Transcendental Mathematics (The God Series Book 25)

Table of contents :
Transcendental Mathematics
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Moulding Mind
The Three Types
The Proofs of God
The Three Problems
The Nexus
The Trinity
The Cosmological Argument
Existence as Predicate?
Not God
The Three Faculties of Soul
The Transcendental
The Eternity Argument
The Ontology of Mathematics
Cogito Ergo Sum
Transcendence
Inner and Outer
The Truth of Space and Time
Limits?
Pure Reason
The Thing in Itself
The Ontological Argument
Ens Realissimum
Different Directions
The Mind
The Transcendental Ego versus The Empirical Ego
The Unreachable?
Means and Ends
Nothing Higher
The Noumenon
Kant’s Four Perspectives
Inner and Outer Intuition
Analytic and Synthetic
The Unconditioned
The Mirror of the Mind?
The Mind World
The Absurdity?
The Immortal Principle
Phædrus
The Universe and Us
The Tools of Understanding
The Prior State
The Metaphysical Deduction
Concepts and Percepts
The Answer
The Transcendental Self
Ego and Non-Ego
It’s Not How It Appears
The Beautiful and the Sublime
The Beginning of Knowledge?
The Godlike View
The Spectators and the Theatre
Soul, World, God
Knowing the Unknowable?
Transcendental Idealism
Infinite Beings
Different Selves
Space and Time Twice?
Reason and Evolution
How Can We Know?
The Third Eye
The Unconditioned Absolute
The Symmetry Imperative
Nobel Idiocy
The “I”
The Imaginary Focus
The Eternal Laws
Mathematical “Experience”
Experience versus Knowledge
Antinomies
Clever Clogs?
The Triple Problem
The First Law of Life
The Scarab Beetle
Hume’s Fork
Free Souls
Termination Point
Eternal Energy
The Meaning of Number
The Dialectic
Sophia
Gnosis
Authority
Miracles
The Natural Deceiver?
A Different, Higher Understanding
The Non-Vanishing Illusion
The Transcendental Dialectic
Worms and Gods
Numerical Souls
Conclusion

Citation preview

Transcendental Mathematics M P

H H

B

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

Table of Contents Transcendental Mathematics Table of Contents Introduction The Moulding Mind The Three Types The Proofs of God The Three Problems The Nexus The Trinity The Cosmological Argument Existence as Predicate? Not God The Three Faculties of Soul The Transcendental The Eternity Argument The Ontology of Mathematics Cogito Ergo Sum Transcendence Inner and Outer The Truth of Space and Time Limits?

Pure Reason The Thing in Itself The Ontological Argument Ens Realissimum Different Directions The Mind The Transcendental Ego versus The Empirical Ego The Unreachable? Means and Ends Nothing Higher The Noumenon Kant’s Four Perspectives Inner and Outer Intuition Analytic and Synthetic The Unconditioned The Mirror of the Mind? The Mind World The Absurdity? The Immortal Principle Phædrus The Universe and Us The Tools of Understanding

The Prior State The Metaphysical Deduction Concepts and Percepts The Answer The Transcendental Self Ego and Non-Ego It’s Not How It Appears The Beautiful and the Sublime The Beginning of Knowledge? The Godlike View The Spectators and the Theatre Soul, World, God Knowing the Unknowable? Transcendental Idealism Infinite Beings Different Selves Space and Time Twice? Reason and Evolution How Can We Know? The Third Eye The Unconditioned Absolute The Symmetry Imperative

Nobel Idiocy The “I” The Imaginary Focus The Eternal Laws Mathematical “Experience” Experience versus Knowledge Antinomies Clever Clogs? The Triple Problem The First Law of Life The Scarab Beetle Hume’s Fork Free Souls Termination Point Eternal Energy The Meaning of Number The Dialectic Sophia Gnosis Authority Miracles The Natural Deceiver?

A Different, Higher Understanding The Non-Vanishing Illusion The Transcendental Dialectic Worms and Gods Numerical Souls Conclusion

Introduction Science is about the mundane, visible world. Religion is about the transcendent, invisible world. Atheists disregard the invisible and believe that science is the only way to explain the observable world. Agnostics think science is the best way to do it, while remaining open-minded that there may be a non-scientific world out there. Despite science’s power, it has a fundamental problem. Is it actually a system of explanation at all, or merely a good problem-solving tool? Is it a method that achieves practical success in the observable world only by using crude ad hoc and heuristic techniques, combined with materialistic ideas that are not connected to ultimate reality at all? Atomic theory, for example, has proved immensely productive, but do atoms really exist? Given the wave-particle duality indicated by quantum mechanics, what are we to suppose atoms actually are? They certainly aren’t tiny but unambiguous lumps of solid matter such as the ancient Greeks believed in. Atoms, in the modern sense, are almost entirely empty space, and look more and more like bundles of mathematical information describing a host of potentialities and force fields. If atoms are actually mathematical functions rather than solid lumps of “matter”, aren’t we playing a word game when we say that objects are made of atoms? Aren’t they really made of math? After all, it’s math we use to define their properties. Imagine we never referred to “atoms” at all, but merely to mathematical functions. Wouldn’t our conception of reality be 100% different? We would no longer be talking about a “material” world, but a world of interacting mathematical functions, i.e. we would have moved away from a scientific to a mathematical, informational conception of reality. Some two hundred and fifty years ago, Jesuit mathematician Roger Joseph Boscovich developed an atomic theory where he sought to marry Newton’s gravitational theory and Leibniz’s theory of monad-points. He held that that the ultimate elements of matter are indivisible point-atoms, which are centres of force, and this force varies in proportion to distance, and manifests either attraction or repulsion depending on how far apart one point-atom is from another point-atom. Wikipedia says, “[Boscovich] developed a concept of ‘impenetrability’ as a property of hard bodies which explained their behaviour in terms of

force rather than matter. Stripping atoms of their matter, impenetrability is disassociated from hardness and then put in an arbitrary relationship to elasticity. Impenetrability has a Cartesian sense that more than one point cannot occupy the same location at once.” Boscovich denied that bodies were composed of continuous matter and instead claimed that they comprised countless “point-like structures” reflecting a single, complex force equation (the first modern, scientific, grand unified theory of everything). Well, given quantum mechanics, can you clarify the difference between “mass” and “force”? A force conception of reality is entirely different from one based on matter. It can be made entirely consistent with mind, and not matter, as the basis of reality. Moreover, what’s the difference between force and ontological mathematics? Leibniz said, “The very substance of things consists in a force for acting and being acted upon.” His metaphysical monads were force centres, and could equally be considered as mathematical centres. If mathematical forces can produce the illusion of matter, why should we accept the existence of matter at all? Bishop Berkeley said that matter is simply an idea in our minds, and no one has ever disproved him. In other words, the materialist hypothesis is an assumption, belief and opinion, not any kind of “fact”. Wikipedia says, “Energy is a physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force.” Via E = mc2, Einstein proposed that mass is a form of energy (hence directly connected to force). Via his theory of special relativity, Einstein said that mass can change according to speed, and become infinite at light speed (indicating infinite energy and infinite force). Einstein’s theory of general relativity – summarised as “matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move” – then linked mass/energy/force to space and time. Referring to “matter”, Einstein said, “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” Thomas Kuhn, explaining his “Incommensurability Thesis” in which he highlights decisive and incompatible shifts in the meanings of key terms in science from one theory to another, said of “mass”, “… the physical referents of these Einsteinian concepts are by no means identical with those of the Newtonian concepts that bear the same name. (Newtonian mass is

conserved; Einsteinian is convertible with energy. Only at low relative velocities may the two be measured in the same way, and even then they must not be conceived to be the same.)” So, at the end of all of this, what on earth are we supposed to understand by any scientific reference to “mass”? Isn’t it just a label with an everchanging meaning? It seems to be a protean concept involving aspects of force, energy, motion, space, time, matter and light. What’s for sure is that it has no ontological definition (and nor does science ontologically define any of the other things we have just listed). Science has no idea what mass actually is. What it “knows” is how to pragmatically measure it via instruments and put the resultant number into a formula to work out something else (which will also end up as a number). Doesn’t that mean that mass is really just a number? Isn’t that the real “logic” of science? Isn’t science just a means of labelling numbers as if they were empirical, material things? Isn’t scientific materialism, like God, in urgent need of an explanation? What is its ontological and epistemological basis? What limitations does it have? How does it define “Truth”? Don’t its claims regarding the basis of existence collapse under any serious scrutiny? Science is merely a model that its practitioners manipulate successfully. However, a model isn’t reality. Imagine that the scientists of an alien species on a faraway planet subscribe to a model in which there is no concept of matter, and the entities that human scientists refer to as material atoms, their scientists refer to as mental packets of mathematical information called “monads”. Presuming that their model of reality is every bit as successful as humanity’s, how would we decide who’s right? Their scientific model of reality is based on mind as the true reality; humanity’s on matter. These are totally different conceptions of what is fundamentally real. People imagine that science tells us about reality, but it simply doesn’t. Science tells us about the scientific model of reality, and nothing else. At no point does it tell us what reality actually is. It’s impossible to link science’s model of reality to ultimate reality. There’s no conceivable bridge, no necessary and inevitable links. No matter how successful a model may be, it’s never anything other than an interpretation of reality, unless it can analytically prove that it necessarily and eternally describes reality itself.

Consider quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity theory. These are two highly successful, highly experimentally verified theories, but they are based on two mutually exclusive models of reality (which is why science has been trying for decades, with no success, to unify them). If no experiment can be devised to falsify one of these theories, then science has to continue in its present absurd state – simultaneously endorsing two totally contradictory models of reality. Whatever your opinion of science, it’s a simple fact that it’s in the modelling game and not in the Truth business, and there’s no way for its models to prove themselves reflective of reality itself. For sure, these models may approximate reality in some way, but in what way? We just don’t know. We would need to know what ultimate reality is in order to understand how good an approximation science is to it, but we can’t know what reality is just by looking out of our window, or conducting a few experiments that already assume a particular scientific model of reality. How many scientists support the view that we live in a mathematical rather than scientific world? None at all! Yet mathematics is essential to the success of science, and all scientific theories are expressed in quasimathematical terms. Why is mathematics so indispensable to the success of science if this is not in fact a mathematical world? What scientist has ever explained what mathematics actually is ontologically, and, if scientists can’t even explain what mathematics is, why should we imagine that they can explain what anything else is? If science can’t do without mathematics, but doesn’t know what mathematics is, how can it be credible as a putative “explanation of everything”? You’d need to be mad to believe that science is explaining reality. What it’s doing is modelling – or simulating – reality and that’s an entirely different thing. As Nietzsche said, it’s describing, not explaining. It provides us with a sensory Mythos – a narrative we use to make sense of things. However, all narratives are fiction. Whenever you read a popular science book by someone such as Brian Greene, never forget that you are not reading anything about reality, but merely about the scientific materialist Mythos. All science books are literally science fiction. The fact that it’s an elaborate Mythos that most people struggle to understand doesn’t make it true. After all, no scientist on earth understands what quantum mechanics actually means ... what is tells us about reality.

If scientists were more careful thinkers, they would realise that Einsteinian relativity is every bit as bizarre and unreal as quantum mechanics. Neither can be used to establish a formal ontology and epistemology, and so both are false. Their practical success is to do with the mathematics they use, not with the materialist and empiricist manner in which their mathematics is interpreted. Consider the scientists of the world depicted in the famous sci-fi movie The Matrix. If those scientists managed to work out the exact rules of the simulation in which they were trapped, they would then be forced to concede that they had no idea whatsoever about what lay beyond that simulation. The scientists of our world are in exactly the same position. They have constructed a model of reality, but, by definition, they have no idea what lies beyond that model, and, equally, they have no idea, and no way of proving, whether their model has any true connection with Reality. A model that works well in various situations is not, ipso facto, a model that reflects Truth. The only thing you can conclude is that the model approximates reality quite well, but Truth isn’t about approximation, it’s about necessity, infallibility, immutability and eternity! It must be 100% incontestable, or it’s mere opinion, conjecture, belief and interpretation. Immanuel Kant, via his philosophy of transcendental idealism, attempted to explain science within a definitive philosophical, and even religious, context. His ambitious attempt ultimately failed, but the project itself need not be abandoned. This book shows, via a detailed investigation of Kant’s monumental philosophy, that the only way to make sense of science, and to genuinely link it to ultimate reality, is via transcendental mathematics. What Kant got disastrously wrong was the ontology and transcendence of mathematics. He failed to successfully define, in a complete and consistent manner, what mathematics is. Once this failure is rectified, a full explanation of science can emerge. It’s not one that relies on “God” but on a God Equation – the foundation of the true grand unified, final theory of everything. Only a single, analytic, precise, infallible, absolute mathematical formula can explain the whole of existence – just as Boscovich understood. This world of ours is not a scientific world but a mathematical world, of which science is a particular interpretation (actually, misinterpretation), based on the fallible, unreliable, evolutionary human sense organs.

Mathematics, unlike science, is compatible with religion – with an invisible, transcendent reality – via the two most mysterious and mystical numbers of all – zero and infinity. All the deep issues of existence flow from these two numbers that surpass all possible sensory experiences (i.e. everything on which science relies). Science, built on mathematics, is a model of reality. Mathematics itself is reality! Science works as well as it does purely because it uses mathematics, hence can’t help but approximate mathematical reality. Science regards itself as real, and mathematics as some weird abstraction. In fact, the exact reverse is true: mathematics is reality, and science is a weird, materialistic, sensory, contingent, temporal misinterpretation of immaterial, non-sensory, necessary, eternal, mathematics. You are about to enter the rabbit hole. You have no idea how deep it goes!

The Moulding Mind The first thing you have to grasp about reality is that it’s about the mind, and not matter (as science fallaciously claims). Kant boldly argued that the mind moulds the reality we encounter. This means that “knowledge”, in Kant’s system, is much more to do with the constitution of our own minds than with anything outside them. In other words, we never gain genuine knowledge of external objects, as science supposes. Rather, we come to “know” objects by virtue of what we impose on those objects, and that means we don’t know those objects in themselves at all. We have no way of knowing what they are like in the absence of our minds, in the absence of how we mentally construct them. Knowledge, in the Kantian view, is not something we take from the world, but something we ourselves superimpose on it. We never gain knowledge of the world; we only gain “knowledge” of how our minds process and interpret the world. That’s a very different type of knowledge. There are objects and there are the minds that contemplate those objects. We, as minds, can never avoid our contemplation of objects, so we can never know of an uncontemplated object ... an object-in-itself ... but that means we can never know ultimate reality. We are always trapped by how we process, interpret and model reality via the constitution of our minds.

If Kant is right, the entire scientific project – what it believes it’s doing and accomplishing – is radically undermined. Scientific subjects such as cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity theory would have to be considered in relation to the inbuilt structures of our minds, and not as subjects that stand on their own, independent of our conception of them. But is Kant right? In fact, neither Kant nor science is right. The correct answer to everything is mathematics. In transcendental, ontological mathematics, the world is made of nothing but minds (monads), and minds are made of sinusoidal waves, hence the world is made of mathematical sinusoids. When the mind looks out at the world, it’s looking at exactly the same stuff of which it is itself made, and that’s exactly why it can interact with it, experience it and know it. The “world” is simply an externalised version of our internalised mind. The “world” is the product of the Monadic Collection – the ensemble of all monads – but that doesn’t alter the fact that it’s a mental construct. Precisely because all monads contribute to it, it’s an objective mental edifice, with systematic rules, rather than a subjective “dream” where the rules can change at whim. Our individual, subjective minds inhabit, we might say, a collective, objective dream. When we go to sleep, we remove ourselves from the objective dreamworld and enter our own subjective dreamworld. When we awake, we leave our private dream and reinsert ourselves into the public dream. Mathematics is the language of dreams, both private and public. Mathematics unifies everything, and allows us to know the nature of the world in itself. We have mathematical minds that look out at a world made by mathematical minds. There is no disastrous and unbridgeable knowledge gulf between objects and the minds that contemplate them given that those minds constructed them in the first place! Once you become a master of mathematics, you become a master of dreams, and then you can be as all-powerful as Neo in The Matrix.

***** “[Kant held that we receive] impressions from the environment, from the ‘thing-in-itself’, but that the mind is of such a nature that it shapes these impressions into ideas. The mind, for him, is like a bowl with many crevices and strange depressions in its contour. When one pours water into

the bowl, it takes the shape of the bowl, filling all the crevices. In the same way the environment pours impressions into the mind and they are received by the mind and shaped in accord with the nature of this mind.” – S. E. Frost, Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers The problem with this analogy is that we know we are pouring water into a bowl. In Kant’s system, we have no idea what the impressions are that we are putting into the mind. We can never know what they are, so how can we refer to them at all? Why assume that the mind isn’t doing the whole thing? Who needs unknowable “impressions”? “[According to Kant] we organise impressions into ideas. But these are ideas of the mind and cannot be applied to a world outside the mind. This leads to the conclusion that we cannot know the world outside the mind.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. If there is no world outside the mind (i.e. all things are mental), this argument is fallacious, and we can indeed know everything, which was the position taken by Kant’s successors, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Empiricist philosopher John Locke argued that there is an objective, external world that we can know via our senses (this is also the default position of science). Bishop Berkeley said that we cannot know anything beyond what is in our mind, and, since the material world – being material and not mental – is not in the mind, we cannot know of it (so either it doesn’t exist or might as well not exist since it can have no effect on us). For Berkeley, God (the highest level of mind) gives us the Idea of the objective world that exists externally to us, i.e. it’s not a material world that’s outside us, but the mental world constructed by God for us. (In Illuminism, it’s not “God”, but the Monadic Collective that constructs the objective mental world that we all encounter.) David Hume argued that all we can have are ideas ... a constant stream of them. We don’t know of the reality of anything external, of any God, any soul, any material world. We don’t even know of causation. We might be making it all up as we go along. We might be permanently “tripping”, hallucinating, dreaming, fantasising. We can’t form any necessary connection between our ideas and anything we believe lies outside them. It’s as if we’re locked in a permanent subjective dream. So, Hume became ferociously skeptical, nihilistic and solipsistic. Kant’s whole philosophy is an attempt to rebut Hume’s anti-knowledge philosophy.

For Kant, there is an objective, external material world but we can know nothing of it as it is in itself. What we can know is what our mind makes of it, what appearance our mind gives to it, or projects onto it. But we emphatically can never know what it’s like unmediated by mind. Fichte, Schelling and Hegel argued that there is nothing that is not mind, i.e. there is no non-mental reality external to us. For Hegel, the evolutionary, dialectical task of mind is to reach a full understanding of itself, and thus of all of existence (since everything is mind). This constitutes Absolute Knowledge, God Knowledge.

The Absurdity “While Kant admitted the existence of a world other than the mind, a world from which the mind received impressions, he held that the mind can know nothing of this world, this ‘thing-in-itself.’ The mind receives impressions according to its nature or its categories and shapes them into patterns which conform not to the world outside mind, but to the nature of mind.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. What’s the point of contending that there’s a world other than the mind? Such a claim immediately raises the problem of Cartesian substance dualism and how two wholly incompatible substances can interact. It violates Occam’s Razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. If we can explain the world via mind only, we must endeavour to do exactly that, rather than inventing something non-mental called “matter”. “Matter” is the basis of science’s model of reality, but since there’s no such thing as matter, science’s model is false. Science works as well it does because the objective, mathematical, mental world constructed by the Monadic Collective can be heuristically treated as if it were material. If we think it’s useful, there’s no harm in creating the fiction of matter. However, this fiction becomes disastrous if we then attempt, as science does, to account for mind using the non-mental fiction the mind has constructed. Illuminism dismisses all notion of scientific matter, and accounts for reality purely in terms of mental sinusoidal waves. All we are required to do is show how such waves can produce the fiction of matter, and this is exactly what Fourier mathematics accomplishes via its ability to translate immaterial, frequency functions into material,

spacetime functions. It’s all in the math, in the extraordinary properties of mathematics that dictate 100% of reality. The silliness of the materialist claim becomes apparent when it has to be conceded, as Berkeley, Hume and Kant showed, that if a non-mental world exists, we can know nothing of it in itself. In that case, how do we even know it exists? Why do we bother referring to it all? Why not accept that it’s a world made of exactly the same stuff as our minds? That was the real problem Kant should have addressed. Instead he invented a different problem: how can mind “know” a non-mental world. His answer was that mind can “know” only the appearance it places over matter, but can’t know matter in itself. In Illuminism, everything is made of analytic sinusoidal waves, grouped in complete and consistent sets into autonomous, monadic mathematical minds, meaning that everything is knowable mathematically, and there is absolutely nothing outside this mathematical system. There is no nonsinusoidal reality.

The Corporeal World “Take away the thinking subject and the entire corporeal world will vanish, for it is nothing but the appearance in the sensibility of our subject.” – Kant Take away minds (monads) and there is no world at all, least of all a corporeal world of space, time and matter. Matter, space and time are produced via collective Fourier spacetime mathematics applied to individual Fourier frequency singularities (monads). In the cosmic state prior to the Big Bang (which was a mathematical, Fourier event), there is only the world in itself ... immaterial and outside space and time. That world is the noumenal, mental world of the ontological mathematical Singularity, made of nothing but monads (comprising sinusoidal waves). There is nothing else. If everyone in the world went to sleep at once, there wouldn’t be a tangible world anymore (for the duration of their collective sleep). What would exist would be mental, mathematical information, capable of being interpreted as a tangible world as soon as a waking mind encounters it. The world we experience and observe is the world that results from how our minds process and interpret sinusoidal wavefunctions.

***** Although Kant denies the existence of a corporeal world, such as scientists conceive of, he does not deny the existence of some kind of corporeal precursor, some sort of Aristotelian “prime matter”, onto which we project corporeal forms with our minds. He does not accept that there is no corporeal world at all, either in actuality or potentiality, either phenomenally or noumenally. He does not agree with Berkeley that there are only minds and their ideas, and he does not accept the Leibnizian thesis that the real, unseen, noumenal world is made of nothing but monadic minds. So, there is a fundamentally materialist, corporeal element in his socalled “idealist” thinking about ultimate reality. This means he’s not a true idealist at all. He’s much closer to empiricism and materialism than rationalism and idealism, much closer to Newtonian science than Leibnizian mathematics. Like so many people, he was fooled by the apparent success of science, and didn’t realise that mathematics was the source of this success. (Without mathematics, “science” is just medieval alchemy!)

***** “Kant held that the understanding cannot know but that which is experienced. However, reason can go beyond this and conceive of a world of which we can have no actual experience. Thus it transcends, rises above experience, and gives us transcendent principles. “Reason gives man an idea of soul as the summation of all mental processes. Although we can never experience the soul, the idea of the soul has value and therefore it is legitimate for us to think of it.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Kant has to use reason to transcend the “understanding” on which his philosophy is predicated, yet, given his own philosophy, this process must be illegitimate since we can have no experience of this domain of pure, non-empirical understanding and thus it’s purely speculative. We cannot know and can never know that Kant’s scheme is true. We are simply expected to accept it. Kant used the adjective “transcendental” to describe his philosophy because, so he said, only by accepting this unverifiable claim (which

transcends our experience) can we account for our a priori knowledge of objects.

***** There is no knowledge without a knower. Imagine the first instant of the Big Bang conceived by scientists. No “knowledge” existed in that system (since there were no knowers present). In fact, according to scientific empiricism, “knowledge” comes into existence only when lifeless, mindless material atoms miraculously arrange themselves into human beings capable of observing and experiencing the world. Knowledge, according to science, jumps into existence out of non-existence via illusory or epiphenomenal minds – since science denies the autonomous existence of mind – with no causal efficacy and no free will. Try working that out! It means that “knowledge” is itself wholly illusory. As for Kant, “knowledge” enters his world only at the point at which minds are designed (by whom or what?!) to generate it. But since it’s constructed knowledge, it cannot be real knowledge (independent of our construction). With Illuminism, we can have real knowledge – knowledge of eternal, necessary, ontological, transcendental mathematics. With this real knowledge, we can work out exactly what state preceded the Big Bang, despite having no conceivable experience of that state, and no possible means to observe it. If you do not accept mathematics (rationalism) as the basis of knowledge, if you insist on empiricism, then you can never know what state the universe was in prior to the Big Bang, and that means you can never know what existence is in itself. That’s an unassailable fact.

“Knowing”? Locke: there is an external material world that we can know via our senses. This is the “common sense” view. Berkeley: the external world is mental, not material, and is created by God as an act of creative thought. (God created the world out of “nothing” in a mental sense ... this makes much more sense than creating a physical world out of nothing.)

Hume: we can never know if there is an external world, whether material or mental. This is an utterly skeptical, solipsistic and nihilistic view. Kant: there is an external world, but we can know nothing of it beyond the appearance of it that our minds force it to take, and there are vital elements (such as “God” and the soul) that take on no appearance at all. This proposed world must, however, be made a kind of material precursor since Kant denies that everything is made of mind (although, given his own philosophy, he cannot possibly know this!). Classical science: see Locke. Modern science: there is an external material world but it exists, when unobserved, as abstract mathematical potentiality (via “unreal” wavefunctions). Modern science is a total repudiation of classical science, although scientists never bother to talk about this or even think about it. Classical science was entirely deterministic; modern science is predicated on indeterminism, acausation, randomness, chance, accident, statistics and probability. Ontological mathematics: there is an external mental world that exists as mathematical, noumenal actuality at all times. There is no matter independent of mind.

The Faculty of Reason “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. ... 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. It’s remarkable that when it comes to morality (an inherently interpretative, subjective ideology of nothing but opinion and belief), Kant is willing to grant that we should accept the diktats of Reason (or, rather, his Reason), but will not grant that we should apply Reason to the noumenal world via the perfect, complete and consistent system of ontological mathematics.

***** “Basic to [Kant’s] position was the thesis that there is a higher truth than that of the sciences, the truth of the moral nature of man. The moral law within man is a guarantee of the world beyond the senses, a world in which freedom applies. Faith in this world was Kant’s way of escape from the deadening world of experience.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. The higher truth than that of the sciences isn’t morality but, rather, the queen of the sciences – mathematics. As for freedom, it’s possible only in relation to eternal, uncaused, causal agents – mathematical monadic minds. These are not subject to scientific determinism. Rather, scientific determinism is one of their collective effects. Monads are the true origin of all causation. They are the uncaused, first causes, the prime movers (just as “God” is traditionally considered to be, i.e. each monad has many of the same ontological properties that religion assigns to God: each monad is a potential God).

Pure and Practical Reason “Belief in God, Hume taught, does not come from man’s reasoning but from human desire for happiness, fear of death and future misery, and the thirst on the part of many for revenge. Because we have these emotional and instinctive characteristics as human beings, we construct a belief in God and then seek to prove that such a belief is justified by reason. Hume writes at length in his attempt to show that while, from the point of view of reason, we must be skeptical about God, from the fact of our impulsive and emotional nature we do believe in God and construct a theory about God which is necessary for us. This approach to the problem of the nature of God was, as we shall see later, the part of Hume’s philosophy which stimulated Immanuel Kant to make a distinction between pure reason and practical reason.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Practical reason isn’t reason at all – it’s self-serving justification by faith, feelings and the senses. Nietzsche dismissed it as nothing but interpretation. True reason is ontological reason, conveyed by ontological mathematics. “God, for Immanuel Kant, is the notion or highest Idea which man can have, the idea of the highest unity, of the one Absolute Whole including and

encompassing everything. This idea transcends experience and cannot be obtained from experience. It is one of the results of reason which brings under one head all happenings.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. In ontological mathematics, the mathematical Singularity performs the functions of Kant’s God. Hegel’s Absolute performs the same role. “Kant insists that we must never forget that we have formed the idea of the whole of experience. It is nothing that we can know as we do one of our ideas arrived at through experience, for we cannot experience the whole universe. After we have formed this idea, we make an entity of this whole and personify it. Thus for us it becomes God.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. If we resist personifying this Whole, we do not need to call it “God”. It in fact remains what it is: the God Equation = the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It’s perfect and explains everything, and is ontologically implemented as mathematics. The Principle of Sufficient Reason transcends and fully explains empiricism. Reason can account for experience. Experience cannot account for reason. Reason is the dominant partner, not the servant of experience, as empiricists such as Kant believed. Kant, despite labelling himself a transcendental idealist, was really the last empiricist, his “rational” or transcendental empiricism being the “cure” for Hume’s skeptical empiricism. The true successor of Leibniz, the great rationalist, wasn’t Kant, but, rather, Hegel, the great rationalist idealist. Kant belonged to the camp of the empiricists rather than rationalists. His philosophy is really an amalgam of Locke, Berkeley and Hume’s, with some specious rationalism added to try to save it from Hume’s nihilism. Kant argued that belief in God was necessary for a moral life. However, there is no Creator, and nor is there any morality. We should do the rational thing, and that, ultimately, dialectically, proves the moral thing too (or what passes as the moral thing) since it requires that we should all cooperate with each other and be fair and just to each other. Through rationalism, we arrive at the core of Kant’s moral philosophy, namely, the categorical imperative: “Always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle of your action to become universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action.” This is not a moral injunction at all, but a rational one. If everyone

dutifully obeyed it, we would appear to be living in a perfectly moral world. Kant used reason in a perverse way to manufacture a fantasy of God. When that fantasy is abolished, what remains is rational, ontological mathematics, which is perfect, eternal, ubiquitous and all- powerful (all the things typically associated with “God”). “God” is not “good”; “God” is rational. “Man cannot experience God. At best, he can blow up or inflate his meagre and small ideas to infinity and call that God. Kant agreed with those who held that we cannot know God through reason. But, he added, we need God. Therefore, reason can bring God back as a necessary unknown.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. What is a “necessary unknown”? That’s a rationally untenable concept. How can we know it’s necessary if it’s unknown (and unknowable)? What reason leads us to is exactly what you’d expect – the Principle of Sufficient Reason as the explanation of everything, as that which gives us knowledge of everything. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is the True God that creates, designs, orders and patterns the universe, and it does so through its ontological expression: causal mathematics. It’s not a person, although it’s implemented via monadic beings. These are perfect mathematically, but wildly imperfect as regards self-knowing. They arrive at self-knowledge only after a great dialectical journey ... an immense cosmic process to render subjective reasoning as infallible as objective reasoning (i.e. mathematical causality). Kant, in the end, was just an irrational Protestant, trying, like Luther, to justify his faith in God, and having considerable contempt for reason. There’s no need of faith and no need of God. The Principle of Sufficient Reason gives us everything we require: a universe fully knowable through the exercise of mathematical reason. If you reject reason as the answer to everything, it’s because you yourself are irrational, and would prefer to believe in your feelings or your senses, in Mythos rather than Logos. That’s your choice. That’s the way your mind works. The Truth is not for all. People can choose to be ignorant and wrong. People can choose to oppose reason, which of course merely proves how irrational they are!

