy, the ideology, the ruling paradigm, the ontology and epistemology of science.

Science is ideologically committed to empiricism, materialism and positivism, and the Copenhagen interpretation is the most consistent with this philosophy. Science didn’t blink when this interpretation demanded the end of determinism, which had previously been the central basis of classical science (“God does not play dice.” – Einstein). It’s astounding that science underwent a 100% volte-face – saying overnight that black is in fact white – without worrying that it had thereby made itself a joke subject, a subject with a 100% range. Science has proved that what it tells you today is 100% true, it might tell you tomorrow is 100% false. What kind of madman would place any reliance on such a subject? It’s worse than religion! Science, if it wanted to save determinism, had to embrace rationalism rather than empiricism, and it refused to do. Science is now pure philosophy and even a religion, a way of thinking designed to protect at all costs the holy status, the sanctity, of the scientific method, which is a strictly antirationalist, empiricist method. Of course, the biggest problem with the scientific method is that it’s 100% irrelevant with regard to mathematics, the 100% rationalist engine that powers science, and without which science would be voodoo. Scientists have zero interest in this fatal contradiction at the heart of their discipline. You won’t find Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins writing any books on it! There’s now enormous tension in science between theory (which is more and more mathematical), and experiment, (which decries the use of abstract mathematical ideas, which are wholly untestable). All of the candidates for the “final theory” of science are staggeringly mathematical – using the most difficult mathematics ever conceived – and they all make claims that are beyond the experimental method ever to verify or falsify. It’s worth noting that mathematics in itself is staggeringly elegant, simple, beautiful and economic. “Scientific” mathematics, on the other hand, is fantastically clunky, complex, ugly, bewildering and riddled with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The reason for this is simple: scientific mathematics has loaded up science with all kinds of ad hoc elements, arbitrary concepts, false assumptions, incorrect approaches to mathematics (such as relying on real numbers rather than complex numbers, and fleeing in horror from zero-infinity singularities), rendering it botched and bungled. Contrast the abyss of the mathematics of M-theory with the wondrous simplicity of ontological mathematics, based on a single, all-encompassing, simple, economic and beautiful formula, resulting in the whole of reality

being reducible to analytic sinusoidal waves, offering a precise answer to everything. Ontological mathematics reflects rationalism and idealism, while Mtheory is driven by empiricism and materialism. M-theory is simply the systematic misinterpretation of ontological mathematics for ideological reasons. M-theory is a bodge, a mockery of math. It involves the most complex math ever because it’s the falsest application of math ever. It’s a staggering violation of Occam’s Razor. Where ontological mathematics is the perfect reflection of Occam’s Razor, reducing everything to a single formula (the most economic solution possible, hence the Truth, given that Nature never does anything unnecessarily), M-theory does nothing but multiply entities unnecessarily, even to the extent of requiring 11 dimensions in which to work, encapsulating three “big” spatial dimension, seven “tiny” spatial dimensions, and one temporal dimension – a ludicrously arbitrary and asymmetric scheme with no conceivable ontological justification, and just made up in order to force the math to fit known experimental results from the prevailing scientific, philosophical model. No scientist could ever rationally argue with ontological mathematics. Their only case against it would be philosophical, not scientific or mathematical. Why doesn’t science teach all of the different interpretations of QM? Why only one? Who made that decision? Is that “scientific”? It would of course be highly time-consuming to teach all of the different interpretations (although it would give every student a far better understanding of the subject), but, above all, it would obliterate the certainty in which science seeks to cloak itself. If science taught all of the different interpretations of all aspects of science, it would be confessing that it doesn’t have a clue about how to interpret reality, but has merely produced a bunch of successful ad hoc equations, which lead to excellent practical outcomes. Science is a set of workable equations that produce the right answers (because they were designed to force-fit the experimental data from the getgo), but which no scientist actually understands. They are all framed through the false philosophy of empiricism, materialism and positivism and are opposed to mathematical rationalism and analysis. Throughout the God Series, we have put an enormous effort into comparing and contrasting ontological mathematics and science. Science

puts in no such effort, even though its “falsification principle” requires it to do the utmost to falsify its claims. Ho ho ho. It puts in about as much effort to falsify itself as Islam does. Take the anthropogenic global warming debate. Why doesn’t science put an immense effort into collecting together all of the arguments of the “deniers” so that they can be explicitly refuted (if they’re wrong)? It does no such thing. Like the Catholic Church, it simply ignores the “heretics” and “infidels”, or persecutes them (by actively mocking them, ensuring they get no funding from the scientific establishment, or even firing them). Science is pure groupthink and conformism, obeying a rigid establishment paradigm. If science had any regard for Truth, science departments everywhere would be actively considering all antiestablishment views. The opposite is true. You can become a professional scientist only by agreeing with the scientific establishment. No one who cited the soul (the monadic mathematical mind) as a causal agent in neuroscience would ever get a job. Like neuroscientist Sam Harris, only fundamentalist materialists are employed in this field. There is no part of the neuroscience paradigm that makes any reference at all to the soul or mind. It’s all about atoms, molecules and neurons. It’s said that there’s enormous consensus amongst climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is true. That’s about as meaningful as saying that there’s enormous consensus amongst Catholic cardinals that Catholicism is true. Just as the Catholic Church doesn’t make any nonCatholics cardinals, nor does the climate science establishment employ those who reject the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. In other words, the establishment selects out those who don’t share the establishment view, so consensus is inevitable, not the result of any scientific consideration or refutation of the anti-establishment view. Like the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, the scientific establishment is desperately in need of a Reformation. Science needs to become dialectical. It needs to take seriously the principle of falsification, which actually means giving funding and academic posts to those who oppose the consensus. Any theory that can withstand the strongest attacks of its enemies is surely more plausible than one that’s nodded through by all of its own supporters. Peer review is continually trumpeted by science as some sort of great checking mechanism to prevent speculative and erroneous nonsense getting

through. In fact, peer review is exactly where groupthink is enforced. Before you waste any time writing a scientific paper, you must ensure that what you say will be acceptable to your peers. Otherwise, they will reject it, and you will waste your time and lose your job if you keep going on like that. Peer review is about rubberstamping establishment views and suppressing anti-establishment views. It has nothing to do with any objective assessment of merit. Rupert Sheldrake makes many interesting points about science. What is science’s response? Does it attempt to engage with these ideas, if for no other reason than to definitively refute them, or does it ignore them and call Sheldrake’s ideas “pseudoscience”, and Sheldrake himself a crank and charlatan whose books should be burned! Science is itself a pseudoscience. It does not do what a proper science should do – establishing what is true and what is false through a proper, rigorous method, and proper, rationalist analysis. Science, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, reflects a ruling paradigm. During “normal science”, science religiously defends this paradigm. Science differs from religion only insofar as when sufficient anomalies build up, it is reluctantly willing to enter a “revolutionary” phase where a new paradigm is constructed, and then everything settles down again. (Religion, on the other hand, won’t give any ground no matter how many anomalies have accumulated: that’s “faith” for you – the complete abandonment of reason). The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics introduced an entirely false paradigm of indeterminism into science, and it will take a revolution to get rid of it. Ask yourself this ... what has science got to lose by giving opponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis proper funding and a proper platform within the academic community? If it’s so confident of its position, it should be fearless about refuting these critics, and thus ending the insidious debate. What is science scared of? Why isn’t it determined to establish the truth once and for all – by taking on the best arguments of its opponents and disproving them ... or conceding that they are in fact true!

The Skeptics

The problem with the skeptical position regarding anthropogenic global warming is that it’s overwhelmingly right wing, libertarian, and funded by corporations and the super rich – who have an enormous vested interest in the outcome – and much of the “science” it produces is even worse than what it criticises. A vital task is to separate the conspiracy theorists and skeptical nutjobs (skeptical for political, economic and religious reasons rather than rational reasons) from those clever freethinkers who actually have a rational and valuable counter-stance to the orthodoxy. Science, if it were true to its own Mythos should fund these people to produce a rational case against the standard opinion. The skeptics, exactly like the orthodox, must be able to make testable climate predictions, or they too, like the “believers”, are not engaging in science. The controversy over the theory of manmade global warming should provide a platform for a whole new way of doing science, where science actually attempts to engage with its critics, as its rhetoric demands, rather than simply ignoring them or labelling them as a minority of cranks.

The Useful Errors “Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny.” – Nietzsche Only eternal truths of reason are true. Everything else is to a lesser or greater degree a “useful error”. Religious Mythos is pure error, but gives people the courage and hope to live. Scientific materialism is the modern world’s most useful error.

***** “Every word is a prejudice.” – Nietzsche Ain’t that so!

*****

“Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience – just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins.” – Nietzsche Science disintegrates beyond the senses. It’s a purely sensory science. But true reality is intelligible, not sensible. Therefore, science is useless when it comes to true reality. Science is a subject that deals with appearances only, and has no validity beyond that. The outrageous, irrational and unprovable claim of science is that there is nothing beyond appearance – no noumenal domain of non-sensory hidden variables.

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

the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken would throw aside the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche’s analysis of cause and effect is instructive. What he’s really talking about is the fallacy of simple, linear cause and effect. True cause and effect is indeed much more complex: it’s networked, it forms a continuum, it has multiple – indeed infinite – nodes of causal agency. It’s an interactive system, an enormous cosmic “internet” of interlinked feedback loops. It’s full of positive and negative reinforcement. It’s a vast ocean of interactive causality, not a narrow stream of linear causality. Ultimately, causality comes down to this: it’s one equation – the God Equation – but it comes equipped with infinite nodes (the monads). This is one cosmic, self-solving, self-optimising system. It has both objective and subjective causal agency. The Monadic Collective provides the objective agency while each individual monad provides the subjective agency. Monads, initially, fight it out – with staggering brutality – in a cosmic war of different wills to power. Eventually, through the evolution of consciousness and reason, the monads start to cooperate and the universe is able to progress towards perfect monadic symmetry.

Atheism = Nihilism Check out this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv071a3Nq1g It shows a Muslim nutjob having a “debate” (we use that word advisedly) with an atheist nutjob. It’s impossible to work out which of them is dumber. One is brainwashed by Islam and the other by Western secular atheism. The Muslim, sad to say, makes more sense – at least he acknowledges some kind of ordered, rational universe – unlike the whacky, gibbering atheist, rambling on about chaos and chance without having the vaguest idea what he’s saying. His entire speech is formally meaningless, devoid of any content to which any rational meaning can be assigned. No rational person would ever refer to chance as the basis of reality. No rational person would ever call chaos the driving force of the rational

universe. Irrational scientific gibberish is as offensive to us as irrational Abrahamic or Karmic gibberish. It’s amazing how quickly atheism and scientific materialism degenerate into doped-out, mystical, hippie crap. Chance and chaos – hey, man, far out! The atheist is literally waffling on meaninglessly, throwing together almost random sentences as if he’s using William Burroughs’s notorious “cut-up” technique, yet the alarming thing is that he believes what he’s saying makes some kind of sense. It’s staggering that atheists and scientific materialists believe that referring to randomness, chance, accident, indeterminism, acausation and chaos is somehow profound and rational. They are spouting gobbledegook – for which they have zero evidence or proof – and imagining themselves supremely clever juts because they aren’t using the rival gobbledegook of Abrahamism and Karmism. Atheism and scientific materialism are for autistics on the one hand and people tripping on hallucinogens on the other.

***** “Everything came together purely by chance, through chaos. It clearly has, has it not? The universe exhibits more chaos than order. Things are random. Things are chaotic. Nothing is still. Nothing is ordered. Everything changes. Nothing is ever the same eternally. There was existence and then existence changed. The universe operates within certain laws of functioning. There’s a certain balance about everything. The universe is chaos and we as conscious entities can structure this chaos.” – an Atheist Isn’t this the purest mysticism and obscurantism? He might as well be blabbering on about the beliefs of some religious cult. What does the atheist mean by “chance” and “chaos”? Can he define them analytically and ontologically? Where do they come from? How and why do they exist? The atheist denies order then contradicts himself by talking about universal laws. He doesn’t explain any of his terms. He does not explain how laws and order can spring from fundamental accident and chaos. He presents no ontology and no epistemology and yet he and others like him imagine that this waffle and bullshit contains some kind of meaning. In fact, it’s devoid of all meaning. It’s a total non-explanation. This is what happens to you when you start taking seriously the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stephen

Hawking and Sam Harris. You literally begin to spout staggering, irrational garbage.

***** Atheism and scientific materialism have set up a false dichotomy between “God” on the one hand and “chance” on the other, i.e. they have claimed that if you reject all of the silly Mythos God/Gods – and what sane person wouldn’t?! – then all that remains is randomness. This is nonsense. What remains is the God Equation; what remains is ontological mathematics; what remains is hyperrationalism – the True God, the Logos God, and the exact opposite of randomness, chance, chaos, atheism and scientific materialism. In any contest of rationalism between math and science, math cannot lose since it’s the quintessence of rationalism. Science is pure empiricism, hence anti-rationalism, privileging the senses and experience over intelligence and reason. Pick up any science book in the world and not one will tell you what mathematics is, and why it’s so central to the success of science. Science pretends it can explain the world, yet it can’t explain itself. If science can’t explain mathematics, you’d need to be a moron to believe it can explain anything else. Science is math for dummies, and, boy, those scientists ain’t half dumb!

***** The antidote to “God” isn’t Chaos or Chance. The antidote to God is the God Equation. The antidote to irrational religion isn’t irrational science. It’s rational mathematics. Religion is a Mythos misunderstanding of mathematical perfection, of mathematical rationalism. As for scientific materialism, it’s a sensory, empiricist misunderstanding of mathematics. The opposite of a divine Designer, isn’t no design at all, as science claims, it’s a system that inherently conveys design – mathematics.

*****

There will come a day when there will be no more mad debates between mad Muslims and equally mad atheists, each side as cretinous as the other. There will come a time when every debate will be framed in terms of mathematical rationalism, and everyone will know what they’re talking about and everything will be analytically and precisely defined. The logical positivists claimed that metaphysics was meaningless. In fact, metaphysics – mathematical metaphysics – is meaning itself. The logical positivists claimed that science was meaningful. In fact, the claims of science regarding ultimate reality are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, incoherent, inconsistent, incomplete, bizarre, irrational, meaningless, and mad! Science is what you get when you kill God and don’t know what to do with the corpse. It’s what you get when you tear down a building and have no plan what to put in its place. Mathematics is how you resurrect or reincarnate God – but with all the Mythos gibberish and insanity replaced by Logos rationalism and sanity. Math is how you avoid falling into the irrational, bottomless abyss of scientific materialism and atheism.

The Parable of the Madman by Nietzsche Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” – As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? – Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become

colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us – for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.” Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.” It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?”

***** Atheism and scientific materialism killed God and replaced him with chaos, chance, meaninglessness and pointlessness. It wasn’t a rational exchange. The “cure” was even worse than the disease. It made even less sense and was even less rational. It’s time for a new God, a very different kind of God – a Logos rather than a Mythos God, a God of reason rather than a God of faith. In fact, not a God at all, but a God Equation. This equation does everything the old God did, but with none of the lunacy, and with no need for believers and

worshippers, only for geniuses seeking the highest knowledge and to become Gods themselves! When you kill God, then, as Nietzsche said, you yourselves must become Gods to justify it. That’s exactly what Illuminism is all about. Science and atheism killed God and replaced him with Chance and Chaos. That’s never going to work!

The Formula for Success The intelligentsia should go back and look at every philosophical, religious and scientific idea of the past and reinterpret them all mathematically. Forget empiricism, forget materialism, forget positivism, forget phenomenalism, forget all mention of God, faith, prophets, revelation, emotionalism, love and mysticism. Reality is all about rationalist, noumenal, analytic, pure ontological mathematics. The universe is an eternal house that requires eternal foundations that can never fail. Only perfect mathematics provides those foundations. Scientific chance and chaos certainly don’t. Science says that things just jump out of nowhere for no reason – an entirely irrationalist worldview. Ontological mathematics says that an eternal, immaterial frequency Singularity exists outside space and time, and this is the “One”, the eternal source of everything, and which provides a sufficient reason for everything. This is the domain of pure Platonic mathematics, and furnishes a wholly rationalist worldview. The Big Bang Singularity, in this scenario, is a precisely defined, analytic mathematical entity, with a precise formula (the God Equation). The scientific version of the Big Bang Singularity, on the other hand, is totally undefined, totally mysterious and totally inexplicable. So, what do you want the Big Bang to be – a rationalist unfolding of Fourier mathematics (producing a spacetime domain from a frequency domain), or a bizarre, random, inexplicable, miraculous eruption of something out of nothing for no reason? Math or science, reason or unreason? – it’s a no-brainer. Well, for any rational person.

Ragnarok

Ragnarok is the day when all the Gods die. Isn’t it time to kill the old Gods? Isn’t it time we brought Ragnarok to the mainstream religions, and the quasi-religion of scientific materialism. It’s time to unleash the battle fury of the Berserkers.

***** The Armageddon Conspiracy: The Plot To Kill All the Gods! We shall have no Gods except us.

Abrahamism All Abrahamists believe monstrous things. Abraham was a monster. The Abrahamic God is a monster. There is no such thing as a “nice” or “spiritual” Abrahamist. How can anyone say that a God who ordered a father to murder his son, and who drowned the whole world, is worthy of anything other than absolute hatred and resistance? The wicked Karmists are every bit as evil, irrational and anti-spiritual as the Abrahamists. Mainstream religion is simply disgusting. More or less every religious belief is false, pernicious and has done immense damage to the human psyche.

Better? Which is better? – to fill your mind with everything (the pursuit of absolute knowledge), or empty your mind of everything (the pursuit of absolute ignorance). Bizarrely, many “spiritual” types think that the latter exercise is useful in the attainment of “enlightenment”. Presumably, they are seeking non-existence – nirvana. That’s death, not life. That’s darkness, not light.

Purpose “There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist. It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines us. Purpose that binds us. We are here because of you, Mr Anderson. We’re here to take from you what you tried to take from us. Purpose.” – Agent Smith, The Matrix Trilogy Science took purpose from the world. But to what purpose? So that it could deny reason, mind, meaning, the soul, God and purpose itself. So that it

could embrace chance and chaos – the very opposite of reason.

The Hollow Men “A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. “The so-called typical ‘attacking a straw man’ argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., ‘stand up a straw man’) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (‘knock down a straw man’) instead of the original proposition.” – Wikipedia

The Proper Definition of Atheism “Atheism – the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason, which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?!” – popular internet definition of atheism Actually, this is the definition of scientific materialism, though scientific materialism is logically synonymous with atheism since no consistent atheist could fail to be a scientific materialist, and no consistent scientific materialist could fail to be an atheist. Materialism = atheism. The above quotation is an entirely accurate summary of scientific materialism and the atheist nihilism that flows from it. Of course, atheists and scientists can’t stand it and claim that all sorts of straw men arguments are being deployed. Actually, none are. It’s the atheists and scientists who then respond with straw man arguments. Scientific materialism and atheism constitute the belief that nonexistence (absolute nothingness) has the magical ability to spontaneously produce existence from itself. Since neither science nor atheism has any ontology or epistemology, would any scientist or atheist show in what way any part of the previous sentence is false? Define existence. Define nonexistence. Define nothing. Define something. Define space. Define time.

Define mass. Define energy. Define matter. Define light. Define motion. Define scientific laws. Define chance. Define chaos. Define spontaneous creation. Define unreal potentiality wavefunctions. Define wavefunction collapse. Scientists literally don’t know what they’re talking about. All they have at their disposal are ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent formulae that were arrived at, as Richard Feynman admitted, by guessing (!) and then fitting the guesses to experimental data. Is that what scientists and atheists call an “explanation” of reality? There are no first principles in science. There’s no analysis. There’s no reason or logic. There’s just guessing, and fitting the guesses to observations. It’s exactly because science has no idea what it’s doing beyond fitting guesses to observations that it can’t reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both theories have passed the guessing and fitting the guess to the data phase. What now? Science has no clue what to do next. It’s waiting for some new Einstein or Feynman to make a great guess that miraculously unites the two theories despite the fact that they involve two wholly different worldviews and are totally incompatible. Science could literally take forever to bring the two theories together. There’s no analytic, rational, logical basis on which it could ever do so, and guessing is never going to work.

Mind Blindness “There’s a neurologist at the University of Milan in Italy named Edoardo Bisiach who’s an expert on a neuropsychological disorder known as anosognosia. A patient with anosognosia often has had a stroke in the right side, in the parietal cortex. That patient will have what we call hemineglect. He or she cannot pay attention to the left side of the world and is unaware of that fact. Shaves on one side. Draws half a house, not the whole house, et cetera. Bisiach had one patient who had this. The patient was intelligent. He was verbal. And Bisiach said to him, ‘Here are two cubes. I’ll put one in your left hand and one in my left hand. You do what I do.’ And he went through a motion. “And the patient said, ‘OK, doc. I did it.’ “Bisiach said, ‘No, you didn’t.’” – Gerald Edelman

Scientists are rather like this patient. They suffer from an inability to pay attention to the free, mental aspect of reality. They say, “We will produce a final theory of everything in the next few years, possibly M-theory”. The trouble is that we all know it won’t be a final theory. As ever, it will fail to explain mind, life, qualia, consciousness, free will, etc., i.e. everything truly important! Yet scientists will convince themselves that they know it all. In fact, they’re missing most of reality.

The Soul “The soul is indestructible, and its activity will continue through eternity. It is like the sun, which, to our eyes, seems to set in night; but it has in reality only gone to diffuse its light elsewhere.” – Goethe

***** What is your soul? It’s an infinite-capacity, autonomous, self-determining information system. Some people may find that a disturbing definition, but what are the alternatives? – 1) you are an epiphenomenon of a particular ephemeral arrangement of lifeless, mindless, pointless, contingent material atoms, as science claims, or 2) you are the magical, miraculous, unexplained created thing of an all-powerful God, whom you must obey, as slave to master, or go to hell, as Abrahamism claims, or 3) you are some elusive mental process with no core, no Self, as Buddhism claims, or 4) you are some karmic being ruled by your past lives, as Hinduism claims. Well, which is best? Forget all your romantic notions of yourself. You are an infinitely old mathematical system that will endure forever. And that, frankly, is the best thing possible – because it means you have an answer, and you can work out that answer. Your own life, over countless different incarnations, dialectically gives you the answer you seek. The processes of life, in the end, give everyone the answer to existence. The answer is “God” – when you yourself become God, and everyone around you is God too!

The Soul Equation If you can’t mathematically define the soul – i.e. give it an exact equation – then you literally don’t know anything whatsoever about the soul.

People who meditate believe they learn something about the soul. They learn nothing and they know nothing. The Buddha knew nothing. His years of meditation led him to the conclusion that the soul doesn’t exist – the falsest position you can possible arrive at! More or less everything he said is provably mathematically false. The only Westerners dumb enough to be Buddhists are those also dumb enough to be scientists – and that’s incredibly dumb!

The Absolute “The Absolute is mind – this is the supreme definition of the Absolute.” – Hegel The Relative is matter – this is the supreme definition of the Relative. The Necessary is mind; the Contingent is matter.

Nescience Nescience: ignorance, from Latin, ne, “not” + scientia, “knowledge”; the absence of knowledge; ignorance. In philosophy, nescience is the doctrine that that nothing is actually knowable. Science is about the countable (knowledge; Logos); nescience is about the uncountable (ignorance; Mythos). The most significant fact about mainstream religion is that it does not use mathematics at all. Religion is pure nescience.

The Perversion of Language We have seen Fundamentalist scientific materialists being described as “spiritual” (hence not at all fanatical materialist zealots) because they once studied Buddhism and Hinduism, and like to “meditate” (whatever that means). Well, being analysts, we like to define our terms rather than just rambling on. A spiritual person is defined as someone who accepts that fundamental reality is immaterial, and this automatically rules out all materialists. A spiritual person is an idealist who considers that ultimate reality is made of mind, soul, spirit, Will, Will to Power, “God”, Geist, etc. – anything other than “matter”. Anyone, such as a scientific materialist, who claims that the soul does not exist and that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter is as far from

spirituality as it’s possible to get. Anti-spiritual people deny free will, deny meaning and purpose, deny mind, deny consciousness, and more or less deny life since, rationally, it’s impossible for lifeless randomness or lifeless atoms to produce life in any sense worthy of the name. It’s impossible to argue with people who claim that a world without free will is meaningful and purposeful. It’s impossible to attach any designation to what concept they have in mind. Is a volcano meaningful or purposeful? Is a computer? Is a rock? A thermometer might be said to have a meaning and purpose (to measure temperature), but only in the context of the mind that made it. By itself, it has absolutely no meaning and purpose, and would never have come into existence if a mind had not freely chosen to create it for a specific purpose.

Souldust or Stardust? We are not made of stardust but of souldust. Souldust is idealist, while stardust is materialist.

Prophecy? For mainstream religion, prophecy is regarded as equivalent to scientific prediction or mathematical law. So, what’s the success rate of prophecy? What’s its reliability and accuracy? Is the Book of Revelation better than Newton’s laws of physics at prediction? Then again, Newton was a religious nutcase who spent much more time on crazy religious speculation than on science.

End the Madness “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” – Martin Luther Reason is the Logos antidote to Mythos lunatics such as Martin Luther. Luther, like all believers, treated with contempt all that emanates from

Reason. Likewise, sensory scientists treat with contempt all that emanates from pure Reason, which is condemned as “metaphysics”.

Mind Phase A bubble in the ocean is a gas phase surrounded by a water phase. In the ocean of the cosmos, living things are a mental phase surrounded by a material phase: a Fourier frequency domain (Singularity) surrounded by a Fourier spacetime domain. It’s all in the math!

Mythos Mythos = the Mind Virus. Logos = the Cure.

Are you Enlightened? Who are the enlightened? They are the people who, if they lived to be a thousand years old, would know everything. They are compulsive learners, compulsive seekers of knowledge. The unenlightened are those who if they lived to be one million years old would still be as stupid as they are right now. (This obviously applies to all people of faith: all Abrahamists and Karmists.) They can’t learn and don’t want to learn. They “understand” existence via their senses, their feelings, their mystical intuitions and the stories they tell themselves. Logos plays no part in their lives. They’re mired in the world of experience rather than knowledge. They are empiricists rather than rationalists. Tragically, science belongs to this camp, which is exactly why we need a new science that brings it unarguably into the camp of Reason. We often say that physics is about dimensional mathematics. For accuracy, we ought to qualify this. Science is about partial dimensional mathematics. It resolutely ignores the dimension of imaginary space, accepting only the dimension of real space. In fact, what is called “time” is the dimension of imaginary space. In science, this is treated as if it were a real dimension, but not of conventional space.

Satisfaction? What would satisfy you as the answer to everything? Your personality type dictates this. A rational person seeks a rational answer, an emotional person seeks an emotional answer, an intuitive person seeks an intuitive answer and a sensory person seeks a sensory answer. We can provide you with precise mathematical proofs of the ultimate nature of existence, but we can never make you understand or accept them if you are not a rational person. If you reject what we say, it’s not because we are wrong, it’s because you want an irrational alternative. Typically, people want “love” to be the answer to everything, or “God”, or something mysterious and mystical, or some physical theory of everything (science). If you’re not convinced by reason, it’s because reason isn’t your thing. You’re looking for something other than reason. The “answer” you seek isn’t the right one, but, rather, the one you like. However, what you like has nothing whatsoever to do with truth, as all Mythos religions demonstrate.

Use Of what use is the truth to stupid people? How would they even recognise it? Of what use is knowledge to people of faith?

The Smart Ones You need to be really smart to conceive that reality is completely different from how it appears to us. Stupid people always follow their “common sense”, which says that what you see is what you get: appearance is reality. This is the standard scientific way of looking at reality. Scientists refuse to consider that our senses, and thus experiments, are not revealing truth to us (noumenon), but only appearance (phenomenon). You cannot understand something in itself from its appearance. You must transcend your senses and use your reason – exactly what scientists refuse to do.

Enlightenment

Enlightenment is about being right, not interestingly wrong. It’s about infallibility, not fallibility. It’s about reason and knowledge, not the senses and mysticism. It’s about thinking, not meditating. It’s about filling the mind, not clearing the mind (emptying the mind). There is only one right answer to existence, so, unless you have arrived at that answer, you cannot be enlightened, only wrong and ignorant. The Buddha certainly wasn’t enlightened. He was an Eastern guru who was totally wrong. He didn’t even get the basics right – that this is a mathematical universe, expressed through eternal mathematical minds (monadic souls), and that we are subject to a dialectical progress taking us from bare potential to full actualisation.

Opinions People are much more attuned to their senses than their reason, and find their senses much more “real”, hence they delude themselves that we live in a physical universe of matter rather than a mathematical universe of information that we’re forever mentally interpreting (as something nonmental!). You can’t have opinions about knowledge and be taken seriously. You must have an adamantine system of knowledge, whereby all of your epistemological claims can be tested. What is your system? You have only four choices: Abrahamism, Eastern religion, scientific materialism or hyperrationalism (ontological mathematics). Only the last is Gödelian consistent and complete. The others are riddled with errors and contradictions.

Reality? “We don’t live in a world of reality, we live in a world of perceptions.” – Gerald J. Simmons Therefore, to know the real world, we must transcend our perceptions. This is what rationalism is all about: getting beyond mere appearance.

The Miracle The only Christian miracle is that so many people still believe in Christ.

The Postponement Agnostics postpone their answer, their commitment. They’re weak cowards. What are they waiting for? Can’t they make up their minds? Don’t they have the courage for a leap?

The Appearance So, you’re out walking on a Sunday afternoon and you come across scores of Orthodox Jews on their frump catwalk, with all their finest frump-wear, their haute frumpery, all their dark suits and dark hats and dark anoraks and dark skirts, their ugly wigs that don’t fit, their ringlets and dangly bits, their hideous beards (and that’s just the women), and then it hits you ... the truth of the Jews. They’re attention-seeking extraverts! You see, it’s not enough to be Jewish, you must be seen to be Jewish. All the gentiles, the goyim, have to see you. Jehovah himself has to see you. You’re nothing if you’re not seen to be Jewish. If you were actually Jewish, you wouldn’t need to prove it by wearing all your hideous Jewish anti-fashions. But the Jews aren’t Jews. They’re simulacra of Jews. They are the mere appearance of Jewishness, but appearance is nothing. It’s illusion. All that matters is the substance, the noumenon, and that’s exactly what the Jews are lacking. They are not the “People of the Book”, they are the People of the Appearance – just like the Muslims, the Christians, and all the other pathetic religious nobodies – the religious fakes, frauds and phoneys – who have to prove to themselves and everyone else that they are religious by what they wear and eat. Their “God” is the deity of the control of appearance and diet. And what kind of fucking pathetic “God” is that? What manner of God cares if a woman is wearing a wig, a man a beard, if someone is circumcised or not, or if someone eats a bacon sandwich? What a joke. There’s nothing worse than the simulacral religious types – those nihilists who have to pretend to be religious via what they wear and eat. These people can’t be judged by their religious deeds (there aren’t any), only by their religious appearance and diet. They can’t be judged by their theology (they don’t know anything about theology, philosophy and metaphysics), only by their fanatical simulation of being religious. They are not people, they are simulacrants.

You’ve totally failed in life if your appearance is all you have to prove your credentials.

Video Games Imagine you were the greatest gamer in the world, the genius of gaming, the grand master of gamers. What, at the end of your career, would you have contributed to the human race?

***** Comic Book Guy (The Simpsons) walks along the road reading a comic book... Comic Book Guy: But Aquaman, you cannot marry a woman without gills. You’re from two different worlds. Comic Book Guy (sees lethal missile approaching): Oh, I’ve wasted my life.

***** Comic Book Guy (The Simpsons): [As the world is about to end] “I’ve spent my entire life doing nothing but collecting comic books...”

The Narrative Most people are Mythos thinkers. Mythos is so potent because it provides a narrative with cause and effect inbuilt. Logos gives much more abstract explanations of cause and effect, hence the common herd simply don’t buy it.

Forgetting It has been said that post-war Germany simply “forgot”, or completely repressed, all of the things it did in WWII. It acted as if none of it ever happened. But isn’t that exactly how religion operates? The Pope blabbers on about peace and love, and avoiding war at all costs. He never comments on the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burnings, persecutions, pograms, and extreme intolerance, all initiated in the past by his own Church and

“infallible” predecessors. For the Pope to be taken seriously, he would have to confess that all of his predecessors acted falsely and wickedly, yet, if he did that, he would be acknowledging that the Catholic Church was not infallible and not an Institution of God, hence he would be out of a job. “God” cannot change his mind. He cannot be FOR Crusades in the Middle Ages, and AGAINST modern Crusades, or now be against the Crusades he once supported.

The Mess If you go into a public toilet cubicle and notice that someone has left a “mess”, what do you do? Do you ignore it? If so, when you exit the toilet, the next person coming in will assume that the mess is yours. So, do you pathetically explain that the mess is none of your doing? Are you having to apologise for someone else? Or do you just front it out, and let not a flicker of guilt and embarrassment cross your face as you note the disgust on the next person’s face? Alternatively, do you take responsibility for the other person’s mess and clean it up, thus making yourself the slave of a selfish, ignorant person? Ah, the dilemmas of life. We’re always cleaning up the mess of others, or making excuses for it, or denying that it has anything at all to do with us.