The Three Types “[Kant’s] concepts – the objects of understanding – are of three types: a posteriori (abstracted from sense perception and applied to it), a priori (applicable to sense perception but not abstracted from it), and a third type called Ideas, which are concepts neither abstracted from sense perception nor applicable to it. The a priori concepts of science and other forms of knowledge [Kant] calls ‘categories’.” – R. J. Hollingdale Kant’s system is bogus because he introduces the fallacious “synthetic a priori” category of judgment. Reality is constructed on just two categories: 1) analytic a priori (Form; eternal truths of reason; not abstracted from sense perception; prior to experience; innate; necessary; deductive), and 2) synthetic a posteriori (Content; contingent interpretations of fact; abstracted from sense perception; inductive). Ontological mathematics deals with the former and science the latter. In reality, there are no such things as Kantian “Ideas”, i.e. concepts neither abstracted from sense perception nor applicable to it. All true concepts belong to noumenal, ontological mathematics, and all are applicable to the sensory domain of Content since all mathematical Form is necessarily accompanied by Content as its flip side. The whole sensory domain of phenomenal experience is conditioned by noumenal reality, and that noumenal reality is fully knowable because it’s pure math. Kant was as ingeniously wrong in philosophical terms as Einstein was in scientific terms. Ingenious errors are enormously productive in some ways, but their very success can hold back for centuries the discovery of the real Truth. Science is now the greatest obstacle in the way of the Truth precisely because it’s wrong but highly successful. Previously, religion was wrong but highly successful (much more successful than science in its ability to influence and control human behaviour, and to appeal to the masses). Truth always has a tremendous task overcoming the success of the Lie. Only a tiny number of Grail Knights fight for the cause of Truth. Kant said it was his task to, “limit Hume’s skepticism, on the one hand, and the old [rationalist] dogmatism on the other, and to refute and destroy materialism, fatalism, atheism, as well as sentimentalism and superstition.” Admirable sentiments, but it’s not Kant’s obscurantist philosophy (with its baffling unknowable noumena and appeals to an indeterministic “reality”

transcending the deterministic world of appearances) that accomplishes this, but deterministic ontological mathematics based on eternal, autonomous, monadic mathematical minds. All “unknowables” are abolished, as are all faith-based appeals to some absurd moral order outside the deterministic world of rationalist mathematics. Since Kant wants his moral philosophy to be rational, why doesn’t he just abandon “morality”, leaving nothing but pure reason (which serves the same ultimate function as morality)? When Nietzsche said, so acutely, “There are no moral phenomena whatsoever, only moral interpretations of phenomena”, he demolished the entirety of moral philosophy in one sentence. You cannot appeal to interpretations for your moral code, only to reason. “Man, Kant taught, is part of the universe of objects and things. But actually, although he can be certain of the existence of this world apart from himself, he cannot know it. All that he can know is that world which his mind, because of its nature, constructs from the sensations received by contact with this outer universe. Here he is in agreement with the essential positions of Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Knowledge is confined to ideas.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. All that exists is the world of the mind – the mathematical mind. There’s nothing else. If ideas in minds are all that exist, then, of course, knowledge is confined to ideas and minds. There’s nothing else to know! Minds are mathematical monads, and ideas are conveyed by mathematical sinusoids. That’s all you need to know to grasp the basis of reality. “Man is able to reason and, on the basis of this, he can form ideas of the outer world, of God, freedom, and immortality. Thus man, by virtue of reason, can act as though there is an outer world, as though this world and himself were created by a Creator, as though he is free and possessor of a soul which cannot perish.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Kant, for all his quasi-rationalism, continuously doubts reason and its power. It’s not a question of acting as if we are free and immortal. We absolutely know this via ontological mathematics. When Kant linked knowledge to the contingent, phenomenal world, he committed a catastrophic error. In fact, knowledge, sure knowledge, has no connection with the interpretive, phenomenal world. All true knowledge – eternal,

infallible and absolute – concerns ontological mathematics, i.e. the noumenal rather than phenomenal world. “[Kant’s] fundamental problem lay in the question, What is knowledge, and how is it possible? What can we really know, and how? His conclusion was that we can know only our experiences.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. It’s possible to destroy a philosophy in one sentence, and Nietzsche – the destroyer par excellence – demolished Kant’s (and science’s too) with just such a sentence: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” We don’t know experiences; we have experiences and we interpret those experiences, almost always in Mythos terms. When it comes to experiences, we are always dealing with opinion rather than truth or knowledge. This was known since the ancient Greeks (especially Plato), so it’s staggering that Kant should have committed such a blunder. All authentic knowledge must relate to precisely that which we do not experience. True knowledge, like Plato’s eternal, immutable, perfect Forms, must transcend experience. Kant’s emphasis on experience reveals him as an empiricist, opposed to the eternal truths of reason. Knowledge is about rationalism, not empiricism. It’s about Form, not Content. We know Form, we experience Content. Form is intelligible, Content sensible. Form concerns eternal Truths while Content concerns provisional, ever-changing interpretations of “facts”. It’s extraordinary that Kant is so revered given that he made the ridiculous claim that ultimate reality is unknowable. If this is a rational universe – which it certainly is – then reality is entirely knowable through the proper exercise of reason, which means reason that deals exclusively with ontological mathematics. All other “knowledge” is nothing of the kind; it’s just opinion and belief, as indeed Kant’s entire system is. Kant’s philosophy is put to virtually no practical use in the world. Hegel’s philosophy proved far more influential, especially via Marxism, which is materialist Hegelianism (dialectical materialism). “On [Kant’s] theory, we cannot know the universe which exists outside of our thinking. Our minds receive sensations and shape them into ideas because they are what they are. What the world is without our minds, it is impossible for us to know.” – S. E. Frost, Jr.

There’s no universe outside our thinking, outside our reason, outside our minds (individually and collectively). We can certainly know what the world of mind is once we establish what the mind is made of (and it’s made of ontological mathematics). We know exactly what the world outside our individual mind is like – it’s just like the world inside our individual mind, i.e. it’s made of analytic sinusoidal waves and obeys ontological Fourier mathematics.

Kant’s Empiricist Analysis “But, by Reason we can form an Idea of this world, this universe. As we experience the world in our minds, we find that the world has no beginning in time, that bodies in the world cannot be divided infinitely, that everything in the world cannot be divided infinitely, that everything in the world takes place according to the laws of nature, and that there is no absolutely necessary Being who causes the world to be. We must accept this theory of the world of experience because we cannot experience it otherwise.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. This is the scientific worldview of appearances.

Kant’s Rationalist Analysis “However, Reason can construct a world of Idea which has a beginning in time, in which bodies can be divided infinitely, in which there is freedom, and in which there is an absolutely necessary Being, God, who is the cause of everything. Although we cannot know such a universe through experience, we can reason its existence and we can act as though it were real. Kant believed that man must act as though this kind of a world existed if he would preserve his moral integrity. For, on the basis of such a world Kant reasoned to the existence of God, freedom and immortality.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Using a perverse form of reasoning, Kant reached the conclusion that the unknowable noumenal world is a world of morality and God! In fact, it’s a world of ontological mathematics, eternal truths of reason, and immortal, indestructible, free mathematical minds (souls). It’s Plato’s rationalist, intelligible domain of authentic Truth.

“Thus, for Kant, there are two universes: one of experience, the ‘phenomenal’ world, and one of reason, the ‘noumenal’ world. The one is scientific, the other is practical.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Kant reached the religious conclusion that the noumenal world is moral. It’s not. It’s mathematical. It’s not “practical” (i.e. moral), it’s rational. It was Kant’s Protestant faith that led him to misinterpret the noumenal world so badly. All along, what he wanted to accomplish was room for a Protestant God protected from scientific skepticism. The two universes are in fact the scientific (phenomenal) and the mathematical (noumenal), not the scientific and moral. Morality has nothing to do with anything in ontological terms. As Nietzsche pointed out, morality is always about opinion, belief and interpretation. It has no connection with the eternal, absolute, immutable order of Truth. It was an extraordinary error by Kant, driven by his religious bias, to make the noumenal world “moral”. One reason why he was led to this stance was that he viewed mathematics in much the same way as science, rather than seeing mathematics as the metaphysical, noumenal, ontological underpinning of phenomenal, empirical physics. If his conception of mathematics had proved radically different, and he had detached it from empirical science, he might have been able to conceive the noumenal world mathematically rather than morally. As ever, every philosophy, as well as science, founders on the rock of the stark failure to define the ontology of mathematics. “Kant placed freedom at the centre of his practical world.” – S. E. Frost, Jr. Kant couldn’t conceive of freedom being at the centre of an ontological, deterministic, mathematical world. He actively opposed compatibilism, the stance that freedom is consistent with determinism (compatibilism is true provided we understand that all monadic souls are uncaused causal agents outside space and time and are the source of their own causal chains, i.e. they are free to act as they internally see fit, without any external compulsion). “Kant hoped to make progress [in philosophy] comparable to the recent advances in science (such as those of Newton, whom Kant greatly admired) by undertaking a critical examination of the nature of reason itself. The ‘pure reason’ of the title [Critique of Pure Reason] means ‘a priori reason’

– what can be known by reason apart from anything derived from experience. Kant agreed with the empiricists that there cannot be innate ideas in the sense of anything known prior to experience, but he was not prepared say that therefore all knowledge must be derived from experience. Hitherto philosophers had assumed that ‘our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects have, on this assumption, ended in failure.’ So he tried a different method of approach. ‘We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to knowledge.’ Kant suggested that the apparatus of human sensibility and understanding, that is, the way in which we perceive, identify and reflect upon objects might itself have a form or structure which in some way moulds or contributes to our experience.” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference Kant’s starting point was pro-empiricist and anti-rationalist, so it’s odd that he isn’t classified as an empiricist philosopher. What he did, in effect, was relocate form from the external world’s objects themselves to the minds perceiving them, thus creating “formless” objects (and “formed minds”). This is an unnecessary manoeuvre, making our individual minds the authors of “objective reality”, imposing our own forms on an unknowable, formless world external to us. The correct way to “extend our knowledge” of objects is in fact to recognise them as analytic mathematical objects with their own inbuilt form. Physics became successful by applying mathematics to empirical, phenomenal Nature. Metaphysics should equally apply mathematics to rationalist, noumenal Nature. So far, metaphysics has failed to do so and thus it has produced bizarre schemes such as Kant’s. What Kant had to solve was actually a mathematical problem – how to apply mathematics to things we can’t see or experience. Instead, he did almost the opposite. He stripped the noumenal world of mathematical form and tried to force form into the mind in a wholly unscientific and unmathematical way. Anything that takes you away from mathematics is certain to go wrong. Had Kant grasped the notion of an immaterial, mathematical frequency domain outside space and time, he would never have become as muddled as he did. He associated mathematics exclusively with space and time. Given

the mathematical knowledge of his day, Kant can be forgiven. Modern science can’t be, however, since it knows all about frequency and yet continues to predicate itself on space and time only. Quantum mechanics can only be understood via accepting the real existence of autonomous Fourier frequency domains (minds) ... but science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to contemplate the real existence of mind (since this would automatically overthrow scientific materialism). “Kant compared his new approach to that of Copernicus. Rejecting the idea that the sun and stars revolve round the spectator, ‘he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.’ Thus the apparent movement of the stars was in fact in part the movement of the spectator. In the same way, some of the properties that we observe in objects may be due to the nature of the observer rather than the objects themselves. This is indeed Kant’s conclusion. There are two sources of human knowledge: sensibility and understanding – ‘through the former objects are given to us; through the latter they are thought.’ It is only through the workings of the understanding that sense experience comes to be ordered and classified into experience of an objective world, the world of nature. ‘The order and regularity in objects, which we entitle nature, we ourselves introduce. The understanding is itself the lawgiver of nature.” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference The true Copernican revolution would have been to reject the thesis that mathematics is applicable only to the phenomenal world, and to apply it to the noumenal world too. Rather than mathematics revolving around extended material objects, it would instead primarily revolve around unextended mental objects (monads and their constituent sinusoids in the frequency domain). It’s entirely mysterious what Kant means by “through sensibility objects are given to us” since objects external to us do not, in Kant’s system, seem to have any properties at all. Our minds supply space, time and causation, all categories of understanding, as well as all the primary and secondary properties of objects, so what’s left for objects to supply to the party? Nothing at all! Ergo, they don’t exist. Kant simply created a silly way of transferring mathematics from objects and putting it, in a non-mathematical way, into minds. All he said, in the end, was that we look at the world through mathematical goggles and

impose mathematical form (and content) on it, except he didn’t actually use any mathematics in his scheme but a priori intuitions and concepts. In ontological mathematics, all objects and minds are made of the same things: analytic sinusoids defined by the God Equation. “Kant claimed that there were some concepts (twelve in all) that were not learnt from experience but were thought by the understanding independently of experience and then applied to it. These twelve concepts, the ‘categories’, enable us to make sense of our experience, but have no significance apart from their application to our sense experience. He thought the categories indispensable for experience. They are concepts that are essential if any creature is going to be able to make judgments about his experience. The twelve categories form a sort of minimum conceptual apparatus for making sense of the world.” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference In Kant’s scheme, minds first apply two a priori pure intuitions of space and time to all objects of experience, and then the twelve categories: Quantity (Unity, Plurality and Totality), Quality (Reality, Negation, Limitation), Relation (Substance, Causality, Interaction), Modality (Possibility, Existence, Necessity). Kant’s scheme is therefore just a means of placing a quasi-mathematical frame over a non-mathematical world. Why not just make the world entirely mathematical – as it is in ontological mathematics – and then Kant’s mathematical framing goggles become redundant (as does his whole philosophy!). Moreover, don’t these Kantian mental faculties seem very much like rationalist innate ideas given that, although we cannot know them experientially, we cannot have any knowable experiences without them? What we do know is that these must exist prior to existence in order to allow us to construct knowledge, hence they must qualify as innate ideas, knowable prior to experience. “Kant’s procedure differed significantly from the generally psychological empiricist method, for rather than seeking for the impressions upon which certain ideas are based, he investigated the relationships that exist between the fundamental concepts related to a subject’s having experience of objects. He was concerned with theoretical questions of a sort he calls

‘transcendental’, such as ‘under what conditions is experience of an objective world possible?’ “One of the conclusions of the main, positive part of the first Critique, the ‘Analytic’, is that the conditions of knowledge are such that it is not possible to apply the concepts which we employ in our knowledge of the objects of sense to anything that lies beyond or transcends such experience. Any attempt to apply our concepts in such a way leads to inconsistency and error.” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference Kant failed to consider the reality of an ontological mathematical domain beyond our sensory experience – exactly the same error made by science to this day. It’s amazing how many systems of thought founder on the simple inability of their authors to consider dimensionless existence. As a result, they are forced to talk nonsense, such as (in Kant’s case) invoking an “unknowable” noumenal world, in which God, the soul and free will allegedly hide. “Consequently Kant believed that the claims of speculative metaphysics are worthless.” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference What Kant was attacking was really non-mathematical metaphysics. When metaphysics is made mathematical, i.e. properly rationalist, Kant’s objections to metaphysics dissolve, along with his philosophy. Kant was the most ingenious of the empiricist philosophers, but, like all of them, he failed to understand the full scope of mathematics, in particular that it can address a dimensionless domain as well as a dimensional one. Once this is grasped, Kant’s philosophy can be dismissed as useless since mathematics answers all of the problems he imagined he saw. Only one subject can withstand intellectual scrutiny and deconstruction, and that’s ontological mathematics. Physics became successful by embracing mathematics, and metaphysics will succeed when it does exactly the same! It’s all in the math.

Kantian Philosophy “[Kant’s] philosophy ...allowed an appeal to the heart against the cold dictates of theoretical reason...” – Bertrand Russell Ontological mathematics gets rid of silly emotionalism, faith and sentimentality and returns to the rule of pure, “cold”, clinical, pristine

reason ... the only thing you can trust! “Hume proved that the law of causality is not analytic, and he inferred that we could not be certain of its truth.” – Bertrand Russell Causality is analytic, provided it’s defined exclusively in terms of ontological mathematics, in which case we can be absolutely certain of its truth. It is mathematical causation that orders, organises and patterns the universe, makes it intelligible and allows us knowledge of it. If this were not the case, the universe would be an irrational, unintelligible universe of chaos, and, in fact, wouldn’t exist at all since it would simply annihilate itself. Ontological mathematics is the antidote to the preposterous and irrational claim of scientific materialism that reality is predicated on randomness. If this were so, the universe would be unmistakably random. We live in a rational universe because it’s literally made of ontological reason in the form of mathematics. That fact allows us to have a 100% answer to the question of existence. A rational underpinning to reality produces a rational and intelligible universe. A random underpinning to reality produces a random, miraculous, irrational, unintelligible universe. Bizarrely, according to scientific “logic”, innate cosmic randomness leads to a rational, intelligible universe that looks anything other than random. No scientist has ever bothered to explain why supposed innate randomness leads to something that’s the opposite of randomness. Kant believed that mathematics and causation were synthetic a priori, but there’s no such category. Kant and Hume weren’t good enough at mathematics to know how wrong their ideas were. Right up to the present day, philosophers remain mathematically illiterate. Scientists are much better at math than at philosophy but have zero idea of what mathematics actually is, and don’t show any interest in the question since, to them, it seems to be a philosophical question, and all scientists are of course philosophically illiterate (as must be expected from a subject that refuses to engage with the big questions of philosophy). Such is the horrific state of the “intellectual” world. The blind are leading the blind, and the greatest blind spot of all concerns the ontology of mathematics. Kant said of his philosophy, “I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of

which the key at least has not been supplied.” Er, wrong! Science would make a similar claim, and also be wrong. Yet Kant’s statement could certainly be validly asserted of ontological mathematics. Kant said he had effected a Copernican revolution in philosophy. We have done so in mathematics. Mathematics is no abstraction. It’s existence itself. Before Copernicus, the world believed that the earth was at the centre of the universe, and the sun orbited it. Today, the intellectual community believes that science is at the centre of the intellectual universe, and mathematics is just some minor satellite in orbit around it. Well, just as the sun is actually the true power of our solar system, and we could not exist without it, so ontological mathematics is the true sun of the intellectual universe, and we could not exist without it. However, only radical, rationalist thinkers can see the truth. We encourage everyone to go and read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The Cave is science, the prisoners are scientists, and the illuminating Sun outside is ontological mathematics. The question is a very simple one – are you clever enough to recognise the truth? Scientists aren’t. Can anyone seriously imagine any scientist at all being able to respond to the myriad issues and criticisms of science we have raised throughout the God Series? They wouldn’t have a clue! Scientists aren’t part of the intellectual community at all. You can’t be if you have contempt for philosophy, as all scientists do. They think they have disproved philosophy, without even once engaging with any philosophers or philosophies. How dumb is that?! “According to Kant, the outer world causes only the matter of sensation, but our own mental apparatus orders this in space and time, and supplies the concepts by means of which we understand experience.” – Bertrand Russell There’s an immediate and fatal difficulty with Kant’s philosophy. He asserts that causation belongs to the phenomenal world, yet asserts that the “outer world” (the noumenal world) causes the “matter of sensation”. How can it if causation is phenomenal and not noumenal? According to Kant’s own scheme, noumena cannot cause anything in the phenomenal world since they are not part of the causal order of space and time. Noumenal “causation”, such as it is in Kant’s system, is much more akin to the spontaneous randomness invoked by modern science.

Kant argued that free will belonged to the noumenal domain and thus escaped the laws of phenomenal causation that, to Kant, were the deterministic opposite of freedom. Yet what’s true of noumenal free will must be equally true of noumenal “matter of sensation”, i.e. it can have no causal efficacy, and that means it can cause nothing in the phenomenal world, hence we cannot know of its existence using Kant’s scheme. At best, all it can do is randomly (and chaotically) intrude into the phenomenal world of scientific determinism. Just as free will cannot be captured by Kant’s phenomenal system of causation, nor, logically, can the “matter of sensation”. To do so, it would have to belong to the same order of existence and reflect Descartes’ decisive principle that effects cannot have more reality than their causes. In Kant’s system, causation is phenomenal not noumenal, but that means that nothing noumenal can cause anything phenomenal, which destroys Kant’s philosophy at a stroke. The truth, of course, is that there’s no noumenal matter or “matter of sensation”, only noumenal, ontological mathematics, which is fully causal at all times. Kant’s philosophy states that there’s a non-causal noumenal domain outside space and time, full of “matter of sensation”. However, if this is true reality – reality in itself – then how on earth can we causally get from there to the perceived scientific world of causal matter in space and time? It’s impossible given that Kant has applied causation to only one domain and not the other. He did so in a futile attempt to defend the Christian religion and the freedom of God and the soul. (He was determined to separate these from the world of scientific causation that seemed to deny their very possibility, as we see today when scientific materialism is so relentlessly and militantly atheistic.) Kant’s scheme is ingenious nonsense, so complex it bamboozled most of those who read it, most of whom failed to see the logical absurdity at its core. In ontological mathematics, causation and free will are compatible, as we have discussed in detail earlier in the God Series, and causation applies to everything, noumenal and phenomenal alike. All of the errors in Kant’s system are rectified by ontological, noumenal mathematics. We can see exactly how noumena can cause phenomenal effects (via Fourier mathematics allowing frequency functions to be translated into spacetime functions).

Causation is the Achilles’ heel of Kant’s system. He can’t explain how noumena cause anything in the phenomenal world since he actually makes causation a category of the mind, i.e. we impose causation on the world via our mental operations. This means that we can never say that “the outer world causes only the matter of sensation”. The outer world doesn’t contain causation in Kant’s scheme. Only our minds – our inner world – contain it. What could legitimately be said is that our minds cause the outer world, or certain proto-matter components of it, to take on a certain appearance. Our minds do not, however, cause themselves, or other minds – which exist in the objective outer world relative to us – to take on any appearance. Why not? Kant doesn’t explain. This is just taken for granted in his system. Kant’s most daunting problem is that he can’t explain how and why minds operate causally and the outer world doesn’t. He simply defines causation as a property of mind, hence does not have to offer any ontological explanation for it. He does not define proto-matter – onto which we project the causal phenomenal world – as causal. How can we “see” the outer world in causal terms if it does not contain causation in itself? That means nothing less than that we are projecting a fantasy onto the world, a systematic, inbuilt mental delusion. Yet, if our minds are capable of such a feat, why do they need the outer world at all? They can live in their own solipsistic dreamworld. Kant certainly can’t be accused of being a realist. The plain fact is that causation can’t exist in our minds and yet be absent from the world outside our minds. No matter what the abilities of our minds are, we can’t conjure causation out of nothing. We can’t possibly experience causation if the world doesn’t inherently contain causation. If all the things of the world are in no causal relations to each other, how can we act as if they are? That’s insanity. We are seeing something that isn’t there. Since there are no causal relations between things in themselves then there are no causal ways in which these relations can develop, yet all we perceive are exactly such causal developments and their relations – developments that simply don’t and can’t exist in the Kantian schema. Kant has weaved an elaborate fantasy with no connection to reality. Our minds have constructed their own reality that has nothing to do with the world in itself. This is an ontological and epistemological absurdity. Causal ontological mathematics solves all of Kant’s problems and brings the noumenal and phenomenal worlds into rational alignment.

According to Copenhagen quantum mechanics, causation and determinism do exist – but in an unreal world of abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions! These randomly and indeterministically “collapse” into “reality” (i.e. into actuality rather than potentiality) as a result of measurements by undefined observers (minds!). If that’s not philosophy, or metaphysics, or even science fiction, then what is? Where Kant says that an indeterministic, unknowable, noumenal actuality underpins phenomenal reality, science says that deterministic, knowable but unreal (!) mathematical potentiality wavefunctions underpins phenomenal reality, and generates it randomly, through indeterministic observer-generated wavefunction collapse. Why is it that so many people treat Kant’s scheme as silly and speculative while treating the even sillier claims of science as plausible and probably true? Causation is as much of a problem for science as for Kant. Again, we have a causality dualism. With Kant, the phenomenal world is causal and the noumenal world acausal. With science, the unreal potentiality world is causal and the “real” world acausal (statistical and probabilistic). Would any scientist on earth care to explain why we should take the claims of science regarding ultimate reality any more seriously than those of Kant? Do any scientists even understand that they have a problem? “Things in themselves, which are the causes of our sensations, are unknowable; they are not in space and time, they are not substances, nor can they be described by any of those other general concepts which Kant calls ‘categories’.” – Bertrand Russell Well, if noumena are unknowable, how can we know that they can cause anything, and how do we know that they are there at all? What is it that they supply to the phenomenal world? We don’t know! They are ghosts, phantasms. “Space and time are subjective, they are part of our apparatus of perception. But just because of this, we can be sure that whatever we experience will exhibit the characteristics dealt with by geometry and the science of time. If you always wore blue spectacles, you could be sure of seeing everything blue (this is not Kant’s illustration). Similarly, since you always wear spatial spectacles in your mind, you are sure of always seeing everything in space. Thus geometry is a priori in the sense that it must be true of everything experienced, but we have no reason to suppose that anything analogous is

true of things in themselves, which we do not experience.” – Bertrand Russell Of course, no matter what goggles we don mentally, we cannot make noumenal objects that have no spatial, temporal and mathematical relations with each other have systematic spatial, temporal and mathematical relations phenomenally. We cannot make noumenal objects that have no causal relations with each other suddenly have causal relations with each other in the phenomenal world just because we put on magic glasses. We haven’t given an appearance to a world without appearances: we have simply invented an appearance that can bear no conceivable logical relation to what it purports to be the appearance of. Ontological mathematics solves this problem by asserting that the world without appearance is pure math, and the phenomenal world is merely the invisible math world made visible by the senses. The senses give math “flesh”. Remove the senses, and math-in-itself remains = noumenal, ontological, transcendental mathematics. It was only because he was such an obscure writer that Kant’s philosophy was taken seriously at all (he dressed up his system with such pedagogical profundity that no one could see that the emperor was stark naked). It just doesn’t make any sense. “As regards cause ... there is an inconsistency, for things in themselves are regarded by Kant as causes of sensations, and free volitions are held to be causes of occurrences in space and time. This inconsistency is not an accidental oversight; it is an essential part of his system.” – Bertrand Russell Noumena can’t cause anything if they aren’t causal entities. You can’t get effects without causes. You can’t make things causal by putting on causal goggles. You can’t get non-causal things to cause sensations in our space and time schema (and, contrary to what Russell says on behalf of Kant, sensations are occurrences). You can’t get non-causal free volitions to have causal effects in space and time. Kant’s philosophy is incoherent. “A large part of The Critique of Pure Reason is occupied in showing the fallacies that arise from applying space and time or the categories to things that are not experienced. When this is done, so Kant maintains, we find ourselves troubled by ‘antinomies’ – that is to say, by mutually

contradictory propositions each of which can apparently be proved.” – Bertrand Russell It’s not pure reason that goes wrong, it’s Kant’s reason! It goes wrong because he applies it outside its strict domain of ontological mathematics. He applies it to truths of fact when he should be applying it exclusively to truths of reason.

The Proofs of God “[Kant says there are] only three proofs of God’s existence by pure reason; these are the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, and the physicotheological proof. “The ontological proof, as he sets it forth, defines God as the ens realissimum, the most real being; i.e. the subject of all predicates that belong to being absolutely. It is contended, by those who believe the proof valid, that, since ‘existence’ is such a predicate, this subject must have the predicate ‘existence’, i.e. must exist. Kant objects that existence is not a predicate. A hundred thalers that I merely imagine may, he says, have all the same predicates as a hundred real thalers. “The cosmological proof says: If anything exists, then an absolutely necessary Being must exist; now I know that I exist; therefore an absolutely necessary Being exists, and this must be the ens realissimum. Kant maintains that the last step in this argument is the ontological argument over again, and that it is therefore refuted by what has already been said. “The physico-theological proof is the familiar argument from design, but in metaphysical dress. It maintains that the universe exhibits an order which is evidence of purpose. The argument is treated by Kant with respect, but he points out that, at best, it proves only an Architect, not a Creator, and therefore cannot give an adequate conception of God. He concludes that ‘the only theology of reason which is possible is based upon moral laws or seeks guidance from them.’” – Bertrand Russell All of Kant’s criticisms apply to proofs concerning a Superbeing. They are negated when the arguments are applied to the system of ontological mathematics. As for moral arguments, they are always interpretive and can have nothing to do with any “theology of reason”.

“God, freedom, and immortality, Kant says, are the three ‘ideas of reason’. But although pure reason leads us to form these ideas, it cannot itself prove their reality. The importance of these ideas is practical, i.e. connected with morals. The purely intellectual use of reason leads to fallacies; its only right use is directed to moral ends.” – Bertrand Russell This is nonsense. It’s when reason is applied to interpretive morality that it leads to fallacies, given that morality has nothing to do with eternal, necessary reason and is all about temporal, contingent opinions. The moral codes and mores of today are radically different from those of thousands of years ago, and even those of a hundred years ago. Oscar Wilde went to jail for his homosexuality. Today, he would be one of the world’s most famous celebrities, and no doubt knighted by the Queen. The moral majority that once condemned him would now lionize him. Such is the changing nature of morals. Intellectual reason goes awry only if it fails to be applied to mathematics, its proper domain. “Kant holds that the immediate objects of perception are due partly to external things and partly to our own perceptive apparatus. Locke had accustomed the world to the idea that the secondary qualities – colours, sounds, smells, etc. – are subjective, and do not belong to the object as it is in itself. Kant, like Berkeley and Hume, though in not quite the same way, goes further, and makes the primary qualities also subjective. Kant does not at most times question that our sensations have causes, which he calls ‘things-in-themselves’ or ‘noumena’. What appears to us in perception, which he calls a ‘phenomenon’, consists of two parts: that due to the object, which he calls the ‘sensation’, and that due to our subjective apparatus, which, he says, causes the manifold to be ordered in certain relations. The latter part he calls the form of the phenomenon. This part is not itself sensation, and therefore not dependent upon the accident of environment; it is always the same, since we carry it about with us, and it is a priori in the sense that it is not dependent upon experience. A pure form of sensibility is called a ‘pure intuition’; there are two such forms, namely space and time, one for the outer sense, one for the inner.” – Bertrand Russell If Kant makes the primary and secondary qualities of objects of perception subjective (i.e. they are generated by the perceiving mind) then what, exactly, is supplied by the objects of perception themselves, i.e. what could

possibly exist other than primary and secondary properties? What on earth is a Kantian “sensation”? What properties does it have beyond its mere existence? Kant doesn’t say, and shrouds the whole thing in his ever reliable and all-too-convenient get-out-clause of “it’s unknowable”. Kant produced a system as ingenious as science for explaining nothing at all extremely long-windedly. What Kant needed for his philosophy to be rational was for his noumena, with their ability to produce “sensations” – which are undefined but which constitute the raw material of what we perceive (they are somehow, in some obscure and unexplained way, generated by the mere existence of noumena) – to be converted into mathematical terms. This is what he signally failed to do, but which ontological mathematics achieves perfectly, showing how an unseen world of things can be comprehensively knowable so long as that unseen world comprises analytic mathematical sinusoids, grouped into autonomous monads ... in line with the basic monadic model of reality proposed by Leibniz. Kant, by moving away from Leibniz, took philosophy backwards, not forwards. Hegel put it on the right track again. In Illuminism, what appears to us in perception – the “phenomenon” – is a Fourier spacetime mathematical function. It has empirical sensory Content associated with it – the “sensation” itself – and it also has a rational Form that provides its spacetime character. In other words, space and time come mathematically built into the sensation, by virtue of the Content always being accompanied by a spacetime Form. We do not impose space and time on anything. They are mathematically part of empirical objects, as their Form rather than their Content. We do not see sinusoidal waves in themselves, but we see their empirical Content, and how that Content is ordered by the spacetime characteristics of the wavefunction. We never see spacetime Form in itself; rather we always see how it orders the Content with which it is associated. It is always empirical Content we encounter, but the unseen Form can be interpreted from the shaping effect it has on the Content. Moreover, the external “sensations” have to be received and processed by our sense organs (which are also mathematical functions), then additionally received and processed by our physical brains (which are also mathematical functions), and finally, received and processed by our mathematical monadic minds. So, the original “sensation” has travelled a

long way and been heavily mathematically processed and interpreted by the time we actually experience it. Kant is certainly right that the object supplies a “sensation” and that this is then acted upon by our subjective mental apparatus, producing the actual phenomenon we experience. However, he’s wrong about the precise details and mechanisms, which are all mathematical.

The Three Problems “All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the (immortality of the) soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.” – Kant Reason should be completely detached from morality, unless we explicitly define morality with regard to purely rational criteria. A more rational world would ipso facto be a more moral world, not because rational people were more “moral”, but because they were saner. Kant’s moral metaphysics arrives at the notions of God, freedom and immortality, these being necessary, in Kant’s opinion, for there to be any moral Law. If there is no God (as the perfect moral Arbiter) then we are left, he implies, with morality as a system of ever-changing human opinions. If there is no freedom, i.e. we have no choice over what we do, then we cannot be morally accountable. If we do not have immortal souls then we have no reason to fear what happens if we break the moral law since we are going to suffer exactly the same fate (permanent death) no matter how good or evil we are. Freedom and free will are synonymous. The immortality of the soul obviously means that there must be an immortal world of some kind to accommodate the souls. As for “God”, this implies some sort of Designer,

Architect, Creator or absolute moral standard (Platonic Form), to which we must all try to match up. In Illuminism, there is no “God” of this kind. There are, however, immortal souls, existing in an eternal immaterial Singularity (“World”) outside space and time, and each soul is inherently free (self-determining, i.e. initiating its own causal chains, regardless of the rest of the world). Mathematics provides the absolute, eternal rational standard. As for morality, this is handled dialectically, meaning that it involves a messy, brutal clash of opposites, from which higher syntheses are generated. People of Biblical times would regard our world as utterly immoral, whereas many of us, looking back at the God of the Old Testament, regard him as the Devil himself, hence the quintessence of immorality. In other words, the “God” that some people consider the paragon of morality, others regard as the most heinous repudiation of morality there could possibly be. Given this 100% range, “morality” is meaningless. It’s opinion and belief, and nothing else. When a Jihadist chops someone’s head off or burns them alive, he’s as moral as it gets (in his opinion, and that of his allies). To everyone else, he’s a Devil worshipper. The rich regard themselves as supremely moral, while many others consider them irredeemably greedy, selfish, narcissistic, corrupt and evil. So it goes.