The Mysterians “New mysterianism is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia. ... “New mysterians argue that their belief that the hard problem is unresolvable is not a presupposition, but is a logical conclusion reached by thinking carefully about the issue. The standard argument is as follows: “Subjective experiences by their very nature cannot be shared or compared. Therefore it is impossible to know what subjective experiences a system (other than ourselves) is having. This will always be the case, no matter what clever scientific tests we invent. Therefore, although a person may know that they have qualia, they cannot meaningfully discuss these qualia from a third-person point of view, and the topic will remain mysterious and unresolvable.” – Wikipedia

The problem here is that it’s being asserted that we cannot specify the rational framework for subjectivity. It’s certainly true that two subjects can never experience each other’s qualia. It’s certainly not true that they cannot reach rational agreement on the foundation of subjective experience. Ontological mathematics, via rational Form and empirical Content, does exactly that. It’s impossible to separate experience from that which conveys experience, that which experience is made of. That thing is ontological mathematics. We experience information, not the carrier of the information, not what the information ontologically is. What information is is always the same – analytic sinusoidal waves. How we experience it is down to us! That’s the nature of subjectivity.

Peer Review Scientists swear by peer review. But peer review is just “groupthink” review, “conformism” review, and is the precise means by which new ideas are kept out of science, and old, failed paradigms are allowed to continue far beyond their sell-by date. As ever, scientists are too stupid to grasp that there should be a part of science that glories in non-peer review! Imagine the chaos that would descend if climate skeptics were to peer review the work of the supporters of the hypothesis of manmade global warming.

Modernity Political correctness and multiculturalism demand that Islam be “respected”, and no one is allowed to enquire into its fundamental intolerance. Yet the simple fact remains that Islam is not compatible with modernity. Islam denies the theory of evolution, and it refuses to evolve. It’s an enormous brake on human progress. What’s the solution? The West should allow the creation of an Islamic Caliphate, knowing that every fanatical Muslim will inevitably be drawn there. This State will, given its ideology, impose extreme Sharia Law, and return to the world of Mohammed of 1400 years ago, thus proving conclusively that Islam has no part in the modern world. The Islamic Caliphate must be left to rot. It should be given no help at all by the West, and no one should trade with it or engage with it. It should be allowed to slide into total barbarism and primitivism, and everyone in

the world will be able to see Islam for what it assuredly is – the Gospel of Satan that wishes to establish hell on earth. In the end, Muslims in the Caliphate will be like savages ... primitives waving spears at Stealth Bombers. That’s what transpires when you read the Koran rather than books on Fourier mathematics. Survival is not compulsory.

The Killers Who killed Socrates? – the democrats, led by the Sophists. The Sophists are the enemies of philosophy. In today’s world, the scientists are the Sophists. They are waging all-out war against the Truth. Scientific empiricism and materialism constitute the total falsification of reality (which is based on mathematical rationalism and idealism). This is a rational universe of mathematics, not an irrational, sensory universe of science. This is a universe of analytic mathematical waves, not inexplicable blobs of indefinable material “stuff”.

The Scientific Inquisition A prominent scientist in the UK has said that the scientific peer review system, a revered cornerstone of the scientific method, stifles new thinking and leads to groupthink and conformism. Imagine the Catholic Church undertaking a process of religious peer review. How do you think papers by Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs would fare at the hands of the Catholic reviewers? By definition, peer review upholds the prevailing paradigm and regards anything which challenges that as heresy or insanity. Peer review is not a “sanity check”; it’s a “paradigm reinforcement”, i.e. its job is to ensure that scientists conform to what the science establishment has defined science to be. A science establishment composed of Leibnizians rather than Newtonians would have an entirely different science paradigm. When was Leibniz ever proved wrong by science? These days, a scientist such as Max Tegmark, with a new view of science to promote, must do so through a speculative book, and cannot use the peer review process. All new ideas must come through non-peerreviewed books, which proves how hostile peer review is to new ideas.

Peer review isn’t a wonder, it’s a disgrace. It has failed science and is a massive barrier to new scientific thinking. Peer review stifles and suppresses new thinking. Its purpose is to prop up the paradigm, the establishment and careerism. It enforces orthodoxy as surely as the Catholic Inquisition does. The Inquisition was great on peer review too ... whatever you said was fine, as long as you entirely agreed with the Catholic Church. You could say whatever you liked, provided it didn’t contradict Catholicism.

In the Name of God Religious people never regard themselves as evil, even though most of the evil done in world history has been done in the name of religion. Absolutely any act can be justified if it’s done in God’s name. “To speak specifically of our problem with the Muslim world, we are meandering into a genuine clash of civilizations, and we’re deluding ourselves with euphemisms. We’re talking about Islam being a religion of peace that’s been hijacked by extremists. If ever there were a religion that’s not a religion of peace, it is Islam.” – Sam Harris Islam is no more violent in principle than Judaism, its parent. The vast majority of religions have promoted violence. Only Buddhism and Christianity have used the rhetoric of love, peace and forgiveness, and yet Buddhists have often been violent, and Christianity is arguably the most violent religion of them all. “Human well-being is not a random phenomenon.” – Sam Harris Eh? According to fundamentalist scientific materialism, everything can be traced back to random phenomena! “But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world.” – Sam Harris How can we flourish in the world if we are all the products of quantum indeterminacy (which is incompatible with free will), or classical scientific materialism (which is also incompatible with free will)? No matter what approach you take, science is incompatible with free will and no one can anyone flourish if they have no freedom and no choices.

“Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues. We read for the pleasure of thinking another person’s thoughts.” – Sam Harris All of this implies free will and choice – exactly what Harris says is impossible and mere illusion. “Almost all our suffering is the product of our thoughts. We spend nearly every moment of our lives lost in thought, and hostage to the character of those thoughts. You can break this spell, but it takes training just like it takes training to defend yourself against a physical assault.” – Sam Harris How can you train yourself if you have no free will and no choice? “As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population.” –Sam Harris The “plain truth”? Er, you mean your opinions, your conjectures, your beliefs and your interpretations. Atheist opinions are certainly different from religious opinions. That does not make them the “plain truth”. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations; there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.” “While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.” – Sam Harris Many of the ideas of atheism and fundamentalist scientific materialism are also “patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive”, and Harris is one of their greatest champions. The intellectual community should have far less tolerance towards the irrational, outlandish claims of people such as Harris. However, the intellectual community is itself like a religion, too scared to challenge authority and established dogmas and ideology. “Spiritual life can certainly follow the pattern one sees in the fake martial arts, with most teachers making nebulous and magical claims that never get tested, while their students derange themselves with weird ideas, empty rituals, and other affectations.” – Sam Harris

Sounds just like scientific materialism! Never forget that science proceeds by way of “paradigms”, and these are functionally equivalent to religions that crush all opposition. It takes centuries to overthrow false scientific beliefs. None at all of the fundamental claims of science regarding the true nature of reality are testable, and they are mostly magical. “The fact that one can lose one’s sense of self in an ocean of tranquillity does not mean that one’s consciousness is immaterial or that it presided over the birth of the universe.” – Sam Harris Nor does it mean that one’s consciousness is material and that random, material forces presided over the birth of the universe, and over consciousness itself! “As a parent, it’s my responsibility to equip my child to do this – to grieve when grief is necessary and to realize that life is still profoundly beautiful and worth living despite the fact that we inevitably lose one another and that life ends, and we don’t know what happens after death.” – Sam Harris It’s interesting that here Harris claims to be agnostic about what happens after death. As an atheist materialist, his logical stance is of course that death is absolute and permanent, so nothing at all happens to us after death since we no longer exist. In the scientific belief system, what is there of us that could possibly continue after our death? “Nothing guarantees that reasonable people will agree about everything, of course, but the unreasonable are certain to be divided by their dogmas. It is time we recognized that this spirit of mutual inquiry, which is the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith.” – Sam Harris Hey, Sam, why don’t you try reading Kuhn and Feyerabend, and you’ll learn that science itself is a quasi-religious faith, and is full of dogmas relating to its current paradigm, and any scientists who do not agree with the establishment are kicked out of science altogether – like heretics, freethinkers and blasphemers in religion. “We have Christians against Muslims against Jews, and no matter how liberal your theology, merely identifying yourself as a Christian or a Jew lends tacit validity to this status quo. People have morally identified with a subset of humanity rather than with humanity as a whole.” – Sam Harris

The same goes for politics and economics. The same is especially true of the family, the basic unit of humanity. Will Harris now denounce adversarial democracy, capitalism and the family, as, logically, he ought to do? “There’s no way to reconcile Islam with Christianity. This difference of opinion admits of compromise as much as a coin toss does.” – Sam Harris There’s no way to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, yet empirical science, without passing any comment on it, has rationalist mathematics at its core. Take the plank out of your own eye, Sam. “Religion provides the only story that is fundamentally consoling in the face of the worst possible experiences – the death of a parent, for instance. In fact, many religions take away the problem entirely, because their adherents ostensibly believe that they’re going to be reunited with everyone they love, and death is an illusion.” – Sam Harris Yes, that’s what religion says. As for atheism, it says we live in a pointless, purposeless, meaningless universe that randomly and miraculously sprang from nothing, that we are machines without free will and that death is absolute and permanent. Atheism is total nihilism. It’s a wonder that we grieve at all since, according to the likes of Harris, we are unfree machines in a meaningless world. “Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization.” – Sam Harris What, and scientific materialist atheism and nihilism – which posits a random, meaningless world where nothing we do has any point at all – is supportive of planning for the future?! WTF! “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.” – Sam Harris And Illuminism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of atheistic and scientific dogma. “My concern with religion is that it allows us by the millions to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own.” – Sam Harris

And atheistic materialist nihilism isn’t lunacy or idiocy? Like any religious believer, Harris already assumes the correctness of his position when ridiculing the opposing position. There is only one judge of truth and error – reason – and scientific atheism certainly isn’t on the side of rationalism. “The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbours.” – Sam Harris “In touch with reality?” In your dreams, Sam. Atheism is just another irrational misinterpretation of rational, mathematical ontology. “It’s not so much religion per se, it’s false certainty that worries me, and religion just has more than its fair share of false certainty or dogmatism. I’m really concerned when I see people pretending to know things they clearly cannot know.” – Sam Harris Er, nothing has more false certainty and dogmatism than scientific materialist atheism! We Illuminists are “really concerned” when we see materialist fundamentalists such as Sam Harris pretending to know things they clearly cannot know. They can’t even know whether matter exists, which is the entire basis of their ideology! Proving the existence of matter is as impossible as proving the existence of God. “I consistently encounter people in academic settings and scientists and journalists who feel that you can’t say that anyone is wrong in any deep sense about morality, or with regard to what they value in life. I think this doubt about the application of science and reason to questions of value is really quite dangerous.” – Sam Harris It’s even more dangerous that scientists do not use reason, preferring their senses to their intellect. They are empiricists, not rationalists. “Science is the most durable and nondivisive way of thinking about the human circumstance. It transcends cultural, national, and political boundaries. You don’t have American science versus Canadian science versus Japanese science.” – Sam Harris Science is a total reflection of cultural, paradigmatic thinking. History has shown that you can get Islamic science, Christian science, Jewish science, capitalist science, atheist science, materialist science, metaphysical science, and so on. There are plenty of different types of science, and each nation

unquestionably practices science with respect to national cultural norms. There is, however, only one ontological mathematics – for every species in the universe! “While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness.” – Sam Harris Yes, it’s absolutely false that there is some core religious teaching that all religions respect. New Age thinking is full of this drivel that all religions reflect some fundamental Truth. In fact, all religions are pure Mythos and are fundamentally false. Abrahamism has literally zero truth content. “The only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts. Only openness to evidence and argument will secure a common world for us.” – Sam Harris Only the eternal truths of reason, enshrined in ontological mathematics, rise above opinion, belief, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. Sensory evidence is not rational proof. All “evidence” is interpretive. Scientists are extremely closed minded and unwilling to have their sensory belief system challenged by rational arguments, and mathematical facts. “The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” – Sam Harris The real war is between science and mathematics. Science is full of empiricist dogmas that fundamentally contradict mathematical rationalism. In quantum mechanics, conflict between scientific empiricism and mathematical rationalism is inherent and zero-sum. The “success” of science often comes at the expense of mathematical truth. Science denies hidden variables. Hidden variables are entirely consistent with mathematical rationalism, but entirely inconsistent with scientific empiricism. If hidden variables are true, it automatically follows that scientific empiricism is false, hence that science is promoting error and

delusion. It’s impossible for science to disprove the existence of hidden variables, or the soul. “It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum.” – Sam Harris Yes, the contest between faith and reason is indeed zero-sum, but it’s not science that champions reason ... it’s mathematics, and science is as opposed to a rationalist, mathematical explanation of reality as a religious one since science is about the sensible and not the intelligible, hence is itself opposed to reason. The only rational aspect of science is the mathematics at its heart. Who needs science?! Science is the enemy of reason and rationalism, which is why it ends up blabbering on about “spontaneous creation” – which is no different from religious miracles! “Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live.” – Sam Harris Yes, just as there are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics, all of which are incompatible and imply radically different ontologies and epistemologies. Science is full of failed theories yet people such as Sam Harris believe they can invoke this flawed, fallible subject to tell us how to live our lives! “One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced.” – Sam Harris Buddhism is as monumentally wrong in its claims about ultimate reality as science! Of what use is “contemplative wisdom” if it leads to nothing but empiricist errors and fallacies? There is simply no such thing as contemplative wisdom. There is mathematical Truth, and everything else is belief, opinion, interpretation, conjecture and hypothesis. “On the subject of religious belief, we relax standards of reasonableness and evidence that we rely on in every other area of our lives. We relax so totally that people believe the most ludicrous propositions, and are willing to organize their lives around them.” – Sam Harris

Few propositions are as ludicrous and offensive to reason than those science makes about the fundamental nature of existence. “Human experience depends on everything that can influence states of the human brain, ranging from changes in our genome to changes in the global economy.” – Sam Harris Go on, Sam, keep ignoring the mind – the autonomous mathematical Fourier frequency domain that dictates all of reality! “Many scientists have been drawn to Buddhism out of a sense that the Western tradition has delivered an impoverished conception of basic, human sanity. In the West, if you speak to yourself out loud all day long, you are considered crazy. But speaking to yourself silently – thinking incessantly – is considered perfectly normal.” – Sam Harris WTF! Is Harris suggesting that people who speak to themselves out loud all day long are not insane!? And is he suggesting that thinking your own thoughts is insane? What’s wrong with this guy?! Since when did Buddhism advocate public ranting? Let’s keep Western “impoverishment” if the alternative is a bunch of nutjobs like Harris boring us to death with their mad ravings all day long. Nothing has impoverished the human condition more than Harris’s scientific materialism that insanely regards all life as meaningless, purposeless and pointless. That’s why scientists turn to Buddhism! “Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle.” – Sam Harris Atheism certainly is a philosophy – a really bad one. Atheism is a total denial of the obvious ... that we are free agents in a purposeful, mental, rational reality, predicated on an eternal order of mathematics. “You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps.” – Sam Harris Indeed! “Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths.” – Sam Harris

But not critical at all of the quasi-religion of scientism. “The moral landscape is the framework I use for thinking about questions of morality and human values in universal terms.” – Sam Harris What moral landscape? Try reading Nietzsche, why don’t you, Sam?! Get an education. Try studying philosophy. “I don’t think there’s an interesting boundary between philosophy and science. Science is totally beholden to philosophy. There are philosophical assumptions in science and there’s no way to get around that.” – Sam Harris Well, at least he got that right. Unfortunately, there’s not much evidence that Harris deploys philosophy in any other way than to support his own scientific beliefs, thus making philosophy entirely beholden to science. “It is difficult to think of anything more important than providing the best education possible for our children. They will develop the next technologies, medical cures, and global industries, while mitigating their unintended effects, or they will fail to do these things and consign us all to oblivion.” – Sam Harris Truth! (For once.) Even broken clocks are right twice a day. “Many of my fellow atheists consider all talk of ‘spirituality’ or ‘mysticism’ to be synonymous with mental illness, conscious fraud, or self-deception. I have argued elsewhere that this is a problem – because millions of people have had experiences for which ‘spiritual’ and ‘mystical’ seem the only terms available.” – Sam Harris Everything that doesn’t concern rationalism is either Mythos entertainment or Mythos lunacy. “Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their co-religionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future.” – Sam Harris Correct. “Science does not limit itself merely to what is currently verifiable. But it is interested in questions that are potentially verifiable (or, rather, falsifiable).” – Sam Harris

Science relies on mathematics, and mathematics is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Explain that one, Sam. “The treatment of women in Muslim communities throughout the world is unconscionable. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the Earth.” – Sam Harris Correct. “We’re right to say that a culture that can’t tolerate free speech is... there are a wide range of positive human experiences that are not available in that culture. And we’re right to want those experiences.” – Sam Harris Correct. “Any conception of human well-being you could plausibly have, the Taliban patently fails to maximize it.” – Sam Harris Correct. “The science of morality is about maximizing psychological and social health. It’s really no more inflammatory than that.” – Sam Harris The “science” of morality? WTF! Show us a single moral statement that is either verifiable or falsifiable, and is anything other than interpretation, belief or opinion. “Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world.” – Sam Harris And who defines “reasonable”? – irrationalist scientists who oppose mathematical rationalism?! “In my experience with print journalists, the distinction between remarks being uttered on- or off-the-record is held sacrosanct, but the distinction between truth and falsity sometimes isn’t.” – Sam Harris In the absence of rational criteria, it’s all just interpretation and opinion. “Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds – and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe.” – Sam Harris

Morality, such as it is, is totally dependent on the truth of free will, yet Sam Harris calls free will an illusion. If free will is an illusion, so is consciousness, and, as you would expect, science does indeed regard consciousness as an impotent epiphenomenon, with no causal efficacy. “The wealthiest Americans often live as though they and their children had nothing to gain from investments in education, infrastructure, clean-energy, and scientific research.” – Sam Harris Indeed! “There is no reason whatsoever to think that Buddhism can compete successfully with the relentless evangelizing of Christianity and Islam. Nor should it try to.” – Sam Harris No, it shouldn’t ... since it’s no better than they are.

The Four Ways There are only four ways to understand the world: with your senses, feelings, intuitions or intellect. Scientists consider reality in terms of sensory evidence. Religious believers are people whose faith is driven by their feelings, and by seductive Mythos tales. Abrahamism is the classic example. Intuitives are typically mystics who meditate and seek to make themselves “one” with ultimate reality. Eastern religion is the classic example. Intellectuals are those who seek to understand the world via reason, and the supreme subject of reason is mathematics. To put it in other terms, scientists regard ultimate reality as sensible, Abrahamists as involving an emotional relationship with a Superbeing, Eastern religious followers as mystical, and rationalists as intelligible. These are wholly different ways of apprehending reality. You cannot mix and match. Most importantly, you cannot be scientific and rational, i.e. it’s logically impossible to reconcile sensible and intelligible worldviews. You can be scientific or mathematical, but not both. Science manifests a fundamental contradiction through being predicated on a sensory scientific method, while relying on an intelligible mathematical engine that has nothing to do with senses and is entirely based on analytic reason and proof.

The four ways of contemplating reality have the following implications: science says that the world is made of non-mental, sensory matter; Abrahamism says that an unexplained conscious Superbeing made the world and us; Eastern religion says that we all belong to some unexplained mystical Oneness which is the truth beneath the illusory material world of separation; and rationalism says that the world is intelligible because it’s literally made of ontological reason = mathematics, the subtlety being that ontological mathematical sinusoids can convey information that is experienced by minds in non-mathematical ways (such as in sensory or emotional ways), thus concealing the true mathematical reality.

Monsters “Men don’t fear swords, they fear monsters.” – Prince Vlad (Dracula Untold) How do Muslims make themselves feared? By becoming monsters. Yet the most monstrous thing of all is that these people feel justified in their monstrosity by claiming that everything they do is for Allah. As long as you are acting on behalf of God, you are allowed to do anything at all. “God” has become the ultimate excuse. There are no evil acts committed in God’s name. And that’s why Muslims are Devil worshippers. When you don’t hesitate to do evil, it’s because you yourself are evil and worship evil.

The Cosmic Murderer According to the Bible, the Jewish God murdered 99.99999% of the human race in the Flood. Who has shed a tear for his victims? Is that not the greatest holocaust of all? – and it’s one all Jews endorse simply because their Satanic God perpetrated it. Where is there any evidence that these people did anything wrong? Were they as guilty as Isaac and Ishmael i.e. entirely innocent? Why should anyone take “God’s” word for it that these people were wicked when this God orders the murder of boys and girls for no reason? The Canaanites were subjected to genocide to make way for the Jews. What was their crime? Simply to be living on the land that the Jews wanted for themselves, that had been promised to them by their God.

Failure “Harris postulates that religion is essentially a failed science.” – Wikipedia Or is science a failed religion?

100% Either the universe is 100% deterministic, or 100% indeterministic. It’s not a bit deterministic and a bit indeterministic. Similarly, either the universe is 100% rational or 100% irrational. It’s not a bit rational and a bit irrational. This is a zero-sum game. There’s no No Man’s Land, no interzone, no twilight zone, no confusion, no imprecision.

God’s Truth? American Christian Fundamentalists talk of “God’s Truth versus Man’s reason.” For these people, the “truth” is infallibly revealed in the “Word of God” (the Bible). These same people don’t explain why the Jews claim that only the Torah is true, and the Muslims that the Koran is the definitive Word of God. Moreover, the Catholic Church says that it’s led by the Vicar of Christ, God’s representative on the Earth, and that the Church can make infallible statements, independently of the Bible. So, the Abrahamists can’t even agree amongst themselves what God’s Truth is and yet they have the cheek to tell the world that we must slavishly agree with their ludicrous opinions and beliefs. Here’s the real Formula: Man’s Mythos (Abrahamism, Karmism and scientific materialism) versus the Eternal Truths of Reason (ontological mathematics). Only analytic tautologies are infallibly true. Everything else is interpretation.

The Free Will Map “We have a subjective experience of free will but it can’t be mapped onto physical reality.” – Sam Harris Yes it can! ... provided you use ontological mathematics rather than scientific materialism.

How is a subjective experience possible at all in “objective” physical reality? What need is there for it? Why don’t we exist in a world of human robots or zombies? Why is conscious subjectivity required if it has absolutely no effects at all, and can never affect anything? Harris and his materialist ilk should start studying Illuminism and Fourier mathematics. They should start accepting the reality of a Fourier frequency domain outside space and time that isn’t determined by anything happening in space and time. The idea that we do not have free will – we do not have agency, the ability to take our own decisions and are at all times dictated to by causal chains in the material spacetime world – is the most absurd of all “scientific” conclusions, but is exactly where the empiricist and materialist Meta Paradigm logically and inevitably leads. Deep down, all scientists want to be machines and indeed see themselves as machines. They are sensory autistics, wholly lacking imagination and intuition, locked into a machine paradigm. They are the enemies of freedom, consciousness, subjectivity, mind and soul. They reject teleology and see the universe as a purposeless process that exists for no reason at all and has no aims at all. For them, we are literally just an accident, a random blip. We are creatures, or rather machines, born of randomness and ultimately ruled by randomness (if you accept quantum indeterminacy, many worlds or Multiverse thinking). “There are very good reasons to believe that mind is at bottom physical.” – Sam Harris There are no good reasons at all for such a belief. Since Bishop Berkeley, there aren’t even any good reasons to believe that physical matter exists! Even scientific determinism isn’t deterministic any more. Science now subscribes to quantum indeterminacy at the fundamental level, and then claims that this turns into something resembling cause and effect via “probability” (although no explanation is offered as to why anything in an indeterministic system should be more probable than anything else; probability thinking already invokes the notion of there being better reasons for some things than others, which automatically refutes the whole indeterministic paradigm; scientists are always caught in hopeless logical traps, which they proceed to ignore and go on spouting their illogical nonsense.)

“Even if we have souls, even if the human mind were made of soul stuff that we don’t understand, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul grant you no more freedom than the unconscious neurophysiology of your brain does. If you don’t know what your soul is going to do next, you are not in control of your soul.” – Sam Harris How can you control your soul? You are your soul. What Harris is proposing is that, in order to be free, we should have the ability to control all the workings of our mind. That’s as daft as expecting us to be able to control every part of a car, or – so Harris would conclude – we are not freely driving the car, but, rather, the car is driving us! In fact, to be in control of an automatic car, we simply need a steering wheel, a brake and accelerator. The consciousness, to be free, merely needs to be able to control the unconscious when it needs to. At other times, it can be on autopilot and let the unconscious drive the car. The unconscious and conscious aren’t two different souls. They are a dual-aspect single soul. The unconscious is outside space and time in the frequency domain; the conscious is linked to space and time in the material domain. They work together as a single system. If anything, our unconscious is our true self, and our conscious the persona, the mask, with which we face the world. At the bottom of things, your soul acts according to its nature, its character, its tastes, it “personality”. These are what it is. These do not have to be mediated in any way. They don’t need a critic or second opinion. Harris, as a scientific materialist atheist has no conception of a soul and how it functions. A soul is a vast mathematical information system thinking all manner of things at once, but a selection has to be performed from all of these thoughts since we can only do one thing (actualise one of the many potential things we might do). It is this selection process that constitutes what and who we are. All the things we are thinking belong to our unconscious mind. Our choice is that which enters our consciousness. Our consciousness is the register of what we have chosen, but is not necessarily the chooser itself. The chooser is our own fundamental nature that scans all of the possibilities open to it and selects the one most consistent with its aims and purposes (teleology).

The Multi-Denial Atheists don’t just deny the existence of God. They deny the existence of the soul, the afterlife, metaphysics, noumena, an immaterial Fourier frequency domain outside space and time, rational unobservables, hidden variables, meaning and purpose, i.e. atheism is simply the logical outcome of the scientific empiricist, materialist and positivist worldview. Atheism is the rejection of the rationalist, idealist, noumenal, ontological, metaphysical ground upon which any kind of God, including the mathematical God Equation, could be predicated. It’s a philosophical stance rooted in empiricism, and contemptuous of rationalism. All of the great rationalists – Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel and Gödel had a religious sensibility. Hume, the greatest of the empiricists, was accused of being an atheist. Virtually all leading scientific empiricists are atheist zealots. It’s more or less impossible not to be if you accept empiricist philosophy as true. This, in fact, is the “God” of these people, hence they are religious, just like everyone else. They have absolute faith in empiricism without a shred of evidence that it’s true, and a vast amount of evidence and rational proof that it’s false.

Evil Atoms No human choices were involved in defeating the Nazis. Atoms and their laws did it all. No Nazis forced Jews into concentration camps – atoms and the laws of physics did it! That’s what the logic of Sam Harris concludes.

The Wisdom of Murphy’s Law (Arthur Bloch) “Anything can be made to work if you fiddle with it long enough.” Science works by fiddling with its Feynman guesses long enough. “If you fiddle with something long enough, you’ll break it.” That’s what happens when you push the Feynman guesses beyond their limits. “If you don’t care where you are, you’re not lost.”

Science regards existence as meaningless, hence doesn’t care where it is and doesn’t regard itself as lost.

Your Story It is said that your story is who you are. Everyone has a story. So do nations, religions, tribes, corporations, economic systems, political parties, and so on. This is a Mythos World. It’s all about the narrative. It’s all about the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we sell ourselves. Humanity will undergo a radical change for the better only when it becomes a Logos species. Mythos has no connection with Truth. Logos is the only path to what is right, correct and true. Our reason – our mathematical reason – is our one and only “organ of truth”.

Computer Quotes http://www.generationterrorists.com/cgi-bin/quotes.cgi?section=Computers

“Facts are not all equal. There are good facts and bad facts. Science consists of using good facts.” As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Science is better than mainstream religion because it uses sensory rather than emotional facts. It’s ultimately useless precisely because it relies on sensory facts while true reality is intelligible, not sensible. “Whatever goes wrong, there’s always someone who knew it would.” We knew science would go wrong, and it has. “An ounce of application is worth a ton of abstraction.” An ounce of mathematical abstraction is worth an infinite amount of pointless, undirected, irrational application. “The weaker the math, the more elaborate the graphics need to be.” Or is a picture worth a thousand words? “If something doesn’t go wrong, in the end it will be shown that it would have been ultimately beneficial for it to have gone wrong.”

How good are people at recognising that something has gone wrong? Didn’t religion go wrong thousands of years ago? Hasn’t capitalism gone wrong? Hasn’t democracy gone wrong? Hasn’t science failed to deliver with any persuasive account of ultimate reality? “There are no real secrets – only obfuscations.” In science, there are no real facts, only obfuscations. “When all else fails, read the instructions.” What are the universe’s instructions? How are they written? It’s all done in mathematics, of course! What else could do the job? Only one language can specify reality down to the finest detail – math. “A computer program does what you tell it to do, not what you want it to do.” Science does what empiricism and materialism says it should, not what the Truth does do. Science is a systematic misinterpretation of mathematical reality. Only mathematics is necessary, analytic and true. Science emphatically isn’t. Here’s a simple fact ... if mathematics were removed from science, science would collapse. When has any scientist ever explained why science is so reliant on mathematics? When has any scientist ever explained what mathematics is? Why is that not the central question of science? Isn’t it self-evident that science is meaningless until it can assign a meaning to mathematics? “The most useless computer tasks are the most fun to do.” True of so many things in life! ... and the unholy gospel of geeks and hackers. “Software bugs are correctable only after the software is judged obsolete by the industry.” Science is correctable only after science declares empiricism and materialism obsolete, in which case it will become ontological mathematics. “Program complexity grows until it exceeds the capability of the programmer who must maintain it.”

This is also true of science. No one person can understand the whole of science. Science is simply unintelligible since it’s non-analytic, being based on Feynman guesses. “Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.” Natural stupidity rules the world! “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a big difference.” Science is mathematical theory in practice, and there’s a huge difference because science adds all sorts of ad hoc ingredients and guesses that make the theory inconsistent, incomplete and irrational. “When trying to solve a problem, it always helps to know the solution.” Mathematics is the ultimate subject for intuiting the answer to a problem before you attempt to solve it. “There are many methods for predicting the future. For example, you can read horoscopes, tea leaves, tarot cards, or crystal balls. Collectively, these methods are known as ‘nutty methods.’ Or you can put well-researched facts into sophisticated computer models, more commonly referred to as ‘a complete waste of time.’” – Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future The models for global warming are thus far a complete waste of time!!!

Wise Up Don’t dumb down ... wise up. Abandon science and mainstream religion. Embrace math. “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow This is the perfect quote for the scientific empiricist paradigm. Scientific empiricism sees all things as sensory and experiential, and brings only one tool – the scientific method (its hammer) – to the workshop. It has no other tools, no other ways of doing things, no other ways of understanding things. It’s a one-trick pony.

The Shooters So, all the Muslims that go around shooting people in Canada, America, Belgium, France, the UK, and so on, must, according to the “logic” of the 9/11 Truthers, be CIA operatives seeking to trigger wars. After all, if Muslims aren’t to blame for 9/11, but the American government is, the same must be true for all atrocities carried out by Muslim fanatics.

Explanation? “There’s a cheap debating trick which implies that if, say, science can’t explain something, this must mean that some other discipline can.” – Richard Dawkins There’s a cheap debating trick which implies that if science can’t explain something, no other discipline can, and science eventually will explain it. Scientists believe that all aspects of the mind have a scientific explanation. They never consider that science can never say anything about the mind since the mind is entirely outside of the scientific materialist paradigm. The mind has nothing to do with matter. It is not the product of matter, as science claims. The exact opposite is true.

Evasion In religion, words like soul, spirit and God are used as if they constitute an explanation, but are merely undefined labels for things believers don’t understand. In science, words like time, energy, mass, light and matter, are instrumentally-defined labels for ontological entities that science doesn’t understand. Why is ontological mathematics so astounding? It’s because it can define everything in precise ontological terms. Only it’s capable of doing so.

Mummies The ancient Egyptians mummified the body, and regarded the heart as the most important organ, where the human mind was located. The brain was pulled out through the nose and discarded as useless junk. This reflects how

humanity continues to operate. Scientists regard the sensory body as the beall-and-end-all. Religion regards the heart as all important. The brain – the seat of intellect and reason – is discarded as some weird abstraction with no connection with ultimate reality. The simple fact is that the world is neither sensory nor emotional, but rational and thus intelligible. Reality is mathematical, and mathematics is the first thing discarded as useless by most people. What a world!

Ritual “More than the Jewish People have kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept the Jewish People.” – Ahad Ha’am It’s religious rituals, rites, customs, culture, clothing and dietary prohibitions, brainwashing and indoctrination that create and sustain a religious identity. All of these must be stopped in order for humanity to be free of religion. The Sabbath must be obliterated ... and then there will be no more Jews, and no more Abrahamists. Ancient Jews believed in Judaism because they thought it was true. Modern Jews believe in Judaism, not because they think it’s true, but because they are Jews. It’s now their identity. When your identity is invested in total falsehood, you are obliged to insist it’s true. That’s the human tragedy. The more others tell you that you’re wrong, the more you proclaim that you’re right. In history, no one has been told that they are wrong more often, and more brutally, than the Jews. But the Jews didn’t and don’t listen. After all, they are the Chosen People, especially favoured by the Creator of the Universe! The Jews will never learn. They refuse to learn. And that is the basis of their religious faith. No religion has been more refuted than Judaism, but what does “refutation” mean to people who care nothing for reason and proof?

***** “If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic,

what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” – Sam Harris If people such as Sam Harris don’t value mathematical proof, what proof are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? Sam Harris should take the plank out of his own eye. Harris is a Materialist Fundamentalist and, in many ways, that’s not so different from being an Islamic Fundamentalist. It accepts faith-based positions and refuses to challenge them. Harris is incapable of seeing beyond his materialist, empiricist materialism and dogmatism. He will accept no rational proof, or logical argument, of the falsehood of science, his chosen belief system. Nothing has been more injurious to real intellectual progress than the association of reason with sensory science. Reason itself is non-sensory and relates to a non-sensory, intelligible, mathematical world.

The Beginning? The Buddha said, “Everything that has a beginning has an ending.” The Buddha regarded all human beings as contingent: they have a beginning, hence must have an end. He refused to proclaim a second, truer statement: “Everything without a beginning has no end.” The latter statement applies to necessary entities such as the soul. The Buddha rejected the soul. Like scientists, he believed in infinite contingent regress. That’s why so many scientific empiricists are attracted to Buddhism. They feel right at home. Buddhism is a pseudo religion. It’s a system of contingency and nihilism. It doesn’t explain anything at all. It’s atheism in disguise, atheism that refuses to see what it really is.

Ideas We study ideas because we find them inherently interesting, and because we wish to refute them if they disagree with ours. If you call yourself an Illuminist yet actually agree with scientific materialism – a diametrically opposed system – you are either living in bad faith with regard to scientific materialism or with regard to Illuminism. Which is it? Any rational person should be able to work out whether science or mathematics is right. You can’t endorse both. It must be one or the other.

Thinking Scientists can’t think. Thinking means being rational, not ideological and dogmatic. If you cannot prove the existence of matter – and no materialist can – it’s absurd to base all of your ideas on the materialist worldview, yet this is exactly what Harris, Dawkins et al. do. They simply cannot grasp that reality is intelligible rather than sensible, just as Plato said. If you don’t understand what Plato meant, you will never see that you cannot use reason in the support of a sensory world and arrive at anything other than interpretation, belief, conjecture, opinion and hypothesis. You will absolutely never reach Truth. If this is an intelligible world, as it is, reason must be used in a non-sensory way. Science doesn’t do this, but mathematics does. Mathematics is the Truth.

Mind and Matter The binary system of 0 and 1 provides the perfect analogy for the mindmatter Fourier reality. 0 is the key number of the mind, of the immaterial Fourier frequency domain, outside space and time. 1 is the key number of matter, of the material Fourier spacetime domain. We live in a mind-matter universe, reducible to the commonality of Fourier mathematics – the tertium quid (“third thing”) that grounds mind and matter in the same underlying, mathematical reality.

Zombie Ideas The world is ruled by zombie ideas – ideas that should have died long ago. Religion is a set of zombie ideas. These undead ideas lurch around the world, infecting person after person. The zombies are the Lost Souls.

Morality Morality – any definition of morality – requires freedom. Without freedom there can be no moral order at all, merely an unfolding of inevitability where no one had any choice about what they did. This is Sam Harris’s world, although, ironically, he frequently pontificates on morality. If we are to accept his worldview – where free will is entirely absent – then he is merely reading a script written for him by the laws of Nature, to which he

never gave any thought at all, and regarding which he made absolutely no choices.

Indeterminacy All debates concerning scientific indeterminacy reduce to whether reality is rationalist or empiricist, intelligible or sensible. Quantum mechanical indeterminacy versus determinacy is simply a proxy for the war of empiricism versus rationalism, science versus math. Indeterminacy is an inference flowing from the rejection of hidden variables. If you rule out the existence of hidden variables, complex numbers and Fourier frequency singularities (monads), you are left with nowhere to go but indeterminism. There is of course no experimental evidence for either indeterminism or determinism (experiments can show phenomenal effects but not noumenal causes). The notion of indeterminism flows from empiricism and materialism, while determinism flows from rationalist and idealist considerations, conveyed through math. The ultimate question is whether reality is mathematical (rationalist) or scientific (empiricist). It’s a telling fact that science is useless without math, but math doesn’t need science at all.

***** If we accept Descartes’ principle that all causes must be as real as their effects, modern science, based on real effects arising from the collapse of unreal wavefunctions, makes no sense. Modern science repudiates any such Cartesian link between causes and effects, which makes it totally irrational and ineradicably hostile to causation and the principle of sufficient reason.

Ignorance “Being ignorant is like walking blindly. You will never see the true reality.” – the Buddha Yes, and the Buddha walked blindly and never saw true reality. He was an empiricist, not a rationalist. He was ignorant and unenlightened.

Religious Identity

Many Muslims raised in Western countries cannot connect with the Western mindset and are highly susceptible to Islamic radicalisation. The simple fact is that Islam is incompatible with Western culture. The Muslim identity is incompatible with the Western identity. Merely to bring up someone as a Muslim in the West creates an enormous tension in identity. A choice is more or less forced on you – to be Islamic or Western. To reduce cognitive dissonance, you must leap one way or another, and many Western Muslims choose Islamic Fundamentalism and a total rejection of the West, leading to toxic hatred of the West.

Internet Meme “Have you ever thought about the fact that the brain not only named itself but also decided everything we ‘know’ about it?” No contingent thing can know itself; only an eternal, knowing thing can know itself. Matter can never know itself, only mind can.

The Tree of Life or Death? “Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death.” – William Blake And mathematics is the Tree of Knowledge.

The Abandonment Why have scientists abandoned determinism and causation? It’s because these are incompatible with empiricism and materialism since they are impossible to perceive. Determinism and causation are intelligible, not sensible. It’s very simple – is existence ultimately made of something intelligible (= something mental), or something sensible (= material)? It always comes back to idealism versus materialism, rationalism versus empiricism, reason (math) versus the senses (science), or the emotions (mainstream religion).

Teleology

Teleos (ancient Greek) – “entire, perfect, complete”. Telos (ancient Greek) – “end, goal, result”. Teleology (ancient Greek) – “the study of final causes”. Why is teleology banished from science? Why is Aristotle’s teleological version of science dismissed as nonsense? It’s because teleology is all about purpose, and purpose implies some manner of mind, whether it be that of God or gods, or spirits, or animism, or conscious panpsychism, or unconscious panpsychism, or souls. All of these are rejected as ludicrous by science. Scientific materialism – as a subject without mind as a thing in itself but purely as something derived from matter – can have no purposes by definition. Lifeless, mindless matter can never have purposes, hence scientific materialism can make no reference to purposes. That’s why people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins refer to existence as pointless, purposeless and meaningless. If existence is fundamentally material and sensible then that must be true. However, we already know that if existence began with a dimensionless, immaterial Big Bang Singularity, then scientific materialism is ipso facto false. A Big Bang Singularity as the origin of existence is entirely consistent with matter being the product of mind; it is entirely inconsistent with the converse claim: that mind comes from matter. Scientists dogmatically refuse to accept this logic since they are wholly committed to the denial of mind as the primary reality. As soon as you accept that mind is the Source of all, you are automatically compelled to view reality as a teleological, mental organism (exactly as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle did), not a dead, purposeless machine process that accidentally (and miraculously) produces purposeful beings such as us. We ourselves – the human race – prove that materialism is false. We could not exist if materialism were true. It’s logically impossible for lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms to produce living, thinking, purposeful beings.

***** Teleology – existence is mental; existence is an evolving organism

Non-teleology – existence is material; life is a non-evolving machine. Well, which is it? If you find yourself scoffing at Aristotelian teleology and finding it rather ridiculous and speculative, it means that you are a materialist, it means that you deny that reality is fundamentally mental. There is nothing speculative about teleology. Materialism, on the other hand, is entirely speculative. No one ever has or ever could prove that matter even exists. Everything we “know” about matter comes via our minds. Occam’s Razor says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. Therefore, if we can explain matter as a product of mind – as we can via ontological mathematics – there is no need at all to appeal to “matter”.

Looking versus Thinking Science is about observing the world, hence concludes that reality is sensible. Mathematics is about thinking about the world, hence concludes that reality is intelligible. Science presupposes observable things, and mathematics presupposes rational things. If the universe is rational, it must be mathematical. If the universe is irrational, it would be unintelligible, and we would know nothing about it. You can be a person of reason only if you accept the primacy of mathematics, the subject of reason. Scientists are people of unreason since they privilege their irrational senses over thinking. They start with their observations and then think about how to explain them (by making Feynman guesses). They do not start with reason, and then think about how what we observe flows from reason.

***** What is humanity’s means of accessing truth? Humanity has four faculties: 1) to navigate our way through the “physical” world, which requires our senses, 2) to work out how we feel about the world and the people we find it, and our success, or otherwise, in that world, which requires our feelings, 3) to have flashes of something beyond the world, pointing to what comes after, for which we need our intuition, and 4) to think about the world and establish its truth.

Humanity, in evolutionary terms, is all about survival (security) and reproduction, and both of these are intimately connected to the pursuit and possession of power. More powerful people survive better and have better opportunities to reproduce. Evolution never had Truth as its initial goal. Truth comes after survival and reproduction. That means that Truth is low down on people’s priorities. We are not a Truthful species. That’s why humanity does not love mathematics and finds it cold, baffling, and abstract. Science is all about our senses, Abrahamism is all about our feelings towards “God”, and Eastern religion is all about our mystical intuitions. Our thinking, when exercised properly, is all about discovering what is unarguably true. Only one thing is unarguably true – ontological mathematics, reflecting the eternal truths of reason, and the principle of sufficient reason. If the universe has a truth, that truth must be that of ontological mathematics. It really is as simple as that. Nothing else is true, or deals with truth. Everything else is opinion, belief, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. A true universe is a mathematical universe. A rational universe is a mathematical universe. A deterministic, causal universe is a mathematical universe. An intelligible universe is a mathematical universe. Any other type of universe is false, irrational and unintelligible. It is inconceivable that the world is made of emotion, mysticism or sensory “matter”. It is made of mathematics, and that means it is made of ontological reason. Only our reason, not our senses, can unlock the secrets of the rational, intelligible universe.

Darwinism versus Hegelianism Evolution is opposed to Creationism. Creationism is a mental, not material, theory. In Platonic Creationism, the Demiurge creates the material world – by applying Forms to it – as an inferior copy of the perfect world of pure Forms. In Aristotelian Creationism, the formless material world mixes with Form to produce a perfect ladder of being (matter-Form hybrids), stretching all the way up from formless matter to matterless form (God).

In Abrahamic Creationism, “God” creates the world out of nothing, according to his design, and makes us in his own image. Where Creationism must involve a Cosmic Mind, evolution can be cast in either mental or material terms, i.e. in relation to a purposeful, evolving mental reality, or a purposeless material reality that randomly generates changes that are either naturally selected or deselected. Mental evolution involves mind actively pursuing a superior, betteradapted future (i.e. it’s teleological). Material evolution involves matter accidentally producing a superior, better-adapted future (i.e. it’s nonteleological). The latter is of course Darwinism, which Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris will proudly tell you is an absolutely pointless, meaningless and purposeless process that does not seek to accomplish anything at all, and has no conceivable objectives. In fact, it’s difficult to even call this evolution. It could be construed as simply the unfolding of inevitable forces with no selection at all. What does it even mean to refer to “selection” in the absence of meaning and purpose? If the phrase “natural selection” were replaced by “random selection”, how would that change the whole conception of Darwinism? Evolution by random selection does not sound as if it would lead anywhere, does it? And isn’t that the true logic of purposeless Darwinism? If materialism asserts that free will is an illusion and mind is an epiphenomenon of matter, it should logically make exactly the same claims regarding evolution, i.e. it’s an illusion that anything is being selected, and evolution is just an epiphenomenon of matter. Selection means choice, but if all that exists are matter and the inescapable laws of matter then where is there any scope for anything to be chosen over anything else? Just as there can be no free will in scientific determinism, nor can there be any natural selection, in which case there is no evolution at all, but only a process of unfolding in a certain way. It is logically incoherent to use terms such as evolution and natural selection in relation to inevitable material processes. There can be no materialist “evolution”, only a materialist unfolding of consequences that are inevitable given mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms and the mindless, lifeless, purposeless laws that apply to them. Evolution and natural selection can legitimately be used only in terms of a mental, teleological process. Darwinism has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution since this

would imply that “natural selection” could have acted differently, but it can’t if there are no elements in the system capable of making a choice. For Darwinism to be a valid theory of evolution, a scientist would have to be able to show that the laws of nature could at any time have acted differently from how they did, i.e. that they had at least two options at a certain point and selectively opted for one over the other. If this is not true, no selection took place. If it is true, the laws of nature have free will and choice, which contradicts the entire basis of science. Therefore, Darwinism is an entirely bogus theory. All of the same attacks that are made against free will should equally be made against Darwinian evolution. Darwinism is a formally incoherent concept since mindless matter can never select anything ever. It’s literally a category error to talk of scientific laws selecting X over Y; the earth can’t select a different orbit around the sun – it must do whatever the law of gravity mandates. Things are very different when it comes to evolution based on purposeful mind (idealism) rather than purposeless matter (materialism). The best mental theory of evolution is Hegel’s dialectical evolution. Let’s illustrate the difference between Darwinian and Hegelian evolution. According to Darwinism, a random genetic mutation offers a new gene to the gene pool. This mutation is acted upon by the environment and, via “natural selection”, either prospers and is added to the gene pool, or fails and never makes it to the gene pool, or never achieves anything other than a fringe presence, always on the verge of extinction. None of this happens for any reason or any purpose. It’s just the way it is. Unanswered by Darwinists is why any significant genetic mutation is not instantly attacked and eliminated by those that do not possess the mutation, meaning that evolution would never occur at all. In the Hegelian model of evolution, a genetic mutation does not happen randomly, but is actively proposed (as a thesis) by an underlying mind seeking more power. This thesis is presented to the gene pool, and other minds either support the mutation (support the thesis) because they see or intuit that the mutation is advantageous to their future development too, or oppose it (generate an antithesis) because they consider that the mutation will harm their interests. Thus we get a conflict, and the mutation will either survive or be wiped out. Now we can see a genuine process of “natural selection”, whereas, in Darwinism, there is no mechanism for anything to be selected since there

are only atoms and the inescapable laws that atoms obey, and these laws do not include any scope for choices to be made, no more, as we have said, than the earth can choose how to orbit the sun. Hegelian evolution does everything Darwinism does, and more, while being infinitely more logical, and doing away with inexplicable randomness and the purposeless “selection” of materialist Darwinism. Darwinism is a ridiculous theory of evolution. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s as silly as the materialist denial of free will – something we all self-evidently possess, just as we self-evidently possess purpose and meaning. Hegelian evolution is emphatically purposeful and seeks to arrive at its perfect culmination – the Omega Point. Hegelian evolution is all about progress, about better adaptation. There’s no reason at all, however, why Darwinism should lead to better adaptation since nothing is being selected for any reason, to any end. No progressive agenda is being pursued, so why should progress happen at all? Why should Darwinian natural selection favour good adaptations and not bad? How would it even know the difference? It’s not as if any rational criteria are being used. It’s all just random noise. For Hegel, evolution is about thesis versus antithesis – i.e. a conflict (natural selection) – followed by synthesis, whereby the world learns from the clash and gets better as a result. There is absolutely no experiment that can be performed to show that Hegelian evolution is false and Darwinian evolution true. Every Darwinian “fact” can be reinterpreted, and explained better, in Hegelian terms. The critical difference, of course, is that Hegelian evolution is mental and teleological, while Darwinian evolution is materialist, random and purposeless, reflecting the default position of science. Darwinism is a successful theory not because it’s true (it’s totally false!) but because it accords with the meaningless, nihilistic, atheistic philosophy of materialism. Darwinism, in its own way, is as ludicrous as Abrahamic Creationism. The latter is a stupid theory based on an absurd Mythos Superbeing, and the former is a stupid theory based on explaining the different species of the world via a Godless collection of mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms obeying physical laws, and which come equipped with no free will and no ability to select anything at all. Creationism and

Darwinism are as stupid as each other, just as Abrahamists and scientists are frequently as stupid as each other in terms of what they believe. With Hegelian evolution, there’s a whole host of unseen mental, teleological processes taking place, but since these can’t be observed by the scientific method, science denies that they exist. As ever in science, “hidden variables” are rejected. Consider your own mind. No one can see it. No one can see your thoughts. No experiment can reveal the objective existence of your mind in the spacetime material world. All that can actually be observed is your physical body made of material atoms. So, scientists deny that there’s any mind there at all, and say that everything that we call “mind” is produced by the physical brain. Well, do you agree with them? Remember, absolutely everything that science says about mind can equally be said about singularities – they can’t be seen or sensed in any way at all. They are totally outside the scientific paradigm and method. Well, do singularities exist? Do black hole singularities exist? Was there a Big Bang singularity? These appear in scientific theories and yet the logic of science is that they cannot be real because if they are then science is ipso facto false, i.e. there is existence without matter, a fundamental contradiction of materialism. Have you ever seen a photon-it-itself? A photon has no mass and no extension. So, what exactly is it that you’re expecting to see? Where is it? Do you know? Light has all the same properties that mind has! What will it be – Hegelian dialectical evolution or Darwinian randomist evolution? Purpose or purposelessness?

***** Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s theory of the Noosphere evolving towards the Omega Point is another mentalist evolutionary theory. Henri Bergson had yet another mentalist evolutionary theory of open-ended creativity. Many New Age thinkers advocate mentalist evolutionary theories. There is no reason why evolution should be considered in materialist, Darwinian terms. In fact, evolution is a coherent idea only in terms of purposeful organisms, and not dead materialist machines. Materialist atoms – lifeless, mindless and purposeless – are themselves mere dead machines. It’s impossible for them to organise themselves into living beings.

If Leibniz were alive today, he would never tire of exposing the irrationalism and sheer lunacy of the beliefs of modern science. He regarded Newtonian physics as voodoo, and he would have had an even lower opinion of today’s atheistic science, which miraculously produces life, mind and purpose out of things (atoms) that do not, and never can, possess these. This is hyper-voodoo – a system of nothing but magic and miracles.

***** “[Ken Wilber] sees the whole process of evolution as guided by a spiritual force called Eros. He frequently uses the Whiteheadian phrase that evolution essentially displays a ‘creative advance into novelty’. New about this ‘evolutionary spirituality’ is that human creativity is connected to the creativity which is supposedly at work in evolution and has been so even during the formation of the material cosmos.” – Frank Visser New Age hokum!

Lamarckian Evolution Historically, the primary rival to Darwinism was Lamarck’s earlier theory of evolution, which Wikipedia describes in these terms: “In the modern era, Lamarck is widely remembered for a theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, called soft inheritance, Lamarckism or use/disuse theory. However, his idea of soft inheritance was, perhaps, a reflection of the wisdom of the time accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck’s contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms. ... “Lamarck referred to a tendency for organisms to become more complex, moving ‘up’ a ladder of progress. He referred to this phenomenon as Le pouvoir de la vie or la force qui tend sans cesse à composer l’organisation (The force that perpetually tends to make order). ... “The second component of Lamarck’s theory of evolution was the adaptation of organisms to their environment. This could move organisms

upward from the ladder of progress into new and distinct forms with local adaptations. It could also drive organisms into evolutionary blind alleys, where the organism became so finely adapted that no further change could occur. Lamarck argued that this adaptive force was powered by the interaction of organisms with their environment, by the use and disuse of certain characteristics. “‘First Law: In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.’” “This first law says little except ‘an exaggerated generalization of the belief that exercise develops an organ’. “‘Second Law: All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.’ “The last clause of this law introduces what is now called soft inheritance. ‘The second law was widely accepted at the time [but] has been decisively rejected by modern genetics.’ However, in the field of epigenetics, there is growing evidence that soft inheritance plays a part in the changing of some organisms’ phenotype: it leaves the DNA unaltered but affects DNA by preventing the expression of genes.” Modern genetics doesn’t refute Lamarck at all. Exactly as quantum mechanics can, if hidden variables are accepted, be regarded as totally deterministic rather than indeterministic, so genetics and epigenetics can be regarded as being controlled by non-random mechanisms of a Lamarckian character if any hidden mental variables or factors are associated with genes. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you toss a quantum “coin”, your observation causes the coin wavefunction to randomly collapse to heads or tails. There is therefore no way of knowing in advance what the outcome will be. There is no causal mechanism to

which to refer. In classical science, if we knew all the starting conditions and forces, we would know exactly if we’d get a head or tail. These two views constitute two totally different ontologies. The latter is based on a formal causal order and precise causal mechanisms. The former does not belong to any causal order at all and there are no causal mechanisms. There are only potential states and the actual states into which they can randomly collapse. No causal mechanism links any potential state to any actual state. Random collapse is all that connects them. Darwinism, likewise, has no formal causal mechanisms, while Lamarck’s theory does. Who are you going to trust – the Lamarckians on the side of a rational causal order, or the Darwinists on the side of miraculous random collapse, with no causal mechanisms? The Lamarckians are rational and the Darwinists totally irrational. No one has ever witnessed, or ever could witness, a random mutation. This is an entirely speculative interpretation with no evidence, proof or rational argument to support it. It flows entirely from the ideology and dogmatism of randomist, nihilistic scientific materialism and empiricism. Never forget that absolutely every “fact” of science can be reinterpreted from the perspective of rationalism, idealism and ontological mathematics. There are no factually true scientific theories. They are all subjective interpretations predicated on a particular philosophical stance.

Materialism Materialism denies autonomous mind, free will, purpose, meaning, causation, determinism, the principle of sufficient reason, and authentic evolution. Materialism supports mind as an illusion or epiphenomenon of matter, free will as an illusion or epiphenomenon of matter, evolution as an illusion or epiphenomenon of matter, purposelessness, meaninglessness, chance, accident, randomness, pointlessness, acausality, indeterminism, and no principle of sufficient reason (hence it supports a principle of unreason = irrationalism). All of these positions go together as the scientific and atheistic worldview. Obviously, this worldview denies God, the soul, the afterlife, and any point, purpose or meaning to the world. If you’re a materialist, you must accept this whole philosophy of nihilism. All of it flows inexorably from the denial of mind as a real thing in its own right. Idealism is the opposite ideology and has room for everything denied by science.

Science cannot accommodate mind, math can. Why? Because math can handle the world of zero and infinity – the world of mind, of singularities – while, as any physicist will tell you, physics breaks down at singularities, i.e. it literally fails where mind begins. Science is false if singularities are real. It’s as simple as that. If singularities exist, the universe is mental and not physical, a living organism and not a dead machine, full of purpose rather than purposeless. Free will is compatible only with idealism and is impossible under materialism.

What’s It Made Of? When we say that existence is either rational or irrational, what we mean is that it’s either made from intelligible stuff or unintelligible stuff. If it’s made of intelligible stuff, this stuff has been intelligible forever, and that means it obeys the eternal truths of reason – which means that it is the eternal truths of reason, i.e. existence is made of ontological reason. But what is ontological reason? – it’s exactly the same as ontological mathematics. If the universe is not made of intelligible stuff – if it’s made of sensible stuff or emotional stuff or mystical stuff or undefined “conscious” stuff or undefined “God” stuff or undefined, indeterminate stuff – then it cannot be understood, cannot be rational, and cannot have any rational answer. It’s a universe of total mystery, of no explication – of magic, miracles and pure Mythos.

Dogs Dogs are misshapen, denatured wolves. Dogs are the first unnatural, artificial creatures. They serve no Aristotelian natural purpose. Like Frankenstein monsters, they have been bred and groomed to be something outside nature – the first manmade pets! If we have no free will then neither we nor dogs had any say in any of this. What does natural selection mean in relation to a universe without free will? Nothing is selected at all. Everything happens inevitably. Therefore, there’s no such thing as evolution. Any type of selection implies a choice, otherwise there’s no selection and nothing evolves.

The Odds

What is more likely? That Nature is deluded or that Sam Harris is deluded? That Nature deludes us by pointlessly producing the illusion of free will, or that Sam Harris deludes himself by irrationally denying the reality of free will? If everyone on earth denied the reality of free will, you can be absolutely sure that someone just like San Harris would come along and insist that we were deluded by not accepting that we are inherently free.

Scientism “Science is today’s religion. If science has established something, it must be true. If science has not established something, it cannot be true. That’s how modern day philosophy has it. “But does science cover all of reality? Since science is based on what the physical senses (often with the help of instruments) tell us, is it wise to rely totally on that source of knowledge? Who has ever seen emotions or thoughts with the physical eye? Is that reason enough to deny them existence? Or are we missing something? “‘Absence of proof is not proof of absence’, we might say. To believe that science covers ALL of reality is not really scientific, because we have to deny other forms of human experience, even our own deepest feelings of identify, any reality. This is properly called ‘scientism’. Not science proper has rejected the belief in the soul, in higher spheres, in transcendental realities, as many well educated people believe, but scientism. It is time to correct that extremely lopsided state of affairs.” – http://www.integralworld.net/science.html

Kant’s Third Antinomy (of Freedom) “Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another causality, that of freedom. “Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.” – Wikipedia

The laws of free will are as much part of the natural order as the laws of science.

Background: The Antinomies in General The next section directly quotes the following excellent web page: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/kant-3rdAntinomy.html

***** (Terminological note: Kant doesn’t speak of “antinomies,” just of “the antinomy of pure reason,” which divides into four “conflicts.” But most commentators describe the four “conflicts” as “antinomies,” and I will follow this usage.) The antinomies were what first led Kant to formulate the doctrine of transcendental idealism. (This is the idea that the world we know is “empirically real” but “transcendentally ideal”: we know only “appearances,” which are “objective” in the sense of being the same for all humans, but nevertheless are not things in themselves. Only things in themselves could be “transcendentally real.”) Kant thinks that humans are compelled by the nature of our reason to reach contradictory conclusions about such things as the size and temporal extent of the universe (i.e. the empirical world). The reason is that we are compelled always to seek the “conditions” of what we perceive. In the antinomies, Kant distinguishes between “condition” and “conditioned.” This is meant to be a very general distinction. Examples include: 1) causes are conditions of their effects (which are therefore “conditioned”) 2) earlier times are conditions of later times 3) larger spaces are conditions of their smaller parts The idea is that, beginning from what we directly experience, we are driven to seek its “conditions”: to find the causes of the things we experience, to learn about the history that led to the present, and to investigate further and further into the reaches of space.

No matter how far we have managed to extend our knowledge, we always want to push it further. We want, in fact, to push it back all the way, and this raises the question: how far is all the way? For example, does time stretch back infinitely far, so that there is an infinity of past times, or is there a first time? Example: First Antinomy Kant’s strategy in the antinomies is to offer what he takes to be genuine proofs of two apparently contradictory propositions, then to show that both proofs make the same illegitimate assumption. For example, the first antinomy has to do with whether the world has a beginning in time. (Actually it concerns both time and space, but let’s focus on time.) 1) Thesis: the world has a beginning in time. 2) Antithesis: the world is infinite with regard to time. The proofs of both the thesis and the antithesis are by reductio ad absurdum. The proof that there is a beginning starts by assuming that past history extends infinitely far, and argues that this leads to a contradiction (since an infinite series supposedly cannot be completed). The proof that the world is infinite starts by assuming that there is a first time, and tries to show that this leads to a contradiction (since it seems that we can coherently ask what happened before the first time). The mistake, in Kant’s view, lies in thinking that “past history is infinite” and “there is a first time” exhaust the possibilities. Kant thinks that there is also a third possibility: 1) The world is a thing-in-itself and is infinite 2) The world is a thing-in-itself and has a first time 3) The world is only appearance If the world were a thing in itself, we would be led into a contradiction by the equally good arguments for 1 and 2. But this only shows that 3 is the correct option: the world is not a thing in itself, but merely an appearance. Thought of this way, it is consistent to say both (1) there is no first time, since no matter how far back we push our knowledge, we can always push

it back further; (2) past time is not infinite, because no matter how far we push back our knowledge, we will have pushed it only finitely far. Third Antinomy: Kant on Freedom Kant seems to have three different but related conceptions of freedom. I am free if and only if: 1) My actions are brought about by reason rather than by desires or urges (“impulses of sensibility”). This is what he calls the “practical sense” of freedom. 2) I originate my actions (I am a “first beginning”), rather than just being a middle link (a “subordinate beginning”). This is the “cosmological sense” of freedom. 3) I do things not because of what is but because of what ought to be. These three accounts of freedom are linked by two theses. 1 is connected with 2 by the thesis that reason is noumenal, not phenomenal. Thus if reason gets me to do something, the action is noumenally produced; but time doesn’t apply to the noumenal realm, so there is no earlier event which causes this. Kant is explicit about this thesis: “For since reason itself is not an appearance and is not subject at all to any conditions of sensibility, no temporal sequence takes place in it even as to its causality, and thus the dynamical law of nature, which determines the temporal sequence according to rules, cannot be applied to it.” 1 is connected with 3 by the thesis that reason tells us what ought to be the case (rather than what is actually the case). Sensibility and understanding combine to give us knowledge of the empirical world, i.e. to tell us what actually is the case. But reason (in its practical rather than its theoretical use) gives us imperatives, tells us what we ought to do. It is definition 2, the idea of the agent as a “first beginning,” that seems to create a conflict with the law of causality that Kant defends in the Second Analogy. The world of appearances is completely causally determined, on his view: every event has a sufficient cause. To the extent that the agent is part of the empirical world (and the empirical self is part of the empirical world, an appearance), agents are just as subject to the law of causality as any other part of nature: “all the actions of the human being in appearance

are determined in accord with the order of nature by his empirical character and the other cooperating causes.” Kant’s solution appears to be that we are (or may be) not merely appearances but also noumena. Although the empirical self is completely causally determined, the noumenal self which underlies it is not subject to time or causality, so it can produce the action without itself being caused by anything (and thus it’s a “first beginning” of action). So we have a strange kind of compatibilism. The empirical self is just one more part of the causal stream, and all its actions are completely determined. But it is (or may be) a manifestation of the noumenal self, which isn’t bound by the law of causality. “In its empirical character, this subject, as appearance, would thus be subject to the causal connection, in accordance with all the laws of determination ... but in its intelligible character ... this subject would have to be declared free of all influences of sensibility and determination by appearances. ... Thus freedom and nature, each in its full significance, would both be found in the same actions, simultaneously and without any contradiction, according to whether one compares them with their intelligible or their sensible cause.”

Evolution and Chance Neo-Darwinists get upset by the accusation levelled against them that evolution is all about chance. Sam Harris wrote, “Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase ‘natural selection’ by analogy to the ‘artificial selection’ performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly nonrandom effect on the development of any species.” There are two key points here. First, these Neo-Darwinists have no right to contend that Darwinism isn’t about chance since they themselves acknowledge that the system is predicated on random genetic mutations, i.e. without chance there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. You can’t appeal to natural selection as non-random if it applies only to random events! As far as “artificial selection” is concerned, the breeder actively looks for certain outcomes, and any outcomes that don’t conform to the desired result are discarded. This is entirely teleological, driven by final causes (what the breeder seeks to create). The breeder has a design in mind, and

desires to accomplish it. With “natural selection”, there is no directing mind involved, no teleology and no design. With artificial selection, we can clearly see who is doing the selecting, why they are doing the selecting and what criteria they are applying. With so-called natural selection, there is no mind doing the selecting, and we don’t know why anything is being selected, and what the criteria are. In fact, we must ask if we are even entitled to use the word “selection” since this implies a choice, but how can lifeless, mindless Nature select anything? When was it ever presented with any choice? What law of science offers more than one outcome, i.e. if everything ultimately boils down to lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms with their atomic laws, when is any atom ever asked to select between doing A or B? How could an atom possibly decide, other than randomly? It’s not as if it has a mind or reason with which to make any decisions. As ever in science, we are being subjected to an enormous sleight of hand and even explicit deception. What does “natural selection” actually mean when subjected to any analysis based on the material atoms on which the whole of science, including biology, is predicated? How can anything at all be selected if nothing has any free will, mind or capacity to act differently from the way it did in fact act? If free will is an illusion – as so many scientists claim – then exactly the same must be true of natural selection. Sam Harris claims that free will is consistent with neither scientific determinism nor indeterminism. Well, neither is evolution. If evolution is a process dictated by scientific determinism – where nothing can happen differently from how it does – then nothing is selected at all. Determinism simply unfolds in the manner decreed since the beginning of time, with no possibility of anything ever happening differently. So, determinism is no good for Darwinism. What about indeterminism, then? If natural selection is taking place randomly then of course that’s not meaningful selection at all, only accidental selection, and any accident is as good or bad as any other accident. Are we to understand, using Darwinian language, that tossing a coin results in the “natural selection” of a head or a tail? We don’t select an outcome of a coin toss, we get an outcome. If this is what Darwinism is asserting then it must immediately stop referring to selection at all, and become a system based on total indeterminacy – exactly like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, in fact! This would mean

that the accusation against Darwinism that it’s all about chance is fully vindicated. In what way can people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins refute these arguments? Have you even seen them try? All they employ is sophistry. Would Harris and Dawkins like to relate Darwinism to quantum mechanics, M-theory and general relativity? If they can’t do so, how do they know that they’re not talking nonsense, even within the scientific paradigm? How does Darwinism fit in with Einstein’s notion of the “block universe” where the passage of time doesn’t even exist, so how can anything be “selected” if time never passes? Where is there any discussion of such topics in Darwinism, yet Dawkins refers to Darwinism as a proven fact. Only on Planet Dawkins! Darwinism is incoherent. For science, Darwinism’s great strength is that it gets rid of God and mind, which materialists are always ideologically seeking to accomplish, and which is implicit in all scientific theories. However, when the concepts of evolution are properly analysed – without the blinkers of materialism and empiricism – they seems to be enormously more compatible with the operations of teleological mind. In fact, you could almost replace Abrahamic Creationism with Abrahamic Evolution. In the former, God designs humans straight off the bat. In the latter, God breeds humans from much simpler creatures. In other words, randomist “natural selection” is replaced by divine “artificial selection”. There is absolutely no way for Darwinists to refute this thesis. All socalled random genetic mutations could be mutations designed by God. God, not Nature, could perform the selection, i.e. if he sees that such and such a mutation suits his purposes, he ensures that it prospers in the gene pool; otherwise, he lets it die off. It’s impossible for any Darwinist to refute this theory, or, indeed, prove Darwinism. We are in the arena of pure interpretation, opinion, belief and conjecture. Yet people such as Dawkins claim that Darwinism has been factually proved. In your dreams, Richard. You are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly unimaginative, to believe that there are not countless interpretations that are consistent with the facts of evolution, but not with materialist, randomist Darwinism.