The Nexus “The nexus of causation is a grand example of everything causing and affecting everything else. Each object as a representation gains its significance through its relation with an innumerable series of other representations, or objects. This realm of causation, of time and space, in which each is determined by another, Kant entitles heteronomy. In this light, autonomy, as the citadel of true freedom, cannot be characterised by means of the phenomenal chain of deterministic causality. It must instead exist in a differing realm which is that of a respect for the moral law for no other reason than it is right to do so. Kant describes this realm as a Kingdom of Ends, a place or way of ‘seeing’ which regards the world from the perspective of the end, not of the means, which is that of the realm of the phenomenon. It is in this Kingdom of Ends that we can begin to trace the existence of the beings and precepts of the noumenal domain. ... [Let’s

explore] the grand distinction between the phenomena and noumena, of the web of representation organised by the principle of sufficient reason and the supersensible, or intelligible, dimension of which we can have no knowledge. [There is] another type of ‘knowing’ which is that of practical reason. In this way, there exists for consciousness two ways to know which are simultaneous, two ways to regard the world as it discloses itself to us. Alongside of our theoretical construction of the phenomena, there are the truths precepts and imperatives of practical reason which describe the existence of the noumenal realm, to which the theoretical must remain blind, just as reason must remain blind to (or at least untouched by) the domain of the empirical.” – James Luchte, Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’: A Reader’s Guide The “causality” of freedom, i.e. the ability of free will to bring about causal changes in the deterministic, unfree, phenomenal domain, must have a topos (place) where it can exist, and this can only be the noumenal realm. However, this raises a disastrous issue of causation duality and incompatibilism: the phenomenal domain, in Kant’s scheme, is deterministic and the noumenal domain indeterministic, yet the latter can supposedly deterministically affect the former (through freely chosen actions). This is impossible. Kant’s system can be saved by defining the noumenal domain as a mathematically deterministic frequency domain (immaterial and outside space and time), mathematically hardwired (via dual-aspect Fourier mathematics) to a mathematically deterministic spacetime domain of mathematics. The whole system is unified by Fourier mathematical causality, so there is no longer any causation incompatibilism. Given the mathematical knowledge of his day, Kant could never have successfully completed his project. However, the task of a truly great thinker is to establish a system that will survive in its essential features no matter what enhanced knowledge comes along in the future. Leibniz accomplished this with his Monadology. New mathematics doesn’t contradict Leibniz’s work, merely reveals it in more vivid detail, and demonstrates its wonder and glory all the more.

The Trinity

Kant provided a tripartite classification of all possible attempts to prove the existence of god: 1) The cosmological argument: start from the mere fact that there is a universe, and work your way back to God as its cause. 2) The physico-theological argument: start from a supposed fact or facts about the universe, and work your way back to God as the cause of every fact. All of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs of God’s existence are of this kind. This is “natural theology” – attempting to prove the existence of god, and human immortality, from premises provided by observations of the ordinary course of nature. (In the case of science – “natural philosophy” – the attempt is made to disprove the existence of God using exactly the same premises! ... everything is traced back to the capacity of nonexistence to randomly, spontaneously and miraculously generate events.) 3) The ontological argument: start from the mere concept of God to prove that God’s existence is compulsory.

The Cosmological Argument With the ontological argument, the existence of a Supreme Being or, alternatively, God Equation, is inferred from a priori concepts alone. With the cosmological argument, we start from the simple fact that there is a universe that we all experience (this is called “indeterminate empiricism”) rather than from the actual or supposed general characteristics of the universe (“determinate empiricism”). It’s striking that science uses no rational arguments or principles whatsoever, which is why it’s so hopeless at comparing and contrasting the relative merits of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Not a single scientist anywhere on earth is applying any rational thinking to the problem of reconciling these theories, or rationally establishing what is wrong with either or both of them. As ever, they are simply guessing a way forward, as advocated by Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman. Good luck with that, guys!

***** The fact of the existence of the universe demands an explanation. The fact of the existence of God or the God Equation demands an explanation. Randomness, the best that science can come up with, is no explanation at all. In fact, it’s a total non-explanation, a denial of explanation. It’s a system predicated on self-generating miracles.

Proofs for the Existence of God Kant divided the various attempts to prove the existence of God via rational arguments alone into three types: 1) Ontological proofs proceed strictly a priori and are wholly rationalist, involving concepts and definitions alone. 2) Cosmological proofs proceed from a posteriori experiences of existence in general (and conventionally invoke considerations such as causation, motion and contingency). Kant said, “If we admit something as existing ... we must also admit that there is something which exists necessarily. For the contingent exists only under the condition of some other contingent existence as its cause, and from this again we must infer yet another cause, until we are brought to a cause which is not contingent, and which is therefore unconditionally necessary.” [God, allegedly, necessarily exists but has no cause.]. The obvious objection to this argument arises at “until we are brought to a cause which is not contingent”. Why not say, “and so on ad infinitum”? In which case there is no need to invoke a first cause. But this makes reality based on an infinite regress of unexplained contingency [which is exactly the stance adopted by science]. The question is really this ... does an eternal, necessary order of causation exist (whether “God” or the God Equation), which, exactly by virtue of being eternal, is uncaused (since nothing could have preceded it in order to cause it), and does this eternal order originate all of the temporal, contingent causality of the Big Bang world? That is, does an invisible order necessarily precede the visible order? Ontological, transcendental mathematics says yes, while science says no. Science literally claims that non-existence preceded the Big Bang, and that non-

existence spontaneously (i.e. miraculously) originated the world. This is totally irrational! Science is a supremely irrational and anti-intellectual subject. Scientists don’t even bother to engage with rationalist arguments. They dogmatically dismiss them out of hand as worthless philosophy. 3) Physico-theological [teleological] proofs begin from a specific feature of the world such as observed design in Nature. This implies the existence of a Designer with a clear purpose and intention.

***** Facts about the universe – physico-theological. The fact that there is a universe – cosmological. The concept and definition of God – ontological.

***** The ontological argument is all about the nature of existence itself, about the definition of God in relation to existence. The other two arguments concern facts of Nature, e.g. we observe design in Nature and seek to explain how that design came about, or we make abstract inferences regarding existence, e.g. contingent things exist, hence something necessary must exist to avoid inexplicable infinite contingent regress. Historically, physico-theological arguments (based on the observed design in Nature) came first, followed by cosmological arguments (why does the world exist at all), and, finally, ontological arguments (what is the nature of fundamental, necessary existence?). However, Kant claimed that the physico-theological category of argument (involving determinate empiricism) logically depends on the cosmological category (involving indeterminate empiricism), which, in turn, he said, depends upon the ontological category (determinate rationalism). Therefore, it all comes down to ontology in the end. We, as ontological mathematicians, entirely agree! Every theory of existence (including science) is false if it does not have a formal ontology, and only one ontology can be correct. Only the ontology of mathematics

meets all of the requirements of a rational, necessary, eternal, complete and consistent ontology (and associated epistemology).

Existence as Predicate? Can existence operate as a predicate? Can the concept of a “highest being”, by definition standing alone, possess this predicate? The “highest being” designates an object that contains all positive, noncontradictory predicates within itself. But, if one “highest being” exists, why not an infinite number? ... a communism of Gods! What would be the sufficient reason for one God to exist, but not others? Of course, logically, no being would be “highest” if it had infinite peers. This is what monads accomplish. They are incompatible with the existence of any Creator, or eternal Highest Being, meaning that we are inherently free of any intrinsic dominating power in the cosmos. Mathematically, the only necessary existent is that which is necessarily and eternally “nothing”. It equals nothing, needs nothing, and nothing can prevent it. If, as Descartes argues, effects cannot contain more reality than their causes, then, if all causes are “nothing”, all effects must be “nothing” too. However, contingent “nothings” – those that are made of necessary “nothings” – are those that can be prevented and do need something. There is no contradiction if they do not exist at all. So, the sinusoids of ontological mathematics are necessary (they can’t not exist), but the particular combinations into which they form themselves are contingent (they need not exist; no contradiction is generated by their non-existence). Our temporal Big Bang world is a contingent world born of an eternal world of necessary things. If you deny this rational conclusion, you are forced to agree with science that universes can miraculously erupt out of non-existence for no reason at all. That is simply a religious belief, with miraculous non-existence standing in for a miraculous God. No attempt is made to rationally explain existence.

***** “To posit a triangle and cancel its three angles is contradictory; but to cancel the triangle together with its three angles is not a contradiction. It is

exactly the same thing with the concept of an absolutely necessary being. If you cancel its existence, then you cancel the thing itself with all its predicates; where then is the contradiction supposed to come from?” – Kant But you can’t cancel “nothing”! That would be an absolute contradiction. Moreover, mathematically, you can’t cancel a triangle since it’s a feature of the entirety of mathematics, and you can’t cancel mathematics because it reflects the eternal truths of reason. You cannot cancel anything eternal and necessary (and all eternal things are necessary). Science has no conception of fundamental ontology and epistemology, no conception of anything fundamentally eternal and necessary – hence it can never yield a final explanation of anything at all. It will always be mired in contingency, and miracles springing out of non-existence for no reason. Mathematics deals with eternal, necessary things, and reflects and ontologically supports the eternal truths of reason. These have to inhere in something, and what they inhere in is mathematics. Science has no relationship at all with eternity, necessity, and the eternal truths of reason. Not even its laws are necessary and eternal. They appear to arise out of nothing at all. Only math can be consistent with a rational, intelligible cosmos based on universal, eternal, necessary laws of existence. Only math is consistent with a non-miraculous explanation of reality. Science invariably relies on miraculous events jumping out of nothing. Being based on irrational miracles, science is therefore an irrational religion – the religion of the senses, empiricism and materialism. If you do not agree that math is the explanation of everything, you are ipso facto a believer in miracles. The one thing that religion got right was that existence must be grounded in something eternal and necessary (an assertion totally denied by atheistic science). What it got wrong was that it called this eternal, necessary thing “God” rather than mathematics, i.e. it personified mathematics as an eternal, necessary, perfect, moral, conscious, allpowerful, all-seeing, all-knowing being. As soon as you remove this artificial anthropomorphism, you are left with the perfect, eternal, necessary, all-defining system of pure, analytic, ontological mathematics. God is defined as “transcendent and immanent”. In fact, it’s math that is transcendent and immanent. Math is the transcendental explanation of

everything, and as soon as religion realises that “God” is actually math, the better for everyone. All of the classical arguments that try to prove the existence of “God” can be deployed much more rationally and consistently to prove the existence of math. “God” is regarded as the most mysterious thing of all. In fact, it’s math that’s the most mysterious thing of all, and yet also the most rational thing of all. Humanity is staggeringly alienated from reason, which is exactly why it finds rationalism so mysterious. Kant’s argument concerning triangles applies only to contingent entities, not necessary entities. You can’t “cancel” a necessary entity and its predicates. It’s a different matter with a hypothetical Superbeing who is not nothing. Such a being is very much contingent. All manner of objections can be raised against the existence of such a being, e.g. what’s he made of, how can he be conscious, how and where does he exist, why does he exist, what is the sufficient reason for his existence, how can he be uncaused, how can he create things out of nothing and then interact with those things, how can he exist on his own, how can he be eternal, why can’t other beings exactly like him exist, and so on. Kant’s pedantic objection is the least of “God’s” worries! Far better arguments can be deployed against his existence, but none of these can be deployed against mathematical “nothingness” (made up of infinite “somethingness” with an intrinsic net result of zero) as the necessary and compulsory ground of existence.

***** Necessary truth: its denial would involve a self-contradiction. Ontological, transcendental mathematics is all about such truths. Contingent truth: its denial would not involve a self-contradiction. Science is all about such truths. More or less anything in science can be changed.

***** “Anything we please can be made to serve as a logical predicate; the subject can even be predicated of itself; for logic abstracts from all content. But a determining predicate is a predicate which is added to the concept of the subject and enlarges it. Consequently, it must not be already contained in the concept. ‘Being’ is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a

concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing.” – Kant “Being” can, and must, be added to the concept of all fundamentally necessary, eternal things (monads), since there is no other conceivable definition of existence. Anyone who cannot explain what existence is cannot explain reality. Neither Kant nor science can explain what existence is. Existence is pure ontological reason – pure math. We inhabit a vast, rational universe, seeking to become entirely conscious of itself, and it’s doing so slowly and surely through us!

***** Kant believed in the existence of God in relation to “practical” reason rather than “pure” (speculative, theoretical) reason, i.e. he accepted God’s existence on the basis of moral arguments rather than physical (empirical, material) or metaphysical (theoretical, ontological) arguments.

Not God The ontological argument doesn’t prove that there is a necessarily existent being called God, but it does prove that there are infinite necessarily existent beings – monads. Every necessary existent is an ens realissimum (perfect being): it’s perfect mathematically. The ontological argument takes us from necessary beings to the contingent facts of the world. The cosmological and physico-theological arguments work in reverse: from general or specific contingent facts to necessary beings.

Design Kant’s physico-theological argument is also known as the argument from design or the teleological argument: “(1) Everywhere there are clear signs that the world is ordered in accordance with a determinate purpose ... (2) This purposive order is quite alien to the things of the world, and only belongs to them contingently; [it was designed] by an ordering rational principle in conformity with underlying ideas. (3) There exists, therefore, a sublime and wise cause (or

more than one) ... (4) The unity of the cause may be inferred from [the way that different parts of the world act in harmony].” – Kant The God Equation is the true “unity of cause”, the controlling equation, that which causes all parts of the world to act in harmony.

Kant’s Moral Argument: Belief in Practical Reason “Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God, stated in the Critique of Practical Reason, may be summarized briefly as follows. The complete good ought to exist. Therefore, it is possible. Therefore, anything which is an essential condition of its existence must be actual. Its possibility is not guaranteed by ordinary facts and laws of nature. We cannot find in the natural world anything which guarantees that people get their just deserts. So we are entitled to postulate a being on whom nature depends. This being is not merely powerful but good. We call that being God.” – Pamela Sue Anderson, Jordan Bell, Kant and Theology This argument does not imply that God exists. It merely shows that belief in God would be very desirable, indeed indispensable, for a “moral” agent to possess. To define God morally is absurd, and Nietzsche demolished this kind of argument with his savage onslaught on the entire basis of morality, and his famous declaration, “God is dead”. God must be defined rationally, not morally, and, when he is, he stops being a person and turns into an equation ... the God Equation = ontological mathematics.

***** Those people who claim that the universe is made of “love” (strong emotion), or consciousness (which only makes sense in terms of a living being, and not of lifeless “things”) are basically God-intoxicated and believe in a Superbeing, a “Sky God”. They are the ridiculous “love and light” gang, and ferociously hostile to reason.

The Three Faculties of Soul The three components of the Kantian soul are:

The Faculty of Knowledge (described in the Critique of Pure Reason) ... Science. The Faculty of Desire/Will (described in the Critique of Practical Reason) ... Ethics and Morals. The Faculty of Feeling/Pleasure and Displeasure (described in the Critique of Judgment) ... Art. The three aspects of Kantian cognition are: 1) Understanding. 2) Judgment. 3) Reason.

***** The active faculties of the Kantian mind are: imagination, judgment, understanding, and reason. (Imagination is the faculty responsible for forming concepts out of the “manifold of intuition” and for synthesizing intuitions with concepts to form objects which are ready to be judged.) There is one receptive (passive) faculty: sensible intuition.

***** The three Kantian “Ideas of Reason” are: psychological (the soul), cosmological (the cosmos as a totality) and theological (God).

The Transcendental What is “transcendental”? – a priori, necessary to experience, a precondition of experience. Ontological mathematics is thus transcendental.

The Three Arguments 1) The argument from ontology: the a priori concept of a Supreme Being. 2) The argument from cosmology: the nature of the empirical world in general and how it must have come to be.

3) The argument from physico-theology: how we explain reality given particular natural phenomena.

***** “The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe.” – Wikipedia We trace back all the causal chains we encounter to their ultimate origins: first causes or uncaused causes. “A teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator ‘based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world’.” – Wikipedia We trace back the designed, ordered, patterned, organised world to its source: to a Designer – either a Superbeing (God), or a Supersystem of inherent Design (Math). Scientific Darwinism claims that biological design evolves via random, chance, accidental processes, acted upon by “natural selection”. Science claims that design in the non-biological world results from scientific laws that miraculously and randomly appear out of nonexistence (!). This immediately begs the question of why biology operates entirely differently from the rest of science. Science, as ever, has no interest in answering such questions, and simply ignores them. It dogmatically ignores everything inconvenient to its model, its Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism. “An ontological argument is any one of a category of philosophical arguments for the existence of God using ontology. ... ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organisation of the universe. If that organisational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.” – Wikipedia The only rational a priori system is not “God”, but Math. We then project Math onto the world to see if it explains all of the observed features of the world (which it does, via Fourier mathematics). The cosmological and teleological arguments must be consistent with the ontological argument. Science dismisses all such rational arguments since these arguments have nothing to do with observations, experiments and the scientific

method. These arguments are purely about thinking, and require no multibillion dollar Large Hadron Colliders and careerist hierarchies. Anyone in the world can think rationally, without requiring the approval of scientific gurus and “authorities”. Why are scientists so afraid of thinking? After all, the LHC was designed to detect the Higgs boson, which was arrived at via thinking! Deeper thinking leads to monadic mathematical minds as the fundamental units of existence. No LHC will ever find them. That’s a fact.

The Eternity Argument Leibniz’s Argument from eternal truths: Eternal truths, such as those of mathematics, cannot exist on their own (as free-floating abstractions). They must subsist in a mind (that of God), or minds (those of monads). This mind, or these minds, must therefore be necessary and eternal. Eternal truths must inhere in something, and what they inhere in are monads. Eternal truths must belong to eternal minds. The ultimate reason for contingent truths must be found in necessary truths. The system of ultimate truth isn’t science, it’s math = pure Logos. It definitely isn’t a Mythos Superbeing (God)! So, there’s your choice right there: science, math or religion. Only one is true. Plato’s transcendent domain of immaterial, eternal, immutable Ideas outside space and time is none other than the domain of pure Math in itself.

***** It’s exactly because science rejects rational arguments, first principles, ontology and epistemology that it cannot analyse general relativity and quantum mechanics properly and work out why these two key scientific theories are wholly incompatible and can never be reconciled under any circumstances. It’s a simple logical fact that these two theories, as they stand, will never be unified. Relativity theory will have to be turned into an absolute theory before it can work (which contradicts its entire basis). Quantum mechanics will need to become deterministic, based on complex numbers rather than real numbers, and on a Fourier dual-aspect ontology of autonomous frequency domains (minds) and a collective spacetime domain (matter). Science’s hatred of reason and love of the senses will need to end!

Science should not be trying to unite relativity and quantum mechanics at all, but to definitively falsify one or other of them! What’s for sure is that the most intensive scientific effort of all time, by the most knowledgeable scientists of all time, in the greatest numbers of all time, has failed to unify these theories. Hasn’t the penny dropped yet? ... they cannot be reconciled! It’s logically impossible. Of course, given that they subscribe to an irrational system based on nothing more sophisticated than “Feynman guesses”, scientists will just keep guessing forever. They are too stupid ever to stop and think about the problem in an entirely different way ... a rational way, for once. Empiricism will never resolve this problem. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Isn’t that exactly what science does with its never-ending attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable? It never stops to think that it’s entirely deluded about the apparent success of one of these theories (relativity or quantum mechanics).

Einstein “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Einstein The stupidity of scientists has no limits! “You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.” – Einstein Science has failed to learn the rules of the game because it has ignored ontology and epistemology in favour of contingent, sensory experiments. It’s defined by the senses, not by reason. It is in fact anti-reason, which is why it refuses to accept any rationalist arguments such as those we have set out. “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” – Einstein Science has never once questioned its own legitimacy, validity, and scope. “Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.” – Einstein

Ontology and epistemology are the way to look into ultimate nature, and science rejects both. It refuses to define what existence actually is, how and why it is, and what eternal system of knowledge it reflects. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Einstein Science attempts to solve all problems with exactly the same empirical, contingent, temporal thinking that was used to create them. “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Einstein Scientists are exemplars of human stupidity. You have to escape human thinking to escape human stupidity. Mathematics is divine thinking, not human thinking. “The only source of knowledge is experience.” – Einstein Oh dear ... the usual, failed voice of scientific empiricism and antirationalism. No wonder relativity theory is fundamentally false. “The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once.” – Einstein Er, that’s the reason for motion. Einstein, like all scientists, never did understand the difference between time and motion. “Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” – Einstein Intellect and reason are exactly what scientists are lacking!

The False Expansion Kant attempted to expand the number of a priori truths by fallaciously claiming that such truths could be synthetic as well as analytic.

***** Kant said that how our minds operate on the world is dictated by the way our minds are constituted. This constitution does not derive from experience (hence it’s a priori), although it’s applied to all experience. So far, Kant is correct. The error he made was to say that our minds were “synthetic a

priori” rather than “analytic a priori”. He claimed that all scientific, mathematical and moral judgments are synthetic a priori. In fact, all scientific and moral judgments are synthetic a posteriori, hence are interpretive and not true by definition, while all mathematical judgments are analytic a priori, hence true by definition. David Hume, a skeptical empiricist, claimed that we could not say “A causes B” because we cannot know that it does. This is because causation cannot be perceived, and, according to Hume’s empiricism, we cannot have ideas (knowledge) of anything of which we have received no impression (anything we have not perceived). Kant was sure we could know about causation, and he argued that it was because it was built into the way our minds are constituted and how they work. In other words, they have an a priori “operating system” that precedes any possible experiences. This implies an eternal order of existence since “a priori” goes hand in hand with “eternal”. Illuminism agrees entirely with Kant on this point ... the eternal order that precedes the temporal, empirical world is ontological mathematics. Up to this point, Kant’s philosophy was highly compatible with Leibniz’s, whose ideas were extremely familiar to Kant. Kant’s philosophy fell apart due to an ingenious error, flowing from his misunderstanding of causality. He believed that an effect is not contained in the concept of cause, hence cannot be analytic but must, therefore, be synthetic. In fact, mathematically, effect is built into any dynamic ontological mathematical form, i.e. once mathematical state “A” is reached, mathematical state “B” must inevitably follow since it is mandated by the controlling mathematical formula. In other words, an ontological mathematical formula describes a system of absolute tautology. Given knowledge of any state defined by the Formula, all preceding and subsequent states relevant to the Formula can automatically be ascertained too, i.e. they are analytic tautologies (saying exactly the same thing in a slightly different way). That’s exactly why astronomers can predict eclipses. The only subtlety – an absolutely vital one that allows us to be free – is that we are living mathematical beings with causal agency, and we can change an otherwise inevitable mathematical outcome by adding extra mathematical functionality (via our thoughts), which causes a different effect from the one that would have resulted if we had done nothing.

As soon as it’s rationally accepted that ontological mathematical cause and effect is analytic and tautological, Kant’s philosophy – based on a synthetic, non-tautological understanding of cause and effect – is instantly falsified. There are simply no synthetic a priori judgments. Kant believed that science and morality could be treated in the same lawful, infallible, a priori way as mathematics. This is entirely false. There is nothing at all a priori about science and morality. As Nietzsche realised, when it comes to science and morality, there are no “facts”, only interpretations. If Kant were right, moral and scientific facts would be truths that you could deduce, just as you deduce mathematical truths. Kant was thus denying that science was all about induction, and instead claiming that it was about deduction, i.e. once you had fully established the synthetic a priori system relating to science, it was just a question of deducing all of its consequences, as in mathematics. This is to catastrophically fail to grasp how science actually works, especially regarding its empirical method. Even worse was Kant’s implication that indisputable, a priori moral truths could be worked out (by someone such as himself) and categorical imperative established, like incontestable mathematical truths. Only mathematics is a priori, and it’s emphatically analytic and not synthetic. It contains eternal truths that are true by definition. They are definite facts and not interpretations. All other subjects, including science and morality, are synthetic a posteriori, and wholly interpretive. Scientific is better than morality purely because it can partially partake of mathematics’ certainty. Mathematics is the only rational subject, and deals with eternal Form. All other subjects, including science and moral science, are empirical subjects that deal with temporal, contingent Content. Mathematics deals in truths of reason while all other subjects deal in interpretations of fact. Only mathematics is True and yields Knowledge. All other subjects are interpretations, conjectures, hypotheses, beliefs and opinions. They can never be true with a capital “T”. They are always contingent, temporal truths with a small “t”, that can be overturned at any time. Why is organised religion false? It’s because it lays claim to the eternal truths that are the province of mathematics, but religion is actually an empirical, interpretive, adaptive system, with no Truth at all. There’s nothing worse than claiming to be about Truth while actually being about

fanatical, extremist, unreasonable, irrational faith, and the false claim to being True. Nietzsche said, “The end of Christianity – at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from ‘God is truth’ to the fanatical faith ‘All is false’...)” The Truth will set you free, and it will particularly set you free from religion! Science, in its more sober moments, at least admits that it’s a neverending series of provisional truths, and can never be more than that, although its main propagandists – such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox – frequently lapse into claiming that science deals with “proven” facts. Actually, there is not even one true scientific fact ... all such “facts” are interpretations, and all of them can be radically reinterpreted, most especially via ontological mathematics. Science is empiricist, not rationalist – about Content, not Form – hence can never be True.

Unperceivable Causation cannot be perceived ... and nor can ontological mathematics. In fact, they are one and the same thing. Mind is causation ... and mind is ontological mathematics. Again, they are one and the same thing. Mind is both ontological mathematics itself, and the interpreter of ontological mathematical information. The mind is made of ontological mathematical sinusoids (information carriers), and the mind interprets the information (Content) that ontological mathematical sinusoids carry. The mind is Form, and what the mind does is interpret Content. Kant claimed that mind constructed its own reality from something inherently unknowable (the noumenal world). In fact, the inherently “unknowable” things are knowable, ontological mathematical things, the mind itself is ontological mathematical, and its constructs are ontological mathematical, but, crucially, the constructs are phenomenal rather than noumenal, i.e. the constructs of the mind have a spacetime appearance ... they have been transformed into sensory things.

We can reason our way to how the mind and the world works because they are both mathematical, and mathematics simply is ontological reason. When the mind looks at the world, it views it via its own capacities, and those are mathematical capacities, but are also linked to non-mathematical Content, or rather, mathematical Content that does not belong to the mathematical laws of Form, e.g. “blue” is a Content associated with a specific mathematical frequency, but “blue” does not belong to the system of mathematical Form (with which we normally associate mathematics). Kant made absolutely no attempt to explain what a mind actually is. In fact, it’s a mathematical monad, and, from that fact, everything else follows.

Transcendental Understanding Kant referred to the “transcendental” use of the understanding when it was applied independently of the conditions of sensibility, i.e. non-empirically. The whole of ontological mathematics is transcendental in this sense. We absolutely never experience ontological mathematics directly since it’s strictly noumenal and outside experience. It’s what all experiences are conveyed by, but it’s the experiences themselves that we encounter, and not what carries them. In order for us to encounter the information and the carrier of the information, we would need to have “split-screen” minds – one showing the signals, as if on an oscilloscope, and the other showing the information conveyed by the signals. Evolution, rightly, saw no need whatsoever for us to be shown the signal, the carrier. All we need is the information carried. That’s what we use to make our decisions, not the rational, mathematical Form of the signal. Imagine that you had a mind that could “see” the sound waves by which Beethoven’s Ode to Joy is conveyed. What would be the point? The only thing you care about is how you hear the music! However, when we ask what ultimate reality is – what Truth is – we are then compelled to understand rational, mathematical Form. This is the critical step that all empiricists refuse to take. They care only about the information conveyed by signals, and not the signals themselves. They care only about what they can experience, not what they can know. You can only know the laws of mathematics. Hume, the great empiricist, said we can only “know” what we can perceive. We can never perceive the sinusoids that carry all of the

information of existence, so we can never know them empirically, but we can certainly know them via our reason.

***** “To think an object and to know an object are thus by no means the same thing. Knowledge involves two factors: first, the concept, through which an object in general is thought (the category); and secondly, the intuition, through which it is given. For if no intuition could be given corresponding to the concept, the concept would still indeed be a thought, so far as its form is concerned, but would be without any object, and no knowledge of anything would be possible by means of it. So far as I could know, there would be nothing, and could be nothing, to which my thought could be applied. Now, as the Aesthetic has shown, the only intuition possible to us is sensible; consequently, the thought of an object in general, by means of a pure concept of understanding, can become knowledge for us only in so far as the concept is related to objects of the senses. Sensible intuition is either pure intuition (space and time) or empirical intuition of that which is immediately represented, through sensation, as actual in space and time. Through the determination of pure intuition we can acquire a priori knowledge of objects, as in mathematics, but only in regard to their form, as appearances; whether there can be things which must be intuited in this form, is still left undecided.” – Kant Kant is exactly wrong. To rationally think the object in terms of its mathematical Form is to know the object, while to experience its Content is not to know it (but merely to encounter it non-rationally, which is something entirely different). Kant contrasts thinking and knowing – two compatible intellectual activities – when he should be contrasting knowing and experiencing; the latter not being knowing at all since it involves the senses and emotions, which are not rational in any formal sense. Every day, we experience a host of things that we don’t know in any manner at all, hence why we invoke countless different religions, philosophies, sciences and Mythos systems to “explain” our experiences. Our experiences get in the way of knowing and compel us to invent “knowledge”. Believers “know” there is a Creator, but of course, there isn’t one. That’s just their interpretation. Scientists “know” there is no soul, but, of course, there is. Again, they have simply applied a false interpretation

because they don’t know anything at all. Experience, it can’t be stressed enough, isn’t knowledge. Experience is all about Content, but Knowledge applies to Form. When Kant said, “Now, as the Aesthetic has shown, the only intuition possible to us is sensible”, he was committing a fundamental oversight and error. As soon as we grant that “intuitions” can be intelligible as well as sensible, his philosophy falls apart. In the Aesthetic, he doesn’t give any compelling reasons – beyond his personal ideology and dogmatism – why intuitions have to be sensory. As soon as we have intelligible intuitions – such as those of ontological mathematics – we have the legitimate means to apply pure concepts of understandings to non-sensible objects, and gain exactly the kind of non-empirical “knowledge” that Kant considered impossible. All philosophies, sciences and religions contain fundamental assumptions that prove to be false. Only ontological, transcendental mathematics has no such problems – since it’s uniquely analytic, consistent and complete. As soon as you accept that noumena can have an intelligible as well as sensible character – Form and Content – Kant’s philosophy is refuted. We analyse Form exclusively via pure concepts of the understanding. We don’t analyse Content at all: we experience, process and interpret it in all manner of non-analytic, subjective ways. Contrary to what Kant says, this constitutes anything other than knowledge! Science “works” not because it’s empirical (as Kant believed), but because it reflects rationalist mathematics, which is entirely a priori and has nothing to do with empiricism. Science needs to become even more mathematical, and even less empirical (experimental), if it’s ever to explain reality. “Mathematical concepts are not, therefore, by themselves knowledge, except on the supposition that there are things which allow of being presented to us only in accordance with the form of that pure sensible intuition. Now things in space and time are given only in so far as they are perceptions (that is, representations accompanied by sensation) – therefore only through empirical representation. Consequently, the pure concepts of understanding, even when they are applied to a priori intuitions, as in mathematics, yield knowledge only in so far as these intuitions – and therefore indirectly by their means the pure concepts also – can be applied to empirical intuitions. Even, therefore, with the aid of [pure] intuition, the categories do not afford us any knowledge of things; they do so only

through their possible application to empirical intuition. In other words, they serve only for the possibility of empirical knowledge; and such knowledge is what we entitle experience. Our conclusion is therefore this: the categories, as yielding knowledge of things, have no kind of application, save only in regard to things which may be objects of possible experience.” – Kant The whole basis of Kant’s system, which amounts to applying Form to Content, is invalid. We can know a world of Form, and we can experience a world of Content. What we can’t do is know Content or experience Form in itself. We can only experience how Form shapes Content, especially via the Forms of space and time. We can experience the effects of Form, but we will never encounter Form itself, since it’s strictly noumenal, rational and intelligible, not phenomenal, empirical and sensible. In empirical terms, what does it mean to “know” that the sky is blue? A blind person doesn’t know it. A colour-blind person doesn’t know it. A person with normal colour vision thinks he knows it, but he can never know if what he regards as blue is the same as what everyone else regards as blue. It’s an entirely subjective experience. Moreover, there are perhaps people out there with “super” colour vision, in contrast with whom people with normal colour vision might seem colour blind, and these superpeople might think the sky is some other colour than blue. In other words, we have zero knowledge about the sky’s real colour, but we certainly “know” how we personally experience it. What Kant did was to butcher and misinterpret Leibniz’s philosophy by mixing up analytic truths of reason with synthetic interpretations of fact, introducing crazy hybrid categories such as synthetic a priori and analytic a posteriori (although he admitted that the latter was self-contradictory, hence couldn’t exist ... he ought to have reached the same conclusion regarding his synthetic a priori category).

The Analytic A Priori “But what is a synthetic a priori judgment? Combining the a priori-a posteriori distinction with the analytic-synthetic distinction, Kant derives four possible kinds of judgment: (1) analytic a priori, (2) analytic a posteriori, (3) synthetic a priori, and (4) synthetic a posteriori. By virtue of the fact that analytic judgments are necessarily true, and given Kant’s thesis

that necessity entails apriority, it follows that all analytic judgments are a priori and that there is no such thing as an analytic a posteriori judgment. By contrast, synthetic judgments can be either a priori or a posteriori. Synthetic a posteriori judgments are empirical, contingent judgments, although they may vary widely as to their degree of generality. Synthetic a priori judgments, by contrast, are non-empirical, non-contingent judgments.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/ “Kripke has some examples [of analytic a posteriori judgments] in his book Naming and Necessity. The proposition Hesperus is Phosphorus (the evening star is the morning star, both being what we call Venus) is one of them. Kripke finds this to be analytic a posteriori because there once was a time in which people thought of Hesperus and Phosphorus as two different stars, later on they found out that they we’re actually the same planet. In this way, they necessarily point to the same object but this has been found out through the empirical evidence.” – http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/474/what-are-examples-of-analytic-a-posterioriknowledge

Actually, this simply proves that analytic a priori truths can be radically misinterpreted by fallible human minds. Hesperus and Phosphorus were never different. People only imagined they were. The truth never alters, but the human interpretation of the truth is always altering. Mathematics – as eternal and necessary – can never alter.

Experience? The physico-theological argument depends on determinate experience. The cosmological argument depends on indeterminate experience. The ontological argument depends on no experience at all.

***** The ontological argument is a priori, flowing from necessity. The cosmological argument is a posteriori, flowing from a general contingent experience concerning the stark fact of existence.

The physico-theological argument is also a posteriori, flowing from a specific observed fact of existence – such as that it appears to exhibit design or purpose, which implies a Designer or something with purpose.

***** We might say that the ontological argument is analytic a priori (we use analysis to define existence with no reference to the empirical world), the cosmological argument analytic a posteriori (in the specific sense that we use analysis to explain the general empirical fact of the world’s existence), and the physico-theological argument also analytic a posteriori (we use analysis to explain a specific empirical fact about the world’s existence, such as that it exhibits design or purpose). Kant’s preferred mode of argumentation is via synthetic a priori and synthetic a posteriori judgements, much more linked to empiricism than rationalism. Since he felt that the cosmological and physico-theological arguments presuppose the ontological argument, he directed his antirationalist efforts to disproving the ontological argument, which, in retrospect, we now see as an attempt to disprove the existence of analytic a priori ontological mathematics.

The Ontology of Mathematics “These passages repeat the strong anti-Platonist picture of mathematics which Kant expresses ... in which the pure discipline is not ideal but potentially defective, since it may have no application or realization and would then not constitute knowledge. Kant rejects the thought that pure mathematics is an ideal paradigm designating a Platonic world of forms independent of the senses, and instead requires some reference to the senses if it is to avoid that defect and relate properly to an object. This is fundamental in distinguishing Kant’s position from that of intellectual idealists like Plato and Leibniz. But it would be wrong to think that for Kant all mathematics is applied, at least in the sense in which we contrast that term with a formal uninterpreted system, since he plainly has a conception of pure mathematics as an a priori formal system which may apply to nothing in experience.” – Graham Bird, The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason

“The picture ... of a pure Euclidean geometry and kinematics devoid of empirical objects is of that kind. It raises the problem of understanding what kind of a priori formality Kant attaches to such a discipline. He thinks of Euclidean geometry, and mathematics generally, neither as a twentiethcentury uninterpreted, formal, analytic system, nor as an empiricist a posteriori description of objects in sense experience, nor as designating a supersensible realm of Platonic forms. The question is whether any other way of representing the distinctive features of formal, mathematical, systems is viable, but the Aesthetic offers no answer.” – Graham Bird, The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason As ever, we see that both philosophy and science come to grief on the rock of mathematics. What exactly is mathematics? Is it ontological? Is it a language? Is it a mental construct? Is it a by-product of the way the mind is configured? Why is it the engine of science? If science is real, how can math not be real? If math is unreal, why is it so essential in describing Nature? “Hence, the ‘transcendental’ use of the understanding (its use independently of the conditions of sensibility) is considered by Kant to be dialectical, to involve erroneous applications of concepts in order to acquire knowledge of things independently of sensibility/experience.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/ In fact, it’s when the understanding seeks to know things in terms of temporal, contingent sensibility/experience (Content) that it goes wrong. Experiences are not the stuff of knowledge. When you look at the sky, you have an experience of the colour blue, but you have no certain knowledge of what causes you to have that experience. You can tell yourself any story you like, e.g. the Goddess of Blue is the source of blue, or blue photons, or photons of a certain frequency, or blue “images” or “films” that leave the surface of objects and strike your eyes, or neurons firing in your brain in a certain “blue” way, and so on. None of this is knowledge. It’s pure speculation, opinion, interpretation and belief. And that’s exactly the whole problem. Knowledge, in order to qualify as knowledge, must, as Plato realised, be eternal, immutable and unarguable. Only Form can constitute knowledge. Content never can.

When it came to knowledge, Kant, like scientists, privileged sensibility/experience over what cannot be sensed and experienced, yet, unlike scientists, he acknowledged the existence of an unobservable, noumenal domain where all true values, meaning and ultimate reality lie. (Science absolutely rejects any such domain and assigns no meaning at all to existence.) In Illuminism, knowledge can only be analytic and can only concern the eternal truths of reason, which are reflected by ontological mathematics. That’s existence as necessary, Platonic Form. However, that’s not the world we experience. We experience Content, not Form. Above all, we don’t perceive or experience causation, only its effects, and then people invent hypotheses for what causes things, “God” being the most popular suggestion. It’s impossible to prove any such speculation, hence this is simply not knowledge. Kant’s transcendental appeals are just an elaborate Mythos; a speculative system that can never be proved. However, all of the statements of ontological mathematics can be proved. The difficulty lies in showing how provable Form relates to unprovable Content, Content being precisely that which prevents us from accessing Form. Our empirical minds are stuck on the Content side of the coin and typically find the Form side incomprehensible. Our rational minds can understand the Form side of the coin, but are blind to Content.

***** There are two sides to the coin of existence, and we have two minds to address that coin, one for each side. Our rational mind addresses Form, and our empirical mind addresses Content. Our rational mind addresses eternal truths of reason, and our empirical mind contingent truths of fact. Things go wrong when we attempt to do what Kant and science did: to make rational sense of phenomenal experience rather than of the unexperienced noumenal world that underlies the experienced world. Reason and experience are totally different things. Kant thought that reason went wrong when it exceeded empirical limits. In fact, it goes wrong when it seeks to turn empiricism into “knowledge”, exactly as Kant (and science) attempted. Kant’s philosophy sought to address the problems raised by Hume’s ultra skeptical empiricism. He did so only by failing to understand the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Leibniz was the supreme rationalist and Hume the supreme empiricist. You cannot combine their two systems into one, as Kant believed. Leibniz addressed the rational, Form side of the ontological coin, and Hume the empirical, Content side. Hume’s philosophy took the premises of empiricism to their logical conclusion and demonstrated that empiricism is incompatible with knowledge and truth, and invariably results in skepticism and nihilism. Science tries to “beat” Hume by illegitimately adding a rationalist mathematical engine to an observational method, and using trial and error, and hoc concepts and labels, to force them into partial, provisional agreement. Kant tried to beat Hume by inventing a fallacious synthetic a priori category that artificially placed an illegitimate rational frame around empirical “facts” and forced them to be “scientific”. If you accept the rules and ideology of empiricism, you cannot beat Hume. He’s the definitive end of the line as far as empiricism goes. The only way to defeat Hume’s skepticism is via Leibnizian rationalism.

Something Else? Stupid people say, “But there must be something other than mathematics!” How can there be? How can you have rationalist mathematics, and something that is not rationalist mathematics (hence is either irrational or incompatibly rational ... and how can reason produce rational incompatibility without itself being irrational, hence contradicting itself)? To say that there is mathematics and something else that is nonmathematical is to engage in Cartesian substance dualism ... which has no answer, and renders reality irrational, unintelligible and inexplicable. People who blabber on about non-mathematics are irrationalists and mystics. They might as well belong to the love and light brigade or the Abrahamic faith gang. Mathematics, as we have said countless times, is ontological. That means it has both Form and Content. The Form aspect is the rational part that has infallible laws and which people, in their stupidity, typically regard as unreal and abstract. They completely fail to grasp that mathematics carries Content too, and it is this Content that we experience, and which seems anything other than mathematical.

Ontological mathematics, as a discipline, is about rationalism, Form, and the information carrier (sinusoidal waves). However, our minds are attuned to the information (Content) carried by these waves rather than the waves themselves, and Content ... such as colours, smells, tastes, emotions, and so on ... is never experienced as mathematics, although it is indissolubly linked to mathematics and couldn’t exist without it. The number of people who understand Illuminism is tiny. Hundreds of people think they know what we are talking about, but they’re utterly clueless. How we laugh at some of the comments we see on Facebook ... like chimpanzees trying to understand black holes! If you want to know what Illuminism is all about, you had better be not just a bit smart but incredibly smart, and you had better be totally rational. Why don’t people who post Facebook comments about our books take the trouble to actually study them before mouthing off with their totally vacuous and irrational comments? Would these same clowns think of treating the world to their opinions on M-theory? You actually have to know what M-theory is before you start pontificating about it, and pretending you know shit.

***** Mathematics is the language of Nature. How dumb would you have to be to think that Nature speaks two or more languages (none of which would agree with each other because otherwise they would just be one language)? Does Nature need a translator to ensure that all of these proposed different languages can speak to each other? What the fuck happened to Occam’s Razor, people? Get a grip! There’s no surer fact than that existence has only one language, and that language is ontological mathematics. There’s nothing else.

***** PH: “The visible universe is based on mathematical proportions, but is only a manifestation of the spiritual, or causal planes of reality. Says Manly P Hall at least. Understanding sacred geometry can help to clarify this concept.” Yup, this is exactly the sort of “spiritual” bullshit with which we have to contend. If you think any meaning at all can be attributed to PH’s statement,

you have a major problem with reason. You’re a Mythos mystic.

***** Seriously, if you don’t “get” Illuminism, if you find it too baffling, just move on. It’s plainly not for you. Our mission is to bring together the genius class of people that can understand Illuminism, not those who have no idea what we’re talking about. You can’t get into the scientific world if you’re not qualified, and exactly the same is true of Illuminism. We feel like vomiting every time we see “spiritual” people commenting on our work. Unless you’re incredibly smart, you can have no idea how utterly profound the God Series actually is. It goes way over most people’s heads ... but not all. Now and again, we find people with a superb grasp of what we’re saying.

***** Many idiots think that we simply comment on various thinkers, hence that our work, in their opinion, is just a giant “copy” of vastly superior thinkers. What these people have utterly failed to realise is that what we are actually doing is refuting and/or correcting the world’s greatest philosophers, scientists and thinkers, through the prism of ontological, transcendental mathematics. That makes the God Series the most complex collection of books in the whole of human history. The present book, for example, isn’t a commentary on Kant; it’s the remedy for his fallacies and errors. If you think you can refute us, go right ahead and try! Our whole point is that we can refute everyone else, but none of them can refute us.

Cogito Ergo Sum Lichtenberg argued that Descartes ought to have said that there is a thought, not that there is an “I” who thinks it. Yet, as Berkeley pointed out, it’s absurd to talk of thoughts existing independently of the minds that think them (as some kind of free-floating mental filaments, so to speak), so Descartes is right after all.

It might be argued that there is just one cosmic mind that thinks all thoughts, yet this is plainly false since no two people know what each other is thinking. And even if there were only one mind, we could be certain that all thoughts belong to it; it’s the thing doing the thinking. “Among Kant’s immediate predecessors two in particular had provided answers to the question of objectivity which were sufficiently decisive to command the attention of the intellectual world. These were G. W. Leibniz (1646 – 1716) and David Hume (1711 – 76); the first claimed that we could have objective knowledge of the world uncontaminated by the point of view of any observer, the second claimed (or at least seemed to his contemporaries to claim) that we could have objective knowledge of nothing.” – Roger Scruton, Kant Kant saw himself as offering a wondrous synthesis of rationalism and empiricism (objectivity and subjectivity). Of course, he didn’t succeed. Leibniz and Hume remain as the unrefuted, definitive standard-bearers of their respective positions. They represent the two opposite sides – Form (rationalism) and Content (empiricism) – of one ontological coin. Rationalism is all about eternal, objective knowledge, and empiricism has no connection with objective knowledge at all, and simply concerns subjective opinions, beliefs, conjectures, interpretations, experiences and feelings. Science is a superb compromise between empiricism and rationalism, which is why it’s so effective in relation to the observable world. However, for exactly the same reason, it’s useless – 100% useless – in relation to the unobservable world. It can’t tell us anything at all about mind, life, free will, consciousness, the unconscious, the soul, the afterlife, ultimate ontology, meaning or “Why?” No rational person would ever expect science to answer the big questions of existence. Science is a “small” subject, restricted to trial and error attempts to fit ad hoc mathematical formulae to experimental data. “Was Kant really a Leibnizian after all, as Eberhard had accused him of being? Did he believe that the world of nature is nothing but a ‘wellfounded phenomenon’, reality itself consisting in timeless, spaceless, noumenal substances whose attributes are derived from reason alone? Is the ‘thing in itself’ the underlying substance which sustains appearance?” – Roger Scruton

Ontological mathematical says exactly this: reality comprises spaceless, timeless monads (mathematical souls = Fourier singularities), whose attributes are derived from the principle of sufficient reason alone, leading to pure mathematics predicated on the God Equation. Noumenal monads are the autonomous underlying substances that sustain the world of phenomena, of appearances. It would indeed not take too much to turn Kant’s philosophy into that of Leibniz. That happens almost automatically once you replace Kant’s synthetic a priori judgments with Leibniz’s analytic a priori judgments, and give his philosophy an ontological mathematical makeover. “But if the transcendental philosophy is not a version of Leibnizian rationalism, why is it not, then, a repetition of the skeptical empiricism of Hume? Kant’s philosophy is very much clearer in its negative than in its positive aspect, and in his day he had been called ‘the Prussian Hume’.” – Roger Scruton Since Kant’s philosophy is simply an unstable and untenable amalgam of Leibniz’s and Hume’s philosophies, if you push it one way (the positive way), it becomes Leibnizian, and, if the other (the negative way), Humean. “Hegel tried to show that the objective reference justified in the transcendental deduction is but the first stage in an expanding process of self-knowledge. Mind [Geist] comes to know itself through the positing of an ever more complex world. Hegel described this process as ‘dialectical’, meaning not to bury but to praise it. He believed that Kant’s first Critique had displayed, not the errors of pure reason, but the dynamic process of conjecture and refutation whereby reason constantly negates its own advances, achieving from the ruin of partial knowledge an ever more complete, more ‘absolute’, picture of reality. Kant would have rejected that return to the Leibnizian vision.” – Roger Scruton Hegel’s system is wondrous and is indeed a return to Leibniz. Hegel’s dialectical logic does the best job of bridging the gap between rationalism and empiricism. Strict Aristotelian logic applies to the noumenal domain of pure reason, of Form. However, this type of logic is useless in the context of contingent facts, experiences and Content. How, then, do we proceed to viable knowledge from the empirical side of the fence? Hegel realised that the world of Content uses the most primitive, brute force, pitiless technique

imaginable – the dialectic – which is why history is a record of atrocities, and the jungle is about creatures savagely killing and eating each other. The dialectic simply lets ideas (and things) fight it out. One person proposes position A; another person then opposes it with the complete opposite (position B). There’s a fight and either position A wins, or position B wins, or a compromise position (C) is generated. Then the fighting starts all over again. Either a new opponent of A or B is found, or position C, in its turn, is opposed. A new battle begins. A new clash of opposites takes place, and a new synthesis eventually emerges. However, once the consequences of the synthesis become apparent, some people are seen to benefit from it, and others to lose out. The losers then propose an opposing system, and conflict breaks out again. This is all that ever happens. Ideas constantly battle each other for supremacy. Each victorious idea produces winners and losers, and the losers then oppose the prevailing system. Marx believed that the dialectic would end only when everyone is equal under communism. However, Marxism itself has been emphatically opposed (by capitalism). The final system – the system that marks the end of history – will be the one that is so fair and just to everyone that no one can raise any objection to it. At this point, the dialectic is indeed concluded. What Hegel accomplished was the means to allow irrational Content to become more and more rational (more and more like Form) through resolving its inherent contradictions via the violent and vicious dialectic. At the end of the dialectic, objective Form and subjective Content have become perfectly aligned. Content has been freed from empiricism and embraced total rationalism (corresponding to all of humanity rationally agreeing on absolutely everything!). “God” comes into being when all Content is aligned with all Form. The universe is perfectly symmetric, and thinks perfectly (using perfect reason, in terms of both Form and Content). Science too is a dialectical rather than analytic system, although in a highly muddled way. Ontological mathematics, in terms of Form, is purely analytic. In relation to Content, it’s dialectical, like science. Richard Feynman notoriously stated the real method of science: guess a mathematical formula that might fit the data gathered by experiments (these measurements being deemed to represent “reality”), and continually adjust the formula, adding whatever ad hoc elements are required, to create a fit.

When a fit is achieved, the relevant mathematical formula is ipso facto considered to reflect reality. The problem is that new experimental data can be produced that the formula doesn’t fit. For example, Newton’s formulae were enormously successful – until they weren’t and had to be replaced by Einsteinian formulae. It turns out that, within a certain range of conditions, Newton’s formulae are very good approximations to “reality”. However, outside those limits, their applicability fails dramatically, and a new formula is required. No matter how good and successful any particular scientific formula seems to be, its general validity (i.e. in all conditions and all environments) is always suspect and always liable to falsification and dialectical adjustment. The scientific idea of taking some objective measure of the real world and then trying to capture it via a general formula is an extremely good one given that it forces mathematics to reflect observations. However, there’s an enormous problem as soon as questions are asked about what cannot be seen. How do you match scientific mathematics to an unobservable reality? Experimental scientists refuse to do so, while theoretical scientists give it a go, but using horrifically irrational thinking driven by empiricist considerations that are simply irrelevant to the noumenal world. They refuse to use analytic mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. Thus we end up with the respective absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Multiverse cosmology, Big Bang universes erupting out of non-existence, and so on. Beyond experimental limits, science has no rational choice but to use mathematical analysis, yet it dogmatically refuses because that would be to acknowledge that ultimate reality is mathematical and not scientific at all. When the future geniuses of the world start introducing mind into scientific equations via ontological mathematics, they will begin with simple guesses about how best to go about it, but they will rapidly get better and better – thanks to dialectical progress. The dialectic is how we can bridge, albeit crudely and unanalytically initially, the gap between Form and Content. “For if we ask ourselves how something can be the cause of itself, or how it can exist by necessity, the answer must be found in the concept of that thing. The concept of the divine being must explain his existence. This can be true only if the existence of God follows from the concept of God, since

it is only by logical relations that a concept can explain anything.” – Roger Scruton The ontological argument actually has nothing to do with “God”. The proper argument goes like this: anything necessarily exists if 1) it is “something” and yet has a net numerical outcome equal to nothing (the ground state of the universe), 2) it expends nothing, 3) it needs nothing, and 4) nothing can prevent its existence. Only monads satisfy these requirements. “How can I view the world in its totality? And yet, how can there be an explanation if I cannot? How can I explain the existence of anything, if I cannot explain the existence of everything? If I am confined forever within my own point of view, how can I penetrate the mystery of nature?” – Roger Scruton It’s possible to regard the world in its totality only from a perspective outside our personal, subjective, empirical viewpoint. This is the transcendent viewpoint of objective reason, the viewpoint of ontological mathematics ... of “God”. It allows the universe to be understood in its totality. It explains everything, as required before being able to explain anything. “...the concept of cause, which we can apply within the realm of empirical objects in order to designate their relations, becomes empty when lifted out of that realm and applied to the world as a whole. It is then applied beyond the empirical conditions which justify its application, and so leads inevitably to contradiction.” – Roger Scruton It’s absurd for Kant to apply causation to the phenomenal world and not to the noumenal world. He has created “causation dualism”, which is rationally untenable. Causation is either universally applicable, or not applicable at all. You can’t have causation here and not there. Part of Kant’s problematic logic was that he was trying to create room for free will, yet refused to adopt a compatibilist position whereby free will and causation do not contradict each other. He thought he could have a deterministic, “scientific” world of phenomena, and an indeterministic, “free” world of noumena. Yet, in that case, how could the two domains possibly interact? This is just Cartesian dualism in a different guise.

“The idea of ‘absolute totality’ holds only of ‘thing-in-themselves.” – Roger Scruton Absolute totality applies only to the mathematical Singularity of monads, which stands at the centre of all existence – the eternal Universal Soul, that some might call the “One”, or “God”. “Pure reason is distinguished by the fact that it tries to make judgments of its own, using, not concepts, but ‘ideas’ from which all empirical conditions have been removed.” – Roger Scruton All empirical conditions have been removed from monads. In Kantian terms, they are pure ideas. It’s precisely this that allows them to belong to the eternal order of necessary truths of reason, rather than the order of empirical contingency. “The logic of illusion is ‘dialectical’: it must inevitably end in fallacy and contradiction. This tendency is not accidental, but intrinsic.” – Roger Scruton There is nothing at all fallacious and contradictory about pure reason expressed through ontological mathematics. In fact, it’s the only complete and consistent system you can get, the only one free of contradiction and fallacy. Kant asserted that nothing is knowable in thought alone. In fact, things are only knowable in thought (reason) alone, with no contamination by contingent empiricism. Where Plato rightly said that the noumenal world is intelligible and the phenomenal world sensible, Kant maintained the complete opposite and claimed that we could understand only the sensible world and have no knowledge of the noumenal world. Plato was unquestionably correct and Kant wrong. Kant’s philosophy is riddled with contradictions, as his successors all saw so clearly. Wittgenstein said, “A nothing would do as well as a something about which nothing can be said.” This is exactly what could be said of Kant’s unknowable noumena. They are simply ridiculous, and were instantly dismissed by his most influential successors, especially Hegel. For Kant, the limits of experience set the limits of knowledge. For Illuminism, the limits of experience set the limits of “truths of fact”. True knowledge (embracing Platonic truths of reason) begins on the other side of those limits.

“Hence reason (in its guise as inference) inevitably leads us to search for the ‘unconditioned’, the ultimate premise whose truth is derived from no other source.” – Roger Scruton The principle of sufficient reason itself is the unconditioned. It uniquely explains itself and everything else. The principle of sufficient reason has to give a reason why it is thus and not otherwise, and it does exactly this through ontological mathematics. “These concepts [the categories of substance and cause] had been the principal objects of Hume’s skeptical attack. They were also crucial to Leibniz’s metaphysics, substance being the idea from which Leibniz began, and the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’, associated by Kant with causality, being the principle which governed his argument.” – Roger Scruton Kant tried to undermine Leibniz’s system, but he failed. Leibniz was right all along. The principle of sufficient reason is indeed the basis of causality. “Kant argued that space and time, far from being concepts applicable to intuitions, are basic forms of intuition, meaning that every sensation must bear the imprint of temporal, sometimes of spatial, organisation. Time is the form of ‘inner sense’ ... space is the form of ‘outer sense’ – that is, of those ‘intuitions’ which we refer to an independent world...” – Roger Scruton In Kant’s system, we might say that there are seven rather than five senses. The normal five senses of vision, smell, touch, hearing and taste are supplemented by 1) space (outer sense), and 2) time (inner sense). Space and time provide the framework for the other senses. “Kant also disagreed with Hume and Leibniz, both of whom had argued that mathematics is analytic.” – Roger Scruton Wittgenstein also regarded mathematics as analytic. If mathematics is strictly analytic, it’s impossible for it to be Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete. Mathematics is wrongly defined whenever it’s characterised as anything other than analytic. Gödelian incompleteness and inconsistency arise from any such attempt. They vanish when mathematics is properly, analytically defined.

“Previous philosophers had taken nature as primary, and asked how our cognitive capacities could lay hold of it. Kant takes these capacities as primary, and then deduces the a priori limits of nature.” – Roger Scruton Ontological mathematics takes monads as primary and then asks how everything is derived from these. “Leibniz intellectualised appearances, just as Locke ... sensualised the concept of the understanding.” – Kant Leibniz, like Plato, was right that the sensible world is grounded in the intelligible world. Locke was wrong that the intelligible world is grounded in the sensible world. Science makes exactly the same mistake as Locke. Its whole problem is that it sensualises intelligence. It forces mathematical formulae to fit sensory experimental data, then refuses to consider that there are more fundamental mathematical formulae that do not fit any observational data whatsoever because they apply to the non-sensory, intelligible world. This refusal is driven by fanatical empiricist ideology, and is absolutely anti-rationalist. It’s a simple fact that science is not a rationalist undertaking, and the only thing that makes it successful is that it invalidly uses the most rationalist (non-sensory) tool of all – mathematics. “A mind without concepts would have no capacity to think; equally, a mind armed with concepts, but with no sensory data to which they could be applied, would have nothing to think about.” – Roger Scruton This should actually be expressed as: Form without Content would have only Form (ontological mathematics) to think about, and Content without Form would be unable to think rationally (mathematically) about anything. The remarkable fact is that the human race does indeed primarily behave as if reason and mathematics do not exist. It’s driven by Content, and, in particular, by Mythos Content. That’s why humans believe in Gods, fairies, spirits, demons, devils, prophets, priests, popes, gurus, sin, karma, etc. These are all storybook elements, all divorced from reason and mathematics. Science is better than religion but it ultimately fails because it subscribes to a sensory Mythos, and rejects rationalism and ontological mathematics. “Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.” – Kant

Form without Content is empty (or, rather, entirely self-referential); Content without Form is blind (or, rather, totally irrational). “Kant’s Critique is directed against the assumption that ‘pure reason’ can give content to knowledge without making reference to experience.” – Roger Scruton On the contrary, as soon as any reference to experience is made, facts dissolve into interpretations, as Nietzsche noted, and offer no genuine knowledge at all. The fallacy science commits is that “pure empiricism” can give content to knowledge without making reference to the unobservable, the strictly rational and intelligible. “Neither experience nor reason are alone able to provide knowledge. The first provides content without form, the second form without content. Only in their synthesis is knowledge possible; hence there is no knowledge that does not bear the marks of reason and of experience together.” – Roger Scruton Kant’s central error is the notion that Form and Content can somehow be made into one, rather than remaining two mutually exclusive sides of a single coin, which never come into contact with each other. One is always the other side of the other. They are never together on the same side. Knowledge belongs to Form alone (and is all about reason, mathematics and Logos), and experience to Content alone (and is all about the senses, opinions, feelings, beliefs, desires, conjectures, interpretations and Mythos). Knowledge ought to be divided into infallible knowledge and fallible knowledge (which is ipso facto not true knowledge at all). Infallible knowledge concerns eternal, necessary truths of reason. Fallible knowledge concerns temporal, contingent interpretations of facts. Science has thrown in its lot with the latter, and that’s why it cannot provide a final explanation of everything (which must belong to the category of infallible knowledge). Science is successful in interpreting the observable world for exactly the same reason that it’s useless at explaining the unobservable world of ultimate Truth – it privileges the sensible over the intelligible. As for Kant’s philosophy, it can be viewed as an inconsistent and incomplete attempt to underpin empiricism (science) with restricted rationalism, and it culminated in Kant asserting that true reality (noumenal reality) is unknowable. The only way to properly accomplish Kant’s project

is via ontological mathematics, which does indeed fully, rationally, underpin empiricism, and, in doing so, makes true, noumenal reality entirely knowable.