The Unwisdom of Sam Harris

“Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science.” – Sam Harris WTF! The whole of science is an interpretation of reality, a pretence to knowledge. Just look at Darwinism. Evolution makes sense only in terms of teleology, and teleology is exactly what science denies. Absolutely nothing in science is incontestably true, or ever could be. Therefore, science is emphatically not knowledge. It’s pure interpretation. “The core of science is not a mathematical modelling – it is intellectual honesty. It is a willingness to have our certainties about the world constrained by good evidence and good argument.” – Sam Harris WTF! Science is so dishonest it doesn’t realise it’s nothing but empiricist and materialist philosophy, and, like the very worst, most intransigent religion, shuts down all ideas that oppose this paradigm. It’s as ruthless in suppressing dissent, heresy and freethinking as the Catholic Church. Scientists ought to have intellectually integrity and honesty, but they most certainly don’t. They believe their own propaganda. “A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings.” – Sam Harris A puppet is free only if he has no strings, in which case he’s not a puppet. A puppet that is not free is not free to love his strings. To choose to love is to exercise free will! “You can do what you decide to do – but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.” – Sam Harris Any person regards “being free” as being free to do what he has chosen to do, i.e. rather than having to do what someone else – such as an employer, a man with a gun pointed at his head, or a gaoler – has chosen that he should do. No one other than Sam Harris regards being free as being free to change who you are at any instant, so that you can take decisions that are completely incompatible with your own nature. Harris’s understanding of freedom is predicated on our being able to act against our own nature and, in fact, choose our own nature at will. If this were possible, we wouldn’t be ourselves but strange chameleon beings that change themselves at will and are, effectively, random behaviour generators and not people at all. “Reason is nothing less than the guardian of love.” – Sam Harris

WTF! Reason has nothing to do with love! In fact, love is frequently the exact opposite of reason, just as faith is. In fact, it’s faith that’s the guardian of love, with love being the supreme act of faith. Abrahamic faith is entirely predicated on God loving us “unconditionally”, and on the requirement for us to reciprocate. “Faith does not offer a strong link between our beliefs and actual states of the world.” – Sam Harris Neither does science, with its sensory beliefs. All actual states of the world are mathematical, mental, Fourier states. Science deals with phenomenal states, and their interpretation, not with the noumenal states of things as they actually are in themselves, beyond appearance.

***** Almost every statement Sam Harris makes about any subject at all is false and driven by pure ideology – that of empiricism, materialism and scientism. Everything he says can easily be challenged. Even his arguments against religion are fatally sabotaged by his denial of free will, meaning that he is not free not to make such arguments, and his targets are equally not free to behave or believe differently. They have no more choice than a gene mutation does when subjected to the “force” of natural selection. The denial of free will automatically renders existence meaningless, pointless and purposeless, the mere unfolding of inevitable laws and their outcomes. Knowledge itself is rendered impossible since, of course, we have no freedom to choose what we “know”. What we “know” is whatever the laws of Nature have placed in our epiphenomenal, illusory minds, and we have no way to establish whether there is any truth in this so-called knowledge since we have no choice about what we think. The more Sam Harris opens his mouth, the more he demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt, dishonest and absurd scientism truly is. You would need to be incredibly shallow to find Harris convincing, or, alternatively, you would have to be able to easily and comprehensively dismiss and disprove everything we have said in this book and throughout the God Series. If we are right, Harris is absolutely wrong about everything. No one can agree with us and also agree with Sam Harris. That would render their opinions wholly inconsistent and irrational. Above all, if they reject free will, they cannot with any integrity subscribe to Illuminism.

Anyone who endorses Harris’s views is an out-and-out materialist and atheist, believing in a meaningless, pointless, purposeless, nihilistic world.

The Blind Leading the Blind Sam Harris has no conception of the power of ontological mathematics. In fact, he’s never even heard of ontological mathematics. How does he feel so well-qualified to dismiss free will when there’s an entire rationalist, mathematical, ontological, epistemological system that contradicts everything he says, of which he knows precisely nothing? We know everything he has said. He knows nothing at all about what we have said. Who’s in the stronger position?

The Cult of Sam Harris To all worshippers of Sam Harris, who deny the existence of free will but nevertheless claim that the universe contains meaning and purpose and has a point, define meaning and purpose in a universe without free will, without people actively making decisions to do this rather than that, without choosing this in preference to that. Define what point an unfree universe has. To do what? To achieve what? To arrive at what or where? For what reason? If you accept scientific materialist premises, you must accept the conclusions too, the conclusions of people such as Richard Dawkins, who have accurately and readily drawn them. Objects cannot have free will, only subjects can. Subjects are eternal souls. There are no souls in materialism, hence there can be no freedom. In science, there are no subjects with causal agency that can initiate causal chains for their own reasons.

Rational Religion Religion can be made rational in only one way – via mathematics. It’s impossible for science to be religious since it rejects the prerequisite for a religious vision: an unseen world, unreachable via the scientific method. If you want to consider the soul and heaven as real rather than as ridiculous

fantasies, you had better ditch science asap and become an ontological mathematician. However, ontological mathematics is far too difficult for religious simpletons, hence they stick to their absurd Mythos faith. So it goes. If they were smart, they would grasp that ontological Fourier mathematics comes inbuilt with all of the requirements necessary to defend a religious or spiritual vision of reality, and that science is absolutely antithetical to that vision. That’s why it’s so incongruous to see “Illuminists” strongly endorsing the views of the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, people whose every thought rejects a religious or spiritual reality. People who quote Harris and Dawkins with approval have, if they have any intellectual integrity and any consistency in their views, decisively turned their backs on religion and spirituality since no part of the scientific worldview and modus operandi can accommodate any notion of the nonphysical. Science is fundamentally designed to be atheistic, and all scientists, if they have any respect for their own subject, must be atheists. Scientists who have religious faith are a joke, as much as “spiritualists” who endorse scientific materialism. These people are tourists and dilettantes, travelling through different systems and cherry-picking whatever seems to make sense to them at any particular moment. They are tactical thinkers with no strategy. Science, strategically, is purely for atheists, and if you are an atheist then you plainly aren’t an Illuminist, and if you are religious or spiritual, you plainly aren’t a scientific materialist, no matter what you call yourself. To rationalists, it’s astounding that people can be so contemptuous of reason and believe whatever they like, regardless of reason. Harris and Dawkins are, for the most part, consistent in their beliefs: they support science, materialism, and atheism. They deny autonomous mind, they deny free will, they view the world as devoid of meaning and purpose. They endorse randomness, nothingness and nihilism. Well, they can be applauded for sticking to their guns. What can’t be understood are those “spiritual” people who endorse them, yet reject most of their conclusions. How does that work?!

Compatibilism

Compatibilism acknowledges that both Form and the response to the experience of Content are causative. Hard determinists (scientific materialists) completely deny that qualia, subjectivity, or the response to the experience of Content, can have any causal consequences. Sam Harris claims that free will is incompatible with both hard determinism and indeterminism. Not for one second has he ever given thought to free will as seen through the prism of ontological mathematical dual-aspect causation. In other words, everything he says flows from an incomplete understanding of reality, which is all too common when fundamentalist materialists such as Harris and Dawkins pontificate on anything at all. Science never considers that there are subjective agents (autonomous minds) that can inject their own causation into causal chains. Without this key factor, how can anyone talk anything but rubbish regarding free will? The Non-Mind stance (i.e. materialist stance) is obliged to reject purpose, intentionality, meaning, free will, qualia and subjective agency since lifeless, mindless blobs of physical “stuff” cannot possess these qualities and properties. Materialism, taken to its logical conclusion, ends up exactly where it has (as represented by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Brian Cox, Stephen Hawing, and countless others), with its atheist zealotry, its denial of purpose and meaning, its denial of free will, its epiphenomenal view of mind, its embracing of indeterminism and acausation, its choice of spontaneous randomness as the means to get things started, its obsession with probability and statistics rather than the principle of sufficient reason (which provides a rational, causal explanation for everything). If you reject mind as the fundamental reality, you are definitely going to end up claiming that things happen miraculously, magically – for absolutely no reason at all. They “just happen”: spontaneously and randomly. This is actually a worse, more irrational explanation of reality than “God”. On a relative scale of stupidity, every believer is smarter than every scientist when it comes to ultimate explanation. God – a supposed being with a mind – is a vastly superior explanation of reality than Randomness – predicated on a universe without a mind. Scientific randomness claims that things happen “just because they do”. No one can explain it. That’s just the way it goes down. But that, of course, is no explanation at all. That’s non-explanation and anti-explanation. It’s the least rational conclusion at which the human intellect can arrive. In this

specific regard – the explanation of ultimate reality – scientists are unquestionably the most stupid people in the world. They have rejected explanation. They claim that existence comprises inexplicable, selfthrowing dice. We live, they say, in a world of causeless events, of randomness, chaos, statistics, probability, indeterminism. Nothing has any formal cause or conceivable explanation. Everything “just happens”. What rational person would ever accept a system which asserts that the “explanation of existence” is: “that’s just the way it is; don’t ask, shut up and calculate; never mind why, just focus on how; forget any notion that existence has any purpose, meaning, point or explanation; existence is just a system where anything that can happen will happen, sooner or later, in one universe or another – because the self-throwing dice guarantee it.” Only a lunatic would buy into science. Einstein’s God who does not play dice is replaced by Godless dice that play themselves. Well, are you made of dice? Are you a mere probability machine, a contingent, meaningless freak of statistics?

***** Kant argued that reason inherently seeks the “unconditioned” – the final explanations of everything that are not conditional upon anything else. This is absolutely correct. What is truly extraordinary about science – and which shows how hostile it is to reason – is that it does not want ultimate reasons and is perfectly willing and happy to posit inexplicable, irrational randomness and inexplicable, irrational, infinite contingent regress as the ultimate “explanation” of reality. Yet, by their very nature, these have no necessity, hence cannot provide any necessary answers, leaving us with never-ending speculation, with a bottomless abyss of contingency that can never be explained, with an infinite stack of miraculous turtles! Mathematics, of course, solves all of this scientific gibberish. The only part of science that’s true is its mathematical engine, and it would be truer if it dispensed with science entirely and became pure, noumenal, ontological mathematics.

Purpose If you accept that existence has a meaning, purpose and point, you must accept our system. If not, become a Fundamentalist Materialist like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and view reality as an accidental, meaningless

charade with no purpose or point – the farce of all farces, the supreme fraud, the eternal cosmic Con, the Grand Illusion. If you deny the reality of free will, you are ipso facto a Fundamentalist Materialist. You see reality as a meaningless machine process, in which we – utterly delusional collections of blobs of mindless, lifeless matter – pretend to ourselves that we have significance, choices and a purpose.

The Choice You don’t have just two choices: religion (faith) versus science (empiricism). You also have a third choice: mathematics (rationalism). Math is at the heart of science, and science would be useless without it. Math is also the true heart of religion.

Natural Selection? Why are there doves, hawks and retaliators in the population? This is easily explained in Hegelian terms. If doves are the thesis, hawks are the antithesis, and retaliators (dovelike, but capable of hawk-like violence) are the synthesis. “Natural selection” implies the existence of an ordering principle, a teleological principle, not any kind of randomist “principle”. There is no blind selection. Things are deliberately selected. They are selected by design. If a population of retaliators is the most stable, why do doves and hawks exist at all? In Hegelian terms, any stable solution that is not definitively stable (i.e. a dialectical Omega Point), constitutes a thesis, and automatically generates an antithesis, conflict and synthesis, and this process can never cease until all contradictions are completely eliminated.

Atheism and Chance You must subscribe either to design or chance. Design goes hand in hand with mind, teleology, determinism, causation and the principle of sufficient reason. Chance goes hand in hand with matter, purposelessness, indeterminism, acausation, randomness, accident, statistics, probability and

no principle of sufficient reason. These are two radically different worldviews. In many ways, an atheist is not someone who denies the existence of God or gods, but someone who proclaims that reality is based on nothing but accident, randomness and contingency. Plainly, none of those are compatible with God or gods. Atheists are worshippers of Chance. Ontological mathematics absolutely repudiates chance as any kind of basis of reality, just as it repudiates faith. Ontological mathematics is all about design, but design flowing from mathematics itself, not from any superbeings.

***** “The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvellous book, The God Delusion, this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance.” – Sam Harris “...we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology.” WTF! You don’t know at all! And you will never know. “...we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance.” WTF! The whole of science is predicated on mere chance. Science gets things started by claiming that existence magically springs from non-existence for no reason. Man up, Harris. Take responsibility for your worship of chance and accident. Stop disowning your core beliefs for reasons of pure sophistry. Existence gets started by chance according to science, life is produced by chance, mind is generated by chance, consciousness is generated by chance, “free will” is a chance illusion, wavefunctions collapse by chance observations, the random genetic mutations of Neo-Darwinism are all about chance ... where in any of this is chance not the decisive and defining element of science? Darwinism is a theory of chance subjected to the force of war = “natural selection”.

Kant on Compatibilism “Compatibilists are sometimes called ‘soft determinists’ pejoratively (William James’ term). James accused them of creating a ‘quagmire of evasion’ by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism. Immanuel Kant called it a ‘wretched subterfuge’ and ‘word jugglery.’ Kant’s argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature – the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can ‘spontaneously’ originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists. It is on this basis that Kant argues against a version of compatibilism in which, for instance, the actions of the criminal are comprehended as a blend of determining forces and free choice, which Kant regards as misusing the word ‘free’. Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to rethink an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.” – Wikipedia It was absurd for Kant to decide that there were two different types of causation, namely one relating to empirical phenomena and the other to unempirical noumena. Noumena do not belong to a different class of existence in some Cartesian dualistic sense. Rather, they simply have no appearance in the empirical world of phenomena since they are causal, mental singularities rather than spacetime objects. However, they must be compatible with this world in order to interact with it. To suggest otherwise, as Kant did, is simply to reinvent Cartesian dualism in terms of substances, appearances and causation. All of these problems are abolished in ontological mathematics where noumena belong to the Fourier frequency domain (immaterial, outside space and time, hence with no appearance) and the Fourier spacetime domain (material, with appearance), and linked by forward and inverse Fourier transforms. There’s no mystery. It’s all in the math. If Kant had enjoyed superior mathematical knowledge, he would never have proposed the scheme he did, which contradicts the principle of sufficient reason.

“...the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be.” ... this is all about teleology, how we get to where we want to go, and how we can analyse the present conditions and find them wanting. “For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically.” ... absolutely right, but it doesn’t belong to a different category of dualistic existence, but, rather, is the other side of one ontological coin. It’s all about Form versus Content, map versus territory, thing-in-itself versus how the thing appears. “Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.” ... no such denial takes place in our version of compatibilism. Kant’s own position can easily be interpreted in compatibilist terms via ontological mathematics. “...the actions of the criminal are comprehended as a blend of determining forces and free choice.” ... That’s exactly right. Here’s why... Reality is divided into two energy bands: collective and individual. The collective energy band is the shared, low-energy band supplied by all monads, and from which we get the spacetime world of matter. Matter is congealed mind, slow mind, “spacetime mind”. The high-energy band of each monad is unique to it and cannot be shared. Its energy is far too high to enter spacetime, where it would have catastrophically destructive effects. Instead, it’s shielded from spacetime by an event horizon. The low-energy band belongs to scientific determinism (collective, objective will, which is non-teleological, or, rather, has a collective mathematical teleology that can be observed only over the course of the entire lifetime of the universe, where the broken symmetry of the Big Bang is repaired by the symmetry of the Big Crunch), the upper energy band to individual, subjective will, which is teleological. A monad is windowless at its higher energy mental band: nothing gets in or out in spacetime terms; it’s hermetically sealed. A monad is windowed at its low energy spacetime, material band – it exchanges information with the world. Causation is ruled by the God Equation in both cases, hence is automatically compatible, but operates in a collective mode in the spacetime, material case and individually in the frequency, mental case.

Scientific determinism (objective agency) applies to the collective mode, and free will (subjective agency) to the individual mode. What could be more straightforward?!

Unnatural Selection “Natural selection is the gradual process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term ‘natural selection’ was popularized by Charles Darwin, who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, now more commonly referred to as selective breeding.” – Wikipedia Natural selection is randomness plus conflict and reproduction; survival and reproduction. Randomness is operated upon by a teleological selection process and principle! The phrase “natural selection” simply begs the question. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, observers cause wavefunctions to randomly collapse. There are no causal mechanisms. No breeding is taking place. Selection takes place passively, by default; there is no active, purposeful selection. In the Copenhagen interpretation, some outcomes are more probable than others for mathematical reasons concerning the amplitude of the wavefunction, but this already presupposes an underlying mathematical order to existence. Are Darwinists saying that so-called natural selection is actually probabilistic mathematical selection, arising from random collapse of wavefunctions? That puts an entirely different complexion on the Darwinian theory of evolution. How can Darwinism be taken seriously if it is not expressed in quantum mechanical terms?

***** Why does existence operate in the extraordinary way whereby creatures continually kill each other? Why not some other way? What’s the underlying reason? Why does evolution have an arrow? Why does it move in one way – that of better adaptation? Why doesn’t it change from day to day and select different things? Why doesn’t it sometimes go backwards and select more primitive forms? Why doesn’t it support degeneration, decay, decline and devolution? Why doesn’t it operate randomly, by chance,

just like genetic mutation, or Copenhagen selection? No scientist has ever explained any of this. Evolution makes much more sense when conceived in terms of a Nietzschean contest of Will to Power, or a Hegelian dialectical conflict. Darwinism is just a materialist, non-explanation of evolution. Evolution must be driven by mind and teleology, i.e. it must be idealist rather than materialist.

The Islamic Conquests “According to traditional accounts, the Muslim conquests, also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests, began with the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the 7th century. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power. They grew well beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the form of a Muslim empire with an area of influence that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees.” – Wikipedia If you want to imagine what it would have been like to have been overrun by the Muslims during the Islamic conquests, just look at the “Islamic State” in the present day. The only difference is that modern Jihadists have Kalashnikovs and bombs rather than just swords. Islam has always been a religion of savage, insane violence, and nothing has changed. 1400 years later, Muslims haven’t moved on at all. The rest of the world ought to deal with Islam once and for all.

Science Science = ontological mathematics minus mind (idealism). Ontological mathematics = science (materialism) plus mind. What is mind? A mind is simply an immaterial Fourier frequency singularity outside space and time. The entire failure of science stems from an inability to understand Fourier mathematics, and to grasp that frequencies are immaterial and not in space and time. Once you understand that Fourier mathematics is dual-aspect and deals with an immaterial domain outside space and time and a material domain inside space and time, everything else falls into place.

Science refuses to think outside of its box of nothing but matter in space and time – the phenomenal world. It has no concept at all of noumena – immaterial frequencies outside space and time, without any appearance, beyond the reach of the scientific method. Mind is exactly that which science can never probe. Science therefore concludes that mind does not exist! It ought to conclude instead that science is an inherently incomplete account of reality. However, science would be a joke overnight, and lose all of its power, if it ever admitted that there was a vast amount of reality beyond science. Science is just like a religion that refuses to concede that there is anything outside its God. Catholicism says, “There is no salvation outside the Church.” Science says, “There is nothing outside science.” They’re as fanatical and irrational as each other. They are both totalitarian ... and wrong! Only ontological mathematics is a complete and consistent totality.

Scientific Success? Science has succeeded by allying mathematics with sensory observations, with the sensible world. Science has failed because mathematics is properly allied with reason and the intelligible world. Science can tell us about the phenomenal world of appearances, and nothing at all about the noumenal world of things in themselves, where ultimate reality resides. Science is how to lock yourself into a sensory, empirical mindset. Mathematics is how to free yourself and become rational.

Kant Contra Compatibilism “The most important belief about things in themselves that Kant thinks only practical philosophy can justify concerns human freedom. Freedom is important because, on Kant’s view, moral appraisal presupposes that we are free in the sense that we have the ability to do otherwise. To see why, consider Kant’s example of a man who commits a theft. Kant holds that in order for this man’s action to be morally wrong, it must have been within his control in the sense that it was within his power at the time not to have committed the theft. If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behaviour or to influence others, it nevertheless would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong. Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the time of

their actions, either to act rightly or not. According to Kant, this is just common sense. “On these grounds, Kant rejects a type of compatibilism that he calls the ‘comparative concept of freedom’ and associates with Leibniz. (Note that Kant has a specific type of compatibilism in mind, which I will refer to simply as ‘compatibilism,’ although there may be other types of compatibilism that do not fit Kant’s characterization of that view). On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me. So I am unfree only when something external to me pushes or moves me, but I am free whenever the proximate cause of my body’s movement is internal to me as an ‘acting being’. If we distinguish between involuntary convulsions and voluntary bodily movements, then on this view free actions are just voluntary bodily movements. Kant ridicules this view as a ‘wretched subterfuge’ that tries to solve an ancient philosophical problem ‘with a little quibbling about words’. This view, he says, assimilates human freedom to ‘the freedom of a turnspit,’ or a projectile in flight, or the motion of a clock’s hands. The proximate causes of these movements are internal to the turnspit, the projectile, and the clock at the time of the movement. This cannot be sufficient for moral responsibility. “Why not? The reason, Kant says, is ultimately that the causes of these movements occur in time. Return to the theft example. A compatibilist would say that the thief’s action is free because its proximate cause is inside him, and because the theft was not an involuntary convulsion but a voluntary action. The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. According to Kant, however, if the thief’s decision is a natural phenomenon that occurs in time, then it must be the effect of some cause that occurred in a previous time. This is an essential part of Kant’s Newtonian worldview and is grounded in the a priori laws (specifically, the category of cause and effect) in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience: every event has a cause that begins in an earlier time. If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past. So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense.

“The root of the problem, for Kant, is time. Again, if the thief’s choice to commit the theft is a natural event in time, then it is the effect of a causal chain extending into the distant past. But the past is out of his control now, in the present. Once the past is past, he can’t change it. On Kant’s view, that is why his actions would not be in his control in the present if they are determined by events in the past. Even if he could control those past events in the past, he cannot control them now. But in fact past events were not in his control in the past either if they too were determined by events in the more distant past, because eventually the causal antecedents of his action stretch back before his birth, and obviously events that occurred before his birth were not in his control. So if the thief’s choice to commit the theft is a natural event in time, then it is not now and never was in his control, and he could not have done otherwise than to commit the theft. In that case, it would be a mistake to hold him morally responsible for it. “Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place. Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past – for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood – then it is not within my control now. The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now. For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time. This is why Kant thinks that transcendental idealism is the only way to make sense of the kind of freedom that morality requires. For transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature. No matter what kind of character I have developed or what external influences act on me, on Kant’s view all of my intentional, voluntary actions are immediate effects of my noumenal self, which is causally undetermined. My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience. “Many puzzles arise on this picture that Kant does not resolve. For example, if my understanding constructs all appearances in my experience of nature, not only appearances of my own actions, then why am I responsible only for my own actions but not for everything that happens in the natural world? Moreover, if I am not alone in the world but there are

many noumenal selves acting freely and incorporating their free actions into the experience they construct, then how do multiple transcendentally free agents interact? How do you integrate my free actions into the experience that your understanding constructs? In spite of these unsolved puzzles, Kant holds that we can make sense of moral appraisal and responsibility only by thinking about human freedom in this way, because it is the only way to prevent natural necessity from undermining both.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Fre Many of Sam Harris’s arguments against free will and compatibilism are just dumbed-down Kantian arguments, cast in scientific materialist terms rather than transcendental idealist terms, but no more convincing; in fact a lot less convincing. Kant is one of the greatest geniuses in human history, Sam Harris isn’t. If you want to ponder free will, Kant is one of the best places to start. Where does Kant’s thinking go wrong? Let’s go through his main points against compatibilism and expose their fallacies. Kant (who is followed in this by Sam Harris) believes that compatibilism takes place in space and time, i.e. the material world. He sees it as mere wordplay to attempt to distinguish internal causation from external causation because both are conditioned by space and time hence must both obey the same spacetime causation. There’s no scope here for authentic freedom, he concludes. However Kant, as an idealist, has a trick up his sleeve that Sam Harris, as a materialist, does not. Kant can appeal to a noumenal domain outside space and time, and thus unblock the spacetime logjam. Kant maintains that standard, “scientific” causation (of the type Sam Harris believes in) takes place in the phenomenal, empirical world of space and time, while causation relating to freedom takes place in the noumenal world outside space and time, hence belongs to an entirely different category. You will never see Sam Harris addressing this point. He simply ignores it, regarding it as impossible (since it’s incompatible with his materialistic scientism). Yet, even in Kant’s system, the two types of causation must be compatible or otherwise we could not introduce freely chosen acts into the unfree scientific world. Kant has, however, constructed an untenable

Cartesian “causation dualism” whereby it’s impossible to see how his two different types of causation can interact. His solution simply doesn’t work. Illuminism uses a very similar model to Kant’s, yet defines and interprets it entirely different. Kant is right that there’s spacetime causation and causation outside space and time. However, his analysis then falls apart because of his failure to use mathematics. Had Fourier mathematics been available to Kant, he would have realised that his phenomenal domain is simply the Fourier spacetime domain of matter while his noumenal domain is the immaterial Fourier frequency domain of mind, outside space and time, and that the two domains are fully compatible, and can interact automatically, because they are just the two sides of dual-aspect Fourier mathematics. There’s no baffling mystery or paradox. It’s all in the math! So, contrary to what he himself believed, Kant’s explanation of freedom is entirely consistent with the doctrine of compatibilism, and is effortlessly enacted via dual-aspect Fourier mathematics, both aspects of which are selfevidently, explicitly compatible. Kant’s objection to what he regarded as “compatibilism” related to there being no substantive difference between internal and external causation in a temporal context. We are always defined by prior causes in time, in this view, and eventually these take us outside the time of our own biological conception, revealing that we cannot possibly be free since we are ultimately caused by something external to our existence. Of course, this analysis works only if we are mortal rather than immortal. If we are uncaused and uncreated, there is no time prior to our existence, and we are not dependent on anything else.

***** “The real issue is not whether the cause of my action is internal or external to me, but whether it is in my control now. For Kant, however, the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it is not in time.” Kant is absolutely right that the cause of my action can be within my control now only if it’s not in time. This is why Illuminism references the Fourier frequency domain, which is by definition outside space and time. It is not, however, outside causation. It obeys frequency causation rather than spacetime causation, and frequency causation is mental causation rather

than material causation. This issue is fundamentally tied to internality and externality. The internal domain is the frequency domain and the external domain is the spacetime domain. So, to be outside space and time means to be in the internal, autonomous domain of mind and frequency. There are four situations pertaining to causation: 1) Frequency-frequency (mind-mind). 2) Frequency-spacetime (mind-matter). 3) Spacetime-frequency (matter-mind). 4) Spacetime-spacetime (matter-matter). Harris rejects three quarters of these. He rejects the monadic mind outside space and time, and he rejects the spacetime-frequency, frequencyspacetime feedback loops where our freedom resides. No wonder he can find no room for freedom. Fundamentalist materialists base their entire understanding of free will, such as it is, on category 4. Thus, if their materialist ontology is false – as it is – then their entire analysis is ipso facto false too. For Kant, there were effectively two types of causation: 1) Phenomenon-phenomenon (the hard determinism of classical science). 2) Noumenon-phenomenon (the ability of minds outside space and time to inject free causation into the phenomenal world). Kant’s system is certainly an improvement over Harris’s, but still radically incomplete and non-mathematical. Kant is emphatically right that we must be in control now to be free. Merely to be immortal is not sufficient. If spacetime is eternal and we too are eternal, we are still prisoners of spacetime causation, prisoners of the past, of previous causal chains that we can do nothing about now. We must be eternal and outside space and time, able to react to and initiate events right now. The Fourier frequency domain, and its feedback loops with the spacetime domain, permits exactly this. Had Fourier mathematics been available to Kant, he would certainly have agreed with us. Fourier mathematics is available to Sam Harris and all

other materialists, but they are too stupid and irrational to see that it fatally undermines materialism.

***** “...we are free in the sense that we have the ability to do otherwise.” We need to be very careful about interpreting this kind of statement. Given exactly the same circumstances, we would always do exactly the same thing. Otherwise, we would be random-behaviour generators, and randomness has nothing to do with freedom. The issue is that when we are faced with a choice, we can evaluate each choice and then decide – for our own reasons – what to do. We are not compelled by anything outside us to make our particular decision. The decision isn’t automatic: we literally have to weigh it and that’s where our freedom lies: in choosing one course of action over another for our own reasons.

***** “On the compatibilist view, as Kant understands it, I am free whenever the cause of my action is within me.” Yet even Kant agrees that the cause of our action must be within us. After all, it’s not ours if it comes from outside us, and we cannot be free! Kant has been described as an “esoteric” compatibilist. What he really objects to is a certain framing of compatibilism (in spacetime, materialist, phenomenal terms, as he sees it), but he himself is unquestionably a compatibilist too in the terms in which we frame compatibilism.

***** “A compatibilist would say that the thief’s action is free because its proximate cause is inside him, and because the theft was not an involuntary convulsion but a voluntary action. The thief decided to commit the theft, and his action flowed from this decision. According to Kant, however, if the thief’s decision is a natural phenomenon that occurs in time, then it must be the effect of some cause that occurred in a previous time.” Kant is certainly right to point out that “compatibilism” must also refer to causation outside space and time (i.e. in the frequency, mental domain).

Sam Harris, like Kant, attacks a materialist version of compatibilism, but true compatibilism invokes a dual-aspect Fourier ontology of matter (spacetime) and mind (frequency). It’s these two domains that are compatible, and they are compatible by way of Fourier mathematics and the single equation (God Equation) that ultimately defines dual-aspect Fourier ontology. Given that everything can be traced back to a single equation, it’s impossible for all manifestations of causation not to be compatible. The whole debate about compatibility is simply stupid once you define it in terms of Fourier mathematics.

***** “...every event has a cause that begins in an earlier time.” This is false. Every event has a cause that begins in an earlier state, not time (which is actually just imaginary space). In the Fourier frequency domain, there are prior frequency states, but obviously no prior spacetime states. It’s the inability of people to understand the ontology of the frequency domain of mind that leads to so many egregious fallacies perpetrated by commentators on free will. Sam Harris commits every error possible!

***** “If that cause too was an event occurring in time, then it must also have a cause beginning in a still earlier time, etc. All natural events occur in time and are thoroughly determined by causal chains that stretch backwards into the distant past. So there is no room for freedom in nature, which is deterministic in a strong sense.” This is exactly Sam Harris’s analysis. The catastrophic problem with it is that it not does reflect the actual ontology of the universe, which is dualaspect, i.e. in addition to space and time, there’s a more fundamental frequency domain. This domain is invariably ignored because of the mathematical illiteracy of those who comment on this subject. They are wholly ignorant of Fourier mathematics and don’t see how it changes everything. All spacetime, materialist arguments become redundant when an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time is added to the mix. Kant was right to see that we must be able to escape from temporal causation. We don’t do so via an appeal to a unknowable noumenal domain,

but via a knowable, noumenal, mathematical, immaterial frequency domain outside space and time.

***** “The root of the problem, for Kant, is time.” The root problem is materialism, empiricism and phenomenalism: time and space and matter, and the refusal to consider an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time.

***** “But the past is out of his control now, in the present. Once the past is past, he can’t change it. On Kant’s view, that is why his actions would not be in his control in the present if they are determined by events in the past.” Exactly right. We must have mind that is outside space and time, hence outside spacetime, materialist causation. The Fourier frequency domain provides us with exactly this.

***** “Compatibilism, as Kant understands it, therefore locates the issue in the wrong place. Even if the cause of my action is internal to me, if it is in the past – for example, if my action today is determined by a decision I made yesterday, or from the character I developed in childhood – then it is not within my control now.” Correct. It is not enough simply for the cause of my action to be internal to me, it must also be capable of being generated now, according to the present state of affairs, and not those of any earlier time. The past should certainly influence us, but not determine us.

***** “For transcendental idealism allows that the cause of my action may be a thing in itself outside of time: namely, my noumenal self, which is free because it is not part of nature.”

It is part of Nature. Nature is not the spacetime, material world. Nature is fundamentally defined by autonomous, immaterial Fourier monadic singularities, outside space and time. They are Nature. Nature is noumenal, not phenomenal; rationalist, not empiricist. It’s absurd to say that our true selves are outside Nature. Nothing can be outside Nature!

***** “No matter what kind of character I have developed or what external influences act on me, on Kant’s view all of my intentional, voluntary actions are immediate effects of my noumenal self, which is causally undetermined.” My noumenal self is causally undetermined in materialist, spacetime terms. It’s an uncreated, uncaused, autonomous frequency domain.

***** “My noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of time, which therefore is not subject to the deterministic laws of [scientific] nature in accordance with which our understanding constructs experience.” Correct! This is exactly what is denied by atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

***** “...then how do multiple transcendentally free agents interact? How do you integrate my free actions into the experience that your understanding constructs?” Kant gives no answer. Illuminism does. All free agents are autonomous frequency domains, each of which obeys Fourier mathematics, and thus the God Equation. All free actions are integrated into the spacetime material world via pure math! There’s no mystery. Math solves all of the problems inherent in Kant’s non-mathematical system. Kant’s system is a kind of halfway house between science and ontological mathematics. He has many good ideas, but none of them are properly followed through because of his mathematical ignorance. Illuminism is Kantian philosophy treated with mathematical rigour, but Leibniz had already provided the correct

framework! Kant’s work took philosophy backwards, not forwards. Leibniz was right all along.

The Element Monads are the Ur-Element, from which all other elements are derived. Monads are the mental element from which the traditional material elements ultimately come.