Space and Time in Experience and in Mathematics Kant associates space with outer sense (i.e. with representing objects as outside us). Kant associates time with inner sense (i.e. with representing ourselves and our successive internal states). Kant holds that space and time belong to intuition, i.e. (in his terms) to sensibility rather than to understanding. They are particular rather than general, in the sense that there is no Newtonian absolute space and time; rather, we all come equipped with space and time mental “goggles” that make us see all “knowable” things in terms of space and time, and we cannot “know” anything our goggles can’t see, such as immaterial Leibnizian monads. Kantian space and time are a priori not a posteriori. They are forms of inner and outer sense that condition all of our knowable (empirical) experiences. They are independent of, and precede, all sense impressions. Kant classifies space and time rather as he does concepts (even though he calls space and time a priori intuitions). In effect, they are concepts of sensing rather than of understanding. There’s a fundamental problem with Kant’s scheme. If all noumena are immaterial and outside space and time, and they enter into space, time and material substance only when we look at them with our a priori space and time goggles, and our a priori categories of understanding, then why are some noumena – such as monadic souls, or God, left out? Kant’s system makes sense in only one way: he is positing two categories of noumena, which we might label as mental and material (or proto-material): souls (subjects) and things (objects). Only things are capable of being objects of experience, hence of knowledge (in Kant’s definition of knowledge). Souls are transcendent (or transcendental depending on taste): they cannot be experienced and known, but their existence (or that of minds at any rate) must be assumed. However, this simply begs the question. Why aren’t noumenal souls experienceable and knowable in exactly the same way as

noumenal things? What prevents it, given that both are noumenal? How are mental and material noumena different? Isn’t this just Cartesian substance dualism all over again, making it impossible to understand how minds and matter interact? Instead of Cartesian unextended mind and extended matter, Kant gives us unextended noumenal minds and unextended noumenal matter, but the same Cartesian problems remain. Kant has simply removed extension from Cartesian matter and relocated to it our minds, via our a priori space intuition, i.e. Kantian matter does not inherently possess extension: we project it onto it. However, this does nothing to resolve the Cartesian problem of how mind and matter interact, and actually makes the problem more complex by removing Descartes’ clear-cut distinction between unextended mind and extended matter. In ontological mathematics, the distinction is as follows: mind belongs to the immaterial, unextended Fourier frequency domain outside space and time, and matter belongs to the material, extended Fourier spacetime domain. Ontological mathematics thus removes all of the Kantian obfuscation and mystery. Bishop Berkeley argued that there were only unperceivable minds and the perceivable ideas experienced by these minds. This was a far simpler and more logical system than Kant’s. For Berkeley, there were only thinkers and their thoughts, perceivers and their perceptions. This was also Leibniz’s position. It’s a monistic stance since only mind and its associated mental contents exist, all the way up to God’s mind and its contents. Kant reintroduced Cartesian dualism by positing minds and non-mental things that existed outside minds. Kant was heavily influenced by Newtonian scientific empiricism and materialism. What his philosophy really amounts to is the claim that the phenomenal, empirical world (of science) is both “real” (not a fantasy or hallucination) and knowable, but – and here he differs radically from science – it’s the action of noumenal mind on noumenal matter that makes matter intelligible. His next manoeuvre is bizarre and irrational. Given that mind makes matter knowable, mind is clearly the primary reality, and surely ought to be able to know itself. Yet this is exactly what Kant denies. He says that noumenal minds are not objects of experience, hence are unknowable. They

are transcendental (insofar as their existence must be assumed in Kant’s system in order to explain everything else). So, Kant’s system is as follows: there are transcendental (non-empirical) noumenal minds that mentally operate on transcendental noumenal “things”, rendering them empirical, knowable things in causal space and time (but causation, space and time are all generated by mind and do not exist as physical realities, as they do in Newtonian physics). Transcendental minds make transcendental “things” empirical, but cannot do the same to other minds, or themselves ... or God. According to this system, minds cannot “know” of other minds, or of God, or even of themselves. They are all inescapably transcendental, i.e. they cannot be objects of phenomenal experience. We can reason about our transcendental nature, but never “know” it, because, Kant says, we have exceeded the empirical limits of knowledge. When we apply pure reason, we enter the speculative world of metaphysics ... the world, according to Kant, of unconstrained reason prone to severe error, paradoxes and antinomies. Kant’s successors regarded this scheme as ingenious but silly. If mind is the true reality, and matter something made knowable only through the action of mind, then why is mind itself unknowable? If it knows mysterious matter, why can’t it know itself? Just as Berkeley demolished Locke’s materialist empiricism with his idealist empiricism (he definitively showed that Locke’s “matter” couldn’t exist, or was a wholly redundant hypothesis since the only things that minds can ever encounter are mental, not material, contents), so Kant’s successors demolished his transcendental idealism with noumenal idealism, which got rid of Kant’s noumenal matter (which had no valid place in any idealist system!). Hegel showed exactly how mind could dialectically come to complete knowledge of itself and know itself as mind (rather than forever remain an unknowable, transcendental noumenon, as Kant maintained). Schopenhauer, who despised Hegel, had a rather similar philosophy to Hegel if truth be told, except he removed dialectical intelligence and reason from it, leaving nothing but irrational Will. Will can never reach an understanding of itself. Eduard von Hartmann produced a synthesis of Hegel’s philosophy (based on Reason alone) and Schopenhauer’s philosophy (based on Will alone). He posited a world of the Unconscious, where Reason (or

Intelligence) is originally unconscious and ruled by unconscious Will, yet slowly evolves consciousness and becomes able to rule Will. Science says that the soul is unknowable and, in fact, doesn’t exist (even though, by definition, we can never empirically know this). Kant says that the soul is unknowable but we should act as if it exists (even though we can never empirically know this). Hegel says that the soul does exist and is dialectically knowable. Ontological mathematics – modern Illuminism – says that the soul absolutely exists (indeed is the most fundamental entity of all) and is fully, rationally, mathematically knowable and definable. Well, what do you think?! “Empirical idealism attributed to Berkeley is the view that ‘empirical’ objects are nothing but perceptions, and that the world of science has no reality beyond the experience of the observer. All empirical objects become ‘ideal’ entities with no reality outside our conception of them. By contrast, Kant argues, transcendental idealism is a form of empirical realism: it implies that empirical objects are real. “Kant’s assertion that transcendental idealism entails empirical realism is difficult to interpret. He argues, for example, that space and time are empirically real and also transcendentally ideal. This could mean that, if we take an empirical perspective, so to speak, then we acknowledge the reality of space and time, while, from the transcendental point of view, these things are ‘nothing at all’. However, the idea of a transcendental point of view is, as Kant recognises, highly contentious. It is not a point of view that is available to us, and therefore not something of which we can have a positive conception.” – Roger Scruton Ontological mathematics is a transcendental viewpoint, and asserts that this is in fact the only way to understand reality. An empirical viewpoint is necessarily limited, narrow, subjective, and imbued with opinion, belief, conjecture and interpretation. In empiricist terms, how can you know the fundamental nature of things given that you don’t experience fundamental reality? How can you know the beginning of the universe if you didn’t experience it? How can you know your soul exists if you don’t experience it as an external, empirical “thing”? How can you know causation exists if you don’t experience or perceive it? Self-evidently, it’s only by transcending your empirical viewpoint that you can answer any of the big questions. Ontological mathematics provides

exactly the means for escaping the empirical viewpoint, in a systematic, rational way. Scientific materialism/empiricism refuses to escape the empirical viewpoint and reach the transcendental mathematical viewpoint. Science is “empirical mathematics”, while mathematics is “transcendental science”. Only the latter provides a total, holistic view, allowing us to produce a grand unified, final, theory of everything. No scientific theory will ever qualify since it will always be imprisoned by a limited, narrow, empiricist viewpoint of interpretation, opinion and belief. Science requires empirical verification and is always subject to empirical falsification. That’s the essence of the narrow, empiricist viewpoint. It’s all about interpretations of fact that can never be definitively proved. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is all about infallible proof and has nothing to do with verification and falsification. It concerns eternal truths of reason. Only this viewpoint offers a complete understanding of existence. Only it can. It’s stupid to believe that empiricism can lead to any final theory of anything. It’s trapped by its own limitations. It can’t break out of its own subjective perspective. “A simpler reading of Kant’s theory is the following: empirical objects are real, whereas transcendental objects ideal. A transcendental object is not perceivable, and does not belong to the world of space, time and causality. The ‘monad’ of Leibniz is such an object, and must therefore always remain a mere idea in the mind that conceives it, with no independent reality.” – Roger Scruton The exact opposite is true. Transcendental objects are real and empirical objects ideal (i.e. they are ideas in minds). Even Kant’s philosophy actually says so, since there would be no empirical objects at all without transcendental minds to view them in that way. Take away Kantian minds, and all Kantian noumenal objects become non-empirical, hence transcendental. Perceivable objects are perceivable only because of transcendental minds. The “monad” is not a “mere idea in the mind that conceives it, with no independent reality.” The monad is the mind doing the conceiving, hence is the mind itself as an independent reality. It’s crazy to say that the monad is an idea of mind, when in fact it is defined as the mind.

*****

Empirically, Kant talks of space and time as “real”. Transcendentally, he talks of them as “ideal” (ideas). Well, how can they be both? Transcendentally, space and time are mind-dependent, yet empirically they are treated as mind-independent (as in science). This is blatantly contradictory. It’s a crazy attempt to unify idealism and materialism, even though they are inherently incompatible.

***** Science denies that there’s any noumenal mind or noumenal matter. Instead, it claims there’s only phenomenal matter, giving rising to epiphenomenal mind. There’s simply no unobservable (noumenal) domain. The difference between science and Kantian philosophy is that Kant was an idealist or transcendental empiricist, while science is all about materialist empiricism, i.e. it follows John Locke’s empiricism rather than that of Berkeley, Hume or Kant. Science is just materialist empiricism with rationalist mathematics illegitimately added to it. It’s an irrational philosophy, not a “science”!

The A Priori For Kant, mind-dependence and the a priori are strongly connected (i.e. our experience of the world depends on the a priori constitution of our mind). For Leibniz, all monadic minds are a priori; all innate ideas are a priori; all eternal reason is a priori. All the laws of ontological mathematics are a priori.

Transcendence “If reason advances to where understanding cannot follow, it becomes transcendent, displaying itself not in objectively valid concepts, but instead in ideas, though these do have a basis (as regulative principles).” – Kant It’s a notable, and rather silly, aspect of Kant’s system that he separates reason from understanding. This is because of his empiricist bias. Reason can never go where true understanding cannot follow. In fact, the two words are basically synonymous. People who can’t reason can’t understand anything properly. And anyone who struggles with understanding clearly has problems with reason.

Why do people resort to things such as faith, emotionalism, mysticism, Mythos and sensory science? ... it’s because they can’t reason properly, and can’t understand properly. A person who reasons perfectly understands perfectly. Anyone who reasons imperfectly understands imperfectly. Science is an imperfect (empiricist, hence anti-rationalist) means of reasoning and understanding. Its fundamental anti-Platonic assumption – that the senses rather than the intellect lead to Truth – is false. Kant contrives to separate understanding and reason so that he can apply the “understanding” (rather than reason) to the senses. If you don’t accept this contrivance – and we don’t since we regard it as absurd to apply the understanding to the irrational senses – then Kant’s entire method is holed below the waterline. We can understand the rational world only. We can experience the sensory world, and rationally work out what non-sensory elements must underpin it. The colour blue is something we experience; it’s no part of a formal, complete and consistent, system of knowledge and understanding. You can’t work out anything at all from the “fact” of blueness! That’s a fact.

Transcendental “In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term – transcendental ... In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning ‘that which goes beyond’ (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being. For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. ‘I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them.’ He also equated transcendental with that which is ‘...in respect of the subject’s faculty of cognition.’ Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind ‘constitutes’ objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant’s acceptance of David Hume’s argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features

and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the ‘Transcendental Deduction of the Categories’, Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity. ... “For Kant, the ‘transcendent’, as opposed to the ‘transcendental’, is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know. Hegel’s counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it – in other words, to have already transcended it. “In phenomenology, the ‘transcendent’ is that which transcends our own consciousness – that which is objective rather than only a phenomenon of consciousness. Noema is employed in phenomenology to refer to the terminus of an intention as given for consciousness.” – Wikipedia

***** Transcendental (in Kantian philosophy): of or relating to experience as determined by the mind’s makeup; transcending experience but not human knowledge (transcendent entities are those that in Kantian philosophy transcend experience and human knowledge; they are not involved in the mind’s knowable makeup); of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements which condition human experience and knowledge.

***** (From The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words, edited by Archie Hobson): Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of; surpass. Transcendent: beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience; surpassing the ordinary; exceptional; (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the physical universe; contrasted with immanent; (in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle’s ten categories; (in Kantian philosophy) not realizable in experience. Transcendental: of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm; (in Kantian philosophy) presupposed in and necessary to experience; a priori.

Transcendentalism: a system developed by Immanuel Kant, based on the idea that, in order to understand the nature of reality, one must first examine and analyze the reasoning process that governs the nature of experience. Immanent: (of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe.

***** “I call all knowledge transcendental which is concerned, not with objects, but with our mode of knowing objects so far as this is possible a priori [that is, independent of experience].” – Kant Kantian transcendental knowledge involves how we know (which concerns a priori faculties) rather than what we know (which concerns objects). “I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all to be regarded as mere representations and not as things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition…” – Kant “Kant ran into a problem with his theory that the mind plays a part in producing objective knowledge. Intuitions and categories are entirely disparate, so how can they interact? Kant’s solution is the (transcendental) schema: a priori principles by which the transcendental imagination connects concepts with intuitions through time. All the principles are temporally bound, for if a concept is purely a priori, as the categories are, then they must apply for all times.” – Wikipedia

***** “Thus transcendental and transcendent are not interchangeable terms. The principles of pure understanding, which we have set out above, allow only of empirical and not of transcendental employment, that is, employment extending beyond the limits of experience. A principle, on the other hand, which takes away these limits, or even commands us actually to transgress them, is called transcendent. ... The transcendental dialectic will therefore content itself with exposing the illusion of transcendent judgments, and at the same time taking precautions that we be not deceived by it.” – Kant “Kant distinguishes between the transcendent and the transcendental. Transcendent is the term used to describe those principles which ‘profess to

pass beyond’ the limits of experience, as opposed to immanent principles ‘whose application is confined entirely within the limits of possible experience’. Transcendent principles ‘which recognise no limits’ are to be distinguished from the transcendental employment of immanent principles beyond their proper limits. Such principles include the psychological, cosmological and theological ideas discussed in the ‘Transcendental Dialectic’. Kant also described the ‘objective employment of the pure concepts of reason’ as ‘transcendent’, confusingly describing them as ‘transcendental ideas’.” – Blackwell Reference Online For Kant, the employment of immanent principles beyond their proper limits necessarily leads to error. However, the employment of transcendent principles, while fraught with difficulties, does not necessarily lead to error (though it frequently and usually does), but certainly passes outside the limits of our experience. Things we can’t experience (such as God and the soul) may exist: we just can’t “know” if they do.

***** There’s considerable tension between “transcendental” and “transcendent” in Kant’s philosophy. For example, is the mind transcendent or transcendental? Transcendental knowledge and transcendental thinking are possible only if there are minds to have that knowledge or do that thinking. Minds cannot be empirically known, hence that seems to suggest they are transcendent. However, we surely can’t have transcendental knowledge unless minds themselves are transcendental, i.e. we must assume minds are definitively real (despite being non-empirical). Encyclopædia Britannica says, “Transcendental ego: the self that is necessary in order for there to be a unified empirical self-consciousness. For Immanuel Kant, it synthesizes sensations according to the categories of the understanding. Nothing can be known of this self, because it is a condition, not an object, of knowledge.” This tension becomes clearer in Schopenhauer’s philosophy where there are individuated empirical minds in space and time (with spacetime consciousness), while mind itself is ultimately a unitary Will outside space and time, of which we can have no formal knowledge. For Schopenhauer, therefore, there are no individual transcendental egos, only empirical egos arising from a single transcendental Will.

Going back to Kant’s scheme, it’s not at all obvious that there’s a valid, consistent distinction to be drawn between “transcendental” and “transcendent”. In many contexts, they seem to blend into each other. This is the type of confusion that typically arises when rationalism is applied to empiricism.

***** In ontological mathematics, monads are the basis of existence. In Kantian terms, they can be described as “transcendental” insofar as they relate to a mental or nonphysical realm, are presupposed in (and necessary to) experience, are necessary, a priori and knowable (mathematically). However, they cannot be experienced (as external objects) under any circumstances, just as Kantian space and time as a priori intuitions and Kantian categories of the understanding cannot be experienced as external objects under any circumstances, yet are essential to, and frame, all possible knowable experiences. In this sense, all of these might equally be described as “transcendent”. Ontological mathematics asserts that you must first have knowable, transcendent entities (monads) before you can have Kant’s transcendental concepts, whereas Kant says that transcendental concepts define what we can empirically know, and transcendent entities are purely speculative, and can never be empirically known. Kant says that there are noumenal entities that are unknowable, and may or may not exist, and we can call these “transcendent”. Ontological mathematics, on the contrary, says that all noumenal entities are completely knowable (via ontological mathematics). They are transcendent because they cannot be objectively experienced, not because they cannot be objectively known. For Kant, unknowable noumena go hand in hand with the adjective “transcendent”, while “transcendental” refers to the a priori elements that we know must exist, in Kant’s view, in order to have knowable experiences in the first place (or we would succumb to Hume’s skepticism and nihilism). For ontological mathematics, there can be no unknowable noumena since that would amount to mysticism and irrationalism.

Space and Time

Kant says that space and time are “conditions of the possibility of appearances”. In ontological mathematics, it’s Fourier spacetime functions that make objects empirical. Monads – immaterial Fourier frequency singularities outside space and time – are non-empirical (transcendent and transcendental). Scientific materialism and empiricism denies transcendental (and transcendent) existence, which is exactly why it’s wrong and cannot provide a final theory of existence.

Inner and Outer For Kant, all representations, inner and outer, are governed by our inner sense and its temporal form (i.e. everything represented occurs in a time stream). However, outer representations are governed by our outer sense only and its spatial form. So, space and time are different in terms of their range of representation.

The Truth of Space and Time Space and time are of course not Kantian “intuitions”, and nor are they “physical”. They are wholly mathematical and arise exclusively from the ability of a Fourier frequency Singularity of autonomous monadic singularities to generate Fourier spacetime functions. Space and time are simply how we label our experience of the real and imaginary components, respectively, of a world defined by dimensional complex numbers. As always, it’s all in the math. Mathematics explains everything.

Limits? “Kant’s arguments are designed to show the limitations of our knowledge. The Rationalists believed that we could possess metaphysical knowledge about God, souls, substance, and so forth; they believed such knowledge was transcendentally real. Kant argues, however, that we cannot have knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical. That is, transcendental knowledge is ideal, not real, for minds like ours. Kant identifies two a priori sources of these constraints. The mind has a receptive capacity, or the

sensibility, and the mind possesses a conceptual capacity, or the understanding.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/ Kant persistently claimed that the transcendental employment of the understanding, to gain knowledge of things independently of experience – to acquire knowledge of “noumena” – is illicit. He stated “…the proud name of ontology, which presumes to offer synthetic a priori cognitions of things in general… must give way to the more modest title of a transcendental analytic”. Only an empiricist could make such a statement, reducing reality to what our senses – rather than our reason – suggest reality is. Kant’s system is an all out attack on reason, typical of people brought up in the Protestant faith (people raised as Catholics find it much easier to accept Platonic rationalism). It’s not our senses that show us the valid limits of reason, it’s our reason that exposes the irrationality, fallibility and limits of the senses (as Descartes demonstrated with his method of doubt). “Transcendental” knowledge isn’t “ideal” (unreal), as Kant claimed. It is in fact the only true knowledge, free at last from the taint of non-reason and all the forces opposed to reason. Transcendental – i.e. non-empirical knowledge – is strictly analytic a priori, and has nothing to do with Kant’s bogus and fallacious synthetic a priori system. Ontology is the transcendental analysis of reality and is the only means to furnish us with a God’s-eye-view of existence – an objective perspective untainted by subjective interpretation. It arrives inevitably at noumenal, ontological mathematics as the explanation of everything. Kant got everything upside down. He argued that the claim that we could have unmediated, purely intellectual access to objects (to “nonsensible” knowledge) involved the fallacy that there are non-sensible objects that we could know (in themselves), contradicting his view that there are only knowable phenomena and unknowable noumena. Kant believed that the failure to draw the distinction between appearances and things in themselves characterised “transcendental realism”, to which his “transcendental idealism” was the antidote. He labelled Newton and Leibniz as transcendental realists on the grounds that they considered space and time as things given in themselves, i.e. independent of our sensibility. (In the transcendental realist view, space

and time exist independently of our minds.) This would mean that outer appearances – phenomena – were in fact things in themselves, existing in space and time independently of us and our sensibility, and this is of course exactly what classical Newtonian science claimed (although modern quantum mechanics presents a much murkier view and makes empirical objects observer-dependent, in line with Kantian thinking). Kant believed that his transcendental idealism was consistent with empirical realism since phenomena are the “real”, knowable things in his philosophy. However, Newton would of course have claimed that his science was true empirical realism, while Kant was dealing merely with speculative metaphysics. Ontological mathematics is unapologetically about transcendental realism and asserts that “empirical realism” is the illusory world of scientific materialism, mired in contingency, fallibility, opinion, belief and interpretation. Ontological mathematics can also be called transcendental idealism or transcendental rationalism since it asserts that the true order of reality is emphatically neither materialist nor empiricist. We might say that science regards itself as empirical realism and materialism while ontological mathematics is transcendental realism, idealism and rationalism. Ontology cannot be directly experienced by us but can be rationally understood by us. We can know reality intelligibly, not sensibly. We can know it rationally, not empirically. We can know it noumenally, not phenomenally. Even in Kant’s philosophy, things in themselves are the basis of appearances, i.e. phenomena could not exist without noumena, so it’s ridiculous that he claims that “knowledge” lies with the derived phenomena and not with the originating noumena. You might as well say that we have no knowledge at all since what we need to have knowledge of – the noumenal world behind mere appearance – is exactly what Kant says we can never have knowledge of (!). This is why so many of his successors rejected his “unknowable noumena”. No system of knowledge can claim to know anything meaningful and real if it asserts that the basis of knowledge is itself unknowable. This automatically means that all “knowledge” is illusory. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Kant’s system is just a grand interpretation that offers no authentic knowledge at all. In fact, science offers us what Kant was striving for: reliable “knowledge” of the world of appearances, of the observable world,

the empirical world. Science has wholly replaced Kantian philosophy. What neither science nor Kant can do is give us any knowledge of unempirical reality, of reality beyond mere appearance, of reality in itself. Only ontological mathematics offers this knowledge. Appearances are not reality – despite what science and Kant claim in their respective ways. Reality is what is underneath the appearance. Reality is what the appearance is an appearance of. This is a transcendental, rationalist, idealist question. It has nothing to do with empiricism, materialism and phenomenalism. Kant claims that the effort to acquire metaphysical knowledge through concepts alone is certain to fail: “concepts without intuitions are empty”. This is essentially the position adopted by Wittgenstein when he said that mathematics was empty tautology that told us nothing about the “real” world. Kant and Wittgenstein both catastrophically failed to understand that reality comprises Form and Content (rationalism and empiricism). The Form part is what gives us rational knowledge, and the Content part is what gives us our experiences. Rational concepts alone give us knowledge, and they lead straight to ontological mathematics. The senses, left to themselves are, as Kant himself said, blind (“intuitions without concepts are blind”). What do you prefer – “empty” Form or “blind” Content? As it happens, Form isn’t empty, but Content is certainly blind. Form is full, but it’s also noumenal and transcendental, i.e. it’s wholly detached from our sensory experiences. We can know ultimate reality, but only by transcending our limited, fallible, delusional, sensory and emotional empirical minds. We understand ultimate reality by engaging our transcendental, rational mind, the one that allows us to escape our limited human perspective and to see things from God’s universal point of view. And when we look out from that vantage point, we discover nothing but noumenal, ontological mathematics. We are finally free of empiricism and phenomenalism, free of appearances, and we can see the Truth in itself, shorn of all the illusions we impose on it with our empirical minds. We leave the scientific world and enter the mathematical world that underpins it. We leave physics and embrace metaphysics. Plato was right all along. Truth belongs to the intelligible, rational, noumenal, mathematical domain, and illusion to the sensible, empirical, phenomenal, scientific domain.

Form is intellectual and rational, while Content is anti-intellectual and irrational. Science became successful because it forced rational Form to fit empirical Content (the observable world) via contingent mathematics, in opposition to Kant who sought to fit empirical Content to a priori mental categories (his version of Form). However, in doing so, science corrupted Form and made it dialectical (temporal, contingent and mutable) rather than Platonic (eternal, necessary and immutable). Form was made to become the servant of the latest experimental observations and latest ad hoc interpretations of those observations, instead of all interpretations of observations having to be carried out with respect to immutable Forms. Ontological mathematics accomplishes this latter goal. Mathematics comes first and science has to be fitted to it, rather than the scientific method coming first and a bizarre “scientific” version of mathematics (based on real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity) being forced to accommodate it, as happens in current science, driven by empiricism, materialism and instrumentalism, instead of rationalism, idealism and transcendentalism. Kant said we draw erroneous metaphysical conclusions whenever we employ concepts “transcendentally”. In fact, that’s the only time we discover genuine knowledge, provided all of our concepts concern the eternal truths of reason reflected by ontological mathematics. Kant’s philosophy is almost perfect ... when everything he says about phenomena and noumena, the empirical and transcendental, is reversed. It’s not empiricism that gives us “knowledge” while rationalism provides only illusory, “empty” knowledge. It’s the exact opposite. Science commits many of the same errors as Kant. Claude Levi-Strauss said, “The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he is the one who asks the right questions.” If only that were true. Scientists are those that never ask the right questions, which are always rationalist, never empiricist, questions.

Pure Reason The logical maxim of pure reason: “Find for the conditioned knowledge given through the understanding the unconditioned whereby its unity is brought to completion.” – Kant

Kant asserts that the activity of reason seeks “conditions” for every condition, and, in doing so, it ultimately strives for the “unconditioned” ... that to which no conditions can be applied because it’s the end of the road, the ultimate answer. The principle of sufficient reason is the unconditioned itself, that which provides the basis of all rationalism. The logical function of reason is to subsume propositions under ever more general principles in order to create a perfect, unified, complete and whole system of knowledge. This is exactly what ontological mathematics achieves, arriving at a single Formula (the God Equation) that encapsulates all knowledge. The demand for the unconditioned is a demand for ultimate explanation, for the ultimate whole, for ultimate completion, for the ultimate system, for the grand, unified, final theory of everything. Such an explanation is possible only if we live in a rational system. Hegel’s dialectic is all about delivering this Absolute – the answer to everything. However, Hegel’s system actually applies to Content, while Form is answered fully by ontological mathematical analysis. Pure reason, says Kant, is the instrument that endeavours to account finally for all things. It’s our internal “God faculty”. Yet, so Kant says, it overreaches itself when it goes beyond the limits set by empiricism. It starts to eat itself and generate contradictions. However, if it fails, so must “God”. In fact, like “God”, pure reason cannot err, provided it’s deployed properly. Contradictions arise only when fallacies supplied by empirical considerations, assumptions and axioms are fed into reason. These are what cause quasi-rational systems to be Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete. Provided empirical factors are left out, pure reason can never go wrong, and will give us true knowledge and ultimate explanation.

***** According to Kant’s version of the dialectic, the requirement for systematic unity and completeness of knowledge, for wholeness, is inherent in the very nature of reason. However, Kant says that reason is subject to a unique kind of error that he labels the “transcendental illusion”, which concerns taking “a subjective necessity of a connection of our concepts … for an objective necessity in the determination of things in themselves.” That is, reason deludes itself that its subjective interests and principles relate to an

objective, absolute order, which is what metaphysics is all about. It thus surpasses the limitations of knowledge. It tears down the boundaries (those concerned with empiricism) that properly demarcate knowledge in Kant’s system. Pure reason, says Kant, leads to invalid transcendent judgments of the kind that characterize metaphysics. Kant’s so-called Transcendental Dialectic exposes “the illusion in transcendent judgments”. The dialectic, according to Kant, is “the logic of illusion.” Hegel took the opposite view of the dialectic and defined it as the “logic of reality”, as that which took us to the unconditioned, to the Absolute, the supreme metaphysical explanation of everything.

The Thing in Itself For Kant, we can “think” the thing-in-itself, but we cannot “know” it (i.e. apply our proper understanding to it). We can know only its appearance. We can know it only as phenomenon. We can never know it as it really is, shorn of all appearance. For Hegel, we can know everything. We can get past all appearances to the kernel of things. We can know the mind in itself, and thus we can know ourselves in ourselves.

Dualism Dualism describes any philosophical system that seeks to explain all phenomena in terms of two distinct and irreducible principles. Pluralism appeals to more than two such principles, and monism relies on just one principle. Only monism can be Gödelian consistent and complete. Plato’s philosophy involves a dualism of being and becoming, of ideas (Form) and matter (Content). Aristotle also appealed to form and matter, actuality and potentiality. Plato’s system was about transcendent knowledge, while Aristotle’s was a far more empirical and immanent system. In Kantian philosophy, there’s an ontological dualism between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds, between a phenomenal world of conscious experience and the noumenal world of objective reality (external reality as it is in itself). We can access the noumenal world only through its effects on the phenomenal world.

Kant’s successors abandoned his epistemological dualism. They denied that there was an unknowable noumenal domain. Everything was mental and fully knowable by the mind. There was no mysterious matter, separate from mind.

The Ontological Argument For Kant, the ontological argument went like this: “God” is the concept of a being that contains all reality/predicates. Existence is a reality/predicate. Therefore, God exists. However, Kant then denied that existence is a predicate. Therefore, he concluded, we could not know that God existed. For Leibniz, “God” is the maximum of perfection. He possesses all perfections (a perfection is defined as a simple quality that is “positive and absolute”; it involves no negation whatsoever.) All perfections (simple positive qualities) are mutually compatible, hence can co-exist in a single being, hence God is possible. (When analyzed properly, what Leibniz is really talking about isn’t any theistic God but the principle of sufficient reason itself, offering a complete and consistent basis of everything, and suffering from no negations, contradictions, paradoxes, aberrations, anomalies, irregularities, inconsistencies or incompleteness. The principle of sufficient reason manifests itself through the God Equation. Kant said that a real (determining) predicate is one that enlarges the concept to which it is attached. Existence fails to do so, he said. It simply instantiates the concept in the objective world. Powerful though this point is, it isn’t entirely true. Certain entities – monads – do indeed have existence as a predicate for the simple reason that the concept of monad, unlike the concept of “unicorn”, for example, must contain existence: its existence is necessary. Why? Because a monad is “nothing”, needs nothing, expends nothing, and nothing can prevent it, so it can’t not exist if it’s possible (which it is).

***** Kant’s critique of the ontological argument is problematic. If “God” is a noumenal object of pure thought, whose existence, according to Kant, is inherently unknowable, how can it then be argued that existence isn’t a predicate? How would we ever know? What does existence even mean in such a situation?

Existence in this case does enlarge the concept to which it is attached since we can conceive of objects of pure thought that don’t exist in the world, and those that do. Those that do have something that the others don’t: objective reality for all minds. This, in fact, is exactly how we differentiate them. When it comes to unicorns, for example, these are potential empirical objects. There’s no difference between the concept of a unicorn that exists and one that doesn’t. However, we can test the two by finding an instance of the former (maybe there is some planet where unicorns exist), while we can never find an instance of the latter. When it comes to noumenal objects of pure thought, on the other hand, no such test is available since by definition we can never know if they have actual existence or not. Empirically, existence is something we can test. Transcendentally, we can’t. Empirically, we have a practical distinction between “ideal” things and “real” things, i.e. we can find instances of the latter. Transcendentally, this isn’t true, so existence becomes a valid predicate, although it can never actually be “known” in Kantian terms. Empirically, the medieval ontological argument fails since we can empirically test whether God is instantiated (and he plainly isn’t – unless you accept someone such as Jesus Christ as God). The ontological argument succeeds transcendentally since we can’t perform any empirical tests to refute or verify a transcendental God’s existence, and, if he is defined correctly, he must exist. In actual fact, when the ontological argument is applied correctly, it’s not “God” whose necessary existence is proved, but the soul (the monadic mathematical mind). The ontological argument is entirely valid once it’s understood wholly transcendentally, and without any relevance to the empirical world.

Ens Realissimum Ens realissimum: Latin for “the most real being”. It’s not a “being” that’s the most real, it’s a system – ontological mathematics. An incredible amount of damage has been done to human intellectual progress via the concept of a perfect being ... an idealised moral being who created everything. The Jews are most to blame for this

fundamental error. And by calling themselves the “Chosen People” of God, they eternally cursed themselves.

Different Directions The ontological argument rationally argues outwards from ultimate reality to everything else derived from it. The cosmological and physicotheological arguments argue in the opposite direction: from everything derived from ultimate reality to ultimate reality. Science, as an empiricist ideology, does none of this. In fact, science really has no interest in the concept of ultimate reality. After all, ultimate reality is not empirical. Only rationalism is validly concerned with ultimate reality. This is why it’s absurd that science is looking for a “final” theory. That suggests a conclusive explanation of everything, but science has never been in that game and never can be. Quite simply, science has never been rational in its objectives. No empiricist ideology can ever arrive at anything final, definitive and all encompassing. Scientists have always been philosophically illiterate, which is why they have never grasped the automatic limits that are imposed on science, and how it can never yield any ultimate explanation.

***** The ontological argument: some things exist with absolute necessity, and all contingent things are derived from them. The cosmological and physico-theological arguments: all contingent things can be traced back to absolutely necessary things. Science: there is no necessity, and there are no necessary things. “Existence” is eternal contingency. Things randomly leap out of nonexistence for no reason, and, eventually, are swallowed up by non-existence once again (perhaps!). Rationalist proofs are always a priori, hence are automatically rejected by a posteriori scientific empiricism.

The A Priori

Kant said that empirical perception relies on two forms of a priori intuition: space and time. He argued that empirical knowledge relies on a priori concepts: categories. Why didn’t he reach the more general conclusion: the whole of empirical reality relies on a priori considerations? What is the ultimate a priori subject? – ontological mathematics. Ergo, ontological mathematics is at the root of everything. It’s the basis of noumenal existence that Kant claimed was unknowable.

The Mind The mind, according to Kant, has two capacities: receptive (the sensibility; passive), and conceptual (the understanding; active). The two together form what Kant considered “knowledge”. If anything, they merely constitute phenomenal, empirical knowledge, while ontological mathematics constitutes noumenal, rational knowledge. Notoriously, Kant denied that we could ever have knowledge of the noumenal world, although all the a priori things he talked about must in fact belong to that world since none of them can be experienced and are in fact the preconditions of our experience. How, then, can we empirically know anything about them? How is Kant entitled to refer to any a priori elements? And if he can refer to some, why not all, i.e. ontological mathematics?!

***** The sensibility: the understanding’s means of accessing external objects. The understanding: the sensibility’s means of making sense of external objects.