What Kind of Person Are You? If you had to choose between Truth and No Success, or Success and No Truth, which would you opt for? Go on, now, be honest! Sophists always choose the latter, Philosophers always the former. The task of meritocracy is to stop the Sophists from being successful and instead make the Philosophers successful. As far as the intellectual agenda is concerned, we must leave the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Hawking behind, and find the new versions of Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz and Hegel. Humanity has hitherto been ruled by Mythos, which has come in two guises: 1) the emotionalist, faith-based Mythos of mainstream religion, and 2) the sensory, empiricist-based Mythos of science. Sophists are those who play the Mythos game, in either religious or scientific terms. The world needs to dialectically advance to the rationalist, math-based Logos worldview, with Mythos reserved for entertainment and phenomena. This is the New World Order – Logos instead of Mythos, rationalism instead of empiricism and faith.

***** Stop the Idiocracy. Stop the Moronarchy! Wise up. If you put monkeys in charge, you get a monkey house. It’s time to be human.

***** It’s time for the Philosophers to put the Sophists – such as Harris and Dawkins – in their place, to crush them intellectually, using vastly superior reason.

***** Sophistry goes hand in hand with the sensible world of science, while Philosophy addresses the intelligible world of mathematics (immutable, perfect, eternal Platonic Forms). Deep thinking about reality always comes back to the same issue identified by Plato: absolute truth and knowledge do not reside in the simulacral, phenomenal, sensible, contingent world of empiricism and materialism, but in the transcendent, noumenal, intelligible, necessary, analytic world of rationalism and idealism. Choose what side you’re on: Abrahamic religious faith (feelings), scientific empiricism (the senses), Eastern religion (mystical intuitions) or mathematical rationalism (thinking). You can’t mix and match. This is a zero-sum game.

Kant “Kant took the position that, so long as one sticks to experience, there is no proof of freedom. In experience we find necessary connections, cause and effect. Thus, we are not able to prove theoretically the existence of free will. So far Kant was in agreement with the mechanists, those who saw the world as an interlocking series of mechanical laws and their operations. From the point of view of pure reason there is no evidence to support a belief in free will.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. This is a bizarre statement. Our most self-evident experience is that of being freely able to choose this and not that. We choose to go for a walk. The world does not make us go for a walk. “But, Kant believed that the mind had the faculty of Reason, a faculty engaged in bringing together the various processes, events, or occurrences into wholes or Ideas. These Ideas, though not matters of experience, are legitimate bases for man’s reasoning. And the results of such reasoning are to be accepted as legitimate bases for beliefs and actions. “The idea of freedom is not to be found in experience. Here we find only cause and effect ad infinitum, on and on as far as we can go. But, Kant argues, it is legitimate for us to go beyond experience to ‘transcendental ideas,’ ideas created by Reason independently of experience.” – S. E. Frost, Jr.

The idea of freedom is found immediately in experience. In fact, it’s the first thing we find. As for transcendental ideas, mathematics is entirely concerned with such ideas, rather than the empirical ideas of science. Reason does not create transcendental mathematical ideas. Instead, it discovers them, it works them out. They are pre-existent. They are transcendentally real. Science = empiricism; mathematics = transcendentalism. Mathematics is the most feared and difficult subject in the world. Why? It’s because it’s the most abstract, the least sensory, the least emotional, the least concerned with faith, Mythos and revelation, the least narrative-based, the least concerned with manmade languages, the most concerned with reason, the most transcendent (of the human condition). In all of these ways, it is the least human subject. Yet, for exactly that reason, it’s the subject that allows us to escape the prison of our human condition, and to see reality as it is, without contamination by our humanity. There were no human beings at the Big Bang. How can we expect to understand the Big Bang by thinking about it in human terms? We must think about it in non-human terms – mathematical terms. Mathematics is how we reach ultimate reality itself, which has absolutely no human features, and is nothing to do with the human condition (which is a contingent product of evolution). If you want to see all the way to the Truth, you must remove your human goggles. That, of course, is the most difficult task any human can perform. People blabber on about enlightenment. The only way to be enlightened is to transcend your humanity. You do not achieve that through meditation. You achieve it through mathematics. Meditation is human, all too human. Mathematics is what we all share that is absolutely not human. It is eternal, the fibre of existence, the arche – the source and ground of all. If you’re not ready for math, you’re not ready for the Truth. You will never be enlightened. “Man, then, for Kant, is a free agent. He is capable of acting voluntarily so that his acts are not links in a chain of natural causes. Man, a free agent, originates the act which, when seen by mind, is part of an intricate web of cause and effect.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Tell it to Sam Harris!

Speculative Reason Kant thought that pure reason, when operating correctly, was limited to the objects of possible experience and the transcendental framework that makes knowable experiences possible in the first place. When it exceeded these limits, he argued, it tried to turn objects that could never be experienced and known (such as God and the soul) into phenomenal objects that could be experienced and known.

***** Kant hasn’t grasped the nature of pure reason at all. Pure reason is mathematical reason. What Kant is talking about is actually sensory reason, which is emphatically not true reason. Sensory reason comes in two strains: scientific and religious. Scientific sensory reason says that anything that cannot be conceived in sensory terms cannot exist, hence God and the soul cannot exist. Religious sensory reason says that God and the soul can be conceived in sensory terms and treats them as if they were real, sensory objects. The trick it uses to pull this off is to make religion all about Mythos rather than Logos, to talk about religion in story terms, using story logic.

***** “Kant’s noumenal world is a variation on Plato’s concept of Soul, Descartes’ mental world, and the Scholastic idea of a world in which all times are present to the eye of God. His idea of free will is a most esoteric form of compatibilism. Our decisions are made in our souls outside of time and only appear determined to our senses, which are governed by our builtin a priori forms of sensible perception, like space and time, and built-in categories of intelligible understanding.” http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/ “We then see how it does not involve any contradiction to assert, on the one hand, that the will, in the phenomenal sphere − in visible action − is necessarily obedient to the law of nature, and, in so far, not free; and, on the other hand, that, as belonging to a thing in itself, it is not subject to that law, and, accordingly, is free.” – Kant

“If Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason can be seen as a reaction to David Hume’s skeptical attitude toward knowledge that depends on sense data, the parallel between Hume and Kant is even stronger in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. “Hume and Kant both sought a reconciling of freedom and necessity or causality. “Where Hume said we could not reason to knowledge of causality, for example, but could have a natural belief in causality because of our moral sentiments and feelings, so Kant claims that his Practical Reason establishes freedom in a noumenal realm whose grounding principle is morality. Freedom is the condition for the moral law.” – http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/

Freedom Kant says, “How can a man be called quite free at the same moment, and with respect to the same action in which he is subject to an inevitable physical necessity?” The point is that he is not subject to an inevitable physical necessity. Only his body is in the spacetime, physical world. His mind isn’t. Rather, it’s in the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. As soon as you grasp that, you see that all the scientific deterministic arguments regarding free will simply fall away. Our freedom resides in the noumenal, frequency domain, not in the phenomenal spacetime domain. We can take decisions outside space and time, hence free of physical necessity.

Transcendental Freedom “...transcendental freedom, which must be conceived as independence on everything empirical, and, consequently, on nature generally, whether it is an object of the internal sense considered in time only, or of the external in time and space.” – Kant Freedom is indeed transcendental, i.e. it doesn’t belong to the scientific world believed in by Sam Harris. It belongs instead to the frequency domain outside space and time, the domain rejected by scientific materialists.

Nature is not the empirical world. Nature is the dual-aspect Fourier mathematical world of frequency on the one hand, and spacetime on the other.

Automata Kant spoke of an automaton materiale – a mechanical being moved by causation in the material world – and also an automaton spirituale – a spiritual being moved by causation in the mental world. He regarded neither as free because they are both driven by deterministic processes in time. This turns out to be the critical fallacy in Kant’s thinking regarding free will. All mental activity is outside space and time (it takes place in the frequency domain). It’s our consciousness that is required to be the interface between our frequency minds and our spacetime bodies. The right hemisphere of our brain is linked to Fourier frequency processing, and our left hemisphere to Fourier spacetime processing Both hemispheres are in a constant feedback loop, but at all times our consciousness is required to pretend it’s fully in charge, and that everything is happening in precise temporal sequence. In fact, our mind in itself is doing everything outside space and time, and our consciousness creates the illusion that our mind is operating sequentially in time. It operates according to a narrative flow – which is why humanity is so dominated by Mythos thinking – and frequently retrospectively creates stories for why we behaved as we did, when in fact our unconscious mind may have had entirely different reasons.

The Newton of the Mind Just as Newton created the science of terrestrial and cosmic material forces, so a Newton of the Mind (or, rather, a Leibniz!) is required to create a science of the individual and collective mental forces in the Fourier frequency domain. Are you such a person? In this domain, we no longer have material atoms in motion, but mental ideas – a mental rather than physical dynamics!

Descartes

“For Descartes, ideas were in a mind that is immaterial and indeterministic, and thus the seat of freedom and liberty.” – http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/ Descartes’ system produced the intractable problem of how minds and matter can interact given that they have nothing in common. “It is sad that Kant did not see (as Descartes saw) that the mind could be the locus of the indeterminism needed to break causal chains.” – http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/ There is no indeterminism in the universe. Existence is either 100% deterministic or 100% indeterministic. There can be no “determinism dualism” with some things being deterministic and some things indeterministic. How could such things possibly interact? The real ontological scenario is that the spacetime domain is deterministic in material terms, and the frequency domain is deterministic in mental terms, and our brains and minds are in a feedback loop facilitated by our bicameral brains. There is, however, one crucial subtlety in this system. We cannot determine how we will experience a signal or stimulus. We cannot know what emotional effect something will have on us, yet our emotional response, or our desire for something, or our will to power, are crucial in shaping how we react to events, and what causation we then inject.

***** In terms of semantics, we could perhaps say that mental determinism is “differently deterministic” in relation to material causation since it takes place outside space and time rather than inside space and time. However, in the end, all mental and material activity is deterministically governed by Fourier mathematics and the God Equation that defines it.

The Sophists The Sophists are empiricists, materialist, pragmatists and instrumentalists. They appeal to “common sense”, “evidence” and science. They dislike any kind of abstraction.

Philosophers are rationalists, idealists and intuitives. They appeal to reason, proof, analysis and mathematics. They have no fear of abstraction and are obsessed with the truth – the incontestable truth. They are the true intellectual class. The Sophists are the false intellectuals, the pseudo-intellectuals.

The Darwinist Fallacy Darwinists say that apparent design emerges from random mutations that are subject to “natural selection”. But what does this really mean? For a gene, or gene carrier, to be considered successful, it must be good at surviving (not being killed off) and replicating (because otherwise its kind would die out). It will be better at both surviving and reproducing if it’s powerful. As Nietzsche highlighted, some animals will risk their survival (and ability to replicate) to get more power, i.e. everything has a will to power and it’s this contest for power that actually drives the world and evolution. In Hegelian terms, the struggle for power is equivalent to the dialectical conflict that propels evolution towards an Omega Point. Survival, reproduction and the desire for more power are all teleological considerations. However, Darwinists – because of their fundamentalist materialism – deny that any teleology is present in evolution, i.e. they claim that evolution has no meaning, no point, no purpose, no objective. It does not try to go anywhere or accomplish anything. It has no aims. Things just happen, and just happen to get better and more complex. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Let’s apply three opposite principles to those we have described, i.e. instead of natural selection concerning survival, reproduction and power, let’s make it about suicide, sterility and impotence. Here we have a system that couldn’t lead to anything getting better. Things will get relentlessly worse. These are the three criteria of negative rather than positive teleology. The question for Darwinists is why natural selection doesn’t work this way. Darwinists say that random mutations are subject to natural selection, but why should this natural selection be positive rather than negative? If Nature doesn’t care about anything, and has no purposes, why shouldn’t we see negative as well as positive natural selection, occurring at random, just as gene mutations happen at random? That would be a consistent theory:

random mutation and random natural selection (positive or negative at random) – all to no purpose. Darwinian natural selection looks every bit as purposeful as artificial selection (breeding). There’s nothing random about it. There’s nothing nonteleological about it. Darwinists propose a random, purposeless system being acted upon by natural selection principles that look distinctly intentional and purposeful – designed to increase power. It’s much more rational to accept Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired characteristics), Hegelian (dialectical) or Nietzschean (Will to Power) evolutionary theories since these imply that genetic mutations are not random at all but are actually being wrought by purposeful minds seeking to improve, and make more powerful, the bodies through which they express themselves. Darwinism, as a materialist theory, can never refer to mind and teleology. However, it has smuggled in teleology via its doctrine of natural selection. In a non-teleological universe, natural selection shouldn’t look anything like teleology. Absolutely any outcome should be acceptable, as in random quantum mechanical selection. There should be no suggestion at all of “breeding”. Yet this is exactly what we see. In a true Darwinist system, “natural selection” would be as likely to produce bad outcomes as good, “survival of the unfittest” as readily as “survival of the fittest”. All materialist theories are ultimately based on fallacies. There are two fallacies in Darwinism: 1) genetic mutation is random rather than mentally designed, and 2) natural selection is non-teleological rather than teleological. Darwinism fails as soon as it’s acknowledged that there’s a mental layer underlying genetics – that it is in fact psychogenetics, involving psychogenes – and that “natural selection” means nothing other than Nature explicitly operating teleologically, intending to breed better organisms. Darwinism is simply a fallacious, materialist, empiricist misinterpretation of evolution, just as science is a fallacious, materialist, empiricist misinterpretation of mathematics. All scientific theories are misinterpretations. They work because they have arrived at good enough approximations of mathematical reality (all scientific theories are simply dressed-up mathematics). As long as the math is close enough, the theory

will work well enough, no matter how wrong the misinterpretation of the math.

The Materialist Fanatics SON: “Evolutionary religion? Sigh. Spirituality is so much different than religion so I won’t condemn those that are spiritual but I really don’t care what context you’re using, please stop adding mysticism into evolution. Evolution is nothing but the mechanism by which we explain changes and variations in living things.” WTF! Who asked for your opinion? Spare us from scientific materialists and their total ignorance of reality. There is nothing more mystical, miraculous and magical than scientific randomness, where existence jumps out of non-existence for no reason. We utterly condemn irrationalists and mystics such as you. “Evolution” – by which SON means Darwinism – doesn’t explain a single thing about change and variation in living things, and does nothing at all to explain the origin of life. As with everything in scientific materialism, Darwinism is total non-explanation. It doesn’t explain random mutations, it doesn’t explain natural selection and it doesn’t explain any fucking thing at all. How dumb would you have to be to take Darwinism seriously? Like the rest of science, it’s predicated on magic and miracles, and the total rejection of reason. SON: “If you want to be religious that badly, evolution simply is not for you.” No, evolution isn’t for you. You are a believer in the religion of scientism. SON: “There isn’t one indicator to lead us to think there is any sort of magic or mysticism in evolution.” Exactly! That’s why Darwinism is totally false. It’s predicated on magical, mystical randomness with no conceivable explanation. In a rational world that obeys the principle of sufficient reason, there are no such things as random events. There’s nothing more offensive than scientific materialists pretending to be rational! They don’t know the meaning of the word.

*****

“You [mankind] have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now the human being is still more of an ape than any ape is.” – Nietzsche “Against Darwinism. – The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.” – Nietzsche “Anti-Darwin. – As regards the celebrated ‘struggle for life’, … where there is struggle it is a struggle for power … its outcome is the reverse of that desired by the school of Darwin … Species do not grow more perfect: the weaker dominate the strong, again and again – simply because they are the majority, and because they are also the more cunning.” – Nietzsche “Anti-Darwin. … We almost always see males and females take advantage of any chance encounter, exhibiting no selectivity whatsoever.” – Nietzsche “Anti-Darwin. – What surprises me most when I survey the broad destinies of man is that I always see before me the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to see today: selection in favour of the stronger, better-constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable … I incline to the prejudice that the school of Darwin has been deluded everywhere …” – Nietzsche “That will to power in which I recognize the ultimate ground and character of all change provides us with the reason why selection is not in favour of the exceptions and lucky strokes: the strongest and most fortunate are weak when opposed by organized herd instincts, by the timidity of the weak, by the vast majority.” – Nietzsche “Darwin forgot the mind ( – that is English!)...” – Nietzsche “The error of the Darwinist school has become a problem for me...” – Nietzsche “...how can one be so blind as to fail to see clearly here? … That the species represent progress is the most unreasonable assertion in the world.” – Nietzsche “What surprises me most when surveying the great destinies of man is always seeing before me the opposite of what Darwin and his school see or

want to see today: selection in favour of the stronger, in favour of those who have come off better, the progress of the species. The very opposite is quite palpably the case: the elimination of the strokes of luck, the uselessness of the better-constituted types, the inevitable domination achieved by the average, even below-average types...” – Nietzsche “...the school of Darwin has everywhere deceived itself...” – Nietzsche “In so doing [focusing on adaptation and natural selection], however, one mistakes the essence of life, its will to power; in so doing one overlooks the essential pre-eminence of the spontaneous, attacking, infringing, reinterpreting, reordering, and formative forces, upon whose effect the ‘adaptation’ first follows; in so doing one denies the lordly role of the highest functionaries in the organism itself, in which the will of life appears active and form-giving.” – Nietzsche “...scholarly oxen have suspected me of Darwinism [in my theory of the Superman]...” – Nietzsche

***** We’d take Nietzsche over Darwin any day! We’d take the dialectical struggle for power over randomism and natural selection any day. If Nietzsche’s Will to Power is operative in Nature, it’s unexplained by Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwinism, like the rest of scientific materialism, does not make any reference at all to the mind or mental forces. They are 100% absent. If you consider that you have a real, authentic, autonomous mind, you cannot possibly subscribe to Darwinism, scientific materialism or the denial of free will.

Popper and Darwinism “In 1977 Popper gave the first Darwin Lecture, at Darwin College, Cambridge. He called it Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind. In it he said he had changed his mind (a rare admission by a philosopher) about two things. First he now thought that natural selection was not a ‘tautology’ that made it an unfalsifiable theory. Second, he had come to accept the random variation and selection of ideas as a model of free will.” – Wikipedia

Popper was right the first time about evolution, and wrong about free will! Of evolution, Popper had previously stated, “The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like ‘All tables are tables’ is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that ‘Natural selection . . . turns out . . . to be a tautology’. However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an ‘enormous power . . . of explanation’. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological,’ and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme.” To anything at all that happens in Darwinism, the same answer can always be given: “It was naturally selected.” But how can this theory ever be falsified, hence count as science according to Popper’s principle of falsification? What’s the difference between saying it was naturally selected and “God chose it”? How can we falsify either claim? When can we ever say, “Ah, God didn’t choose it” or “Ah, it wasn’t naturally selected?” If an astronomer predicts an eclipse and it doesn’t happen, his theory is automatically falsified. When can we ever falsify Darwinism? If no one can specify any conditions in which Darwinism can be falsified, it’s not science! If we refer to Darwinism as the “survival of the fittest” or the “survival of the best adapted”, or any other such formulation, then what are we actually saying? No matter what outcome we get, we will always be able to say, “Ah, it’s ipso facto the fittest, or the best adapted, or whatever.” We might as well say, “Ah, it’s the will of God!” There are no circumstances in which we can say anything has been “unnaturally selected”. We can say if there has or hasn’t been an eclipse. We cannot say if something has or hasn’t been naturally selected. Whatever

exists has, by definition, been naturally selected. We can never say, “It wasn’t naturally selected” – because it would never come to our attention in the first place since it wouldn’t exist! In relation to “survival of the fittest”, whatever survives is ipso facto the fittest, hence “survival” and fittest” are tautologies, i.e. we might as well say, “The survival of those that survive.” Popper said, “The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising.” So, Popper says that Darwinism isn’t tautological because it’s not always true! That’s hardly reassuring to Darwinists. That means a further, truer theory is required, which will certainly come as news to people such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Popper also said, “What Darwin showed us was that the mechanism of natural selection can, in principle, simulate the actions of the Creator and His purpose and design, and that it can also simulate rational human action directed towards a purpose or aim.” Hmmm, that’s some theory! It seems to be whatever you want it to be: all things to all men. It can simulate God and purpose, while supposedly disproving God and purpose. How can that be? By the same token, mindless, purposeless atoms can apparently simulate free will. These scientific laws are utterly remarkable! They seem to produce nothing but simulations, emulations, and illusions of other things. Concerning free will, Popper said, “The selection of a kind of behaviour out of a randomly offered repertoire may be an act of free will. I am an indeterminist; and in discussing indeterminism I have often regretfully pointed out that quantum indeterminacy does not seem to help us; for the amplification of something like, say, radioactive disintegration processes would not lead to human action or even animal action, but only to random movements. “I have changed my mind on this issue. A choice process may be a selection process, and the selection may be from some repertoire of random events, without being random in its turn. This seems to me to offer a promising solution to one of our most vexing problems, and one by downward causation.”

So, Popper is an indeterminist (an absurd position), who relies on random generation of possibilities, followed by causal, deterministic selection. But nothing at all can be generated randomly if – as we do – we inhabit a rational, hence determined, universe.

The Darwinian Delusion Darwinism is not a factual scientific theory. It’s a philosophical speculation, reflecting materialism and empiricism. It’s scientifically accepted because science itself is a materialist and empiricist interpretation of reality. There are no facts at all in Darwinism that cannot be interpreted in radically different ways, just as every theory of science can be challenged and reinterpreted. If you accept that reality is mental rather than material, Darwinism is ipso facto false. Evolution, however, is true. All scientific theories can be repackaged in terms of rationalism and idealism rather than empiricism and materialism. Science is nothing but a rejection of hidden, unobservable variables, prime amongst those being the mind! When you introduce mind into science, all interpretations of scientific theories automatically change in the most radical ways. Mathematics supports the existence of mind. Science does not. The fundamental question you must ask yourself then becomes extremely simple: do you or do you not have a mind?! According to science, you merely have an epiphenomenal, derived “mind”, contingent upon a particular arrangement of material atoms, and when this arrangement breaks down, your mind vanishes. Is that what you regard as true? If you do not, you have rejected scientific materialism and Darwinism. Well, where do you stand? Once you reject scientific materialism, a whole new world opens up to you ... a mathematical world that is infinitely stranger, more exciting and more fascinating than that of science. It’s time for humanity to enter the Age of Mathematics, the true Age of Reason.

Supernature Mathematics defines supernature. When scientists scoff at the “supernatural”, they actually mean anything that invokes autonomous mind

as an explanation. Scientists regard “nature” as strictly that which is consistent with the empiricist and materialist paradigm of science. Any reference to mind as a causal explanation is outside science, hence “supernatural” or “metaphysical”. Do you consider your mind “supernatural” – an object of absurd superstition? The “supernatural” is simply Nature with mind included! To think about it in another way, science is subnature – nature for the mentally retarded, for those dullards and vulgarians who deny the existence of their own minds and own free will! Do you want to be one of them?

The Causal Flow If causality is conceived as a relentless flow of current in space and time (the material world), or in the frequency domain (the mental world), there can be no such thing as freedom. You are simply swept along by the current, and there’s nothing you can do to stop and make a free choice. This all changes if we conceive of causality in terms of competing flows. Imagine a mental flow at right angles to a spacetime flow. In which direction will you be taken – the material or mental? Two competing, interactive flows result in four scenarios: 1) Spacetime information flows into the frequency domain of mind, e.g. we stub our toe in the physical world and feel the mental pain. 2) Spacetime flows into spacetime; this is “scientific” causation, the only type science believes in. 3) Mind flows into spacetime, e.g. we choose to move our arm and it moves. 4) Mind flows into mind, e.g. one thought leads to another. We have freedom because all of these competing flows are going on at once, and only one can win at any instant, and we have to decide which (unless the external world decides for us by subjecting us to overwhelming force). Relative to spacetime flow, frequency flow is outside space and time, hence we can take decisions that are outside temporal flow. From the

frequency domain of mind, we can act as if we are not in the spacetime current at all, hence not subject to its inevitable flow. Only if we are outside that stream can we insert actions into it that are not dictated by it. That’s exactly why we can be free, and that’s exactly what Sophists such as Sam Harris miss in their exclusively materialist treatment of the free will question.

The Existential Deception “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. Free will ... cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.” – Sam Harris What is Sam Harris’s point? Sometimes, he seems to be arguing against the possibility of free will in any sense at all. At other times, he seems to be making a very different point, namely, that our consciousness doesn’t have free will (we can’t exert conscious control). Which is it? If free will is impossible then obviously consciousness cannot have free will. However, if free will is possible then, given that we have an unconsciousness as well as a consciousness, we then have three possible scenarios: 1) Unconsciousness free and consciousness free. 2) Unconsciousness unfree and consciousness free. 3) Unconsciousness free and consciousness unfree. Sam Harris seems to insist on “unconsciousness unfree and consciousness unfree”, although he often comes close to conceding that the unconscious could be free, but that’s no good, he says, in relation to the case for our conscious free will. If the mind is free, where is it free? Does it even matter as far as the principle of free will is concerned? In other words, would any advocate of free will be overly troubled if only the unconscious mind is free?

“…the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws … so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion” – Hawking and Mlodinow This is the standard scientific materialist worldview. Everything that is said here is pure interpretation according to a specific paradigm. Nothing has been said that disproves the existence of a mental Fourier agency (monadic singularity), outside space and time, which obeys the laws of Fourier mathematics, just as the brain does, but which is free to determine its own actions for its own reasons, i.e. free will is real. “According to quantum physics, no matter how much information we obtain or how powerful our computing abilities, the outcomes of physical processes cannot be predicted with certainty because they are not determined with certainty. Instead, given the initial state of a system, nature determines its future state through a process that is fundamentally uncertain. In other words, nature does not dictate the outcome of any process or experiment, even in the simplest of situations ... Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.” – Hawking and Mlodinow Here we have Hawking and Mlodinow saying that quantum physics is not about indeterminism, but, rather, reflects a “new form of determinism” – probabilistic determinism. To any philosophically literate person, this is absurd. Determinism means that something is fully and uniquely determined by the conditions that preceded it, e.g. when you toss a coin, it will come down as heads or tails according to the deterministic laws of physics. According to quantum physics, an observer can do no more than “cause” a “coin wavefunction” to randomly collapse to the heads or tails state (there are no longer any mechanistic laws of physics to determine one outcome rather than another). This is self-evidently an indeterministic system, not any kind of determinism.

Hawking and Mlodinow do not want to abandon the concept of determinism and admit any scope for indeterministic freedom, so they simply call indeterministic wavefunction collapse – we can never know how a wavefunction will collapse – probabilistic determinism. However, nothing is determining anything here. All that’s happening is that one possibility is being randomly plucked from a vast range of potentialities, and there are absolutely no determining factors – no causes or sufficient reasons or mechanisms – to produce one outcome rather than another. “If I were to learn that my decision to have a third cup of coffee this morning was due to a random release of neurotransmitters, how could the indeterminacy of the initiating event count as the free exercise of my will?” – Sam Harris Why would the body randomly release neurotransmitters? If this were possible, we would randomly be doing things all the time, and plainly we’re not. This is a typical Straw Man argument, in which Harris specialises. How could we ever learn that our decision to have another cup of coffee was due to an unobservable random release of neurotransmitters, and not to our free choice to have another coffee? What test will Harris provide to prove his random event in preference to our free choice? His contention is an utterly ludicrous thing to say, and untestable, hence not scientific. Harris engages in nothing but unfalsifiable speculation. No matter what his opponents said, Harris would insist that an unobservable random process was taking place as the “true” explanation. “Where our intentions themselves come from, however, and what determines their character in every instant, remains perfectly mysterious in subjective terms. Our sense of free will arises from a failure to appreciate this fact: we do not know what we will intend to do until the intention itself arises. To see this is to realize that you are not the author of your thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose.” – Sam Harris The fact that something is allegedly “mysterious” – or difficult to exactly define – is incredibly problematic for Harris’s case. Where has science ever defined where our intentions come from (from mindless, lifeless, purposeless, “fuzzy” atoms with no intentions?!). We might as well say that Harris’s belief that free will does not exist arises from a failure to appreciate how inadequate science is at explaining anything mental (science has made

zero progress in explaining the origin of life, mind and consciousness). Common sense notions of free will may well be misguided, but it does not follow that free will is therefore false, just as it doesn’t follow that because religious accounts of the soul are ridiculous there is therefore no soul. Just as a soul is actually a complex mathematical organism, so free will is also a complex mathematical property of such a soul. Harris simply gives no thought to the existence of the soul at all, which means he is obliged to explain everything in terms of mindless, lifeless atoms and their laws, none of which are compatible with freedom in any way. GIGO ... garbage in, garbage out!

Science = Sophistry Science is pure sophistry since it refuses to engage with philosophy, yet never explains why it shouldn’t. If science can’t answer philosophical questions, of what ultimate use is it? Imagine that science came up with a “final theory of everything”. Well, if quantum mechanics is anything to go by, there could be at least fifty different interpretations of the theory, each reflecting a radically different ontology and epistemology. Who in their right mind would actually regard this as a final theory? There must be not only a final theory but also a final interpretation of the theory, and that means that a final view must be taken on ontology and epistemology. But science refuses to take such a view since it regards ontology as metaphysical, and the only epistemology it would ever accept is one regarding empiricism, materialism and positivism, which is a philosophical stance! Scientists are so dumb that they haven’t realised that whatever stance they adopt will in fact be a statement of philosophy, so they might as well engage with other philosophies.

Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics Each time an observer collapses a wavefunction at random, they have “selected” an outcome (but through no active, purposeful choice of their own). Why doesn’t Darwinism operate in exactly the same way, i.e. why aren’t outcomes selected at random? Why do they reflect teleological principles concerning better adaptation? The standard interpretation of QM

reflects no such natural selection leading to inherently better-adapted outcomes. Why isn’t Darwinism compared and contrasted with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? If they are inconsistent then either Darwinism or the Copenhagen interpretation, or indeed both, must be scientifically false! When have you ever read any scientific paper dealing with this fundamental question? Never. Science has total disregard for consistency. It’s all about ad hoc instrumentalism, and all arguments deployed by scientists reflect this same contempt for logic. Just look at all of Sam Harris’s arguments! Science is purely tactical, and never strategic. “It is generally argued that our sense of free will presents a compelling mystery: on the one hand, it is impossible to make sense of it in causal terms; on the other, there is a powerful subjective sense that we are the authors of our own actions. However, I think that this mystery is itself a symptom of our confusion. It is not that free will is simply an illusion: our experience is not merely delivering a distorted view of reality; rather, we are mistaken about the nature of our experience. We do not feel as free as we think we feel. Our sense of our own freedom results from our not paying attention to what it is actually like to be what we are. The moment we do pay attention, we begin to see that free will is nowhere to be found, and our subjectivity is perfectly compatible with this truth.” – Sam Harris It’s impossible to explain free will in “causal terms” only if your starting point is Harris’s entirely fallacious materialist ideology. The more interesting question is the psychological one – why is Harris so willing to reject his own “powerful subjective sense” that he’s the author of his own actions? Why is Harris so attracted to the notion that he’s a machine, devoid of choice? Is Harris autistic? No normal human being would seek to deny his own freedom. A normal person would seek arguments to explain his free will, not to explain it away as a bizarre illusion. Imagine that you have fallen in love. Would your instinct be to revel in your love, or to immediately find reasons why your love is a ridiculous illusion? That’s effectively what Harris does. For some pathological reason, he despises his own freedom. “Thoughts and intentions simply arise in the mind. What else could they do?” – Sam Harris

Who said they didn’t? What else should they do? Where else should they do it? “Harris positions himself as an extreme ‘illusionist’. ... Harris says simply that ‘no account of causality leaves room for free will.’” – http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/harris/ Merely to assert materialist accounts of causality hardly amounts to a refutation of non-materialist accounts of causality. What is the real illusion – free will or materialism? Free will makes sense only if mind is the primary reality; the denial of free will makes sense only if matter is the primary reality. The question of free will is simply a proxy for the conflict between idealism and materialism. No one would ever expect a Fundamentalist Materialist atheist such as Harris to be on the side of freedom. “Given the right experimental manipulations, people can be led to believe that they consciously intended an action when they neither chose it nor had control over their movements.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Who says? This is all just interpretation, or, rather, misinterpretation. All of Harris’s claims can easily be reinterpreted from the perspective of idealism, rationalism and ontological mathematics. “The popular conception of free will seems to rest on two assumptions: (1) that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past, and (2) that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions in the present. ... Both of these assumptions are false.” – Sam Harris, Free Will In fact, neither of these claims is true. No supporter of freedom says that we behave randomly. Given exactly the same scenario, we would of course do exactly the same thing. The notion that Harris is failing to capture is that when we did something in the past, we were not guaranteed to do that particular thing. We could have freely chosen an alternative course of action. However, whatever action we chose we would always choose in exactly the same circumstances, for exactly the same reasons! Imagine an android versus a human. How do they differ? The android is programmed to react to the external environment it finds itself in. It has no teleology. A human is a teleological being and creatively imagines what courses of action might serve its purposes. It then evaluates each of these

and selects the one it considers best able to advance its goals. It’s the fact that we might have chosen any of these options that is the root of our sense of freedom. Given what we now know – i.e. the consequences of our actions – we might well have chosen differently first time round. But that’s hindsight, of course, hence irrelevant to our original decision. As Kierkegaard said, “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” An android, unlike a human, is non-teleological and does not imaginatively create a set of alternative courses of action, one of which it will then choose. It evaluates what’s in front of it. It does not imagine what is not in front of it. Harris, as a Materialist Fundamentalist, considers all of us to be materialist machines. He rejects outright the notion that we have an autonomous, teleological mind, outside space, time and matter. Secondly, no supporter of free will denies that the unconscious is a source of much of our thinking and feelings. Everyone on earth is aware of “body language”, for example, being outside our conscious control. Our dreams are where our unconscious mind communicates most vividly with us, but it is of course communicating with us all the time, not just in dreams. So, as ever, Harris is attacking a Straw Man. He simply hasn’t defined freedom correctly, or the Fourier ontology that makes it possible. “[The compatibilists say that] a person is free as long as he is free from any outer or inner compulsions, [and they] have produced a vast literature in an effort [to salvage free will]. More than in any other area of academic philosophy, the result resembles theology.” – Sam Harris Harris ought to have said “resembles idealism” instead of “resembles theology”. It’s impossible to explain free will in the context of atheistic materialism, which itself looks remarkably like theology. “[We are not] the authors of our actions.” – Sam Harris So, er, who is? – lifeless, mindless, contingent, purposeless atoms? Don’t think so, Sam! Harris absolutely never explains who or what in his opinion is responsible for our actions, and why. He never explains how matter produces the illusion of free will, and why it should. What’s truly amazing is that Harris thinks he’s being rational by claiming that mindless matter

produces delusions. He thinks this is a more “logical” explanation than that free will genuinely exists. “Losing a belief in free will has not made me fatalistic – in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom.” – Sam Harris You mean it has increased your delusion of freedom! After all, your whole argument is that there’s no such thing as authentic freedom. “My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. There is no telling how much I might change in the future. Just as one wouldn’t draw a lasting conclusion about oneself on the basis of a brief experience of indigestion, one needn’t do so on the basis of how one has thought or behaved for vast stretches of time in the past. A creative change of inputs to the system – learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention – may radically transform one’s life.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Absolutely none of this makes any sense. If freedom does not exist, Harris is not free to change his attitudes. Like everything else, they have been imposed on him. Harris simply can’t help slipping back into talking as if freedom is real. The best person to state Harris’s case would be a severe autistic, who would never backslide into the rhetoric of freedom, and would maintain a machine tone permanently. Then we would all realise how autistic Harris’s case actually is. “Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth.” – Sam Harris Who says? Fourier reincarnation theory makes very different claims. Harris simply can’t get beyond his atheism and Fundamentalist Materialism. “You didn’t choose your gender or most of your life experiences.” – Sam Harris No? Where’s your proof? “You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain.” – Sam Harris No? Where’s your proof?

“And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime – by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas.” – Sam Harris Really? The mind is immortal, and it’s the mind that controls us, not the body, which is just a contingent collection of parts that have nothing to do with our essential self. “Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?” – Sam Harris, Free Will Go on, Sam, tell us that our desires came from lifeless, mindless, purposeless, delusional atoms with no desires, and that sprang into existence out of nothing at all. Which version of reality is the more ridiculous? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is there any evidence at all that matter exists as a thing in itself? Where is there any evidence at all that atoms can produce minds that suffer from pointless delusions? This notion is more or less insane. It’s a total violation of Occam’s Razor, which supports the simple thesis that we are free because our minds are autonomous teleological entities, capable of initiating their own causal chains. “A moment or two of serious self-scrutiny, and you might observe that you no more decide the next thought you think than the next thought I write.” – Sam Harris, Free Will No? And mindless atoms do, apparently! What’s more likely ... that I decide my own thoughts, or a contingent collection of atoms thinks “my” thoughts for me? Harris refuses to go into details about what he’s proposing as the alternative to free will ... that deterministic atoms “think”. “My choices matter – and there are paths towards making wiser ones – but I cannot choose what I choose.” – Sam Harris But you don’t have any choices, according to your own thesis, Sam! If you can’t choose what you choose, then what’s doing the choosing? “And if it ever appears that I do – for instance, after going back between two options – I do not choose to choose what I choose. There is a regress

here that always ends in darkness.” – Sam Harris, Free Will It’s scientific materialism that’s the ideology of infinite contingent regress, and always ends in darkness, randomness, magic, miracles and oblivion. “Whatever their conscious motives, these [criminals] cannot know why they are as they are. As sickening as I find their behaviour, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimize other people.” – Sam Harris Your soul would be completely different, Sam! Harris’s whole case is predicated on the denial of the existence of the immaterial soul. If you accept its existence, you automatically can’t take anything Harris says seriously. “Even if you believe that every human being harbours an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of psychopath.” – Sam Harris Yes you can! “If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky’s shoes on July 23, 2007 – that is, if I had his genes and life experience and identical brain (or soul) in an identical state – I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this.” – Sam Harris, Free Will You can never be anyone else! Try studying Leibniz, why don’t you? ... “The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. It states that no two distinct things (such as snowflakes) can be exactly alike...” – Wikipedia You are unique, Sam. Live with it! It’s not as if you have a choice! It’s pure nonsense to claim that two people can have identical soul states, or even identical material states. “Becoming sensitive to the background causes of one’s thoughts and feelings can – paradoxically – allow for greater creative control over one’s

life.” – Sam Harris WTF! How do you become sensitive to something if you have no free will, no choice and cannot “choose what you choose”? As ever, this is incoherent gibberish. “This understanding reveals you to be a biochemical puppet, of course, but it also allows you to grab hold of one of your strings.” – Sam Harris, Free Will WTF! If a puppet can pull its own strings, it’s not a puppet! “We are not self-caused little gods.” – Sam Harris, Free Will That’s exactly what we are! Here we have the absolute crunch. If we are immortal, uncaused, uncreated, indestructible souls then everything Harris says is false. Harris has conceded that if we were self-caused little gods we would indeed be free, hence free will is not an illusion after all. “What evidence could possibly be put forward to show that one could have acted differently in the past?” – Sam Harris, Free Will Straw Man! No advocate of compatibilism makes any such claim. The claim is that we can freely imagine several teleological futures before we act, each with a roughly equal likelihood of being enacted, and then evaluate them and reach our decision as to which is best. The smarter, the more imaginative and creative we are, the more futures we can conceive. Until we carry out our evaluation of the futures that we have freely conceived, we cannot know what we will do. An android cannot conceive futures, and carries out a program written for him by its Creator (programmer). Harris keeps slipping into the tacit claim that humans are programmed machines rather than free people. “Compatibilism amounts to nothing more than an assertion of the following creed: A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Straw Man, yet again. Compatibilism in fact asserts that we are autonomous beings – uncaused and uncreated (i.e. we have no strings and no puppetmaster) – hence can mathematically initiate our own causal chains, amidst countless other monadic minds that can do exactly the same!

“The men and women on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad environments, and bad ideas (and the innocent, of course, have supremely bad luck). Which of these quantities, exactly, were they responsible for?” – Sam Harris Bad genes? – all claims about genes can be reduced to absurd claims about mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms. Bad parents? – that’s just another version of bad genes (the parents have the bad genes in this case). Bad environment? – just another crazy claim about atoms. Exactly what qualities of mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms produce serial killers, Sam? Go on, show us how lumps of matter produce psychopaths. “No human being is responsible for his genes or his upbringing, yet we have every reason to believe that these factors determine his character.” – Sam Harris Determine his character? If we are immortal souls, our nature precedes our genes and our environment, not the other way around. At all times, Harris assumes the truth of his fundamentalist materialist ideology and works backward from his conclusion to the “facts”, rather than forward from the facts to the conclusion based on them. “Our system of justice should reflect an understanding that any of us could have been dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Then it wouldn’t be a system of justice, but a system that treats us as either productive or defective machines. “The intention to do one thing and not another does not originate in consciousness – rather, it appears in consciousness, as does any thought or impulse that might oppose it.” – Sam Harris, Free Will So what? Is anyone seriously suggesting that our unconscious mind is not an integral part of who we are? “Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviours, and behaviours lead to outcomes in

the world.” – Sam Harris Here we go ... fanatical fundamentalist materialism telling us that all mental states are in fact brain states. So, Sam, are decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc, states of collections of atoms that do not possess life, mind, decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, or willpower? Go on, Sam, explain that to us! “Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Really? Only if we agree with your materialist conclusion ... which we don’t. If you start consciously planning a holiday to Florence next June, is it actually because a bunch of mindless, lifeless, purposeless atoms fancy a trip round some excellent museums? “If you pay attention to your inner life, you will see that the emergence of choices, efforts, and intentions is a fundamentally mysterious process.” – Sam Harris, Free Will It’s certainly a mysterious process if they emerge from lumps of dead, mindless matter, as Harris claims. “Why didn’t I decide to drink a glass of juice? The thought never occurred to me. Am I free to do that which does not occur to me to do? Of course not.” – Sam Harris, Free Will WTF! Now Harris claims that freedom lies in being able to do things that never entered our heads! “How can we be ‘free’ as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware?” – Sam Harris, Free Will We did intend them, but we don’t need to be consciously aware of them. That’s yet another fallacy and Straw Man attack. “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making.” – Sam Harris, Free Will We do not make our will: we are our will! Try reading Schopenhauer, Sam.

“Despite our attachment to the notion of free will, most of us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Does a blocked pipe work? As soon as physical things break down then of course mind is going to have difficulties expressing itself through the broken remnants. “Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Only in your impossible and ridiculous version of free will, Sam. Any normal person understands free will as being able to do what you want, and not what someone else wants. “One of the most refreshing ideas to come out of existentialism (perhaps the only one) is that we are free to interpret and reinterpret the meaning of our lives.” – Sam Harris, Free Will Existentialism asserts that we are radically free. As Sartre said, “We are condemned to be free.” So, not much support there for Harris’s thesis that we are not free at all!

Unification Science came into its own with Newton and his unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics. Then came Maxwell with his unification of electricity and magnetism. Then came Einstein with his relativity theory (and the unification of space and time). Then came indeterministic, probabilistic quantum mechanics (and the unification of waves and particles). Before the advent of classical science, science was essentially Aristotelian, which was a bit metaphysical, a bit empirical, a bit astronomical, a bit religious, a bit teleological. Mathematics played almost no role in it. With Newtonian science, mathematics started to run the show, and science has become more and more mathematical ever since, and any smart person would conclude that it must end by becoming 100% mathematical. Science is simply the intermediate stage between religion and philosophy on the one hand, and mathematics on the other.

Religion is for feeling types, philosophy for thinking types who don’t use math, science for thinking types who use math but subordinate it to their senses, and math for thinking types who regard reason itself as the ultimate reality. Mathematics is exactly what reason looks like ontologically. To say that the world is made of math is to say that it’s literally made of reason, and that of course is why it’s rational, intelligible and has an analytic answer that any rational person can work out – exactly as if solving a mathematical problem. It’s a strange thing, but the answer to existence is much easier to solve than Riemann’s Hypothesis given that the problem can be specified far more precisely. Riemann’s Hypothesis will in due course be solved via ontological mathematics, but it will still take a genius to manage it.

***** One of the strangest features of science is that it relies on Newtonian, Maxwellian, Einsteinian, and quantum mechanical physics and yet all four systems imply radically different ontologies and epistemologies. Science doesn’t care. It never spends any time at all on comparing and contrasting the respective, mutually exclusive, ontologies and epistemologies of these scientific systems. That’s why science will never deliver a final ontological and epistemological theory. It doesn’t even understand the question, or why it’s so important. Science’s final theory will be ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent and non-analytic, which means it will be a total joke to any thinking person, and it won’t answer anything. What these four versions of physics all have in common is that they reject mind, teleology and any suggestion that the universe is a thinking organism rather than dead material machine, i.e. they absolutely reject Aristotle. Strangely enough, Aristotle is right as far as the big picture goes – existence is indeed a teleological organism. What he got wrong was that he addressed it philosophically rather than mathematically.

C. S. Lewis “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or

chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” – C. S. Lewis Lewis’s argument is completely correct ... until he arrives at his conclusion. What he ought to have said is, “Unless I believe in idealism (and not materialism), I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in idealism.” Thought means that idealism is true. If materialism were true, there would be no such things as thoughts, and no such things as minds to think them. Thoughts, thinking and minds are 100% incompatible with reality predicated on lifeless, mindless material atoms. You cannot use thought to disbelieve in thought. You cannot use thought to prove the existence of non-thought (matter)! Idealism goes hand in hand with religion. Materialism goes hand in hand with atheism, and with the denial of mind as anything other than an inexplicable epiphenomenon of matter that has no causal agency. An atheist responded to Lewis’s argument in the following way: “Lewis’s premise here – that if minds were not designed by God, they must be unreliable for thinking – is almost laughable in view of the sadly overabundant evidence that, designed by God or not, brains are obviously unreliable instruments. It is only with the utmost care that humans can hope to arrive at the correct answer to even the most rudimentary problems.” This atheist is so dumb that he fails to realise he’s merely confirming Lewis’s point. If the brain produced by materialism is as unreliable as the atheist claims, it cannot support any substantive knowledge at all. All the “care” in the world couldn’t help it to arrive at the correct answer to anything. Alternatively, how would we know for sure that it had? Nietzsche’s principle of skepticism would reign supreme: “There are no facts, only interpretations; What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.” The only way correct answers are possible is if we live in an analytic world of necessary, immutable, eternal, a priori truths of reason, i.e. a world of ontological mathematical minds (monads).

The atheist continues, “I wonder how Lewis would respond if I were to tell him that this premise is correct: since God did not design his mind, it is spewing forth all sorts of nonsense, including his unwarranted belief in a supreme being. Nature has for some reason programmed it that way.” If God, or, more accurately, the ontological mathematical God Equation, did not design the mind then the atheist himself is spewing forth all sorts of nonsense too, including his unwarranted belief in matter, and even his denial of God (since he can’t ground any of his beliefs in anything other than contingency, opinion, conjecture and interpretation). The atheist says, “Ultimately, Lewis’s appeal to Christians lies in his defence of Christianity through the use of rational arguments. By not appealing to faith or the divine word of the Bible, Lewis strives to put Christianity, and therefore Christians, on the same intellectual levels with science and rationalists.” WTF! Scientists certainly aren’t on the same intellectual level as rationalists. In fact, scientists are just sensory believers. They have complete faith in the religion of materialism and empiricism, the “God” of which is simply the Christian God stripped of his mind and turned into a source of “spontaneous creation out of nothing”. Christianity has a God that intelligently creates something out of nothing. The God of science simply creates something out of nothing for no reason, with no explanation. There is absolutely no scientific mechanism or process for creating something from nothing. It literally operates at the level of magic and miracles, which makes it a religion, and not a science, and nothing to do with reason. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, rationally explains everything down to the finest detail. It’s all in the math. The atheist says, “This approach is soothing to believers suffering from feelings of inferiority, who rarely note that Lewis’s logic immediately collapses under even the most cursory critique.” The atheist has failed to notice that exactly the same is true of materialism, empiricism, science, atheism and his own arguments!

Meditation Meditation is about addressing states of consciousness. What you really need to address is states of rationalism. To be enlightened means to be totally, cosmically rational, fully in tune with universal ontological reason. Meditation is just about the worst route to enlightenment you can choose

(alongside faith). Meditation is a philosophy, yet another version of empiricism, and of phenomenology. It has zero to do with reason, and only irrational people would be attracted to it as their route to “Truth”.

Life without Free Will What would life be like without free will? It would be a machine world, a computer world. Do we live in such a world? Are we all programmed biological robots? Self-evidently, we are nothing like machines, hence Harris’s thesis is totally false. “One of the most common objections to my position on free will is that accepting it could have terrible consequences, psychologically or socially.” – Sam Harris If Harris’s thesis is true, we would have no choice in accepting it or rejecting it, and of being psychologically or socially affected or not, hence this is an absurd point. It becomes significant only if the thesis is false, yet some people choose to act as if it were true, thus excusing themselves of all responsibility for anything. “This is a strange rejoinder, analogous to what many religious people allege against atheism: Without a belief in God, human beings will cease to be good to one another. Both responses abandon any pretence of caring about what is true and merely change the subject.” – Sam Harris At all times, Harris argues as if his thesis is false, and that we have the ability to “care” about the truth, or to choose not to care about it, and engage in tactical evasions such as changing the subject. How can we do any of these things if we are not free? We’re certainly not to blame. Moreover, a person without free will can have no relationship with Truth or Knowledge since they can never choose any proposed truth over any other, or any supposed knowledge over any other, but simply have to accept whatever their deterministic programming confers on them. They have no choice in the matter, hence all of Harris’s points are senseless. However, he himself had no choice when he expressed them, since, according to his own thesis, he’s a programmed machine!

“There is also the question of how we should raise children in light of what science tells us about the nature of the human mind. It seems doubtful that a lecture on the illusoriness of free will should be part of an elementary school curriculum.” – Sam Harris Again, it’s ridiculously implied that we have some kind of choice, yet Harris’s whole case is that we have no free will, in which case how can we change anything at all? We have as much freedom as the earth orbiting the sun, i.e. none. Moreover, Harris’s thesis is predicated on the truth of science, but science isn’t true: ontological mathematics is! “In my view, the reality of good and evil does not depend upon the existence of free will...” – Sam Harris WTF! This is the purest sophistry. There is no good or evil in the jungle. Sharks and lions aren’t good or evil. Good and evil depend on the capacity to freely choose one moral option over another: to exercise a moral code. “...because with or without free will, we can distinguish between suffering and happiness.” – Sam Harris Without free will, we can’t distinguish between suffering and happiness. Can robots distinguish between suffering and happiness, except at the level of parameters programmed into them, and over which they have no say? Would they even care? And if they are programmed machines, why would they do anything differently? How would they do anything differently? Can robots experience the colour red? They might register “red” as a frequency or wavelength, but they would have no idea what red is. If torturers are made happy from causing suffering, why should their happiness be any less important than that of their victims? If it’s “good” to pursue happiness, why are the torturers doing anything wrong? The whole point of “God” is to provide an infallible standard of morality, of good and evil. If God is dead, it’s all just opinion. And why should we listen to Sam Harris’s amateur-hour opinions? He’s no Philosopher, just a controversialist and Sophist. “With or without free will, a psychopath who enjoys killing children is different from a paediatric surgeon who enjoys saving them. Whatever the truth about free will, these distinctions are unmistakable and well worth caring about.” – Sam Harris

According to Harris’s thesis, neither the psychopath nor surgeon could have acted differently, so what’s his point? Is he arguing that one set of robots should frown on the behaviour of another set? Should the victims of sharks denounce sharks? Would it change anything? It’s impossible to make any sense of what Harris says because at all times he’s using words associated with teleology, and the ability to judge and care, yet all of this is denied by his thesis. Without free will, we have no more ability to judge, care or change than a crocodile. “Might free will somehow be required for goodness to be manifest? How, for instance, does one become a paediatric surgeon? Well, you must first be born, with an intact nervous system, and then provided with a proper education. No freedom there, I’m afraid. You must also have the physical talent for the job and avoid smashing your hands at rugby. Needless to say, it won’t do to be someone who faints at the sight of blood. Chalk these achievements up to good luck as well. At some point you must decide to become a surgeon – a result, presumably, of first wanting to become one. Will you be the conscious source of this wanting? Will you be responsible for its prevailing over all the other things you want but that are incompatible with a career in medicine? No. If you succeed at becoming a surgeon, you will simply find yourself standing one day, scalpel in hand, at the confluence of all the genetic and environmental causes that led you to develop along this line. None of these events requires that you, the conscious subject, be the ultimate cause of your aspirations, abilities, and resulting behaviour. And, needless to say, you can take no credit for the fact that you weren’t born a psychopath.” – Sam Harris And equivalent arguments are true of the serial killer! Since neither the surgeon nor killer chose any of it, neither is good nor evil, merely amoral. Harris is applying a consequential “morality”, i.e. he is claiming that neither the surgeon nor the killer are moral agents but since, in Harris’s conventional, politically correct opinion, the consequences of the surgeon’s work are “good” and those of the serial killer “evil”, we must approve the surgeon and do something about the killer. Yet how we are to assess consequences if we are in fact robots with no choices? For a shark, good consequences flow from killing prey; otherwise it would die. Why should the opinions of killers be less valid in Harris’s system than those of surgeons? In Nazi Germany, Jewish surgeons were regarded as evil, and SS

serial killers as heroes. The Nazis were wrong only if you reject Nazi morality. Who is to decide what’s right and wrong if there’s no absolute Platonic standard, or “God” to which we can refer? It’s all just opinion, belief and interpretation. Harris regards his opinions regarding good and evil as self-evidently true, but plenty of people wouldn’t agree with him, and, in any case, it’s not a question of a democratic vote or a popularity contest. Harris needs a crash course in Nietzsche’s “immoralist” philosophy. “...am I responsible for the fact that it has never once occurred to me that I might like to be a surgeon?” – Sam Harris That’s like arguing that we are responsible for all the choices we didn’t make. Obviously, we are only responsible for the choices we did make. In any case, Harris plainly chose not to become a surgeon since he was aware of what a surgeon is and what is required to become a surgeon, and he elected to do something else. He says it never “occurred” to him that he might “like to become a surgeon”. Well you either find the idea of operating on people attractive or unattractive. Sam Harris isn’t a surgeon, so we know he didn’t find the idea appealing, so he rejected the option of going down that path. “Who gets the blame for my lack of inspiration? And what if the desire to become a surgeon suddenly arises tomorrow and becomes so intense that I jettison my other professional goals and enrol in medical school? Would I – that is, the part of me that is actually experiencing my life – be the true cause of these developments? Every moment of conscious effort – every thought, intention, and decision – will have been caused by events of which I am not conscious. Where is the freedom in this?” – Sam Harris Yet again, we return to Harris’s claim that our nature, personality, will character and desires have to be conscious, and under our conscious control, to qualify for what he defines as freedom. For the rest of us, we are free if we are doing what is characteristic of us. It would be a bizarre world if yesterday we rejected being a surgeon, and tomorrow it was our greatest desire. If this were possible, we wouldn’t be people at all, but mere random generators of behaviour, yet Harris argues that we can’t be free unless we can transform our nature overnight, at whim. He wants us to be free to do today what we would never have contemplated yesterday (since it would be entirely out of character and contrary to our nature). That isn’t freedom.

That’s madness. That’s a total repudiation of who we are. We are absolutely not free to be someone else – we are immortal souls – and that’s why we are who we are, and not someone else. Harris wants us to be able to choose our nature rather than be our nature, but if you can change your nature, then, unless it’s your nature to be changeable, you do not have a characteristic nature and that means that you have no core, no “self”, hence you are not a person at all. Of course, to fundamentalist materialists such as Harris, we are just contingent, ephemeral, ever-changing collections of lifeless, mindless, pointless, purposeless atoms, which have no nature, so it’s unsurprising that he should be so hostile to the concept of a nature based on a necessary soul, and not on contingent atoms. “If we cannot assign blame to the workings of the universe, how can evil people be held responsible for their actions? In the deepest sense, it seems, they can’t be. But in a practical sense, they must be. I see no contradiction in this.” – Sam Harris Well, you’re the only one! The workings of the universe can never be blamed. What a ridiculous idea. That’s like blaming hurricanes and earthquakes for killing people. A person isn’t evil if they had no choice. They had no more choice than an erupting volcano. Moreover, if we have no choice either, what does it mean to refer to a “practical sense”? We will do whatever we are made to do. After all, we have no say in it! “In fact, I think that keeping the deep causes of human behaviour in view would only improve our practical response to evil. The feeling that people are deeply responsible for who they are does nothing but produce moral illusions and psychological suffering.” – Sam Harris Keep “the deep causes of human behaviour in view”? We can’t even see them! Harris has simply produced a speculative, materialist account of “deep causes of human behaviour”. There’s zero evidence or proof that he’s right, and, given the standard materialist, empiricist interpretation of quantum mechanics, it’s extremely obscure what “cause” even means in the mouth of a materialist. “Imagine that you are enjoying your last nap of the summer, perhaps outside in a hammock somewhere, and are awakened by an unfamiliar

sound. You open your eyes to the sight of a large bear charging at you across the lawn. It should be easy enough to understand that you have a problem. If we swap this bear for a large man holding a butcher knife, the problem changes in a few interesting ways, but the sudden appearance of free will in the brain of your attacker is not among them.” – Sam Harris What! Free will doesn’t “suddenly appear”. It’s always there. As soon as we see a bear or a threatening man, we immediately imagine possible futures concerning what we might do, and freely evaluate and choose between those options. We do this rather than that. We don’t robotically do “X”. How does Harris account for the fact that we don’t respond reflexively but, rather, ponder various options (that we ourselves have thought up), and then choose between them? What’s the point of all this palaver if we were in fact always going to do “X” anyway (via scientific determinism). It’s a total waste of time that might actually endanger our life since it slows down our response. When responding to Harris’s bizarre claims, it’s like trying to understand someone talking an entirely different language. It’s incredibly hard to work out how he can justify saying the things he does. They make no sense at all. They’re like the arguments of a child. “A person’s conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware.” – Sam Harris So what? We are a totality – a whole comprising our unconscious and conscious. If our unconscious takes a decision, are we to disown it? Our unconscious is as much “us” as our conscious is – in fact, arguably more so. Our unconscious can be seen as our true, immortal Self, and our conscious as a contingent, mortal persona – a mask we wear during this lifetime. “What is more, they are preceded by deep causes – genes, childhood experience, etc. ...” – Sam Harris Note that there is no mention of the soul, which precedes “genes and childhood experiences”! “Our ignorance of both sets of facts gives rise to moral illusions.” – Sam Harris Harris is not providing us with any actual knowledge of “both sets of facts”, in which case there’s no reason for anyone to accept that his case isn’t as

delusional as the one he opposes. He is suffering from the illusion that free will is an illusion! How can he possibly refute this, given his own “logic”? “Some forms of knowledge are not for everyone.” – Sam Harris Indeed! Nor is the Truth for everyone, and certainly not for the Sophist Sam Harris. “Generally speaking, however, I don’t think that the illusoriness of free will is an ugly truth. Nor is it one that must remain a philosophical abstraction. In fact, as I write this, it is absolutely clear to me that I do not have free will.” – Sam Harris If it is absolutely clear, it’s because the pointless illusion that afflicts everyone else has somehow, miraculously, ceased to apply to Sam Harris. That was none of his doing, of course, but, rather, that of the laws of atoms. However, how do we know that these miraculous atoms can’t produce the illusion that there is no free will just as easily as the illusion that there is? What’s the scientific mechanism, Sam? And if you can’t say, why don’t you simply admit that you’re ignorant of what’s going on, hence your opinions are valueless. That would require you to be freely able to confront the laws of reason, but you deny the very possibility of that. “This knowledge doesn’t seem to prevent me from getting things done.” – Sam Harris How many machines get things done without their programmer? Who programmed Sam Harris? Lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms? We ought to be told. “Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life – or an unhappy one, for that matter.” – Sam Harris What possible function is served by consciousness in Harris’s world? If it were removed, and we were mere philosophical zombies, absolutely nothing would change in his worldview. Why did evolution produce a bizarre, pointless epiphenomenon with no efficacy at all? This is an absolute contradiction of Occam’s Razor. Entities have been multiplied

unnecessarily, to no effect. Nature never acts superfluously, hence Harris is 100% wrong. “I haven’t been noticeably harmed, and I believe I have benefited, from knowing that the next thought that unfurls in my mind will arise and become effective (or not) due to conditions that I cannot know and did not bring into being.” – Sam Harris What?! Harris’s whole case rests on an absolute hostility to our unconscious mind, and a denial that it’s part of us. Consciousness is the tip of the iceberg. Lots of things happen unconsciously. That does not mean that we are not free. “Understanding the true causes of human behaviour does not leave any room for the traditional notion of free will.” – Sam Harris The “true causes of human behaviour?” Harris subscribes to the utterly false doctrine of materialism. The last thing Harris knows about is the truth. “Seeing through the illusion of free will does not undercut the reality of love, for example – because loving other people is not a matter of fixating on the underlying causes of their behaviour. Rather, it is a matter of caring about them as people and enjoying their company. We want those we love to be happy, and we want to feel the way we feel in their presence. The difference between happiness and suffering does not depend on free will – indeed, it has no logical relationship to it (but then, nothing does, because the very idea of free will makes no sense).” – Sam Harris Do you see how Harris continually argues backwards from his conclusion – that free will makes no sense (to him!)? He assumes it from the outset. If we don’t freely choose to love one person rather than another, why don’t we love everyone? How can happiness and suffering have nothing to do with free will? Do they also have nothing to do with teleology (another thing denied by Sam Harris)? We suffer because we can imagine a better future but feel frustrated in our inability to bring it about.

***** “Harris, on my reading, is caught on the horns of a dilemma. He wants to deny free will and deep responsibility, but also preserve talk of good and evil, right and wrong, and moral responsibility. (The issue about love is, for

me, one of the least interesting, partly as love is such a broad and nebulous concept.) Yet he eschews compatibilist approaches that try to show how what we value about free will – the capacity to make choices with moral responsibility – can exist in a deterministic universe. “The compatibilist argues that if we define moral agency and responsibility in terms that are compatible with determinism, then we can say that the deterministic processes that underpin moral agency and responsibility constitute free will. This may not be free will in the libertarian sense of floating free from the network of cause and effect that governs the actions of everything else in the universe, but this is not a problem for the compatibilist per se – indeed, the whole point of compatibilism is to say, ‘Look, we can’t have free will in the libertarian sense as it’s not only implausible but incoherent. But if we think about why we care about free will, it comes down to issues of choice and responsibility – so let’s see if these concepts can make sense in a deterministic universe, and whether we can preserve a sense of free will worth wanting that doesn’t commit us to metaphysical nonsense’. The bottom line is that if you accept determinism, reject the libertarian conception of free will, and yet believe that moral responsibility is compatible with these positions, then you’re essentially endorsing a compatibilist view of free will – which opens up the door to talking about praise and blame, right and wrong, and good and evil. “Yet despite talking about moral responsibility, Harris is at pains to distance himself from compatibilism. He thinks this approach is simply changing the subject, because instead of talking about free will in the libertarian sense – which Harris rejects and which he thinks is the common sense understanding of free will – compatibilists try to re-work the meaning of free will. I think this misunderstands the compatibilist enterprise, which I admit lacks the compelling force of a logical, knockdown argument. But compatibilism cannot be dismissed as merely changing the subject; it’s trying to change the way we talk about the subject of free will. And the reason for doing that is to avoid the confusions and contradictions in which Harris finds himself embroiled. There could a simple solution to all this: maybe, just maybe, Harris is a crypto-compatibilist after all!” – Dan Jones “I confess that compatibilist arguments often remind me of a dream scene in the Coen brothers’ film A Serious Man. Larry Gopnik, a lecturer in physics who is having the dream, has just talked his class through Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. When the students leave, one person remains seated:

Sy Ableman, the man Larry’s wife was going to leave him for but who recently died in a car crash. Responding to Gopnik’s exposition of the uncertainty principle, Ableman says, in a most condescending way, ‘Now, I’ll concede that it’s subtle and clever – but at the end of the day, is it convincing?’” – Dan Jones One of the key reasons why people don’t “get” compatibilism is that they fail to understand the roles of Form and Content in causation and determinism. If we lived in a world of pure Form, there would indeed be no such thing as free will. However, the flip side of Form in ontological mathematics is Content, i.e. Content is that which is carried by Form, but is not the Form itself. A monadic mind is that which experiences Content, and how it experiences the Content shapes how it responds to the Content, and how it responds to the Content has direct consequences for Form. If we were totally passive, Form would always have its way, and follow the path of least resistance – as required by Occam’s Razor, the Law of Economy. However, Form is always accompanied by Content, and we can equally say that Content carries Form, and Content has a Form. So, our Content-driven response to our experience of Content must have a Form, but now it’s we ourselves who are generating Form rather than simply having Form imposed on us. Deniers of free will, such as Sam Harris, cannot conceive that we have any causal agency. Their whole atheistic, nihilistic worldview is predicated on atoms that have no minds, no purposes, no ability to experience anything and react with their own causal response, i.e. with a causal response outside the “scientific” network of cause and effect where nothing has inner internal causal agency, and there’s only external causal agency. Literally, your opinion of free will flows entirely from your understanding of ontology. If you get your ontology wrong, how you think about the problem is wrong, and everything you say about the subject is wrong. This is the case with Sam Harris. His materialism, and explicit denial of the existence of souls that possess their own causal agency outside the causal network with which they are surrounded, hence can inject new causation into the network, makes it impossible for him to think about free will coherently. Given his view of causation, he simply cannot make any sense of the concept of free will. To Harris’s credit, he is at least a more consistent thinker than fellow atheist and materialist Daniel Dennett who perversely defends

compatibilism despite advocating an ontology that makes free will impossible. Harris sees Dennett’s arguments as specious, and he’s right. However, Harris’s own arguments are specious when he tries to defend morality despite having rendered morality impossible. Never forget, compatibilism must always be defined with regard to Form and Content, and not Form alone. Moreover, it must be defined with regard to a universe that comprises nothing but monadic minds. Any particular monad has its own causal agency, but it’s also confronted by the causal agency of any other particular monad, and by the agency of all monads put together (including itself), i.e. the causal agency of the Monadic Collective. This is the only ontological framework in which to meaningfully consider free will. In the ontology of fundamentalist materialists such as Sam Harris, there are no souls, hence no individual causal agents. There is only the causal agency of the Atomic Collective, i.e. the collection of all lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms, which have no will, no desires, and no ability to inject their own causal input into the world’s causal network. Clearly, free will is impossible in such a scenario, just as Harris says. However, the scenario itself is wrong, which is why Harris is wrong. Free will can never be consistent with materialism. Indeed, free will is the proof that idealism is true and materialism false, which is why materialists like Harris are so keen to shoot down free will. Materialists such as Dennett who defend free will are a joke. If you are someone who agrees with Harris and regards free will as false and illusory then, no matter what you might believe about yourself, you are a materialist atheist and nihilist who denies idealism and the existence of the monadic soul. Many people are driven by the latest thing they’ve read or heard. If they come across a book or video by someone such as Harris – full of clever sophistry and specious and meretricious arguments that sound quite convincing if you fail to see their underlying fallacies – they are swept along by enthusiasm for these arguments and think they’re right. That’s why all arguments should be reduced to ontology and epistemology, so that it can be seen exactly what base people are arguing from. Remember, there’s only one correct ontology and epistemology, and anyone not using that correct worldview is deceiving you (and himself). Existence is mathematical. When humans make mathematical claims, these claims are either right or wrong. There is no intermediate state.