***** Kant argued that we can know the claims of geometry with a priori certainty only if experiencing objects in space is necessary to our fundamental mode of experience, i.e. if space is an a priori form of sensibility. In doing so, Kant reached the disastrous conclusion that it’s the a priori features of our mind that determine geometry and mathematics in general. The exact reverse is true. It’s a priori ontological mathematics that gives our (mathematical) minds their a priori capacities. Kant, in effect,

contended that minds are more fundamental than mathematics, but did not attempt to explain what minds are made of. Minds must be made of something, and any philosophy which does not say what they are made of is ipso facto bogus. Minds are, of course, made of mathematics, so we must first understand mathematics in order to understand minds, not the other way around. Kant insisted that it was impossible for us to have any experience of objects that are not in space and time. In terms of Fourier mathematics, we would say that Kant’s whole philosophy is about Fourier spacetime functions (phenomena), but he failed to conceive of Fourier frequency functions (noumena). The same is true of science, which thinks only in terms of space and time, and denies the existence of an independent frequency domain. To be fair to Kant, Fourier mathematics hadn’t been invented during his lifetime, but that’s not the point. Any philosophy purporting to be about the eternal and fundamental truth of things should be based on principles so robust that they cannot be contradicted by any new discoveries. The reality is that Kant gambled everything on mathematics being based on space and time, provided a priori by the mind, and that’s simply false. Ontological mathematics is about frequencies (outside space and time) more so than space and time, which are in fact derived from frequencies. Had Kant been confronted with Fourier mathematics, he would have transformed his philosophy, and become an ontological mathematician. Ontological mathematics is the a priori reality, and supplies our ability to experience space and time (via Fourier spacetime functions, derived from Fourier frequency functions). Kant would have grasped that Fourier frequencies opened the door to knowing the noumenal domain, which he previously considered unknowable (given the extent of his mathematical knowledge). Kant said that space and time themselves cannot be perceived directly, hence must be the form by which experience of objects is had. He ought to have said that ontological mathematics cannot be perceived directly, hence must be the form that makes experience possible in the first place. What we actually experience is Content, i.e. that which accompanies Form as the other side of the coin.

*****

Modern science says, in common with Kant, that knowable “reality” is all about observable things. However, whereas Kant said that ultimate (noumenal) reality is unknowable, Copenhagen quantum mechanics says that ultimate “reality” – and we use that word very advisedly – comprises unreal (!), abstract, mathematical potentiality wavefunctions, from which reality is randomly extracted via observations. How can anyone claim that this is any more sensible than what Kant proposed? Would any lover of science like to defend science’s conception of ultimate reality against philosophy? Isn’t science itself just a philosophy, derived from a certain attitude towards rational mathematics and empirical observations? Has science actually cracked the problem of empiricism versus rationalism? You must be joking!

The Transcendental Ego versus The Empirical Ego “The Transcendental Ego (philosophy, phenomenology, Kantianism): The conscious self which is the unifying subject of a person’s experiences and which cannot itself be experienced as an object, understood by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) as knowable only by inference, and understood by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) as pure consciousness. ... Also known as the ‘non-empirical’ ego.” – Wiktionary “The Empirical Ego (philosophy, phenomenology): In the thought of Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl, the self of each person, understood as the locus of personality and capable of being known as an object by means of reflective awareness, in contrast with the transcendental ego which is always an experiencing subject.” – Wiktionary The Transcendental Ego is the ultimate subject, and the Empirical Ego is an object with regard to it ... an object in time. The empirical ego is the active individual self about which we can introspect. We are aware that there’s an “I” that accompanies our experiences and consciousness, and, since it manifests itself in time – which Kant says is something that the mind imposes on the experienceable objects of the world – then we also experience it as an object, hence indirectly rather than directly (as object rather than subject). As the body is a spacetime object to the empirical ego,

so the empirical ego is a time object to the transcendental ego, which is entirely outside space and time. It’s the end of the line.

***** In Kantian epistemology, the transcendental ego is that part of the self that is the subject and never the object. The empirical ego is the part of the self that is the object and never the subject. The empirical ego is phenomenal and the transcendental ego noumenal.

***** The empirical ego is the practical self of each person: the locus of personality. By introspection, it’s known as an object, and the thing that knows it as an object is the transcendental ego, which is always an experiencing subject.

***** Empirical ego = phenomenal ego. It’s a construct, belonging to the phenomenal world. Transcendental ego = non-empirical, noumenal ego = “Transcendental Unity of Apperception”. Kant said, “It must be possible for the ‘I think’ to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me which could not be thought at all, and that is equivalent to saying that the representation would be impossible, or at least would be nothing to me.” In other words, unless “I think” is attached to a representation then the representation is not being thought at all since there’s nothing to think it!

***** We might say that the transcendental ego is our “God spark”. It’s what develops God consciousness. It can also be called “absolute ego”. In some views, the Absolute Ego is God, while the empirical ego is ours, i.e. at a higher level we are all actually One God.

*****

“Our ordinary Knowing has before itself only the object which it knows, but does not at first make an object of itself, i.e., of the Knowing. But the whole which is extant in the act of knowing is not the object alone, but also the Ego that knows, and the relation of the Ego and the object to each other, i.e. Consciousness.” – Hegel

The Unreachable? Kant divided the world into two: 1) the knowable, phenomenal world of empirically knowable things (the world of Newtonian physics), and 2) the unknowable, unreachable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. In Illuminism, the unknowable noumenal world is replaced by the knowable world of pure, analytic, noumenal, ontological mathematics. Pure reason underpins and grounds empirical reality.

Play “Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.” – Kant Not if the theory is ontological mathematics and if the world is made of ontological mathematics.

Means and Ends “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.” – Kant Capitalism does nothing but use individuals as means to the ends of the ruling capitalist elite. That’s why 80 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion! No one in their right mind could argue that capitalism treats humans as ends in themselves. But meritocracy will. The political and economic dialectic can end only when people are treated as ends in themselves, and not means to the ends of the few.

Nothing Higher

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.” – Kant Actually, all of our knowledge begins with reason, which proceeds then to understanding. The senses confuse reason. There is nothing lower than the senses. “Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.” – Kant That would make you God! According to his believers, God sets the universal moral laws. “Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.” – Kant So is physics! “Seek not the favour of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them.” – Kant That’s exactly our strategy. “All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” – Kant This is a brilliant summary of the fundamental questions of human existence. Science deals with only one of them, the first, and in an extremely unsatisfactory way. “All thought must, directly or indirectly, by way of certain characters, relate ultimately to intuitions, and therefore, with us, to sensibility, because in no other way can an object be given to us.” – Kant Mathematical objects can be given to us that have nothing to do with the senses. Kant’s entire philosophy fails because he associates intuition purely with the senses, and not with the intellect. He makes a fatal assumption that then drives his entire fallacious philosophy. This is true of all nonmathematical philosophies, and it’s also true of science.

The Noumenon “The noumenon is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to ‘phenomenon’, which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses. In Platonic philosophy, the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality, known to the uneducated mind. Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable ‘thing-in-itself’ (Ding an sich, which could also be rendered as ‘thing-as-such’ or ‘thing per se’), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, knowledge – true knowledge – is completely Platonic and has nothing to do with the senses. It’s analytic. The senses offer only contingent interpretations of fact, with a never-ending reinterpretation of those facts taking place in response to the latest experiences, observations and experiments. Quantum mechanics has many different interpretations, and science can’t prove any of them either true or false. Science can’t reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. The two theories are wholly incompatible, even though they are both highly successfully experimentally. This radically calls into question the benefit of experimentation, at least as regards its role as a meaningfully discriminating enterprise. Of what use is it if it validates two incompatible theories that imply utterly different ontologies and epistemologies? No scientist ever bothers to address these fundamental issues, such is the anti-intellectual nature of science. Science is the history of dead, falsified theories that were once deemed true. This is no basis of “knowledge”, if knowledge is to be distinguished from mere opinion, belief, hypothesis, conjecture or interpretation. Knowledge must be infallible, absolute and eternal, or it simply isn’t knowledge at all but something else.

“Platonic Ideas and Forms are noumena, and phenomena are things displaying themselves to the senses [...] that noumena and the noumenal world are objects of the highest knowledge, truths, and values is Plato’s principal legacy to philosophy.” – The Oxford Companion to Philosophy All rationalists have agreed with Plato; all empiricists have disagreed with him. Kant, an open opponent of Plato, is plainly the last great empiricist philosopher. Reason alone can reveal Truth, and reason has nothing to do with the senses. It’s purely intellectual.

Negative and Positive Noumena Historically, as we see best with Plato, a phenomenon is something that appears to the senses, while a noumenon is something knowable by the nous (pure intelligence). Phenomena are sensible, and noumena intelligible. Kant, in his early career, agreed with this view, saying, “The object of sensibility is the sensible; that which contains nothing but what is to be cognized through the intelligence is intelligible. In the schools of the ancients, the former was called a phenomenon and the latter a noumenon.” Later, he decreed that “positive” noumena are “knowable” (or, rather, thinkable) by nonsensible means, while “negative” noumena are not knowable (or thinkable) by sensible means. Note that the latter does not imply the former, i.e. negative noumena being unknowable through sensible means does not necessitate that they are knowable through nonsensible means. For Kant, things in themselves are negative noumena while positive noumena can be equated to “transcendental objects”, such as the supposed transcendental ego.

***** Phenomena: of the senses. Positive noumena: of the intelligence. Negative noumena: neither of the senses nor of the intelligence. (These could equally be called “negative phenomena”.)

*****

“If by ‘noumenon’ we mean a thing so far as it is not an object of our sensible intuition, and so abstract from our mode of intuiting it, this is a noumenon in the negative sense of the term.” – Kant “But if we understand by it an object of a non-sensible intuition, we thereby presuppose a special mode of intuition, namely, the intellectual, which is not that which we possess, and of which we cannot comprehend even the possibility. This would be ‘noumenon’ in the positive sense of the term.” – Kant “The positive noumena, if they existed, would roughly correspond with Plato’s Forms or Ideas – immaterial entities which can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory, faculty: ‘intellectual intuition’.” – Wikipedia Positive noumena do exist, and are exactly what Kant required to make his system intelligible and rational. “Intellectual intuition” was what Kant needed to formally add to his system, but he didn’t. He was instead totally skeptical towards positive noumena in general. He said, “Since, however, such a type of intuition, intellectual intuition, forms no part whatsoever of our faculty of knowledge, it follows that the employment of the categories can never extend further than to the objects of experience. Doubtless, indeed, there are intelligible entities corresponding to the sensible entities; there may also be intelligible entities to which our sensible faculty of intuition has no relation whatsoever; but our concepts of understanding, being mere forms of thought for our sensible intuition, could not in the least apply to them. That, therefore, which we entitle ‘noumenon’ must be understood as being such only in a negative sense.” Here, Kant makes it clear that he regards noumena, in his system, as reflecting the negative rather than positive sense. For Plato, it would have been the other way around. Negative noumena would have meant nothing to Plato. “Even if noumena are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: ‘Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge.’” – Wikipedia

***** A noumenon is interpreted, negatively, as not available to the senses, or, positively, as available to intelligence. A world consisting of phenomena is a sensible world; a world consisting of positive noumena is an intelligible world. A world of negative noumena is neither sensible nor intelligible; it’s unknowable in any capacity. Negative noumena can be accommodated within Kant’s critical system as the necessary underpinning of phenomena. Kant said, “Now the doctrine of sensibility is simultaneously the doctrine of noumena in the negative meaning of the term; i.e. it is the doctrine of things that the understanding must think without this reference to our kind of [sensible] intuition, and hence must think not merely as appearances but as things in themselves.” Negative noumena “limit the objective validity of sensible cognition.” They serve as a “boundary concept serving to limit the pretension of sensibility.” A positive noumenon is the object of an intellectual intuition, a faculty that humans formally lack according to Kant (intellectual intuition would link us to objects as directly as our senses): “But that [negative] noumenon is not then a special intelligible object for our understanding. Rather, an understanding to which it would belong is itself a problem, viz., as to how it can cognize its object not discursively through categories, but intuitively in a nonsensible intuition; of such an understanding we cannot frame the slightest presentation as to its possibility.” In other words, Kant endorsed an empiricist, but not rationalist, version of “understanding”. This is an extraordinary error. He could easily have devised a rationalist use of categories that would have made his system far superior, and much more like ontological mathematics.

***** Ontological mathematics is about genuinely knowable positive noumena, while negative noumena are rejected as incoherent. As for intellectual intuition, humans do possess such a faculty. We really can link directly to reality itself – via flashes of the profoundest insight – and we can then make sense of these intuitions via our reason.

Regulative and Constitutive

“The distinction between regulative concepts and principles and constitutive concepts and principles is central to Kant’s philosophy. In the Critique of Pure Reason this distinction marks the division between the faculty of reason and the faculty of understanding. The understanding – together with its pure concepts of categories – is constitutive of the possibility of experience. All experience must conform to the concepts and principles of the understanding, which, accordingly, are necessarily realized or instantiated in experience: experience necessarily contains substances, causal connections, and so on. The faculty of reason, by contrast, is merely regulative in relation to experience. Although reason too plays an indispensable role in experience, the concepts proper to it – the so-called ideas of reason, such as the idea of God, or the idea of the world as a complete totality – cannot be realized or instantiated in experience at all. ... “Regulative concepts and principles therefore present us, not with objects corresponding to them, but rather with a task: the never-ending progress of empirical enquiry whose ideal terminus – the complete understanding of ‘the constitution and connection of the objects of experience’ – can only be approached asymptotically. ... The transcendental laws of the understanding – the principles of substance, causality, and so on – leave nature entirely undetermined with respect to the possible empirical concepts and laws that may be instantiated therein.” – Michael Friedman We might say that the faculty of understanding is transcendental and constitutive, while the faculty of reason is transcendent and regulative.

Kant’s Four Perspectives Kant’s four perspectives are: 1) transcendental, 2) logical (both a priori), 3) empirical, and 4) hypothetical (both a posteriori). Transcendental: synthetic and a priori. Concerned with the necessary conditions for the possibility of experience. All knowing subjects assume certain transcendental truths, whether or not they are aware of them. Transcendental knowledge defines the boundary between empirical knowledge and speculation about the transcendent realm. Causation belongs to transcendental knowledge.

Logical: analytic and a priori. This is concerned only with the relationships between concepts. “All bachelors are unmarried” is a logical statement. Empirical: synthetic and a posteriori. This is the knowledge we gain through ordinary experience, or through experimental science. “The sky is blue” is an empirical statement. (There is nothing in the concept of “sky” that demands blueness rather than any other colour.) Hypothetical: analytic and a posteriori. This is Kant’s metaphysical standpoint, the one he adopts whenever he discusses the ideas (although he actually regarded it as another, more sophisticated, kind of synthetic a priori viewpoint). “There is a God” is a hypothetical statement, i.e. a posteriori considerations lead to the conclusion that there is an analytic certainty underlying the world – some first cause, prime mover, designer or source of necessity. ... “[You should not] ignore the difference between Kant’s transcendental and hypothetical perspectives. For when the thing in itself is mentioned in the context of a hypothetical perspective (such as Kant adopts whenever he discusses the ideas), it always refers to what the thing in itself would be if it were an unconditioned object of knowledge ... this is precisely what he means by the (technically more accurate) term ‘positive noumenon’. The ideas are concepts of what might be true about the thing in itself as positive noumenon, based on what we actually encounter in experience; but they are regulative, rather than constitutive, of experience. By contrast, the thing in itself as such is a transcendental presupposition referring to that which is ultimately constitutive of (at least) the matter of experience, but which is not considered in experience to be either regulative or constitutive. When this distinction is taken into consideration, it becomes obvious that Kant’s reference to the thing in itself as such from the transcendental perspective is quite distinct from his connection of the thing in itself as noumenon with the ideas from the hypothetical perspective. The fact that Kant positions the thing in itself and the positive noumenon at opposite ends of the spectrum of knowledge indicates that the sort of faith employed in each case is at least in some respects different. In its transcendental use it is directed towards a single, necessary, theoretical presupposition: the whole realm of transcendental reflection is closed to the philosopher who is unwilling to adopt faith at this point. In its hypothetical use, on the other hand, it is directed towards a variety of practical presuppositions, the denial of which

may or may not affect the coherence of the overall System. But apart from the difference in the object to which it is directed and in its relation to that object (as determined by its position in the unfolding system), the kind of faith required at these two points is really the same. It is the reasoned decision to treat as true a presupposition which cannot be verified objectively, but which is suggested by the objectively known facts to be the best (or perhaps, the only) choice available which will enhance the unity of the systematic context (i.e., of the perspective) to which it belongs. When Kant adopts rational faith in the thing in itself, it generates a systematic movement of thought through the whole spectrum of human knowledge, which comes full circle to rest where it began, with faith in the unknown, considered now as the tool of practical reason.” – http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP5.html

***** As Leibniz and Hume had earlier stated, there are in fact only two perspectives: analytic a priori (rationalism) and synthetic a posteriori (empiricism). Analytic means “a priori”, and synthetic means “a posteriori”, so it’s bogus to invent the synthetic a posteriori scheme essential to Kant’s philosophy, and without which it dissolves into gibberish. Ontological mathematics is analytic a priori and deals with Form, while the world of Content associated with it is synthetic a posteriori (we can’t know in advance how we will experience it).

Kant’s Three Standpoints Kant’s three standpoints are: 1) theoretical, 2) practical and 3) judicial. Theoretical: relating to cognition, i.e. what we know (rather than what we feel or desire to do). This concerns our knowledge of the world, the world science seeks to understand, and also where “knowledge” ceases to be valid. It’s the subject matter of Kant’s first Critique, The Critique of Pure [Theoretical] Reason. Practical: relating to action, i.e. what we desire to do (rather than what we know or what we feel). Practical reason is synonymous with will. The practical standpoint is the moral standpoint. This is the subject of Kant’s second Critique, The Critique of Practical Reason.

Judicial: relating to experience, i.e. what we feel (rather than what we know or desire to do). It’s the subject of Kant’s third Critique, The Critique of Judgment. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics is the theoretical standpoint, science is one practical standpoint and the dialectic is a second, more comprehensive, practical standpoint, dealing with feelings, culture, and the evolution of economics, politics, religion, morality and even science (i.e. science isn’t any kind of pure intellectual discipline, but proceeds via clear dialectical steps – which scientists completely fail to understand!).

Inner and Outer Intuition “Kant has argued that space is merely the form of outer intuition, and not a property of nor a system of relations between independently real things in themselves. Likewise, time is merely the form of inner intuition. But, as the necessary a priori forms of intuitions, they are thereby the forms of all intuition, and so, of all cognition. That is, everything we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in time, and every outer thing we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in space and time. Thus, space and time are ‘transcendentally ideal’ yet ‘empirically real.’ They are transcendentally ideal because they are merely the forms of intuition and not properties of nor relations between things as they exist in themselves. They are merely the ‘subjective’ forms of sense experience. But as the necessary forms of all experiences, they apply universally within experience. This is what it means to say they are empirically real or ‘objectively valid.’ Within the world as we necessarily experience it (within the ‘empirical world’), space and time are perfectly real. They are not illusory, but as (empirically) real as anything could be. But their very necessity and universality within the world as we experience it demonstrates that they are parts of the subjectively necessary conditions of the possibility of experience of objects. As subjectively necessary conditions, they are transcendentally ideal. As subjectively necessary (and consequently universal) conditions, they are empirically real. And this same thing then applies to all the objects that exist ‘in’ space and time: they are at once transcendentally ideal and empirically real.” – http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/spacetime.htm

Kant’s philosophy would have been entirely different if he had added a third, necessary, pure, a priori form of intuition to space and time, namely frequency (relating to the immaterial Singularity outside space and time). While space and time are “local”, frequency is non-local. It’s frequency that can give us the kind of “spooky” experiences typically described as “paranormal”, and which Jung wrote about so brilliantly. Frequency puts us directly in touch with reality in itself; space and time take us away from that, into the world of Maya (illusion). With frequency added to Kant’s system, all of his objections to “pure reason” and metaphysics (and analytic a priori mathematics) fall away. If you start with wrong, incomplete or inconsistent assumptions, your system is bound to fail. Both Kant and science start with bogus assumptions about reality.

The Supersensible “Therefore, we have in us a principle that can determine the idea of the supersensible within us, and through this also the idea of the supersensible outside us, so as to give rise to cognition [of them], even though one that is possible only from a practical point of view.” – Kant In other words, we can construct an internal idea of “God” – as a mere thought – and then project that thought into the world, reifying it in the process. We then believe it to be an objective external entity in the real world (rather than just in our mind). “...an immense gulf is fixed between the domain of the concept of nature, the sensible, and the domain of the concept of freedom, the supersensible, so that no transition from the sensible to the supersensible is possible, just as if they were two different worlds, the first of which cannot have any influence on the second; and yet, the second is to have an influence on the first, i.e. the concept of freedom is to actualise in the world of sense the purpose enjoined by its laws.” – Kant Plainly, the scheme Kant outlines is incoherent and impossible. This arises from his opposition to the compatibilist position on free will, where free will and determinism can coexist in harmony. The supersensible world is in fact the mathematical, immaterial frequency domain outside space and time. It has nothing to do with the non-

mathematical “free” world Kant conceives. Such a Kantian world is ontologically and epistemologically impossible.

***** “Thus Kant proposes three questions that answer ‘all the interest of my reason’: ‘What can I know?’ ‘What must I do?’ and ‘What may I hope?’ We have seen his answer to the first question: I can know this world as revealed through the senses, but not the total sum of all that is (since the senses never reveal that) nor a world beyond this one (a supersensible world). ... “At the most general level, Kant’s notion of autonomy already implied some sort of primacy for pure practical reason. In denying theoretical reason all insight into the supersensible (against various stripes of rationalism) and in denying normative authority to the inclinations (against Hume), Kant thereby rules out the only ways that that theoretical or instrumental reasoning could supply authoritative reasons to act: only pure practical reason can do this. Now, however, Kant argues that pure practical reason has ‘primacy’ even on the home turf of theoretical reason. That is, pure practical reason should guide some of our beliefs, as well as our actions.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/ For Kant, the supersensible designates the intelligible, or that which transcends experience (the domain of Platonic rationalism). Ontological mathematics is supersensible in exactly these terms, i.e. it’s intelligible and transcends experience. Rationalists are enormously more persuaded by their reason than their senses. In fact, they’re not persuaded by their senses at all. A rational proof cannot be wrong, while our senses can easily deceive us. This is the classic Cartesian position. Empiricists, such as scientists, are enormously more persuaded by their senses than their reason. They’re not persuaded by reason at all (they use it in the service of the interpretation of sensory experiments, but never in its own right). They believe that their reason can deceive them, and that their senses are far more reliable. This is the classic anti-Cartesian position. Rationalists deal with eternal, necessary truths of reason, while empiricists are preoccupied with temporal, contingent interpretations of fact. Kant, unaccountably, is not commonly regarded as an empiricist,

although all of his central arguments are much more favourable to empiricism. He openly denounces “pure” reason ... the very basis of rationalism. ***** Intelligible: presented to the subject without anything provided by sensibility; equivalent to “supersensible” and “transcendent”. This is the core of Platonic rationalism, and is opposed to empiricism. Ontological, transcendental mathematics is intelligible, not sensible.

***** Will: the manifestation of reason in its practical, as opposed to pure, form. Eduard von Hartmann characterised reality in terms of Will harnessed to Intellect. In Kantian terms, this equates to practical reason being harnessed to theoretical reason. Will is indeed all about a very different type of reason from Intellect. It’s all about living, dialectical reason rather than eternal, necessary, pure reason.

The Division Kant divides knowledge into thoughts and intuitions, concepts and percepts, intellect and sensibility. For Kant, there are in turn two levels of intellect: the Understanding and Reason. Reason is concerned with the world of noumena (things in themselves) while the Understanding is concerned with the world of phenomena (appearances).

***** Human perception, Kant says, begins with subjective sensations. These are converted into objective knowledge via the framework of a priori concepts and pure intuitions (space and time): the transcendental conditions for converting subjective empirical data into objective experience.

Aesthetic Today, the word “aesthetic” is associated with artistic experience, feelings and taste. Originally, it simply meant, “Having to do with sense experience.” This is how Kant used the term.

Before and After A posteriori: from experience; empirical knowledge; Content. A priori: prior to experience; independent of all experience; universally applicable to all experiences as their necessary precondition; rational knowledge; Form. A posteriori elements are subjective, while a priori elements are objective, i.e. common in advance to all cognitive subjects. All empirical Content is accompanied by rational (mathematical) Form, is conveyed by Form, and contained by Form. But Form is not empirical. It’s intelligible, not sensible. Empiricists are those who are obsessed with the information carried, and have no interest at all in the necessary information carrier. In fact, they deny its existence since it’s non-empirical, hence outside their paradigm.

Analytic and Synthetic Analytic: a judgment in which the predicate is contained in the subject (e.g. “An unmarried man is a bachelor”; “A mother is female”); the predicate adds nothing to the subject; true by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved; true by definition; to deny the analytic proposition is a selfcontradiction. The whole of formal ontological mathematics is analytic, i.e. ontological mathematics can be worked out from strict analysis. There are no non-analytic elements. Synthetic: a judgment in which the predicate adds to the subject (the predicate is not contained in the subject); to deny the synthetic proposition is not a self-contradiction; “new knowledge” about the world is arrived at through the synthesis of a predicate with a subject that does not already contain it. “The sky is blue” is synthetic. There is nothing in the concept of the sky that necessitates that it be blue. (Although, if we did a proper, exact, Leibnizian analysis of Form and Content, we would find that this is an analytic statement, i.e. the definition of sky, at least in standard daytime conditions, is necessarily blue ... for formal ontological mathematical reasons).

Philosophers such as Wittgenstein regarded the analytic world, including the mathematical world, as a system of empty tautologies that could tell us nothing about the “real” world. They saw the synthetic world as exclusively the “real” world, and, since nothing in the synthetic world could be known by analysis, all knowledge of it had to come from observation and verification (with Karl Popper later adding the notion of falsification). This remains the scientific conception of reality. It’s all about “truths of fact”. Ontological mathematics takes a radically different approach. We inhabit an exclusively analytic world of truths of reason, and all synthetic rather than analytic claims are empty opinions, beliefs, conjectures, opinions and interpretations that offer only illusory knowledge, certainly not real, absolute and infallible knowledge of the kind provided by mathematics. Novelty is introduced into the world via contingency, i.e. reality comprises necessary, analytic, basis elements, but these can be combined in all sorts of contingent ways. We can deconstruct any contingent function into its necessary basis components. New, contingent, “synthetic” definitions can come into existence on the basis of combining necessary, analytic definitions (e.g. we can define material atoms, but, when we deconstruct our definition, we will arrive at combinations of basis sinusoids). Being contingent, these new definitions can all vanish again in due course. So, reality comprises set definitions being continuously shuffled around, and combined in novel ways, to produce new definitions, which are misunderstood by scientists and Wittgensteinian philosophers to be “synthetic”, i.e. they fail to grasp that what they call synthetic propositions are actually novel, ephemeral combinations of analytic propositions, and that any statement about the world can be reduced to a set of basic, eternal, analytic definitions. If we have, say, “Necessary Element 1” and combine it with “Necessary Element 2”, we might derive a “Contingent Compound 3”. We might regard Contingent Compound 3 as a “fact” about the world, but we could decompose Contingent Compound 3 into Necessary Element 1 and Necessary Element 2, which are the true, eternal, necessary “facts” of the world, while Contingent Compound 3 is simply something provisional arrived at by the combination of more fundamental elements, and which can break up just as easily as it came together.

Science regards entities of the type of Contingent Compound 3 as true reality. In fact, entities of this type are mere phenomena: they are how more fundamental entities (noumena) appear to us when combined in various ways. If we want to understand reality, we have to get to the fundamental level of noumena, of core definitions. We mustn’t remain stuck at the level of appearances (i.e. the scientific world). In ontological mathematics, the whole of reality can be reduced to sinusoidal waves defined by the God Equation. These form the alphabet of existence, and all that ever happens is that these necessary, noumenal elements combine in myriad contingent ways to produce all the phenomena of existence. One of the things they combine to create, in a necessary, complete and consistent way, is an eternal, autonomous mind (an immortal soul!). We can know in advance, through mathematical definition, what the Form of any mathematical combination of sinusoidal waves will be. What we can’t know in advance is how we will experience the sensory Content that necessarily and automatically accompanies every mathematical function (Form). This is empirical, not rational, i.e. we can cognize it only through our experience of it. No one could cognize what the colour blue was going to be like before they first experienced it. All of the mathematical knowledge in existence wouldn’t help. It’s precisely this fact that all mathematical sinusoidal waves have empirical Content as well as rational Form that makes existence what it is, and also leads to so much confusion in human thinking; in particular in relation to the conflicting schools of rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists simply can’t believe that their experiences, if viewed from the other side of the coin (that of Form rather than Content) are 100% rationalist, analytic and mathematical. Only Form can be analytic; Content is always synthetic in the sense that we simply can’t know in advance what kind of experience we will get when we combine mathematical basis waves. In principle, we can know exactly what Form we will get, but we will have no idea whatsoever of what the associated Content will be in relation to our experience of it. This is the novel part of existence. Were it not for this, we would inhabit a mathematical, rationalist, computer world of pure Form. As it is, the empirical Content associated with mathematical Form furnishes a wild, living mathematical organism, full of crazy and bewildering experiences

that convince most people that we are living in anything other than a mathematical world. Empirical Content does not seem mathematical at all, while nothing could be more mathematical than rationalist Form. Rationalists are drawn to the study of analytic Form, empiricists to the study of synthetic Content. Content is synthetic because we cannot cognize in advance what we are going to get, what the experience is going to be like. Unlike Form, it’s not definitional. That said, it must be stressed that every Form comes with a unique Content attached. In this specific sense, Content is every bit as analytic as Form, i.e. we can map Content exactly to Form. The problem is that our experience of Content is synthetic and not analytic. If it were analytic, we would know in advance exactly what experience would be produced by combining specific wavefunctions. When we combine wave-Form 1 with wave-Form 2, we are equally combining wave-Content 1 with wave-Content 2. We can mathematically know the result of combining the two Wave-Forms. However, although we know wave-Content 1 and wave-Content 2 we have no means to calculate how the Content combination will be experienced by us. In other words, all compound Content can be analytically broken down into basis Content, but this doesn’t actually help us to know in advance how any compound Content will be experienced by us. Content cannot be treated like Form.

Transcendent and Transcendental Transcendent: beyond space and time, beyond all experience. Transcendental: In Kantian terms, pertaining to the a priori grounds or explanation of the framework of all possible experience (but which cannot itself be experienced, hence is beyond the limits of all possible experience). For Kant, the difference between transcendental and transcendent is that the former is the rational system that conditions how we come to have knowable experiences (it makes comprehensible experiences possible, without being experienced itself), while the latter describes the hypothetical world beyond experience, which does not relate to the framework that makes meaningful experiences possible.

Transcendental Idealism

Transcendental idealism: Kant’s philosophy, which holds that your experience of things is about how they appear to you, not about those things as they are in and of themselves.

Noumena and Phenomena Noumena: Things in themselves, in the world apart from our experience of it. Phenomena: Objects in the phenomenal world, things as experienced or constructed by us through the understanding, according to a priori rules.

Pure and Appearance Pure: Completely prior to and separate from experience, having no empirical component, unrelated to experience: a priori. Appearance: An object in the phenomenal world, a thing as experienced.

Reason Reason: In Kantian thinking, reason is the faculty by which we form concepts of those things beyond experience. It provides the foundation of our critical abilities and of morality. However, pure reason, in Kant’s opinion, fallaciously attempts to go beyond the framework and limits of experience. In doing so, it becomes metaphysical, whereby it makes fantastical claims, which must be criticised, hence Kant’s most notable text: The Critique of Pure Reason. Given his skepticism towards reason, Kant is clearly an empiricist. He makes no attempt to critique pure empiricism, i.e. to assert that empiricism is fundamentally limited, and pure reason can reveal a real, knowable world beyond the senses, as is the case in the world of ontological mathematics.