There’s no such mathematical state as “a bit right and a bit wrong”. Mathematics is not “fuzzy”. It’s clarity itself. Moreover, mathematics, as performed by the perfect universe rather than by confused, imperfect human minds, is always 100% right, 100% true, 100% perfect, 100% reliable, 100% incapable of erring. Nothing can go wrong in an eternal mathematical universe. No mistake can ever be made. There can be no falsehood, error, paradox, inconsistency or incompleteness in the structure and operations of the universe. Only mathematics guarantees this. Humans are right when they think mathematically, and wrong when they think in any other way. They become mired in opinion, belief, hypothesis, self-delusion and interpretation.

The Nature of Reason Reason is either right or wrong. It either explains everything (in ultimate terms) or doesn’t explain anything. Kant believed that pure reason erred. Of course, to a rationalist, it’s Kant that erred, not reason. It’s impossible for reason to err. It is, however, extremely probable that a fallible human being will err. All humans err whenever they depart from the strict domain of reason – the domain of mathematics. Reason outside that domain isn’t true reason. It’s corrupted and perverted, a simulacrum of its true self. Reason errs when it’s misapplied, and it was misapplied by Kant. It’s also misapplied by science. True reason is noumenal, not phenomenal, and can only be validly, precisely applied to the noumenal domain. Kant pressed it into the service of the empirical, phenomenal domain, and he did so to satisfy the increasingly powerful scientific lobby. Reason is Platonic. It’s eternal and immutable, outside space and time. The eternal truths of reason have nothing to do with the contingent scientific world. Kant was right that reason itself is not an appearance and is not subject at all to any conditions of sensibility. It cannot be placed in any temporal sequence and is not subject to the dynamical laws of physics. Reason is what ontologically underlies everything, and it’s expressed through mathematics. Ontological reason = ontological mathematics.

The Voice Sam Harris ... a classic Sophist, the very voice of Sophistry. Don’t let the Sophists deceive you. See through the myriad meretricious fallacies with which they try to seduce and convert you.

Plato versus Science For Plato, there’s a perfect, intelligible domain of Form, providing an absolute, infallible standard of knowledge, and accessed by reason alone, and never by the senses. Plato saw the sensible domain as illusory, and unreliable, a place of mere opinion and belief, and no sure knowledge. Science takes the exact reverse attitude. It denies that there’s any transcendent domain of rational, intellectual truth, and instead says that the sensible world is where the “truth” resides. Except it can’t define this truth. All it does is match mathematical guesses to sensory, experimental observations. All of science’s claims must be falsifiable (hence can’t be true since truth cannot be falsified), and all of its claims are expected to be verifiable with regard to the senses (hence can’t be true since the truth is in no need of sensory verification, having existed before there were any senses). In other words, science is the perfect subject for Sophists who believe that the world of the senses, rather than the mathematical world of reason and intellect, is the world of “truth”, yet this “truth” can never be definitively verified and always remains falsifiable, hence has no connection whatsoever with the infallible, absolute, eternal Truth. Sophists are empiricists and materialists, and are ruled by their senses, not by reason and intellect. Reason is pressed into the service of the senses, an absurd act since the senses are inherently irrational (they’re all about Content rather than Form). Reason is thus perverted and corrupted, and produces nothing but beliefs, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations that can never be proved. There is no absolute standard of knowledge for Sophists. Man is the measure of all things, but man is inherently fallible, unreliable and deluded. Philosophers are those who agree with Plato that the Truth must be unarguable, absolute, immutable, definitive and eternal – everything to which science is opposed, and which it regards as “abstract”, metaphysical

and “empty”. For Philosophers, transcendent reason, not the human senses, reveal the Truth to us. Philosophers are rationalists, idealists and intellectuals. For a Philosopher, reason and intellect are primary. They constitute our “organs of Truth” – but only if we apply them properly. For a Sophist, the senses and our experiences are primary. These are privileged over reason and intellect. Sophists aren’t interested in absolute Truth, in eternal, infallible knowledge. What they want is what works for them right now. They are instrumentalists and pragmatists. They want sensory “truth” – with a small “t”, not intellectual “Truth” with a capital “T”. These are two wholly different worldviews. Sophists (scientists) are happy with provisional, contingent, arbitrary truth that can be “verified” with regard to the senses. A Philosopher would never regard the human senses as having any connection at all with Absolute Truth and Knowledge. The senses are, by definition, not rational organs, so how can they lead us to the rational Truth of the rational world? Self-evidently, only Reason itself can lead us there. Philosophers are mathematicians rather than scientists, and find science childish, ugly and plebeian – an ever-changing, provisional set of guesses matched to sensory observations. If you can’t see how radically different Sophists and Philosophers are, you’re a Sophist! People such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking are pure Sophists, with no regard for Truth, only for what “makes sense to them”. They are ruled by “common sense” (mob sense), and their senses. For them, “seeing is believing”, and if it can’t be seen it can’t be believed, and can’t exist. If the world is rational, which it is, it’s made of reason, and reason is mental and mathematical (grounded in mathematical monadic minds). If the world is sensory, it’s made of matter, and matter isn’t rational and analytic (unlike monads). Matter, it can never be stressed enough, has absolutely no provable existence. Everything we know about existence is mental (i.e. mediated by mind), and there is no reason whatsoever to conjecture that there’s a non-mental reality out there. Cartesian dualism asserts that there’s mind (unextended) and matter (extended). In fact, there are only immaterial, unextended Fourier frequency domains (minds) and the extended Fourier spacetime domains they are capable of projecting via Fourier mathematics. There is no matter independent of mind, hence scientific materialism is inherently false.

Science is the systematic misinterpretation of Fourier mathematics, with the senses being privileged over reason and intellect. Sophists are obsessed with sensory “evidence”. Philosophers are obsessed with intellectual, rational proof. Evidence and proof are radically different things. There can be no sensory evidence at all for how reality is in itself. Evidence is all about phenomena (the world of appearances) and not noumena (the world of Truth, as things really are in themselves). Sophists are plebeians guided by appearances. Philosophers are patricians guided by what must rationally lie beyond appearances (what the appearances are appearance of). Sophists regard appearances as things-in-themselves, i.e. what you see is what you get, and there’s nothing unseen. If Sophists were ever to accept that there are real, non-sensory things beyond appearance (i.e. hidden variables; rational unobservables), their Sophistry would collapse. Their “knowledge” is not real knowledge, only illusory knowledge. Sophists worship physics, while Philosophers worship metaphysics (that which comes after physics). Physics is all about appearances, while metaphysics is all about what lies beneath and behind appearances. It is in fact ontological mathematics that underlies appearances, and thus physics. Physics works only because it’s defined by mathematics. However, it approaches mathematics in a synthetic, sensory, a posteriori manner rather than in the analytic, rational, a priori manner actually required. There are three view of reality: 1) Religion – no mathematics at all; Mythos, stories, narrative, prophets, priests, popes, holy texts, revelation, faith, beliefs, mystical intuitions. Driven by emotion. 2) Science – the mathematics of real numbers, of appearance; sensory mathematics; ad hoc, provisional, arbitrary, full of guesses that are forced to match experimental data. Driven by the senses. 3) Ontological mathematics – the mathematics of complex numbers, monads, sines and cosines, the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier analysis; analytic, a priori, rationalist, noumenal, intellectual. Driven by reason and intellect. The vast majority of people – Mythos humanity – are religious, and wholly deluded. A small number of people – Logos humanity – is split into two:

scientists (physicists) and mathematicians (metaphysicists). Mythos humanity is dominated by feelings, Scientific Logos humanity is dominated by the senses, and Mathematical Logos humanity is ruled by reason. This is a rational world, not a world of the senses or feelings, so only the Mathematical Logos humans are right. They are the Philosophers, and they are engaged in a bitter war with the Sophists and the Believers. Mathematical Logos Humanity is Higher Humanity, and the future progress of the human race is entirely dependent on their success. Don’t side with the Sophists such as Harris and Dawkins. Join the Philosophers, the people of Truth, people such as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Hegel and Gödel.

***** Science is defined by sensory experiments. Ontological mathematics is defined by the analytic study of Form and Content. Ontological mathematics can be done in the head. It requires no multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Colliders. Humanity must overcome Faith (mainstream religion: emotions and mystical intuition) and Sophistry (science: the senses), and turn to Philosophy (ontological mathematics: reason and intellect). How else can you reach the Truth of a rational universe except through the exercise of reason?! Feelings won’t help, mysticism won’t help, and nor will the senses. Reason alone is the Way to the Truth. This is an intelligible world, not sensible, emotional or mystical. It’s critical for the Philosophers to defeat the scientific Sophists who have projected an entirely false model of reality. Scientists are too stupid to realise that science works only because of mathematics, which immediately raises the question of why science isn’t simply mathematics. Ontological mathematics is what allows physics to be converted into pure, analytic mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the study of energy, and energy is just analytic sinusoidal waves – sines and cosines. Who needs physics? Physics is in any case getting closer and closer to ontological mathematics. The inconceivably small, one-dimensional vibrating energy strings of M-theory are as close as a materialist can get to the notion of dimensionless sinusoidal energy waves.

Pythagoras and Plato were the first great mathematicians, perfectly at home with the notion of an invisible, rational order of existence. Aristotle was the first empiricist scientist, determined to align “true reality” with the world of appearances, yet even he relied heavily on rationalist metaphysics. Leibniz adopted a scientific approach based on the metaphysics of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonism and Descartes. He was the last rationalist scientist. Science, under the influence of Newton, has been empiricist ever since, and has rejected all metaphysics, to its extreme detriment.

The Options According to Abrahamism, an eternal God one day decided to create a world and souls, and this world will continue until Judgment Day, when the world will be brought to an end, and then all souls will be sent to either heaven or hell, and those will then continue forever as the remaining reality. According to Eastern religion, the universe goes through cycles, through birth, maturation and death, and souls can come to enlightenment during that process and become one with the universe, or be absorbed into it, or whatever other mystical image you prefer. According to science, existence is about infinite contingent regress, and has no “bottom”, no ultimate explanation. For Illuminism, there’s no mysticism, no infinite regress and no Creator God plus created souls. Rather, there’s an eternal God Equation plus eternal evolutionary souls that cycle from bare potential to perfect actualisation (they become Gods), and then start all over again, as decreed by cyclic mathematical symmetry in a system predicated on Euler circles and periodic sinusoids. It’s all in the math.

The Harris Fallacy “In his book, The Moral Landscape, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris also argues against incompatibilist free will. He offers one thought experiment where a mad scientist represents determinism. In Harris’s example, the mad scientist uses a machine to control all the desires, and thus all the behaviour, of a particular human. Harris believes that it is no longer as tempting, in this case, to say the victim has ‘free will’. Harris says

nothing changes if the machine controls desires at random – the victim still seems to lack free will. Harris then argues that we are also the victims of such unpredictable desires (but due to the unconscious machinations of our brain, rather than those of a mad scientist). Based on this introspection, he writes ‘This discloses the real mystery of free will: if our experience is compatible with its utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for it in the first place?’ adding that ‘Whether they are predictable or not, we do not cause our causes.’ That is, he believes there is compelling evidence of absence of free will. Harris’ viewpoint implicitly assumes a philosophy of materialism, that is, that mental events are reducible to neurological occurrences.” – Wikipedia Harris’s analogy is absurd. For one thing, the mad scientist is himself selfevidently free. Secondly, Harris frames the analogy on the basis of the conclusion that he has already reached, i.e. that materialism is correct. No causal agency is assigned to human beings (apart from the mad scientist). They are simply the puppets of outside forces. Therefore, as soon as agency is supplied to humans via autonomous minds, Harris’s entire argument is falsified at a stroke. Let’s provide an alternative version of Harris’s analogy. Let’s imagine that the mad scientist creates a fleet of flying drones, all of which he remotely controls, deciding every single thing they do (this represents hard determinism). Is it possible to conceive that most of these drones would miraculously develop the notion that they’re freely choosing their own movements, while a select few would just as miraculously – and rightly – perceive that everything they do is being controlled from outside them? What possible laws of science could result in these two diametrically opposed outcomes? The case against free will invokes a much greater mystery than free will itself, and is even more need of explanation. Occam’s Razor cuts through all the bullshit and instructs us to accept free will as true, and find the means to explain it. As it turns out, it’s not even a hard problem. As soon as you understand ontological Fourier mathematics, you have the answer. The trouble is that almost all of the human race is ignorant of Fourier mathematics, has no clue what it means ontologically, and in any case regards math as a weird abstraction that tells us nothing about reality. Humanity is too stupid to look in the right places for the answers to existence, and if you insist on looking in the wrong places, you will

invariably be wrong. All of the nonsense talked about free will stems from the invocation of wholly false ontologies that are more in need of justification than free will itself. It’s not even funny how feeble Harris’s arguments are. He’s incapable of imagining that his paradigmatic materialist view is false, and, because of that, he’s incapable of critiquing his own position and seeing the myriad deficiencies in it. We can easily criticise his position because we have taken the trouble to study the “logic” of materialism and empiricism. He has never once taken the trouble to consider the logic of idealism and rationalism. It simply doesn’t enter his head to do so – which places him at a catastrophic disadvantage. He has treated his opponents with contempt, setting up a large number of Aunt Sallies and Straw Men to knock down, and refusing to conceive of the strongest rather than weakest position of his enemies. This is the classic tactic of a Sophist. Harris has no intellectual integrity and no respect for the Truth. He is a mere quibbling debater, looking to make a name for himself and achieve “success”. He gives science a bad name. There’s nothing more intellectually offensive than that this charlatan should have established something called “Project Reason”, surely the greatest irony of modern times. Harris says that this project is for “spreading science and secular values”. Well, it’s certainly not for spreading rationalist, logical, mathematical, metaphysical values. He ought to rename it Project Empiricism, or Project Unreason, or Project Materialism, or Project Atheism, or Project Nihilism, or Project Senses. The last thing it has anything to do with is Reason.

***** “Yes, choices, efforts, intentions, reasoning, and other mental processes influence our behaviour – but they are themselves part of a stream of causes which precede conscious awareness and over which we exert no ultimate control. My choices matter, but I cannot choose what I choose. And if it ever appears that I do – for instance, when going back and forth between two options – I do not choose to choose what I choose. There’s a regress here that always ends in darkness.” – Sam Harris “Sam is a ‘hard determinist’ who more or less believes that we are, for lack of a better term, automatons. He maintains that conscious decision-making

is nothing more than an elaborate illusion pulled over us by the complex circuitry of our brains. He further attempts to argue – unsuccessfully, in my opinion – that this should not demean our sense of responsibility and justice...” – Mike Doolittle “But the biggest issue Sam’s viewpoint raises is why we have consciousness at all. If we are deterministic automatons, we could carry out all our behaviours just as well regardless of whether we were aware of them. And yet, we have this phenomenon of subjective experience which says, ‘I experienced that.’ We are self-aware and are cognizant of our decisions. The best Sam’s explanation can offer is that consciousness is a happy by-product of mechanistic processes. From an evolutionary standpoint, this seems wanting; why would consciousness evolve if it offered us no advantages whatsoever?” – Mike Doolittle “Sam, like most hard determinists, argues that there’s simply no place in the causal chain of events for free will to emerge; that, I believe, is a failure of imagination more than science or philosophy. It is possible – and indeed research seems to be suggesting as much – that consciousness does influence our behaviour. ... Sam’s often presented research supposedly shows that our decisions occur in our subconscious before we’re aware of making them. But on closer examination, these studies are far from the death knell to free will that Sam portrays them to be. ... A much more comprehensive review of literature reveals the opposite: that conscious thought does influence our behaviour. In a review of literature published in the Annual Review of Psychology, researchers from Florida State concluded: ‘The evidence for conscious causation of behaviour is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. However, conscious causation is often indirect and delayed, and it depends on interplay with unconscious processes.’ Consciousness seems especially useful for enabling behaviour to be shaped by non-present factors and by social and cultural information, as well as for dealing with multiple competing options or impulses. It is plausible that almost every human behaviour comes from a mixture of conscious and unconscious processing. Much work needs to be done to understand this interplay, and I’ll spare the fuss over precisely what ‘free will’ is supposed to mean. But if our conscious thought can indeed influence our actions, then the hard determinism espoused by Sam Harris is an emperor with no clothes. There

is something to our consciousness and self-awareness that is functional, which evolved for specific reasons – not simply a pleasant illusion played by the subconscious brain.” – Mike Doolittle

Reinterpretation Everything Sam Harris says comes from the empiricist, materialist, atheistic, scientific perspective. Therefore, every single conclusion he arrives at can be completely reinterpreted from a rationalist, idealist, religious, spiritual, mathematical perspective. Absolutely nothing he says about ultimate reality is true. That’s what happens when you’re a Sophist rather than a Philosopher.

And Repeat... Philosopher Alfred Mele argues that there are different “grades” of free will. What he calls “regular” free will is a compatibilist conception of free will. He says, “My compatibilist proposal adds the following to being an ideally self-controlled and mentally healthy agent who regularly exercises his powers of self-control: the agent has no compelled or coercively produced attitudes, his beliefs are conducive to informed deliberation about all matters that concern him, and he is a reliable deliberator. When all of this is true of an agent who nondeviantly A-s on the basis of a rationally formed deliberative judgment that it would be best to A, he A-s freely. So, at least, I proposed.” This is a wholly specious argument, a kind of “game theory” proposal. The contention is that we are free when we do the thing that we rationally ought to do. The unspoken corollary is that when we don’t do what we ought to do, we are being unfree. This is absurd. Then Mele mentions “mid-grade” free will. This is an incompatibilist conception. Imagine we could exactly replay a scenario over and over again. In any deterministic conception of the situation, we would do the same thing every time. In an indeterministic, libertarian set-up, we might do something different every time. With determinism, we can never decide differently given the same situation. With indeterminism, we can always decide differently in the same situation. Mele then mentions “premium grade” free will, which he links to the soul, i.e. an immaterial mind outside the physical realm and outside

physical causation. He emphatically rejects this option. Of course, this is the only way in which free will can actually work. Mele rejects the only workable solution and embraces two impossible scenarios! Sam Harris is correct to ridicule such positions. Free will can make no sense at all in a scientific world. It can succeed only in a mathematical world involving a material domain inside space and time, and an immaterial, frequency (mental) domain outside space and time. You would never catch “philosophers” such as Mele and Dennett discussing such a scenario. Like most professional philosophers, they are not philosophers at all, but Sophists. They’re clueless about mathematics, and since we live in an exclusively mathematical world, everything they say is false.

The Two-Stage Model of Free Will “The two-stage argument is designed to defeat the standard argument against free will. In that very simple and logical argument: P1. Either determinism or indeterminism is true. (The philosopher J. J. C. Smart points out that these exhaust the logical possibilities.) P2. If determinism is true, we are not free. P3. If indeterminism is true, our decisions are random and we lack responsibility (or, anyway, control is lacking).” – Wikipedia P1 is certainly true. Existence is either 100% deterministic or 100% indeterministic. There can be no in-between states, no hybrid situations, no mixtures, no dualism. P2 is certainly false. There is absolutely no incompatibility between determinism and freedom. All free actions are determined if there is a reason and purpose behind them, and they are enacted through a universal mathematical law (the God Equation). P3 is certainly true. Indeterminism is absolutely incompatible with freedom since we are not making free decisions, but, rather, random decisions for which we have no reasons or purposes.

Scientific materialists such as Sam Harris who assert that free will is an illusion agree with P1, P2, and P3. Compatibilists reject P2 and libertarians reject P3. “In the first ‘free’ stage of the two-stage model, the indeterminism is limited to the generation of alternative possibilities, it does not directly cause the willed decision, thus negating P2. “In the second ‘will’ stage, the decision is not predetermined by events in the distant past, before the agent was born, indeed possibly back to the origin of the universe in the extreme determinism view. “Identifying the source of indeterminism in the free stage, and locating it in the brain, has proved to be a challenge for philosophers and scientists. A random quantum mechanical event in the brain amplified to the macroscopic level might only do harm if it was involved directly in the decision.” – Wikipedia The two-stage model, as defined here, automatically fails by denying P1 (that either determinism is indeterminism is exclusively true). In reality, no indeterminism appears at any stage. What the first stage rightly concerns is the “generation of alternative possibilities”, but this is deterministic, not indeterministic. Our minds are nothing but “thinking substance”, as Descartes put it. All they do is generate thoughts, and, by default, these thoughts are unconscious. As we see in our own world, consciousness is extremely rare amongst animals. These unconscious thoughts are not generated linearly, sequentially and one at a time. The internet provides the best analogy for reflecting the activity of the mind: there’s an enormous amount of deterministic activity going on everywhere at once, with no centralised command and control. By its very nature, the mind generates more “alternative possibilities” than can ever be fully organised and assessed. We are compelled to perform some kind of natural selection on all of this bewildering activity, and select which options best reflect our purpose (to maximise our power; all decision-making is guided by our Will to Power – we always do what we believe is best for our current and future power). The two-stage model should therefore be defined in the following way: 1) The deterministic generation of a vast number of possibilities.

2) The deterministic choosing between these possibilities to arrive at a specific course of action. The selection is always tied to our Will to Power. We scan all of the possibilities offered to us, and evaluate them according to how we think they will assist the increase of our power. The two-stage model is absolutely correct that the “decision is not predetermined by events in the distant past, before the agent was born, indeed possibly back to the origin of the universe in the extreme determinism view.” The internet is an enormous feedback system, and involves subjective responses to information, and these can never be known in advance. Determinism, as misunderstood by scientific materialists, involves only objective processes, and there is no subjective component at all (science denies the existence of autonomous minds outside space and time, hence outside the causal chains of scientific materialism). Any version of determinism that does not include objective and subjective elements is false. As soon as subjective responses outside space and time are included in the deterministic picture, we escape from all of the fallacies that are attributed to determinism (which concern only objective, scientific processes in space and time). The central reason why free will is denied by so many people is that they have failed to define determinism properly. Their definition presupposes the truth of scientific materialism, and if this ideology is false, so is the conventional, scientific view of determinism. To put it another way, determinism based on idealism and involving subjective minds is totally different from determinism based on materialism, which denies mental subjectivity that possesses causal power. When a Fundamentalist Materialist such as Sam Harris denies free will, what he’s actually denying is the existence of subjective causal minds (souls). Plainly, you cannot have free will without free souls independent of scientific (spacetime) determinism. What’s baffling are those Fundamentalist Materialists such as Daniel Dennett who support free will while denying the existence of the soul. This is totally incoherent. Wikipedia says, “Identifying the source of indeterminism in the free stage, and locating it in the brain, has proved to be a challenge for philosophers and scientists.” Indeed! It’s an impossible task. There is no indeterminism at all. These people are confusing indeterminism with the simultaneous, deterministic generation of a vast array of thoughts. They

find it impossible to understand that the mind comprises endless deterministic processes occurring at once, and all feeding back into each other. The generation of a vast array of weird and wonderful deterministic possibilities is misconstrued as the indeterministic generation of possibilities. Biological Evolution “Ernst Mayr called biological evolution a ‘two-step process’, in which random variations in the gene pool are followed by law-like natural selection.” – Wikipedia Classical science was 100% deterministic. Modern science is radically different and continually refers to indeterminism and randomness. There are no such things! Just as there is no random generation of ideas in the mind, nor is there any process producing random variations in the gene pool. No one has ever observed a random genetic mutation or ever could. The hypothesis of random genetic mutation flows – exactly like the denial of free will – from the denial of any underlying causal arena of mind. If there are no minds doing things for purposeful reasons then all that’s left is to appeal to 100% scientific determinism (in which case there are no random genetic mutations (!), and all are caused by inevitable scientific processes) ... or to appeal to miraculous randomness where things happen for no reason (they “just happen”), which is what modern science has chosen to do. Science is a house of cards. As soon as you accept idealism over materialism, the entire basis of scientific materialism collapses, and you can’t take any scientific claim seriously, whether it concerns random genetic mutations, the random collapse of wavefunctions, the denial of free will, many worlds, the Multiverse, unobserved cats being alive and dead at once, the moon not existing when no one is looking at it, relativity, existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason at the Big Bang, and so on. If you reject any part of it, the whole thing goes down. As soon as you accept the primacy of mind over matter, rather than matter over mind, scientific materialism becomes absurd. The whole of science can be explained using mathematics, and mathematics, unlike science, is 100% consistent with the existence of mind. The fundamental ontological mathematical unit is the singularity, and that’s exactly what a mind is – a mathematical singularity outside space and time. What is the thing most hated and feared by physicists, where all of their beliefs and

laws come to grief? – well, the singularity of course. As soon as you understand what singularities actually are – mathematical minds – you see how false scientific materialism is, and you understand exactly why it will never be able to explain reality, given that ultimate reality is a singularity phenomenon. “Free will is also a two-stage creative process – first random and ‘free’, then a lawful ‘will’. First chance, then choice.” – Wikipedia This is just nonsense. There is no random element to free will. There is no “chance”. There is deterministic generation of possibilities, involving subjectivity, and then the subjective, deterministic selection of one option from those possibilities. There is no random generation of possibilities and then objective, deterministic selection of one of those possibilities, as materialists such as Daniel Dennett claim, in a Darwinist-like manner (their preferred model of existence). “The mind’s ‘two-stage’ ability to be creative and free is likely evolved indirectly from Mayr’s ‘two-step’ process and then directly from the combination of random and lawlike behaviour in the lower animals pointed out by Martin Heisenberg.” – Wikipedia The whole of science is increasingly predicated on a fallacious, two-stage model involving inexplicable randomness followed by lawlike ordering. This is just a new version of Cartesian substance dualism, and suffers from all of the same problems. How can randomness and law co-exist? How can they interact with each other? Which is more fundamental? If law is more fundamental, how does it give rise to randomness? If randomness is more fundamental, how does it give rise to law? Scientists have simply reinvented Cartesian dualism, but with Cartesian mind replaced by randomness. By the same token, science has replaced “God” as Creator with randomness as Creator, except God does things for reasons, and randomness doesn’t. Wherever you see scientists appealing to randomness, you should automatically understand that they are doing so because they refuse to refer to causal minds of any kind. Randomness is the scientific materialist substitute for mind and God. Only a totally irrational person would prefer randomness as the “explanation” of anything. In fact, randomness is non-explanation. It’s an appeal to magic and miracles – to things happening for no reason, with no purpose.

You have to understand that when scientists contemplate any problem at all, they do so from the framework that mind is false and randomness is true. If this is false – which it is – all of science is now predicated on nonsense! The only thing keeping the science show on the road is math. If scientists stumble on good enough equations, they can still operate successfully, even if their interpretation of what those equations means ontologically is as false as you can possibly get (which it invariably is). “Free will is therefore not an ad hoc development in humans, as many philosophers (especially theologians) have thought.” – Wikipedia Who said it was, other than Abrahamic nutcases? “Getting from behavioural freedom in the lower animals to free will in humans has primarily involved significant changes in the complexity of the second stage – the selection process.” – Wikipedia The selection process is indeed vital. Within the human race, smart people are much better at this process than stupid people. They generate better possibilities for action, and they evaluate them more accurately and effectively, and that leads to a better and more successful life, with fewer mistakes. Selection is of course inherently tied to reason. The more rational you are, the more rational your possibilities and selections will be. Many people do things for bad reasons, not for lack of reasons. To act through bad reasoning is what we define as “irrationalism”. People who use good reasoning act rationally. “Although randomness may at all levels have the same source in chaotic thermal and quantal noise...” – Wikipedia We repeat, there is no randomness anywhere at all. Wherever scientists refer to randomness, they should actually be referring to causal, deterministic mental processes, none of which are observable via the empirical scientific method based predicated on observation. Equally, no random process has ever been observed. All “randomist” explanations are unobservable, hence non-scientific They are ideological inferences flowing from the dogmatism of materialism and empiricism, and the emphatic denial of idealism and rationalism.

The irony is that materialism and empiricism aren’t particularly good partners, although science always puts them together. John Locke was a materialist empiricist, yet he believed in souls. His empiricist successors all abandoned materialism entirely: Berkeley was an idealist empiricist, Hume a skeptical empiricist and Kant a transcendental empiricist. So, there’s no reason to link materialism and empiricism, as science does. Sadly, scientists are hopelessly philosophically illiterate. Moreover, neither materialism nor empiricism gives any support at all to science’s claims regarding randomness. Classical, materialistic science says that matter atoms obey deterministic laws, and don’t suddenly “do their own thing” without reason, contrary to law. As for the empiricism angle, it’s all about observation and experience, but no one has ever observed any random event. Any event inferred to be random can just as easily be reinterpreted in causal, deterministic terms, involving hidden, noumenal, mental variables and unobservables. The involvement of such hidden variables can never be empirically disproved by science, just as the involvement of random events can never be empirically proved. Any indeterministic explanation of anything can automatically be recast as a deterministic explanation involving rational hidden variables. There is never any reason to be an indeterminist. If you accept that this is a rational universe, you must be prepared to accept that rational explanations always trump irrational explanations. So, if the rational order depends on things that cannot be seen (rational unobservables) – and why shouldn’t it be? – then why should the unseen elements be rejected? Why should the world be based on sensory rather than non-sensory things? Rationalists are willing to defend determinism on the basis of hidden rational variables (which are exclusively mathematical). Empiricists defend indeterminism on the basis that they reject a hidden, rational, mathematical order, yet the random events to which they then appeal are themselves hidden and mathematical. The difference is that empirical, random, hidden variables are inexplicable and miraculous whereas rationalist, deterministic, hidden variables are part of a noumenal, rational, ontological order of unobservable mathematics, which fully reflects the principle of sufficient reason. A mathematical order is compatible with a hidden mental order of design and teleology, and it is exactly this that scientific materialists and empiricists are so eager to deny – because it would destroy at a stroke all of

the pretensions of scientific materialism. Fundamentalist Materialists will do anything to deny the real existence of mind, even if it means appealing to miraculous, inexplicable randomness instead. Do we live in a purposeful mental world, or a purposeless material world? – that’s the fundamental question that separates Fundamentalist Materialists from everyone else. The Fundamentalist Materialists are willing to deny the principle of sufficient reason itself in order not to accept that idealism is true and materialism false, that mind and not matter is the primary reality. Mathematics can support mind as the basis of existence, scientific materialism cannot. You must choose one or the other. Scientific materialism isn’t even the only type of materialism. Dialectical materialism is far superior. It agrees with science that matter is primary, but then it departs from science by specifying dialectical, teleological laws governing matter, which cause matter to evolve from a purely quantitative entity to a qualitative one, with mind being the highest quality of matter. We might say that the purpose of dialectical materialism is to maximise matter’s expression of mind, and thus quality rather than quantity. Science, of course, despises quality as much as it despises mind, reason, purpose and free will. It posits an entirely meaningless, purposeless, pointless material universe, without quality, seeking to accomplish nothing at all. Its laws are mechanistic (dead) rather than dialectical (alive). Dialectical materialism is about the transformation of quantity into quality. It’s materialism combined with the Hegelian dialectic, and this makes it vastly more coherent and rational than scientific materialism. Just as idealist versions of evolution are an enormous improvement over Darwinian “scientific materialist” evolution, so dialectical materialist evolution could spectacularly outgun Darwinism if implemented with sufficient care by people who actually understand the dialectic. Darwinism is the most primitive version of evolution you can get, and doesn’t make any formal sense since it mixes indeterminism (random mutation) and determinism (natural selection). A truly randomist system could never give rise to natural selection in the first place. Nothing would ever be selected according to any teleological criteria. Things would be selected at random, leading to no progress and no evolution at all! If you believe in random genetic mutation, why don’t you also believe in random natural selection? How on earth does a process come into existence

out of nothing that looks exactly like teleological breeding?! “...we can note that the selection process itself has significantly evolved.” – Wikipedia Since science denies any evolution in relation to the alleged random generation of possibilities, evolution can apply only to the selection process. In mentalist conceptions of the world, there is no randomness and minds evolve both in their capacity to generate better and better possibilities, and to rationally select the best of these. Thus mentalist evolution has two components rather than the one of materialist evolution, and is teleological rather than non-teleological (as Darwinism is). You cannot have teleology if randomness is true. You invariably have teleology if mind is present. There are no Darwinian “random” mutations in evolution. There are Lamarckian, Hegelian, teleological mutations, intended to produce superior bodies for conveying minds, increasing their power and better satisfying their purposes, will, desires and reason. “Instinctive selection – by animals with little or no learning capability. Selection criteria are transmitted genetically.” – Wikipedia Animals, and many humans, operate at this level. “Learned selection – for animals whose past experiences guide current choices. Selection criteria are acquired environmentally, including instruction by parents and peers.” – Wikipedia Most people don’t learn well enough. “Predictive selection – using imagination and foresight to evaluate the future consequences of choices.” – Wikipedia The more intelligent you are, the more you can operate at this level of selection. “In 1884, William James was the first thinker to propose a two-stage model. In his picture of free will, indeterminism is the source for what James called ‘alternative possibilities’ and ‘ambiguous futures.’” – Wikipedia There’s nothing wrong with the “alternative possibilities” and “ambiguous futures” model – provided it doesn’t involve any indeterminism and scientific materialist ontology.