The Unconditioned Kant says that the idea of the “unconditioned” expresses reason’s demand that the world be thoroughly and absolutely intelligible, i.e. wholly accessible to reason. Reason would be self-defeating, and selfcontradicting, he says, if it considered anything beyond its reach or powers. The understanding, however, can have no concept of the unconditioned

since the Kantian understanding represents things as they are, and can’t go beyond representation, as reason does. Representation conditions our knowledge; the world beyond representation is ipso facto unconditioned. (Science takes very much the same view as Kant.) The unconditioned transcends the conditioned and seeks to arrive at the complete intelligibility of the world as a whole. One of its tasks is to establish laws that we don’t encounter in themselves, but whose effects we experience (in the conditioned world). Science has unconditioned laws that apply to the conditioned world, and seeks to establish a grand unified and final scientific theory of everything. It is reason that provides the idea of the Unconditioned, which is required if we wish to put an intelligible framework over the study of conditioned Nature. Kant argues that reason can’t help itself in striving for the unconditioned. Once a conditioned, finite proposition is advanced, reason automatically considers taking the proposition to its limit, or, alternatively, its antithetical proposition to its limit. So, for example, if we refer to God as merely “good”, reason will immediately demand that we redefine God as “perfect”. If we refer to God as “finite”, reason makes an instant demand to redefine him as “infinite”. If we say that the universe is exclusively material, reason will automatically speculate that it is in fact exclusively mental, and so on. Reason can’t help but exceed any limits, until it has pushed an argument as far as it can go, which, in Kant’s opinion, usually means entirely erroneously. Samuel Butler said, “If you follow reason far enough it always leads to conclusions that are contrary to reason.” That’s a highly Kantian sentiment. Hegel, on the other hand, regarded this dialectical nature of reasoning as fundamental to the workings of the universe and its teleological progress. Limits, the finite, are conditioned, while the unconditioned concerns the limitless, the infinite, or the absolute bounds which are impossible to rationally exceed. For Kant, reason inevitably seeks the unconditioned, but it can’t reach any final, definitive, all-embracing answer. The idea of the Unconditioned, the Ultimate, the Infinite, the Absolute, the Everything serves as focus of the imagination, while being formally unreachable (in Kant’s opinion). The

idea of the Unconditioned is something akin to a horizon, which we can endlessly approach but never actually reach. Kant’s successors, especially Hegel, asserted that we could reach the Absolute through the power of reason, and thus know everything. Hegel famously provided the dialectic as the logical, and ontological, means for taking us to the Absolute.

***** Kant argues that pure reason is speculative, and driven to complete any series of terms it encounters (i.e. to get to the end of the series). It’s concerned with wholeness, completeness, totality, the unconditioned, and is given only in imagination. Critical reason, however, provides reason with the ability to judge itself, set limits to itself, moderate itself, and rein in its more extreme and untenable unconditioned claims. Critical reason assigns speculative reason its proper role, as Kant saw it, of being regulative, but not constitutive (as regards knowledge). It forbids the transcendent use of categories where they are applied beyond any possible experience to ideas of pure reason. It forbids representations of the unconditioned: the soul, the World as a whole, God. As for practical reason, this concerns ethics and morality.

***** Objects of the senses are given as conditioned. Objects of pure reason are given as unconditioned.

Idea Transcendental Idea: a pure concept of Reason that goes beyond the bounds of all possible experience, such as God, or the immortal soul, or free will.

Looking When the Kantian mind looks at the world, it necessarily does so via conceptual apparatus built into the mind. Kant called this looking Anschauungen, a German noun meaning “viewings”, and translated into English as “intuitions” (since it comes from the Latin intueri, meaning to “look upon”).

Sensibility, Intuition, Imagination and the Manifold Sensibility: The faculty of receiving direct input from the external world. It gives rise to intuitions. Intuitions: The direct representations arising from sensibility; the “matter” of experience, i.e. the basic stuff from which experience is constructed. Space and time are both a priori forms of intuition, and a priori intuitions themselves. All a posteriori experiences are framed by these a priori intuitions of space and time. Imagination: The faculty responsible for forming concepts out of the “manifold of intuition”. It produces a synthesis of intuitions and concepts to form objects which are ready to be judged. It constructs experience from the raw material provided by sensibility, according to the rules provided by the understanding. Manifold: The “manifold of intuition or sensibility” – the manyness – is broken down into many individual representations or packets of intuition.

Apperception Apperception: This is the indirect knowledge of the self that necessarily accompanies all perceptions, but is not a perception itself. We become aware of ourselves via our conscious perceptions. Objects are apprehended as “not-self”, yet in relation to the self. “Immanuel Kant distinguished transcendental apperception from empirical apperception. The first is the perception of an object as involving the consciousness of the pure self as subject – ‘the pure, original, unchangeable consciousness that is the necessary condition of experience and the ultimate foundation of the unity of experience.’ The second is ‘the consciousness of the concrete actual self with its changing states’, the so-called ‘inner sense.’ (Otto F. Kraushaar in Runes). Transcendental apperception is almost equivalent to self-consciousness; the existence of the ego may be more or less prominent, but it is always involved.” – Wikipedia “In epistemology, apperception is ‘the introspective or reflective apprehension by the mind of its own inner states.’” – Wikipedia

Understanding, Concept and Category Understanding: the faculty of concepts. It provides rules for the construction of experience, and is the source of our knowledge of the phenomenal world. Concept: a rule of the Understanding for the construction of experience. Concepts are not images or perceptions. Category: a pure concept of the understanding; a universal, a priori rule of the Understanding. All appearances must be constructed in terms of the framework provided by categories. Categories are the most general concepts, in the framework of which every object must be viewed to qualify as an object of empirical knowledge.

Judgment Judgment: The faculty that brings particulars under general laws or concepts, that brings universals to them.

Definitions A priori: a method of gaining knowledge without appealing to experience; used to establish transcendental and logical truths. This is what math uses. A posteriori: a method of gaining knowledge by appealing to experience. This method is used to establish empirical and hypothetical truths. This is what science uses. Ideas: special concepts which arise out of our rational contemplation of the empirical world, and point beyond Nature to a transcendent realm that explains both Nature and our true selves. The three most important metaphysical Ideas are God, freedom and immortality. Noumenon: the name given to a thing when it’s viewed as a transcendent object. The term “negative noumenon” refers only to the recognition of something which is not an object of sensible intuition, while “positive noumenon” refers to the (quite mistaken) attempt to know such a thing as an empirical object. These two terms are sometimes used as synonyms for “thing in itself” and “transcendental object”, respectively.

Phenomenon: an empirical object of knowledge, conditioned by space, time and the categories. Pure: unmixed with anything sensible; opposed to empirical; a priori. Rational: grounded in the faculty of reason rather than in sensibility. Reality: empirically, the ordinary world of nature (of phenomena); transcendentally, the realm of noumena. Reason: the highest faculty of the human subject, the ruling faculty. Reason’s primary function is practical; its theoretical function is of secondary importance because, in Kant’s view, it’s prone to metaphysical error. Space and time: considered from the empirical perspective, space and time form the framework in which objects interact outside of us; considered from the transcendental perspective, they exist inside our minds as preconditions of knowledge. Sensibility: the faculty concerned with passively receiving external objects, accomplished in the form of physical and mental sensations, through “outer sense” (spatial) and “inner sense” (temporal), respectively. However, such sensations are possible only if the objects are intuited, and intuition depends on space and time existing in their pure, transcendental form as well as their empirical form. Sensible: presented to the subject by means of sensibility. Speculative: the illusory perspective from which reason attempts to gain knowledge about something transcendent. Transcendent: the realm of thought which lies beyond the boundary of possible knowledge. It consists of objects which cannot be presented to us in intuition, i.e. objects which we can never experience with our senses. We can think about this realm using reason and ideas, but they can never be empirically grounded. The opposite of “transcendent” is “immanent”. Transcendental object: an object presented to a subject, but not yet represented in any determined way, i.e. still to be framed by space, time and the categories. Also called an “object in general”, before becoming a specific object.

Understanding: the faculty concerned with producing knowledge by means of concepts. It produces the empirical perspective (where it’s also called “judgment”), combining concepts with intuitions to generate empirical knowledge.

***** Schopenhauer, one of Kant’s successors, enormously simplified Kant’s scheme. He believed that space and time are what cause things to be made discrete and individuated. Remove space and time – which is what happens in Kant’s noumenal world – and you seem to remove individuation ... everything appears to become interconnected in one great cosmic unitary system. (In fact, you can retain individuation outside space and time by virtue of autonomous, self-contained, immaterial, dimensionless monads.) Schopenhauer concluded that what existed outside space and time was not some bizarre collection of noumena, with all sorts of conflicting properties – some being capable of producing phenomena while others were not, some being materialistic in some way, while others were mental – but a single mental noumenon that he called Will. In his system, there are only two things: noumenal Will and a manifold of phenomenal wills, which is what you get when you pass the unitary Will through the individuating prism of space and time. These phenomenal wills are associated with discrete spacetime bodies. As Schopenhauer said, “My body and my will are one.” Strip away space and time, and you have nothing but one mental Will. Add space and time and you get a host of “physical” things – the individual bodies of the world and the wills that control them. Underneath it all, they are all interconnected in a single Cosmic Mind. In effect, Schopenhauer’s system is Eastern religion applied to Kant’s philosophy. The phenomenal world is Maya – a total illusion – and our selves are illusory (as in Buddhism). True reality is a single immaterial cosmic Oneness outside space and time. However, unlike the Eastern gurus, Schopenhauer did not treat this as remotely benevolent. If anything, he presented it as the Devil ... pure evil. We are not sparks of God, but, rather, infernal, Satanic sparks, mired in evil, wickedness and suffering.

*****

Jung was familiar with, and highly influenced by, Kant and Schopenhauer. Jung’s “Collective Unconscious” has much in common with Schopenhauer’s Will (except it’s not evil). It’s not inside space and time, and is shared by everyone. Jung famously contrasted sensing with intuition. The more of one you are, the less of the other you are. If we apply Jung’s way of thinking to Kant’s scheme, we radically alter it. For Kant, sensibility is the faculty concerned with passively receiving external objects, and it takes place through the outer and inner senses of space and time, respectively. These have the effect of individuating and localising phenomena. But what about a non-local means of passively receiving external objects from the world, taking place outside space and time? Jung defined intuition as “perception via the unconscious”. This means, in effect, perception occurring non-locally, via the Oneness (the mental Singularity) that links everything. As soon as you grant this type of intuition, you immediately have a means of directly linking to the noumenal world in a manner Kant never conceived. Many of the things that he insisted were impossible automatically become realistic possibilities. Above all, we can get a direct, intellectual apprehension of ultimate noumenal reality while completely bypassing the empirical, scientific, sensory world on which Kant based his whole theory of “knowledge”. If this phenomenal world can be circumvented, Kant’s entire empiricist epistemology collapses. A rationalist epistemology suddenly becomes entirely valid. Transcendental, ontological mathematics is something we arrive at via Jungian intuition and thinking (reason). It has nothing to do with the senses and nothing to do with the feelings. Just as we can bypass Kant’s philosophy, so we can bypass scientific materialism and empiricism. Kant and science rely on the senses. Those are exactly what can be omitted from a consideration of ultimate, noumenal, eternal reality.

Reason “Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, is not able ignore, but which, as transcending all of its powers, it is also not able to answer.” – Kant

Kant had a peculiar notion of reason. If we live in a rational universe – and we do – then there is nothing that reason cannot answer. Nothing can transcend its powers. The answers to existence certainly transcend the senses and empiricism, but not rationalism. Sadly, Kant bought into the scientific ideology of empiricism and of truths of fact having more “reality” than rationalism and truths of reason. Kant saw a need to critique reason, to determine its limits and its proper employment. What he should have been doing was examining the limits and proper employment of empiricism, and reaching the conclusion not that reason exceeds its “proper” empirical limits, but that empiricism falls radically short of reason’s proper limits. In other words, reason determines reality, and the senses are of only limited utility in revealing rational reality. This contrasts with the opposite view that experience determines reality, and reason is of only limited utility in revealing empirical reality, and has an ineradicable tendency to escape from its empirical bounds and commit errors (religious, philosophical and metaphysical). Kant was really the fourth great empiricist philosopher (following Locke with his materialist empiricism, Berkeley with his idealist empiricism, and Hume with his skeptical empiricism). Kant was a “transcendental” empiricist. What he should have been was a transcendental rationalist, i.e. ontological mathematician. Why didn’t Kant write a critique of pure experience rather than a critique of pure reason? That reveals his empiricist bias. Kant believed that reason had a “proper” domain, which it often exceeded. This is nonsense. We live in rational universe, hence reason’s proper domain is everything. We don’t live in a sensory universe, nor a universe of conscious experience, so it’s empiricism that has a “proper” domain, but this isn’t the domain of everything, merely a small sensory subset of it. Kant shrank the rational world to satisfy empirical limits, when he should have expanded the empirical world to satisfy the infinite applicability of reason to both the seen and unseen universes. It’s not rationalism that exceeds itself but empiricism that falls short! Kant was bewitched by Newtonian science and it destroyed his intellect, making him distrust reason and metaphysics.

Kant called upon reason “to undertake anew the most difficult of all of its tasks, namely, that of self-knowledge, and to institute a tribunal which will assure to reason its lawful claims, and dismiss all groundless pretensions, not by desperate decrees, but in accordance with its own eternal and unalterable laws. This tribunal is none other than the critique of pure reason.” All of that should have been said about empiricism, not reason. Kant’s philosophy should be inverted!

The Mirror of the Mind? Kant says that the mind is not a mirror of nature. Rather, it constructs nature. Objects must conform to our minds. Why not conclude, then, that everything is mental, hence there are no unknowable, non-mental noumena? The whole universe conforms to our minds because there is nothing other than minds (mathematical monads). This was Leibniz’s position, set out before Kant was even born.

***** Kant held that the mind categorises and organises all that is received in sensory experience via the forms of space and time, and further shapes this input with regard to a priori categories such as cause and substance. The only way in which Kant’s system can make any rational sense is if the noumena that he claims are unknowable are in fact ontological mathematical functions. Ontological mathematics is the reality beyond appearance. Moreover, the minds processing these external noumena must themselves be ontological mathematical noumena, which is why they can interact with and process the other noumenal information. Kant held that we can know appearances only. We cannot know of noumena, although we can certainly speculate about them with our reason, leading to all of the “errors” and contradictions of metaphysics. All of this Kantian skepticism vanishes if we replace unknowable, indefinable noumena with knowable, definable ontological mathematics. Kant said that metaphysical enquiry is a futile attempt to know thingsin-themselves in terms of categories proper only to the world as we experience it. Because causation is the result of the mind’s categorising activities, reason rightly looks for causes when events are perceived. A

world of objects in space and time is unthinkable without causation. However, when we attempt to apply the concept of causation to the universe as a whole, as it is in itself, and wonder whether or not the universe itself is caused, we have wandered beyond reason’s proper domain, Kant insists, and contradictions are unavoidable. None of this is true if reality is in fact made of ontological mathematics.

***** If it’s impossible to think of the world as we experience it without the concept of causality, then every event in the empirical world must have a deterministic, “scientific” cause. Thus there can be no appearance of human freedom. This view leaves open the question of whether human beings as things-in-themselves (noumena), rather than deterministic phenomenal objects, are free. Only in the noumenal domain, Kant argues, is there any scope for free will, and thus for morality and meaning. Kant applies morality strictly to the noumenal domain (via his notion of practical reason). It does not belong to the empirical, phenomenal, scientific world. No scientist would disagree with him about that.

The Mind World Mind, according to Kant, actively generates the empirical world, hence, by that very fact, can fully understand it (since it’s simply mind’s construct). Yet Kant denies that mind can understand the noumenal world. He has thus created an untenable ontological and epistemological dualism. This was emphatically rejected by the monistic idealists Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.

Noumena Noumena, in terms of Kant’s own philosophy, must be a metaphysical error, where reason has been pressed beyond its domain of Kantian applicability! He has no right whatsoever to refer to anything unknowable, outside what the mind is designed to know. If we can’t “know” it, we are engaging in pure speculation, hence we could equally well produce an alternative speculation, such as Berkeley’s idea that “God” created the objective world as an idea, and we all mentally tune into this divine idea, with our preprogrammed Kantian minds. All of the details of Kant’s philosophy would

otherwise remain identical ... yet unknowable, noumenal objects would have been abolished.

The Absurdity? Kant said that it was absurd to conclude “that there can be appearance without anything that appears.” This is absolutely true. We can recast this in a slightly different way, namely, what are appearances appearances of? Or what is an appearance made of? What is it that underlies appearance? Kant concluded that it was unknowable noumena. Illuminism concludes that it’s fully knowable ontological mathematics. Kant provides no definitive, ultimate answer to existence, and descends into mysticism. Illuminism provides a definitive, final, rational explanation of everything. Kant said that he “found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” This takes us to the heart of Kant’s real agenda ... to create a space for God and religion in a world that seems relentlessly scientific. He did so by manufacturing an unknowable noumenal domain, into which God and religion could be safely smuggled, and kept away from the reach of science. However, there is no hiding place ... nowhere to avoid the reach of reason. Ontological mathematics fully reveals the noumenal domain to us and makes it completely knowable. We find no Creator God there, but, instead, countless self-optimising mathematical souls ... all becoming God. Kant, by his own admission, ultimately arrived at an anti-knowledge position of faith. He was certainly no rationalist. Ontological mathematics restores knowledge and rationalism, and wholly abolishes Kant’s Protestant world of faith.

Reality and the “World” The “World” is the place of appearances, the domain of Content, the domain of the information carried by the signal. The world is empirical. “Reality” is the place of noumena, the domain of Form, the domain of the signal itself. Reality is rational. The World is about synthetic a posteriori considerations concerning Content (truths of fact). Reality is about analytic a priori considerations concerning Form (truths of reason).

How do we get from empiricism to rationalism, Content to Form, if they are mutually exclusive, opposite sides of the coin? We have no choice but to introduce Form-Content and Content-Form categories. These are imprecise, messy hybrids that are probably best described as “quasi-dialectical” (whereas the analytic a priori is strictly Aristotelian and the synthetic a posteriori is strictly dialectical). Science operates in a quasi-dialectical way, trying to get to plausible “truths” that underlie appearances. We might call the Form-Content category the “analytic a posteriori.” With this category, we seek to work forwards from analytic truths of reason (especially those of ontological mathematics) to the observed, empirical facts of the world. The Content-Form category would then be the “synthetic a priori.” With this category, we seek to work backwards from the observed, empirical facts of the world to the truths of reason that underlie them. This is effectively how science works. It goes from experimental observations, to the supposed quasi-mathematical laws giving rise to them. These two categories aren’t proper, pure categories. They are necessary compromises to help us bridge the gap between rationalism (Form) and empiricism (Content). Kant, however, thought that the synthetic a priori category was a legitimate, proper category and, indeed, he based his whole philosophy on it. We would say that his work was in fact a combination of the synthetic a priori and analytic a posteriori, but he failed to arrive at the ultimate destination, i.e. the eternal, necessary, noumenal, rational, analytic a priori reality of ontological mathematics that underpins the temporal, contingent, phenomenal, empirical, synthetic a posteriori world. His failure meant that he regarded the noumenal domain as unknowable rather than knowable (as it is with ontological, noumenal, transcendental mathematics). We might refer to the analytic a priori approach as “rational”, the synthetic a posteriori as “empirical”, and the analytic a posteriori and synthetic a priori approaches as “hypothetical” (by which we try to work out in some muddled and speculative way what underlies and causes our experiences, whether that be “God”, “spirits”, randomness, an unknowable noumenal, etc.). It’s with these hypothetical categories that reason so often fails humanity, and all sorts of Mythos answers are invented to explain reality, especially religion and God.

All thinking, of no matter what category, is formally metaphysical since we can never have any physical evidence of the correctness of our hypotheses. Science makes all manner of metaphysical claims, including unobservable, unreal wavefunctions, many worlds and the Multiverse.

***** Kant said that ultimate reality was unknowable, science says it’s random, religion says it’s “God”, and Illuminism says it’s ontological mathematics. Only the last is rational. Only the last offers a closed, definitive, analytic solution to existence. All the rest are pure speculation, belief, opinion, conjecture and interpretation.

The Immortal Principle “The Immortal Principle was first called water by Thales. Anaximenes called it air. The Pythagoreans called it number and were thus the first to see the Immortal Principle as something nonmaterial. Heraclitus called the Immortal Principle fire and introduced change as part of the Principle. He said the world exists as a conflict and tension of opposites. He said there is a One and there is a Many and the One is the universal law which is immanent in all things. Anaxagoras was the first to identify the One as nous, meaning ‘mind.’ “Parmenides made it clear for the first time that the Immortal Principle, the One, Truth, God, is separate from appearance and from opinion, and the importance of this separation and its effect upon subsequent history cannot be overstated. It’s here that the classic mind, for the first time, took leave of its romantic origins and said, ‘The Good and the True are not necessarily the same,’ and goes its separate way. Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition.” – Robert M. Pirsig “There is no contradiction. There never really can be between the core terms of monistic philosophies. The One in India has got to be the same as the One in Greece. If it’s not, you’ve got two. The only disagreements among the monists concern the attributes of the One, not the One itself. Since the One is the source of all things and includes all things in it, it cannot be defined in terms of those things, since no matter what thing you

use to define it, the thing will always describe something less than the One itself. The One can only be described allegorically, through the use of analogy, of figures of imagination and speech.” – Robert M. Pirsig The One is noumenal, ontological mathematics. It is the information carrier, and everything else is the information carried. You cannot use the information carried to define the information carrier. Only ontological reason can define the information carrier ... because it is the carrier. “The followers of Heraclitus insisted the Immortal Principle was change and motion. But Parmenides’ disciple, Zeno, proved through a series of paradoxes that any perception of motion and change is illusory. Reality had to be motionless. Phædrus remembered a line from Thoreau: ‘You never gain something but that you lose something.’” – Robert M. Pirsig

Phædrus “The Phaedrus, written by Plato, is a dialogue between Plato’s main protagonist, Socrates, and Phaedrus, an interlocutor in several dialogues. The Phaedrus was presumably composed around 370 BC, around the same time as Plato’s Republic and Symposium. Although ostensibly about the topic of love, the discussion in the dialogue revolves around the art of rhetoric and how it should be practised, and dwells on subjects as diverse as metempsychosis (the Greek tradition of reincarnation) and erotic love.” – Wikipedia Phædrus, in Greek, means “wolf.” In Socrates’ dialogue, Phædrus is enchanted by Socrates’ discourse on love and tamed.

Pirsig on Kant “To follow Kant one must also understand something about the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume had previously submitted that if one follows the strictest rules of logical induction and deduction from experience to determine the true nature of the world, one must arrive at certain conclusions. His reasoning followed lines that would result from answers to this question: Suppose a child is born devoid of all senses; he has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste ... nothing. There’s no way whatsoever for him to receive any sensations from the outside world.

And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence. The question is then asked: Does this eighteen-year-old person have a thought in his head? If so, where does it come from? How does he get it? Hume would have answered that the eighteen-year-old had no thoughts whatsoever, and in giving this answer would have defined himself as an empiricist, one who believes all knowledge is derived exclusively from the senses. The scientific method of experimentation is carefully controlled empiricism. Common sense today is empiricism, since an overwhelming majority would agree with Hume, even though in other cultures and other times a majority might have differed. “The first problem of empiricism, if empiricism is believed, concerns the nature of ‘substance.’ If all our knowledge comes from sensory data, what exactly is this substance which is supposed to give off the sensory data itself? If you try to imagine what this substance is, apart from what is sensed, you’ll find yourself thinking about nothing whatsoever. [MH: No, you’ll find yourself thinking about pure mathematics with no appearance – just pure reason, pure logic, pure tautology. A person with no senses would have access solely to the eternal truths of reason, i.e. ontological mathematics. The Aristotelian God could be cast exactly in these terms: reason thinking about reason alone. The Aristotelian God is exactly a being that has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, and no taste! ... and no interest whatsoever in the empirical “world”.] “Since all knowledge comes from sensory impressions and since there’s no sensory impression of substance itself, it follows logically that there is no knowledge of substance. It’s just something we imagine. It’s entirely within our own minds. The idea that there’s something out there giving off the properties we perceive is just another of those common-sense notions similar to the common-sense notion children have that the earth is flat and parallel lines never meet. [MH: Pirsig’s entire argument, on behalf of Hume, fails as soon as it’s realised that we live in an information universe, and such a universe has two aspects: the information itself, and the carrier of the information. All empirical “knowledge” of information is experience and interpretation of informational Content. However, the Content is carried by Form, which, by definition cannot be sensed (since it’s not Content). The Form is not imaginary. It’s purely rational, concerned with pure mathematics. It’s not a case of something ‘giving off’ the properties we perceive. Rather, mathematics

carries the properties we perceive. Far from being imaginary, it’s the compulsory ontological basis of the properties we perceive!] “Secondly, if one starts with the premise that all our knowledge comes to us through our senses, one must ask, From what sense data is our knowledge of causation received? In other words, what is the scientific empirical basis of causation itself? “Hume’s answer is ‘None.’ There’s no evidence for causation in our sensations. Like substance, it’s just something we imagine when one thing repeatedly follows another. It has no real existence in the world we observe. If one accepts the premise that all knowledge comes to us through our senses, Hume says, then one must logically conclude that both ‘Nature’ and ‘Nature’s laws’ are creations of our own imagination. [MH: Causation belongs to Form, not Content, hence is not perceived (since only Content is perceived).] “This idea that the entire world is within one’s own mind could be dismissed as absurd if Hume had just thrown it out for speculation. “But he was making it an airtight case. [MH: Really?! ... only if you’re an empiricist, in thrall to your senses.] “To throw out Hume’s conclusions was necessary, but unfortunately he had arrived at them in such a way that it was seemingly impossible to throw them out without abandoning empirical reason itself and retiring into some medieval predecessor of empirical reason. [MH: ‘medieval predecessor of empirical reason’ = rationalist, intellectual, Platonic, mathematical reason!] This Kant would not do. Thus it was Hume, Kant said, who ‘aroused me from my dogmatic slumbers’ and caused him to write what is now regarded as one of the greatest philosophical treatises ever written, the Critique of Pure Reason, often the subject of an entire University course. “Kant is trying to save scientific empiricism from the consequences of its own self-devouring logic. He starts out at first along the path that Hume has set before him. ‘That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt,’ he says, but he soon departs from the path by denying that all components of knowledge come from the senses at the moment the sense data are received. ‘But though all knowledge begins with experience it doesn’t follow that it arises out of experience.’ “This seems, at first, as though he is picking nits, but he isn’t. As a result of this difference, Kant skirts right around the abyss of solipsism that

Hume’s path leads to and proceeds on an entirely new and different path of his own. “Kant says there are aspects of reality which are not supplied immediately by the senses. These he calls a priori. An example of a priori knowledge is ‘time.’ You don’t see time. Neither do you hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it. It isn’t present in the sense data as they are received. Time is what Kant calls an ‘intuition,’ which the mind must supply as it receives the sense data. “The same is true of space. Unless we apply the concepts of space and time to the impressions we receive, the world is unintelligible, just a kaleidoscopic jumble of colours and patterns and noises and smells and pain and tastes without meaning. We sense objects in a certain way because of our application of a priori intuitions such as space and time, but we do not create these objects out of our imagination, as pure philosophical idealists would maintain. The forms of space and time are applied to data as they are received from the object producing them. The a priori concepts have their origins in human nature so that they’re neither caused by the sensed object nor bring it into being, but provide a kind of screening function for what sense data we will accept. When our eyes blink, for example, our sense data tell us that the world has disappeared. But this is screened out and never gets to our consciousness because we have in our minds an a priori concept that the world has continuity. What we think of as reality is a continuous synthesis of elements from a fixed hierarchy of a priori concepts and the ever-changing data of the senses. [MH: Just as we don’t perceive causation – it belongs to Form, not Content – nor do we perceive space and time, which also belong to Form and not Content. Space and time provide the framework for our experience of sensory Content, but it’s the Content we perceive, not the space and time.] “Now stop and apply some of the concepts Kant has put forth to this strange machine [a motorcycle], this creation that’s been bearing us along through time and space. See our relation to it now, as Kant reveals it to us. “Hume has been saying, in effect, that everything I know about this motorcycle comes to me through my senses. It has to be. There’s no other way. If I say it’s made of metal and other substances, he asks, What’s metal? If I answer that metal’s hard and shiny and cold to the touch and

deforms without breaking under blows from a harder material, Hume says those are all sights and sounds and touch. “There’s no substance. Tell me what metal is apart from these sensations. Then, of course, I’m stuck. But if there’s no substance, what can we say about the sense data we receive? If I hold my head to the left and look down at the handle grips and front wheel and map carrier and gas tank I get one pattern of sense data. If I move my head to the right I get another slightly different pattern of sense data. The two views are different. The angles of the planes and curves of the metal are different. The sunlight strikes them differently. If there’s no logical basis for substance then there’s no logical basis for concluding that what’s produced these two views is the same motorcycle. “Now we’ve a real intellectual impasse. Our reason, which is supposed to make things more intelligible, seems to be making them less intelligible, and when reason thus defeats its own purpose something has to be changed in the structure of our reason itself. “Kant comes to our rescue. [MH: No, math does!] He says that the fact that there’s no way of immediately sensing a ‘motorcycle,’ as distinguished from the colours and shapes a motorcycle produces, is no proof at all that there’s no motorcycle there. We have in our minds an a priori motorcycle which has continuity in time and space and is capable of changing appearance as one moves one’s head and is therefore not contradicted by the sense data one is receiving. “Hume’s motorcycle, the one that makes no sense at all, will occur if our previous hypothetical bed patient, the one who has no senses at all, is suddenly, for one second only, exposed to the sense data of a motorcycle, then deprived of his senses again. Now, I think, in his mind he would have a Hume motorcycle, which provides him with no evidence whatsoever for such concepts as causation. “But, as Kant says, we are not that person. We have in our minds a very real a priori motorcycle whose existence we have no reason to doubt, whose reality can be confirmed anytime. “This a priori motorcycle has been built up in our minds over many years from enormous amounts of sense data and it is constantly changing as new sense data come in. Some of the changes in this specific a priori motorcycle I’m riding are very quick and transitory, such as its relationship to the road. This I’m monitoring and correcting all the time as we take these

curves and bends in the road. As soon as the information’s of no more value I forget it because there’s more coming in that must be monitored. Other changes in this a priori are slower: Disappearance of gasoline from the tank. Disappearance of rubber from the tires. Loosening of bolts and nuts. Change of gap between brake shoes and drums. Other aspects of the motorcycle change so slowly they seem permanent ... the paint job, the wheel bearings, the control cables ... yet these are constantly changing too. Finally, if one thinks in terms of really large amounts of time even the frame is changing slightly from the road shocks and thermal changes and forces of internal fatigue common to all metals. “It’s quite a machine, this a priori motorcycle. If you stop to think about it long enough you’ll see that it’s the main thing. The sense data confirm it but the sense data aren’t it. The motorcycle that I believe in an a priori way to be outside of myself is like the money I believe I have in the bank. If I were to go down to the bank and ask to see my money they would look at me a little peculiarly. “They don’t have ‘my money’ in any little drawer that they can pull open to show me. ‘My money’ is nothing but some east-west and northsouth magnetic domains in some iron oxide resting on a roll of tape in a computer storage bin. But I’m satisfied with this because I’ve faith that if I need the things that money enables, the bank will provide the means, through their checking system, of getting it. “Similarly, even though my sense data have never brought up anything that could be called ‘substance’ I’m satisfied that there’s a capability within the sense data of achieving the things that substance is supposed to do, and that the sense data will continue to match the a priori motorcycle of my mind. I say for the sake of convenience that I’ve money in the bank and say for the sake of convenience that substances compose the cycle I’m riding on. The bulk of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is concerned with how this a priori knowledge is acquired and how it is employed. “Kant called his thesis that our a priori thoughts are independent of sense data and screen what we see a ‘Copernican revolution.’ By this he referred to Copernicus’ statement that the earth moves around the sun. Nothing changed as a result of this revolution, and yet everything changed. Or, to put it in Kantian terms, the objective world producing our sense data did not change, but our a priori concept of it was turned inside out. The

effect was overwhelming. It was the acceptance of the Copernican revolution that distinguishes modern man from his medieval predecessors. “What Copernicus did was take the existing a priori concept of the world, the notion that it was flat and fixed in space, and pose an alternative a priori concept of the world, that it’s spherical and moves around the sun; and showed that both of the a priori concepts fitted the existing sensory data. “Kant felt he had done the same thing in metaphysics. If you presume that the a priori concepts in our heads are independent of what we see and actually screen what we see, this means that you are taking the old Aristotelian concept of scientific man as a passive observer, a ‘blank tablet,’ and truly turning this concept inside out. Kant and his millions of followers have maintained that as a result of this inversion you get a much more satisfying understanding of how we know things. I’ve gone into this example in some detail, partly to show some of the high country in close perspective, but more to prepare for what Phædrus did later. He too performed a Copernican inversion and as a result of this inversion produced a resolution of the separate worlds of classical and romantic understanding. And it seems to me that as a result it is possible to again get a much more satisfying understanding of what the world is all about. Kant’s metaphysics thrilled Phædrus at first, but later it dragged and he didn’t know exactly why. He thought about it and decided that maybe it was the Oriental experience. He had had the feeling of escape from a prison of intellect, and now this was just more of the prison again. He read Kant’s aesthetics with disappointment and then anger. The ideas expressed about the ‘beautiful’ were themselves ugly to him, and the ugliness was so deep and pervasive he hadn’t a clue as to where to begin to attack it or try to get around it. It seemed woven right into the whole fabric of Kant’s world so deeply there was no escape from it. It wasn’t just eighteenth-century ugliness or ‘technical’ ugliness. All of the philosophers he was reading showed it. The whole university he was attending smelled of the same ugliness. It was everywhere, in the classroom, in the textbooks. It was in himself and he didn’t know how or why. It was reason itself that was ugly and there seemed no way to get free.” – Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Pirsig’s Kantian motorcycle seems much more like a perfect, eternal Platonic Form of a motorcycle. Moreover, it’s not Kant that saves us from

Hume’s chaotic motorcycle, but transcendental, ontological mathematics. We can mathematically conceive of a single object that we view from many different perspectives. Pirsig is clearly an extremely bright man, but he suffers from an increasingly common Western disease – the corruption of his mind by Eastern thinking, Eastern irrationalism. When someone says, “It was reason itself that was ugly and there seemed no way to get free”, they have demonstrated that they have been irrevocably seduced by mysticism and empiricism. They believe that their subjective experiences are “the answer”. Your subjective experiences are in fact as far as you can get from the ultimate truth of reality. You should instead be concentrating on what is absolutely objective. No wonder Pirsig went mad!