“What is meant by saying that my choice of which way to walk home after the lecture is ambiguous and matter of chance? ... It means that both Divinity Avenue and Oxford Street are called but only one, and that one either one, shall be chosen.” – William James That is not a matter of chance. Either choice is a realistic possibility but James will choose one for a specific reason that makes it preferable, on this occasion, to the other. If it were anything to do with chance, he would just toss a coin. Presumably, he didn’t do so. Moreover, even to decide to toss a coin is to do so for a reason e.g. you simply can’t make your mind up by any other means. “With this simple example, James was the first thinker to enunciate clearly a two-stage decision process, with chance in a present time of random alternatives, leading to a choice which grants consent to one possibility and transforms an equivocal ambiguous future into an unalterable and simple past. There is a temporal sequence of undetermined alternative possibilities followed by an adequately determined choice where chance is no longer a factor.” – Wikipedia There are realistic, deterministic alternatives, not chance, random, indeterministic alternatives. Choices are deterministically generated, and then one is selected by a secondary deterministic process that operates on the set of possibilities. It’s not about indeterminism, followed by determinism. It’s about determinism, followed by determinism: deterministic generation of alternatives, followed by deterministic evaluation and selection of one of those possibilities. “James also gave full credit to Charles Darwin for the core idea behind his own ‘mental evolution’, explicitly connecting spontaneous variations in the Darwinian gene pool with random images and thoughts in the human brain.” – Wikipedia Enough already with the randomness! “[In mental evolution], if anywhere, it would seem at first sight as if that school must be right which makes the mind passively plastic, and the environment actively productive of the form and order of its conceptions; which, in a word, thinks that all mental progress must result from a series of adaptive changes, in the sense already defined of that word... It might,

accordingly, seem as if there were no room for any agency other than this; as if the distinction we have found so useful between ‘spontaneous variation’, as the producer of changed forms, and the environment, as their preserver and destroyer, did not hold in the case of mental progress; as if, in a word, the parallel with Darwinism might no longer obtain… And I can easily show... that as a matter of fact the new conceptions, emotions, and active tendencies which evolve are originally produced in the shape of random images, fancies, accidental out-births of spontaneous variation in the functional activity of the excessively instable human brain.” – William James Yawn! “Henri Poincaré was called the ‘last universalist’ because he was a great contributor to so many fields in mathematics, but his work was also broad in physics, philosophy, and psychology. ... Around 1906 Poincaré speculated on how his mind works when he is solving mathematical problems. He had the critical insight that random combinations and possibilities are generated, some in an unconscious way with chance involved, then they are selected among, perhaps initially also by an unconscious process, but then by a definite conscious process of validation.” – Wikipedia Flogging a dead horse now! “It is certain that the combinations which present themselves to the mind in a kind of sudden illumination after a somewhat prolonged period of unconscious work are generally useful and fruitful combinations… all the combinations are formed as a result of the automatic action of the subliminal ego, but those only which are interesting find their way into the field of consciousness… A few only are harmonious, and consequently at once useful and beautiful, and they will be capable of affecting the geometrician’s special sensibility I have been speaking of; which, once aroused, will direct our attention upon them, and will thus give them the opportunity of becoming conscious… In the subliminal ego, on the contrary, there reigns what I would call liberty, if one could give this name to the mere absence of discipline and to disorder born of chance.” – Henri Poincaré

Unconscious plural determinism (i.e. determinism operating in internetstyle across the whole mind) is not indeterminism (!), though this seems to be the systematic error committed in the conventional understanding of the two-stage model. “In 1931, Nobel prize-winning physicist Arthur Holly Compton championed the idea of human freedom based on quantum uncertainty and invented the notion of amplification of microscopic quantum events to bring chance into the macroscopic world. In his somewhat bizarre mechanism, he imagined sticks of dynamite attached to his amplifier, anticipating the Schrödinger’s cat paradox.” – Wikipedia WTF! “A set of known physical conditions is not adequate to specify precisely what a forthcoming event will be. These conditions, insofar as they can be known, define instead a range of possible events from among which some particular event will occur. When one exercises freedom, by his act of choice he is himself adding a factor not supplied by the physical conditions and is thus himself determining what will occur. That he does so is known only to the person himself. From the outside one can see in his act only the working of physical law. It is the inner knowledge that he is in fact doing what he intends to do that tells the actor himself that he is free.” – Arthur Holly Compton This is entirely consistent with the ontological mathematical view of free will. “Compton’s work was no doubt closely read by philosopher Karl Popper, especially when Popper was selected to give the first Arthur Holly Compton Memorial Lecture in 1965. At first Popper dismissed quantum mechanics as being no help with free will, but later he describes a two-stage model that parallels Darwinian evolution, with genetic mutations being probabilistic and involving quantum uncertainty. “In 1965 Popper called for a combination of randomness and control to explain freedom, though not yet explicitly in two stages with random chance before the controlled decision: ‘[F]reedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control.’” – Wikipedia

It’s very simple. Free will arises from the generation of many strands of thought in the mind, and the need to evaluate and then select one of these strands according to the teleological principle of increasing one’s power (reflecting the Will to Power). There’s nothing mysterious about it. There’s no chance involved, no randomness, no indeterminism. The mind, it can’t be stressed enough, does not think one thought at a time, but, instead, thinks a vast array of thoughts simultaneously. Some of these are very unlikely to be actioned, and some very likely. The less time we have to reflect on our choices, the more we are likely to opt for instinctual, “common sense”, or “culturally acceptable” choices. The more time we have, the more likely we are to do something unusual and creative. “In his 1977 book with John Eccles, The Self and its Brain, Popper finally formulates the two-stage model in a temporal sequence, and makes the comparison with evolution and natural selection: ‘New ideas have a striking similarity to genetic mutations. Now, let us look for a moment at genetic mutations. Mutations are, it seems, brought about by quantum theoretical indeterminacy (including radiation effects). Accordingly, they are also probabilistic and not in themselves originally selected or adequate, but on them there subsequently operates natural selection which eliminates inappropriate mutations. Now we could conceive of a similar process with respect to new ideas and to free-will decisions, and similar things. That is to say, a range of possibilities is brought about by a probabilistic and quantum mechanically characterized set of proposals, as it were – of possibilities brought forward by the brain. On these there then operates a kind of selective procedure which eliminates those proposals and those possibilities which are not acceptable to the mind.” – Wikipedia There’s no such thing as quantum indeterminacy. As soon as mathematical hidden variables are granted – a step demanded by rationalism – quantum mechanics becomes 100% deterministic. Free will has nothing to do with chance, randomness, accident and indeterminism. Free will is about internal determinism (we choose our actions) versus external determinism (our actions are chosen for us); and we choose our actions from a whole host of possibilities deterministically generated by our mind. At all times, the mind is a multi-thought thinker, not a single thought thinker, hence is always in the business of having to choose which particular thought to actualise in the world, and many options typically have almost equal likelihood of being

implemented, i.e. we can readily conceive of doing different things from those things we actually do. To try to get an artificial intelligence to simulate a human being, you would have to program it to generate multiple thoughts at once, and then program it to select one of these according to some programmed criterion. But how can you program creativity, intuition, synchronicity, boredom, a survival instinct, desire, lust, greed, selfishness, love, altruism, hate, justice, identity, gut feeling, faith, hope, will to power, teleology, hyperlinked thinking, and so on, i.e. everything that makes us human? The only thing that can simulate a human is a human! Even some humans – severe autistics – can’t simulate humans, so what hope for machines?! Fundamentally, the mind is a thought-generating and decision-making entity. It is forever creating possibilities and then choosing from amongst them. That’s exactly why we are free. The basic question for the mind is always, “What next?” The human mind is full of automatic processes, instincts, intuitions, reflective processes, deliberative processes, unconscious processes, conscious reflection, gut feelings, emotions, desires, will, and so on. All of this has to be sifted, evaluated, made sense of, and, finally, acted upon. Sometimes, we may have a lot of time at our disposal to weigh our options. At other times, we may have to act almost instantly, with precious little time to consider our decision. No machine could ever emulate this degree of complexity and sophistication. “In 1968, physicist Henry Margenau was invited to give the Wimmer Lecture at St. Vincent College in Pennsylvania. His topic was Scientific Indeterminism and Human Freedom. Margenau embraced indeterminism as the first step toward a solution of the problem of human freedom. “Then in 1982, with co-author Lawrence LeShan, Margenau called his model of free will a ‘solution’ to what had heretofore had been seen as mere ‘paradox and illusion.’ He very neatly separates ‘free’ and ‘will’ in a temporal sequence, as William James had done, naming them simply ‘chance’ followed by ‘choice’.” – Wikipedia It’s not “chance” followed by “choice”. It’s variety followed by choice, and the variety is produced deterministically, not by chance. “Chance” means “by miracle” since no chance event ever has a sufficient reason.

“Our thesis is that quantum mechanics leaves our body, our brain, at any moment in a state with numerous (because of its complexity we might say innumerable) possible futures, each with a predetermined probability. Freedom involves two components: chance (existence of a genuine set of alternatives) and choice. Quantum mechanics provides the chance, and we shall argue that only the mind can make the choice by selecting (not energetically enforcing) among the possible future courses.” – Henry Margenau It’s amazing how scientists systematically get it wrong. What is required is indeed a “genuine set of alternatives and choice”, but chance has nothing at all to do with it. In a rational universe, everything has a sufficient reason, hence there is no such thing as quantum indeterminacy. You cannot claim that the universe is rational if you then claim that miraculous chance events can occur for no reason, with no mechanism. When a physicist replaces a deterministic coin that can deterministically generate a head or a tail with a coin “wavefunction” that can, via an observation, indeterministically collapse – with no conceivable mechanism or reason – to a head state or tail state, we have left physics far behind and entered metaphysics of a most absurd kind. Scientific indeterminacy is an anti-scientific philosophical position. It has nothing to do with reality. It’s just bad philosophy, and contempt for the principle of sufficient reason. “While he is a confirmed compatibilist, in On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want – Chapter 15 of his 1978 book Brainstorms – Tufts philosopher Daniel Dennett articulated the case for a two-stage model of free will. “Dennett named his model of decision-making ‘Valerian’ after the poet Paul Valéry, who took part in a 1936 conference in Paris with Jacques Hadamard. The conference focused on Henri Poincaré’s two-stage approach to problem solving, in which the unconscious generates random combinations. In his book The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Mind, Hadamard quoted Valéry (as did Dennett later), summarizing the conference opinion: “‘It takes two to invent anything. The one makes up combinations; the other one chooses, recognizes what is important to him in the mass of things which the former has imparted to him.’”

“Although Valery describes two persons, this is clearly William James’s temporal sequence of random chance (‘free’) followed by a determining choice (‘will’). For James, chance and choice are part of a single mind. This two-stage mind model is better named ‘Jamesian’ free will. “Dennett makes his version of a two-stage model very clear, defending it with six reasons. However, Dennett remains a compatibilist: ‘The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent’s final decision.’” – Wikipedia Valéry is certainly right that the essence of invention is combination and choice. What is free will if not invention? Dennett is right about a “consideration-generator”, but wrong that there’s anything undetermined about it. Moreover, he’s wrong if he fails to locate it in anything other than an immaterial soul outside space and time. Unfortunately, Dennett, as a Fundamentalist Materialist, makes exactly that error. Sam Harris is right to see sheer sophistry in Dennett’s arguments. These arguments are right if presented in terms of ontological Fourier mathematics, and wrong in any other context. “Leading libertarian philosophers such as Robert Kane have rejected Dennett’s model, specifically that random chance is directly involved in a decision, on the basis that they believe this eliminates the agent’s motives and reasons, character and values, and feelings and desires. They claim that, if chance is the primary cause of decisions, then agents cannot be liable for resultant actions. Kane says: [As Dennett admits,] a causal indeterminist view of this deliberative kind does not give us everything libertarians have wanted from free will. For [the agent] does not have complete control over what chance images and other thoughts enter his mind or influence his deliberation. They simply come as they please. [The agent] does have some control after the chance considerations have occurred. But then there is no more chance involved. What happens from then on, how he reacts, is

determined by desires and beliefs he already has. So it appears that he does not have control in the libertarian sense of what happens after the chance considerations occur as well. Libertarians require more than this for full responsibility and free will.” – Wikipedia Kane says that the two-stage model does not go far enough: “The reason is that the chance (‘free’) part is not in the control of the agent and the ‘will’ part is fully determined by a combination of the chance part and other determining factors, so the final choice is determined by factors, none of which the agent has control over at the time of choice. If all of our choices are determined at the time of choice that would not be libertarian freedom even if some chance events in the past were responsible for forming some of the determining factors that now determine our choice because however the determining factors were formed in the past, all of our choices would be determined when they are made.” The two-stage model is compatibilist, not libertarian! “Kane wants what he calls ‘dual rational control’, which is the ability to choose otherwise in exactly the same circumstances.” – Wikipedia Determinism and compatibilism require the agent to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same circumstances. Otherwise, you are not free but merely a random behaviour generator, doing things erratically, whimsically and capriciously, without rhyme or reason. “[Dennett’s] strategy mirrors his teacher [Gilbert] Ryle’s approach of redefining first person phenomena in third person terms, and denying the coherence of the concepts which this approach struggles with.” – Wikipedia Why would anyone carry out such an exercise? The “I” is radically different from the “it” or the “he” or “she”. This exemplifies the tendency of a certain type of philosopher (suffering from scientism) to try to objectify everything, to deny the existence of subjects, and, above all, to deny the existence of the soul. It was Ryle who referred to the mind as the “ghost in the machine”. In the world of scientific materialism, there are no “I’s” with subjective agency. There are only “it’s” without their own agency. “In 1995 Alfred Mele, clearly influenced by Daniel Dennett and Robert Kane, proposed his ‘Modest Libertarianism’, a two-stage process that combines an incompatibilist early phase followed by a compatibilist control

phase. He made it clear, following Dennett’s ‘Valerian’ model in Brainstorms, 1978, that the indeterminism should come early in the overall process. He even describes the latter – decision – part of the process as compatibilist (effectively determinist). This of course could only be adequate determinism: ‘...it might be worth exploring the possibility of combining a compatibilist conception of the later parts of a process issuing in full blown, deliberative, intentional action with an incompatibilist conception of the earlier parts. For example, it might be possible to gain “ultimate control” while preserving a considerable measure of nonultimate agential control by treating the process from proximal decisive better judgment through overt action in a compatibilist way and finding a theoretically useful place for indeterminacy in processes leading to proximal decisive better judgments.’” – Wikipedia Round and round the merry-go-round we go. Indeterminism and incompatibilism must be entirely removed from any meaningful discussion of free will. Mele says, “That a consideration is indeterministically caused to come to mind does not entail that the agent has no control over how he responds to it.” No consideration is ever “indeterministically caused”. What does that even mean? How can indeterminism have any connection at all with causation? It’s the opposite of causation. Causal things happen for sufficient reasons and are deterministic. Indeterministic things have no sufficient reasons and do not belong to any causal order. There is absolutely no determinism/indeterminism dualism. It’s astounding that the very same people who queue up to denounce Cartesian mind-body dualism, accept determinism/ indeterminism without blinking. The problems involved are even more extreme and impossible! “The most recent thinker to describe a two-stage model is Martin Heisenberg (son of physicist Werner Heisenberg)... Since the indeterminacy principle was his father’s work, Heisenberg’s position that the physical universe is no longer determined and that nature is inherently unpredictable comes as no surprise.” – Wikipedia Like father, like son! The universe is 100% deterministic. There is no indeterminism whatsoever. Everything has a sufficient reason.

*****

The typical version of the two-stage model involves randomness followed by law. This is a fundamentally flawed ontology. It’s just another repackaging of Cartesian substance dualism. You can’t have a system of non-law (randomness) and law. They can’t interact. They have nothing in common. The true two-stage model involves law followed by law: the lawful generation of different possibilities and then the lawful selection of one of those possibilities to be actioned.

The Miraculous Swerve “In addition to the regular tendency of atoms to move downward, Epicurus thinks that occasionally, and at random times, the atoms swerve to the side. One reason for this swerve is that it is needed to explain why there are atomic collisions. The natural tendency of atoms is to fall straight downward, at uniform velocity. If this were the only natural atomic motion, the atoms never would have collided with one another, forming macroscopic bodies. As Lucretius puts it, they would ‘fall downward, like drops of rain, through the deep void.’ The second reason for thinking that atoms swerve is that a random atomic motion is needed to preserve human freedom and ‘break the bonds of fate,’ as Lucretius says. If the laws of atomic motion are deterministic, then the past positions of the atoms in the universe, plus these laws, determine everything that will occur, including human action. Cicero reports that Epicurus worries that, if it has been true from eternity that, e.g., ‘Milo will wrestle tomorrow,’ then presently deliberating about whether to make it true or false would be idle.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SSH3c.ii “David Sedley and Anthony Long speculated in their 1987 masterwork The Hellenistic Philosophers that Epicurus’s swerve of the atoms might be limited to providing undetermined alternative possibilities for action, from which the mind’s power of volition could choose in a way that reflects character and values, desires and feelings. “Here at last a significant role for the swerve leaps to the eye. For it is to answer just this question, according to Cicero, that the swerve was introduced. The evident power of the self and its volitions to intervene in the physical processes of soul and body would be inexplicable if physical laws alone were sufficient to determine the precise trajectory of every atom.

Therefore physical laws are not sufficient to determine the precise trajectory of every atom. There is a minimal degree of physical indeterminism – the swerve. An unimpeded atom may at any given moment continue its present trajectory, but equally may ‘swerve’ into one of the adjacent parallel trajectories. “As far as physics is concerned there is simply no reason for its following one rather than another of these trajectories. Normally, then, the result will be, in this minimal degree, random. But in the special case of the mind there is also a non-physical cause, volition, which can affect the atoms of which it is a property. “Sedley and Long assume a non-physical (metaphysical) ability of the volition to affect the atoms, which is implausible. But the idea that a physical volition chooses – (consistent with and adequately determined by the agent’s character and values and its desires and feelings) from among alternative possibilities provided randomly by the atoms – is quite plausible. “It does so, we may speculate, not by overriding the laws of physics, but by choosing between the alternative possibilities which the laws of physics leave open. In this way a large group of soul atoms might simultaneously be diverted into a new pattern of motion, and thus radically redirect the motion of the body. Such an event, requiring as it does the coincidence of numerous swerves, would be statistically most improbable according to the laws of physics alone. But it is still, on the swerve theory, an intrinsically possible one, which volition might therefore be held to bring about. ... “Given today’s quantum mechanical indeterminacy, Epicurus’s intuition of a fundamental randomness in nature was correct. But he did not think the swerves were the direct causes of our actions. He agreed with Aristotle that beyond necessity and chance, there is a third kind of basic cause – agent causes that are ‘up to us’. How exactly determinism and chance relate to autonomous agent causality is not made clear, but Aristotle and Epicurus should be classed today as ‘agent-causal libertarians.’” – Wikipedia To introduce chance into Atomic theory, Epicurus appealed to a capacity of atoms to randomly “swerve”. This was an absurd manoeuvre, yet entirely consistent with the strange obsession of scientists with randomness. Epicurus’s infamous “swerve” has been reinvented and repackaged by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Where normal Atomic theory was deterministic, the swerve added indeterminism. In relation to quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen school claimed that a

deterministic atomic wavefunction, via an observation, indeterministically collapsed to one potential state or another. In other words, the wavefunction did its version of “swerving”. It’s amazing how you just can’t get rid of ancient ideas. They keep resurfacing in new packaging, new guises, new wrapping. It’s time indeterminism was killed off once and for all – as it must be if we inhabit a rational universe, ruled by the principle of sufficient reason.

Behaviourism Scientific materialism is continuously engaged with attempting to destroy the mind as any kind of meaningful concept. It wants to dismiss it as the “ghost in the machine”, some ridiculous illusion. Behaviourism is what you get when you introduce scientific materialism into psychology. Behaviourism promotes three linked doctrines: 1) Metaphysical behaviourism: there is no such thing as consciousness; there are only organisms behaving. 2) Methodological behaviourism: a truly scientific psychology can deal only with publicly observable behaviour and not with introspection, i.e. “psychology” no longer concerns the psyche (mind) but physical behaviour. 3) Analytical behaviourism: psychology must be reduced entirely to behaviour; all psychological concepts must be analyzed exclusively in behavioural terms. Behaviourism applies a stimulus to an organism and studies the organism’s response. It’s all about input and output. The bit in the middle – the mind of the organism – is treated as a black box, and is dismissed as non-scientific and meaningless, and the further conclusion is usually drawn that it does not even exist. Human beings are reduced to mere stimulus-response systems – to Pavlovian dogs that can be operantly conditioned. Humans are converted into animals, or even worse, into biological Cartesian automata. Science always has this tendency to dehumanise humans and render their lives meaningless and purposeless. Much of Sam Harris’s philosophy is more or less identical to that of the most famous behaviourist, B. F. Skinner, another famous denier of free will.

Wikipedia says of Skinner’s most famous book, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a book written by American psychologist B. F. Skinner and first published in 1971. The book argues that entrenched belief in free will and the moral autonomy of the individual (which Skinner referred to as ‘dignity’) hinders the prospect of using scientific methods to modify behaviour for the purpose of building a happier and better-organized society. “Beyond Freedom and Dignity may be summarized as an attempt to promote Skinner’s philosophy of science, the technology of human behaviour, his conception of determinism, and what Skinner calls ‘cultural engineering’.” Hackett Publishing Company’s blurb for Beyond Freedom and Dignity says, “In this profound and profoundly controversial work, a landmark of 20thcentury thought originally published in 1971, B. F. Skinner makes his definitive statement about humankind and society. Insisting that the problems of the world today can be solved only by dealing much more effectively with human behaviour, Skinner argues that our traditional concepts of freedom and dignity must be sharply revised. They have played an important historical role in our struggle against many kinds of tyranny, he acknowledges, but they are now responsible for the futile defence of a presumed free and autonomous individual; they are perpetuating our use of punishment and blocking the development of more effective cultural practices. Basing his arguments on the massive results of the experimental analysis of behaviour he pioneered, Skinner rejects traditional explanations of behaviour in terms of states of mind, feelings, and other mental attributes in favour of explanations to be sought in the interaction between genetic endowment and personal history. He argues that instead of promoting freedom and dignity as personal attributes, we should direct our attention to the physical and social environments in which people live. It is the environment rather than humankind itself that must be changed if the traditional goals of the struggle for freedom and dignity are to be reached. Beyond Freedom and Dignity urges us to re-examine the ideals we have taken for granted and to consider the possibility of a radically behaviourist approach to human problems – one that has appeared to some incompatible with those ideals, but which envisions the building of a world in which humankind can attain its greatest possible achievements.”

This is exactly Sam Harris’s view – but who needs Harris when we already have Skinner’s writings, which are vastly superior to anything Harris has produced? Why do we need the puppet when we can go straight to the puppetmaster? Harris is just the poor man’s, the stupid man’s, Skinner.

***** Skinner wrote, “In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behaviour is uncaused. He can therefore be held responsible for what he does and justly punished if he offends. That view, together with its associated practices, must be re-examined when a scientific analysis reveals unsuspected controlling relations between behaviour and environment.” There’s no question that an enormous effort must be put into designing the State, society, culture and the environment in order to produce better, saner and more rational behaviour. However, that objective has nothing to do with the existence of the autonomous mind and freedom.

***** Despite his entirely fallacious opinions regarding the mind, Skinner’s work genuinely provides a vital tool for changing humanity. We must use operant conditioning to, ironically, decondition humanity, to deprogram it, particularly with regard to religion, capitalism and democracy – the unholy trinity. Skinner said, “Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless.” This is exactly right, and it must be stopped. Above all, parents must be prevented from brainwashing their children with their pernicious religious beliefs. If they go ahead and do so, the State should explicitly use the school system to rubbish the claims of religion. “Rituals are superstitions; they are adventitiously reinforced. The more conspicuous and stereotyped the behaviour upon which the reinforcer is accidentally contingent, the greater the effect.” – B. F. Skinner Just look at Islam and Judaism and how ritualistic they are. These rituals must be abolished if we are to have a healthy society.

A religion, such as Islam, which promises paradise to you if you kill yourself while murdering “infidels”, is entirely unacceptable. All Jews smart enough to leave Judaism are labelled “self-hating” by those they have left behind, while, in the case of Islam, the “apostates” are often murdered! Ex-Jews, ex-Muslims and ex-Christians are amongst the noblest people in the world! “The mob rushes in where individuals fear to tread.” – B. F. Skinner Once again, just look at Islam, or democratic populism. We must create strong individuals who can stand up to the mob, who can resist the opinion of the herd.

***** “The picture which emerges from a scientific analysis is not of a body with a person inside, but of a body which is a person in the sense that it displays a complex repertoire of behaviour. ... What is being abolished is autonomous man – the inner man, the homunculus, the possessing demon, the man defended by the literatures of freedom and dignity. His abolition has long been overdue. ... Science does not dehumanize man, it dehomunculizes him.” – B. F. Skinner The picture that emerges from rationalist, mathematical analysis is that we are immortal, immaterial, indestructible mathematical souls. It’s not a case of there being a ghost in the machine. Rather, there’s a machine aspect to life and spirit, and we must transcend this machinery – this scientific materialist deadness – if we wish to see life itself, if we wish to encounter life in itself, unshielded and pure.

Humans and Hidden Variables Are we nothing but the sum of the stimuli applied to us and the responses these elicit? Is the mind nothing but an ineffectual, redundant, epiphenomenal black box with no causal power, and no free will? So say behaviourists like Skinner, neuroscientists like Harris, and scientific materialists such as Dawkins. If you think about it, the mind and its thoughts are the ultimate hidden variables. We can’t see, touch, smell, taste or hear the mind or its thoughts.

They are, obviously, not physical things. Imagine looking down on a vast crowd of people in a shopping mall. They would seem to be moving randomly, indeterministically, in no obvious pattern. You could easily be tempted to construct an interpretation based on random human behaviour, on a par with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, as soon as you move to the unobservable minds of the human beings in the mall, you discover that every single one of them is moving purposefully; each has precise reasons for his choices. There is no indeterminism at all: this is a strictly deterministic system. The problem is that it looks indeterministic, and if you denied the existence of the mind, you would be left with nothing else to theorise about than the seemingly random movements of the people, and you would certainly create a statistical, probabilistic, indeterministic theory, and it would no doubt work quite well despite being wholly false! Science continuously replaces unobservable mental activity with “randomness”. Whether Darwinists, neuroscientists, behaviourists, Multiverse cosmologists, Copenhagen quantum mechanical theorists, they’re all in the same game of dismissing the existence of mind and substituting it with random behaviour treated probabilistically and statistically. And they are of course all wrong. Mind – the mathematical mind – is the ontological, noumenal root of everything. It’s the supreme hidden variable, and it makes completely deterministic everything that would otherwise be regarded by science as indeterministic. Science founders on the ultimate rock of mathematical singularities. These are mental, causal agents, but science, with its dogmatism of empiricism and materialism, just can’t conceive of such things. They are entirely outside the scientific materialist paradigm, and are what definitively destroy that paradigm. Science is false. That’s a cold, clear fact. Science is refuted by immaterial singularities outside space and time. These are Fourier frequency domains. These are living minds. These are souls!

Change “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – Buckminster Fuller

Ontological mathematics makes the scientific materialist model of reality obsolete. It moves us, at last, away from matter to mind, away from the senses to reason.

Flying Transcendence We must transcend Sophistry = Science, the subject of appearances, and arrive at Philosophy = Mathematics, the subject of things-in-themselves, the subject of ontology and epistemology. Only the most intelligent and rational human beings can transcend their senses and see the truth beyond. Only a tiny fraction of the human race is capable of understanding ontological mathematics. You have to be a member of Logos Humanity, Higher Humanity, HyperHumanity. We are on the top of the mountains, while Mythos Humanity and Sophist Humanity lie far below. As Nietzsche said. “The higher we soar, the smaller we seem to those who cannot fly.”

The Irrational Ones It’s impossible to comprehend some of the positions that are attributed to us, or to understand the “logic” deployed against us. The rationality of the criticisms levelled against us is of course dependent on the rationality, or otherwise, of the people making the criticisms, and we typically find that our critics don’t have any grasp of rationalism, and are extremely likely to deploy Straw Man arguments against us. Either they attribute to us a position that we don’t hold, or they subscribe to a position that they themselves don’t understand. It’s pointless attempting to argue with defenders of Sam Harris’s position regarding free will. Harris plainly has no idea what is meant by free will since he begins from the dogmatic stance that there is no such thing as an eternal soul (an uncreated, uncaused, first cause). It never enters his thinking at any time. Free will is compatible only with eternal souls, and without these monadic mathematical minds, free will is indeed impossible. Any argument that denies the existence of monadic souls can never even begin to address what free will means. Sam Harris is, supposedly, a great champion of anti-Abrahamism because he denies the existence of free will (!). Of course, if there’s no free will then Sam Harris hasn’t chosen to have any anti-Abrahamic opinions,

and nor has anyone who criticised our position done anything other than express a pre-scripted opinion to which they contributed precisely nothing. It did not arise as a result of any rational analysis on their part. So, what’s the point? Without free will, there’s never any point.

The Target “Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” – Schopenhauer An intellectual – a Philosopher (a lover of wisdom) – does not need any senses at all to “see” the target of Truth. He uses reason alone. A pseudo-intellectual – a Sophist (a “wise” one; one who gives intellectual instruction for pay) – always uses his senses, and Truth isn’t his target, but superficial success. We have to defeat the pseudo-intellectuals such as Harris and Dawkins. They give intellectuals a bad name and set back the intellectual agenda to an astonishing degree.

The Disaster It’s a disaster that the intellectual community is divided between Sophists and Philosophers. The intelligentsia must present a united front in order to defeat the hordes of Believers. The Sophists are the ones who have to vanish from the equation. The Believers will never accept atheistic nihilism. They will, eventually, accept a rational system that guarantees to make them Gods and to see all their loved ones again in an afterlife.

The Error Science is fantastically good at some things. The trouble is that this success is then taken by scientists to signify that science is good at everything. The reality is that science is a materialist, empiricist application, or model, of mathematics that works within certain parameters, and is useless outside those parameters. Scientists are too stupid and philosophically ignorant to realise that science has a specific range of applicability, and outside that range it fails

entirely. They have extended its range to everything, even though they have no justification for doing so. They have literally decided to make reality fit their model rather than find out what reality actually is. Matter cannot be the answer to ultimate reality. Matter doesn’t even exist in any true sense. It’s just a mathematical construct generated by Fourier spacetime mathematics. Humanity has struggled with understanding reality to the same extent that it has struggled with understanding mathematics and what mathematics actually is. The two most mysterious things to the human mind are the nature of ultimate reality, and the nature of mathematics. Should we really be surprised that the two mysteries are actually one – mathematics is ultimate reality! Mathematics is the science of perfection, and perfection is exactly what is required for an eternal cosmos.

Conclusion We have to bring to an end the Age of Sophistry, i.e. the Age of Science, of pseudo-intellectualism based on the unintellectual and anti-intellectual senses rather than true intellectualism based on intellect itself and reason. False idols such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking have to be pulled down from their pedestals, and replaced by the modern equivalents of Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Hegel and Gödel. We need an Age of Philosophers, of Enlightenment, an Age of Reason and Intellect, of Logic and Ontological Mathematics. Only then will we have the launchpad that can make Gods of us, and bring to fruition a Star Trek world where we travel through the galaxies to the heavens themselves. There’s nothing in the dreary, nihilistic, atheistic vision of scientific sophistry peddled by the likes of Sam Harris that could ever transform the human race. Humanity needs the right experts to lead it, not the wrong ones: not the charlatans, gurus and glory hunters. To sum up Harris’s utterly fallacious worldview, an old remark by Wolfgang Pauli is right on the mark: “It is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” It’s scandalous for Sam Harris to be associated with an undertaking called “Project Reason”. The ideology of science has nothing to do with

reason. It’s all about empiricism and materialism, not rationalism – the philosophy that’s predicated on reason and deduction, unlike science which is predicated on the irrationalist senses and induction. The only way in which reason is smuggled into science is via its mathematical engine, which has no right being there since it’s the direct contradiction of the scientific method, which scientists worship as their deity. Harris doesn’t respect reason. If he did, he’d be a rationalist, not an empiricist, and he’d want to replace science with mathematics. It’s a disgrace that scientists consider themselves rational. They’re people who believe in their senses. Science is all about matching “Feynman guesses” to experimental data. That’s not rational. That’s not analytic. That’s bruteforce trial and error. It’s about as far from reason as faith is. Scientists are an embarrassment to reason. They always seek to privilege their senses over their reason. Plato pointed out that ultimate existence is intelligible, not sensible. Scientists choose to assert the opposite, which means they are the enemies of reason, not its friend. They are the mindless advocates of the senses. They believe in appearances and they ignore things as they are in themselves – beyond appearance, and thus beyond the scientific method, which is a method predicated on appearances and is 100% hostile to hidden, noumenal variables, no matter how rationally necessary and justified. Science rejects mathematics in itself – the quintessential rationalist subject – and makes use of a mathematical abortion – “scientific mathematics”. Forget science versus religion. That’s not the real war at all. The real war, for any would-be intellectual, is science versus mathematics, empiricism versus rationalism, the sensible versus the intelligible, the phenomenal versus the noumenal, the physical versus the metaphysical, the seen (appearances) versus the unseen (things in themselves; hidden variables). At all times, Sam Harris is on the wrong side of the fence, the side opposed to reason. He is of course far too stupid to realise this. If he were a person of reason, he’d be a rationalist, not an empiricist. Get Smart. Get Philosophical. Get Mathematical. See through the scientific Sophists. See through Sam Harris. This is a rational universe, not a sensory universe; a mental universe, not a physical universe; a mathematical universe, not a scientific universe. If you haven’t worked that

out yet, you’re as endarkened as it’s possible to get. You’re as deluded as Sam Harris.

Sapere Aude = Dare to Know