The World of Robert M. Pirsig “Traditional scientific method has always been at the very best, 20-20 hindsight. It’s good for seeing where you’ve been. It’s good for testing the truth of what you think you know, but it can’t tell you where you ought to go.” – Robert M. Pirsig Science is about how, not why. It has no interest in meaning, purpose, aims, destinations, teleology. “For me, a writer should be more like a lighthouse keeper, just out there by himself. He shouldn’t get his ideas from other people all around him.” – Robert M. Pirsig Geniuses are lighthouse keepers. They light up the turbulent oceans for humanity, and save them from the rocks. But people founder and flounder anyway. They refuse to be guided by the light of reason. “The funny thing about insane people is that it is kind of the opposite of being a celebrity. Nobody envies you.” – Robert M. Pirsig Unless the insane person is called a guru or prophet! “All the solutions are simple – after you have arrived at them. But they’re simple only when you know already what they are.” – Robert M. Pirsig It’s intellectual intuition – denied by Hume and Kant – that gifts us the big picture that solves the world for us (when we apply our reason to it;

otherwise, we are left with just a mystical vision, as we see with Eastern religion). “When somebody goes outside the cultural norms, the culture has to protect itself.” – Robert M. Pirsig This is as true in science as anywhere else. The outsiders are always figures of fear and loathing ... yet they are also those who change the world. “Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions.” – Robert M. Pirsig On the contrary, quality is intimately connected with the intellect. In fact, the intellect’s primary concern is quality. Mathematics is pure quality ... pure symmetry ... pure elegance ... pure economy ... pure simplicity ... pure beauty! “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.” – Robert M. Pirsig Rational people still call it insanity. “You look at where you’re going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you’ve been and a pattern seems to emerge.” – Robert M. Pirsig Indeed. It’s no accident that we are where we are. It’s the story of our life. If you don’t like where you are, change your story ... change your life! “You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” – Robert M. Pirsig Tell it to the Muslims, Jews, Christians and Karmists! As for scientists, they are in desperate need of much less confidence in their subject, their method. Then their minds might start to open. Closed minds arise from too much unjustified confidence, too much unjustified faith. “Is it hard? Not if you have the right attitudes. Its having the right attitudes that’s hard.” – Robert M. Pirsig

True! Nothing is harder than acquiring the right attitudes. The State should be devoted to instilling the right attitudes in its citizens. Mainstream religion and culture instil all the wrong attitudes. “For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses.” – Robert M. Pirsig That’s science for you! “…the doctrinal differences between Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoism are not anywhere near as important as doctrinal differences among Christianity and Islam and Judaism. Holy wars are not fought over them because verbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself.” – Robert M. Pirsig But that has its own problems: disconnection from the world ... apathy ... alienation from reality ... the desire to avoid suffering by opting out of engaging with the world ... wanting to sit under a tree to mediate ... wanting to become a tree! “The real cycle you’re working on is a cycle called yourself.” – Robert M. Pirsig So, make the “cycle of your life” as great as possible. “Care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same thing. A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares. A person who cares about what he sees and does is a person who’s bound to have some characteristic of quality.” – Robert M. Pirsig It’s all about Care and Quality, but we live in a world that doesn’t care, and is much more interested in junk than quality. “Anxiety, the next gumption trap, is sort of the opposite of ego. You’re so sure you’ll do everything wrong you’re afraid to do anything at all. Often this, rather than ‘laziness’, is the real reason you find it hard to get started.” – Robert M. Pirsig You should never fear making mistakes. You learn from them and become smarter. The smarter you get, the fewer mistakes you will make! “Of course, the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people’s minds. It’s best to be completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe in either

ghosts or the laws of science. That way you’re safe. That doesn’t leave you very much to believe in, but that’s scientific too.” – Robert M. Pirsig If only scientists could write like this, with this degree of insight! Scientific materialism can’t even explain its own laws – which are not material. Science’s own laws are incompatible with science’s central paradigm of materialism and empiricism: they aren’t made of matter, and they can’t be experienced (perceived, observed)! All scientific laws have the same status as the law of cause and effect in Hume’s philosophy ... there is no empirical basis for them whatsoever! “If Quality were dropped, only rationality would remain unchanged.” – Robert M. Pirsig If Content were dropped, only Form would remain ... and Form is ontological reason = mathematics. Quality is about the inner drive of Content to optimise itself ... and become as perfect as Form. The highest rationality is the highest possible Quality! Pirsig should have spent more time studying math, and less time studying Zen and motorcycles. “A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance.” – Robert M. Pirsig In these terms, science is romantic! It despises classical understanding.

The Universe and Us “To understand the full significance of what Kant was saying requires us to extend the limitations of our sensory equipment (of sight or hearing) to the limitations imposed on us by our reasoning equipment. Our reason does not read off or deduce from the signals of the noumenal world what the world is like. The way our rational equipment interprets those signals constitutes the phenomenal world. This interpretation forms our ‘knowledge’ and because knowledge is interpretation, it is not so much something we have as something we do. We shape the phenomenal world with our tools of understanding. For example, because we cannot perceive the noumenal world directly, we cannot know whether it has an order or not. Therefore, such sense as we have of the universe being orderly is not imposed by the

universe on us, but is imposed by us on the universe.” – Ralph Blumenau, Philosophy and Living This is the crux of Kantian philosophy. Kant says that we can’t, using our reason, read off or deduce from the signals of the noumenal world what the world is like. But that’s exactly what we can do ... mathematically. Kant was right that reason has a problem but he was wrong about what that problem is. It’s not “pure reason” that’s defective ... it’s every other type of reason: all impure reason. Reason goes wrong whenever it’s applied to stuff that isn’t inherently rational. Reason is corrupted by the senses (science), by intuition (mysticism), by faith and revelation (Abrahamism), by feelings (Mythos, emotionalism). In other words, Kant got it completely the wrong way around. The book he should have written was the Critique of Impure Reason. Reason doesn’t go wrong when it transcends experience, as Kant maintained. It goes wrong when it doesn’t. When it leaves behind experience, reason is free at last to deal only with rational things, and those are the things of mathematics. Empirical reality, of the kind that obsessed Kant and science, is a systematic misinterpretation of rational, mathematical reality. Reality is eternal mathematical Form, but what we experience is the Content that goes along with the Form (the other side of the ontological coin, the “colour” that goes with the frequency). Reality in itself is an information carrier – ontological mathematical waves – but the reality we actually encounter is the information carried, and we do nothing but interpret this information in various non-mathematical ways: emotionally, sensorily, intuitively, with faith, with stories (Mythos), with delusion. It’s our irrational misinterpretations of mathematics that lead us away from the truth of existence. It’s reason that takes us back to the mathematical Truth. “What, then, are these ‘tools of understanding’? Kant calls some of them concepts and others categories, though he sometimes refers to concepts as categories. Both have the characteristic of imposing order on our perceptions. “There are first the concepts of space and time. Our minds are so constituted that we have to order our perceptions in a spatial and temporal way, and we cannot imagine a world which has more than three dimensions or does not obey a temporal sequence. If, therefore, more than three

dimensions of some kind of nonsequential time did exist in the noumenal world, we would be incapable of grasping that. “When he comes to categories, these are an elaboration of Leibniz’s ‘tools of understanding’. For Leibniz, these had been the notions of being, substance, unity, identity, contradiction and cause.” “In fact, Kant deployed arguments to show that space and time as we conceive them are merely concepts of human minds and cannot exist in the noumenal world. This seems contradictory to me. If we can know nothing about the noumenal world, we surely cannot know whether our notions of time and space do or do not exist in it. I suspect that he believed in a timeless and spaceless noumenal world because of his religious beliefs. Christian thinkers held that God and souls exist outside of space and time. St Augustine had believed that sequential time as we experience it operates in the world only after God has created it. It does not exist outside the created world, which is literally time-less (eternal), and in which there is no past, present or future – concepts which are dissolved in eternity. This was Augustine’s answer when people asked themselves what was there ‘before the beginning of time’ when God created the world ex nihilo. It is interesting that, on theological grounds and in theological terms, he came to a conclusion which was not unlike that which Kant was to reach on rational grounds and Einstein on scientific grounds: that in ‘reality’ time and space, at least as we experience them cannot exist.” – Ralph Blumenau, Philosophy and Living Kant is wrong. We can imagine a world without space and time ... it’s the immaterial frequency – mental – world of ontological mathematics. Augustine is right that an eternal order exists outside the temporal order and precedes the temporal order. The Big Bang – Creation! – is when the eternal order gives rise to the temporal order. This is a mathematical operation ... a Fourier frequency world producing a Fourier spacetime world. It has nothing to do with miracles, “God” (as Abrahamism claims) or existence randomly pointing out of non-existence for no reason (as science claims). “Christian thinkers” are right that the soul exists outside space and time. The soul is an autonomous Fourier frequency domain that resides in an immaterial mathematical Singularity – a purely mental world. Space and time exist purely as objective mathematical properties of the inverse Fourier transform. They have no other meaning.

The material spacetime universe is created on an instant-by-instant basis as the result of an inverse Fourier transform. The spacetime universe is a continuously calculated thing, and results from a mental mathematical Singularity. If we call this Singularity “God” then God literally calculates the world at every instant. But the Singularity is actually nothing but monads – us! In other words, all of us together are God, and we all create the material world between us, and we keep recreating it instant by instant (unconsciously, of course ... at a profoundly deep, psychoid level of our nature). All of the mysteries of quantum mechanics reflect this extraordinary collective calculation being performed by countless monads (Fourier frequency domains). Einstein believed that time was an illusion, and he subscribed to a “block universe” model where tense (past, present, future) doesn’t exist. He got it all wrong. We absolutely live in a tensed universe; space and time exist absolutely (via Fourier mathematics); there is no such thing as Einsteinian relativity (this is a misinterpretation of mathematical ontology – which involves complex numbers rather than real numbers); and far from being a static “block”, the universe is the most dynamic thing you can possibly get, literally being rebuilt at every instant. It’s not the passage of time that’s an illusion; it’s the notion of a persistent, enduring world that’s entirely illusory. The world is born anew every instant. The reason it so closely resembles the world of an instant ago is that the mathematical calculation used to produce it barely changes on an instant-to-instant basis. The calculation is always changing ... but only the fine detail is altering. The “big picture” looks almost identical from instant to instant, and that’s what creates the illusion that we are doing things against what seems like a persistent, fixed background.

Before Experience Kant said that concepts and categories – our “tools of understanding” – are a priori: they precede any possible experience and shape any possible experience. But concepts and categories are not ontological. They inhere in ontological things ... so what are those ontological things? They are of course mathematical monadic minds. It’s our mathematical minds that precede and shape our experiences, and what they are doing is interpreting ontological mathematical information. It’s all in the math!

Kant argued that since the world is always mediated through these tools of understanding, we can never encounter it unmediated (in itself). But we can – via pure (Jungian) intuition, via pure reason. The unmediated world is what remains when you remove all human sensory, emotional and mystical elements from its interpretation, and what remains is none other than noumenal, ontological, transcendental mathematics, which is pure reason without any appearance. The world in itself is pure Form, but we always interpret it in terms of the Content it carries. When you ignore the Content, all that’s left is the Form – pure math! The world – prior to mediation – is the noumenal world, the world of Form, of pure reason ... of mathematics. The mediated world is the phenomenal world, the world of Content, of pure interpretation ... of science, religion and philosophy.

The Arrogant Ones Kant said that we can have no knowledge of what exists outside space and time. Scientists dogmatically assert that nothing at all exists outside space and time – since the defining component of scientific materialism/empiricism isn’t mathematics (which it ought to be), but the sensory, spacetime scientific method. That is, science uses a method based on spacetime to claim that anything not amenable to its spacetime method doesn’t exist! Talk about begging the question. Science literally says that non-existence precedes the Big Bang universe, meaning that the spacetime universe is born miraculously out of nothing at all for no reason at all. Can anyone seriously consider that a rational claim? Scientific materialism/empiricism would collapse instantly if it ever admitted the existence of hidden variables (noumena) not available to the spacetime scientific method, if it based itself on rationalist mathematics (which is full of rational unobservables), or if it ever accepted the reality of an eternal, immaterial (mental) frequency domain (mathematical Singularity) outside space and time. How can anyone take science seriously? It’s outrageously arrogant, and, like the most fanatical religion, denies the truth of anything that contradicts its chosen Meta Paradigm (of empiricism and materialism). Not a single scientist anywhere on earth ever challenges the view of the scientific

establishment. Science is therefore a quasi-religious cult that absolutely opposes reason (mathematics).

***** Kant said that theoretical reason could not show us what exists beyond space and time, but “practical” (moral) reason could. This is absurd. Transcendental, ontological mathematics is what exists beyond space and time, and is revealed entirely by pure reason. “Practical” reason is just a corruption of pure reason that leads to endless confusion and error, and all the sins of mainstream religion.

The Tools of Understanding Kant said that the tools of understanding have a “transcendental” character, by which he meant universal mental faculties – present in all human beings – that cannot be experienced but are necessary for any experience to take place. They go beyond any one person’s ideas, are not relative, are not individual constructs, are not subjective. They furnish the objective framework that makes experience possible. In Kantian terms, “transcendental” relates to the conditions of experience that cannot themselves be experienced but must exist, in his opinion, to account for those experiences. He reserved the word “transcendent” for the world beyond the world of appearances, which can never be experienced and does not apply to experiences, hence has exceeded even the transcendental. God and the soul are examples of the transcendent. Out transcendental mental apparatus does not serve to render them objects of our experience. We can speculate about them, but no more. Given Kant’s philosophy, we can never “know” of their existence. The objective noumenal world – reality in itself – can never be experienced by us (it’s permanently hidden from us, Kant says), but we can experience its appearance (the appearance we impose on it via our mental faculties). We have a subjective notion of reality insofar as we construct the reality we encounter (rather than perceive it in itself), but this is a “collective subjectivism” since we’re all in the same boat, using exactly the same mental apparatus for viewing the world. By its nature, a collective subjectivity takes on the character of objectivity since we can all agree on various standards. Science is an

exercise in collective subjectivity. It relies on agreed, repeatable, sensory experiences and experiments, yet, exactly as Kant realised, knowledge of appearances never tells us anything at all about reality in itself. Science makes the catastrophic error of believing that understanding appearances automatically leads to understanding of ultimate reality (which has no appearance). Kant’s system, like science, creates a context or framework of reasoning in which we can assess whether or not an individual is using reason properly in relation to that system. The problem of such systems is that they are solipsistic: they can’t get out of themselves in order to validate themselves, so the reasoning that went into creating them in the first place always remains suspect. The only rational system that can work is one whose internal logic is necessarily eternally valid, i.e. because it reflects eternal truths of reason it’s impossible to contradict it. Its reasoning is automatically infallible ... and this is exactly what we get with ontological mathematics. It’s not true with Kant’s philosophy or with scientific materialism, both of which contain countless dubious assumptions that can lay no claim whatsoever to eternal, immutable, Platonic Truth. Kant called his philosophy Transcendental Idealism because it deals with the nature of the ideas that all human beings share (in his opinion), but which transcend our experiences. This is how he escapes from Hume’s skeptical and solipsistic empiricism. However, he himself constructs a solipsistic system that can’t explain itself and that openly confesses that ultimate reality is unknowable (which makes it just another form of extreme skepticism, hence no real improvement over Hume’s system). For Kant, we all wear “transcendental spectacles”, so to speak, which determine how we see everything. Kant attempts to explain the properties of these spectacles, but his system assumes that we can never remove these spectacles, hence can never know what reality is like when no one is wearing the spectacles. His philosophy is about giving us an understanding of the spectacles with which we view reality, but is silent on what reality actually is. Kant believed he had proved the existence of an external reality that sends us interpretable “signals”, but is unknowable in itself. All we can infer about it is that it exists and produces sensory signals for us to process. Kant should have said that he assumed the existence of an external source of the signals, and left it at that (he certainly couldn’t prove it using any of

his arguments). His critics pointed out the obvious, the fatal error in his logic: if the thing-in-itself is unknowable, we can have no reason for assuming that it exists at all. In other words, you must know, and be able to prove, that there is an external existence. It’s absurd to say you know nothing about it beyond the fact that it exists, which is just your assumption. Illuminism corrects Kant by demonstrating that we do know what reality is in itself ... because it’s transcendental, ontological mathematics. Kant’s successors reverted to pure idealism rather than “transcendental” idealism, hence they didn’t have to worry about some mysterious “matterin-itself”, different from mind, that gave us the raw material for our sensory experiences of “matter”. For true idealists, mind is all that exists, so there is no need to refer to any non-mental stuff, especially if we are going to label it “unknowable”. We don’t need to get into any Cartesian “substance dualism”. Kant’s whole philosophy can be regarded as a re-presentation of Descartes’ mind-body problem in much more mysterious and obfuscatory terms. Not only does it not solve the original problem, it just makes it murkier. Idealism says that our ideas are the only things of which we can be certain, and it’s redundant to refer to anything other than minds and their thoughts. There is not one shred of evidence or proof that anything other than minds and their thoughts exists. Illuminism says that minds and their thoughts are indeed all that exist, but it crucially adds that minds are mathematical monads, and thoughts are the sinusoidal waves that comprise monads, and which monads experience as “thoughts”. Simple sinusoids are simple thoughts and complex thoughts are just collections of simple sinusoids (i.e. each complex thought can be broken down into the simple thoughts from which it’s constituted). Fourier mathematics is literally the science and mathematics of thinking. The material world is what you get when monads collectively share thoughts. In Fourier mathematics, frequency functions give rise to spacetime functions, and it’s these latter, collective thoughts/functions that we interpret as the objective material world of space and time. The “world” is a collective thought, and we are individual thinking agents within this collective thought. Everything works together – the Cartesian mind-body problem is solved – because there is nothing in this system other than well-known mathematics.

The world is not given to our minds. Rather, it is determined and made by our minds, individually and collectively. The Germans readily took to this notion and became the masters of idealism. The British stuck to the childish, simplistic old notion that there really is a “material” world out there, and they became the driving force of scientific materialism. Eventually the Germans joined them, and idealism faded away into total obscurity, where it remains mired to this very day. Mathematics was what gave materialism its power since the notion of solid material objects moving in spacetime was perfect for mathematical treatment. However, it turns out that idealism can also be treated mathematically ... via analytic sinusoidal waves in an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time, which is linked to the material world of spacetime via inverse and forward Fourier transforms. Mathematics is the answer to everything. Science is simply a misinterpretation of mathematics, placing the emphasis on a materialist rather than idealist understanding of reality, a spacetime rather than frequency understanding. It’s staggering that scientists – who are supposed to be mathematically fluent – are actually so ignorant of what mathematics is and how critical it is in defining science. Space and time are NOT physical things ... they are mathematical. Matter is NOT physical ... it’s mathematical. Once you grasp that, everything else follows. Science has to start realising that concepts such as “space”, “time” and “matter” are merely labels attached to aspects of reality that are entirely mathematical in character. Here’s the bottom line ... if Fourier mathematics didn’t exist, space, time and matter wouldn’t exist! They are 100% mathematically derived. Science’s problem is that it labelled inherently mathematical aspects of the world in non-mathematical ways (because it couldn’t see or understand the mathematical basis of these things), and thereby perpetuated the illusion that we live in a non-mathematical world. All of the things that science thinks are “physical” aren’t. They’re all mathematical: only mathematics can define and explain them. Science is simply mathematics that doesn’t realise its mathematics. It’s mathematics blinded by the philosophy of empiricism and materialism. It works as well as it does entirely because of mathematics, and would be useless without math.

*****

For Schopenhauer, idealism wasn’t so much about the Mind as Will, and Nietzsche followed him by asserting that ultimate reality is nothing but Will to Power. Illuminism characterises Will to Power as teleological mathematics ... self-solving, self-optimising mathematical monads (made of sinusoids) that aim to maximise their power. They engage in a Hegelian dialectical pursuit of power.

The Prior State For Kant, we have inbuilt mental faculties that exist prior to any experience and that we subsequently apply to all experiences. In ontological mathematics, there is an inbuilt, eternal mathematical engine of existence that exists prior to any experience of existence. It’s this mathematical engine that precedes and powers the temporal, contingent Big Bang. According to science, the Big Bang miraculously creates and powers itself!!! Cause and effect are built into the mathematical engine. According to science, reality is fundamentally indeterministic, acausal and random, driven by chance, accident and miracle. Are you buying that?

The Categories For Kant, space and time are pure a priori intuitions that frame all possible experiences. Anything outside space and time – such as the soul and “God” – cannot be experienced. Space and time give rise to mathematics. The categories provide the essential ingredients of logic. Every logical argument, to be correct, must, in Kant’s way of thinking, use these tools of understanding correctly. The fact that an a priori concept of cause and effect exists does not mean, apparently, that we will always argue rationally from cause to effect. We can and do make mistakes in our analysis. Given Kant’s scheme, it’s actually a serious problem that we don’t think in perfect scientific terms given that we are supposedly equipped with perfect scientific goggles. In relation to ontological mathematics, causality belongs to Form, not Content, but it’s Content that we experience and interpret, and that’s why we make so many mistakes concerning causality. In his Critique of Practical Reason, Kant attempted to place moral precepts on the same basis as scientific precepts by claiming that they were

a priori, categorical, absolute and invariable. In the Critique of Judgement, he even looked for the same certainty in aesthetics. Kant’s philosophy – brilliant though it is in so many ways – is simply wrong. Equally, science – brilliant though it is in so many ways too – is wrong too. Both systems – transcendental idealism and scientific materialism – are wrong because they don’t know how to handle the ontology of mathematics. Science is no more conceptually powerful than Kant’s philosophy, but is far more successful because it makes enormously greater use of mathematics. Mathematics is what determines success. The more of it you use, the more successful you become. Science will achieve a final theory of existence only when it uses the maximum amount of mathematics, i.e. it doesn’t do what it does at the moment and exclude vast chunks of mathematics because they don’t fit with science’s dogmatic materialist and empiricist ideology. Mathematics, and nothing else, is the key to reason, knowledge, understanding, explanation, cause and effect ... and power.

Knowledge: Rationalism versus Empiricism Rationalism: Reason is the source of knowledge; rationalism emphasizes the importance of mathematics in scientific knowledge. Empiricism: Experience is the source of knowledge; empiricism emphasizes the importance of experiment and observation in scientific knowledge. There’s a fundamental problem with empiricism, namely, how can experience constitute “knowledge”? It’s all too telling that when the knowledge claims of an empirical subject such as science are analysed, they turn out to rest on quasi-mathematical equations, laws and formulae, i.e. they end up coming back to mathematics, the quintessential rationalist subject. Imagine science without any mathematics. It would be nothing but alchemy, an absolutely empirical subject, based on close observation and experience, yet not comprising any substantive knowledge whatsoever. It’s actually preposterous to link empiricism to knowledge. It simply isn’t ... exactly as Hume demonstrated. It’s pure interpretation, belief, opinion, conjecture and hypothesis. Science’s sole link to real knowledge is mathematics, not observation, so who needs observation?! Alchemy was a wondrous spiritual subject, full of observation, but it certainly didn’t offer

humanity any real power over Nature. Only when science embraced rationalist math did it escape from alchemy.

Perception and Reason In Kant’s philosophy, knowledge is produced by both Intuition (that which is immediately before us through sensory perception) and Reason, which is the way the mind organizes sensory perception so that it becomes the object of experience. The “categories” are inbuilt faculties of reason applied to everything capable of being experienced. Reason, Kant says, errs when it transcends what can be experienced and starts speculating (i.e. when it engages in metaphysics). Kant’s synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism can be summed up in his famous phrase “Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind.” However, concepts without percepts are not empty. They are pure reason, pure Form, pure knowledge, pure mathematics. Meanwhile, percepts disconnected from mathematics are always blind. Percepts are not given vision by being linked to wholly false concepts (mere interpretations, speculations, opinions, beliefs, conjectures and hypotheses).

The Forms of Intuition Space: the outer form of intuition; spatial relations of geometry. Time: the inner form of intuition; linear succession of arithmetic.

Reason and Will Reason knows, Will chooses. Speculative/theoretical reason concerns the faculty of knowledge. Practical reason concerns the faculty of choice (the Will). Kant draws parallels between the domains of Speculative Reason (natural philosophy = science) and Practical Reason (moral philosophy). He claims that knowledge, both scientific and moral, must be universal and necessary.

The Kantian Scientific Mind

Kant made “knowledge” all about what happens in space and time, and science does exactly the same. In fact, as Plato pointed out, there is no knowledge whatsoever in space and time, and all true knowledge is immutable, necessary, eternal and emphatically outside space and time. In modern mathematical terms, we would say that knowledge relates to the frequency domain, and experience to the spacetime domain. The frequency domain is about Form, necessity and rationalism, the spacetime domain about Content, contingency and empiricism. The frequency domain is about eternal truths of reason, and the spacetime domain about the temporal interpretation of “facts”. Kant and science emphasize the role of the senses in knowledge. The likes of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz downplay the senses and emphasize reason. Kant played the scientific card; the rationalists all played the mathematical card. The war between empiricism and rationalism is played out with respect to the meaning, ontology and epistemology of mathematics. This is the fundamental issue of science, religion and philosophy. No one can understand what existence is if they can’t understand what mathematics is. So, do you?

Cognition In the Kantian system, cognition requires concepts as well as percepts. Concepts are a priori and rationalist; percepts are a posteriori and empiricist. To this extent, Kant produces a hybrid of rationalism and empiricism. In essence, Kant claims that we have an innate, internal operating system which provides the context and framework for all of our empirical knowledge. Without this pre-existing system, the world would simply be an incomprehensible, Humean blur to us. Empiricists deny that there is any innate conceptual system, and claim that all concepts arise from our percepts, i.e. we start with percepts and gradually these get organised by us into general concepts. How can such a model accommodate mathematics, the truths of which are eternal, hence necessarily precede any experiences, any percepts? Kant is right about concepts and percepts, but not in the synthetic a priori system he uses to explain the concepts. In fact, what comes first is mathematical Form and the concepts and laws of mathematics. What comes

second is the Content carried by Form, and how this is perceived and interpreted. The proper model of cognition is that of an eternal, necessary information carrier (sinusoidal waves) – which provides the a priori order of existence – and the temporal, contingent information carried, which is what we actually experience and interpret in our human lives. Existence comprises eternal basis “notes”, or frequencies, and the temporal, contingent combinations of these notes. Infinite combinations are possible, and they come and go, but the basis notes are there forever. This, of course, is what we would label a Fourier model of cognition, based on eternal mental frequencies and the temporal spacetime functions derived from them. To study the mind, one must first infer the conditions necessary for experience, and, since these precede experience, they are “transcendental”. Unobservable mental mechanisms must exist in order to explain observed behaviour. This is something empiricists and scientists rail against. All proper systems of knowledge, must, in the end, refer to “hidden variables”. These hidden variables can constitute knowledge rather than belief or opinion only if they relate to an eternal, necessary, a priori order ... and only mathematics qualifies. Mathematics is the transcendental subject that precedes all experience. Rationalism always precedes empiricism, but is always hidden with regard to it. Imagine mathematics as a set of goggles that we all wear compulsorily. These goggles can never be removed, and we see everything through them. However, we can never see the goggles themselves, so how do we understand what these goggles are? Experience can’t help us because all experiences already factor in the goggles (i.e. are impossible without the goggles). Only reason – rationalism – can unlock the secrets of the goggles, and the goggles are in fact pure reason, pure Form, pure math. They shape everything because they are Form itself, and without them, there simply isn’t any Form, so reality would be irrational and unintelligible. Mathematics is inherently a priori, i.e. independent of experience, hence the refutation of all empiricist ideologies. Mathematics must be in the mind prior to experience because using it is essential to having any experience whatsoever. Mathematics is necessary and universal, and cannot be investigated using synthetic, a posteriori,

empiricist methods (such as those of science). Only the rationalist, logical, a priori, deductive method of mathematics itself reveals the provable secrets of mathematics. We categorically cannot learn these things from experience.

Kant and Science Kant bizarrely believed that physics, like mathematics, is a body of necessary and universal truth. This followed from his claim that both were “synthetic a priori”. In fact, mathematics is analytic a priori, and physics is synthetic a posteriori, and the only parts of physics that are necessary and universal are those parts where it is expressing pure math! Even worse, Kant considered moral science to be on a par with physics and mathematics. Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed “first immoralist” is a wonderful antidote to Kant’s moralising and sermonising.

Kant and Religion Kant had no doubt that “God, freedom and immortality” exist, although he recognised that he couldn’t prove it, and a great part of his thinking was devoted to carving out a noumenal space for them where they could exist untroubled and uncontradicted by science. In fact, freedom and immortality, and even “God” (to some extent), exist, but they are inevitable consequences of ontological mathematics, the quintessential rationalist subject. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about them. They are not entirely divorced from science. Kant said, “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge … in order to make room for faith.” That is effectively his self-proclaimed death sentence as a serious, rational thinker. He should have said, “I have found it necessary to deny faith … in order to make room for true knowledge.”

Kant and Physics Kant asked the question, “What are the necessary conditions of experience?” He believed that how are minds are must reflect the way physics says that objects in the world are, and that’s why we are able to have knowledge of them. Kant’s mistake was to look to empirical physics rather than rational mathematics in this regard. His whole philosophy needs to be led away from science and given a mathematical makeover. As it was,

Kant betrayed mathematics by attacking “pure reason”. Ontological mathematics is nothing but pure reason, and is the only sure thing in existence.

The Transcendental Aesthetic Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic concerns the nature of space and time. Do they exist in themselves (as Newton believed), or do we project them onto the world (as Kant argued)? Do we have spacetime experiences only if space and time exist in themselves, or do we view everything through spacetime goggles, and space and time wouldn’t exist without them? Kant emphatically denies that the world outside our mind (the mindindependent world) is located in space and time. Our minds supply space and time, and, otherwise, they have no reality. Take away all minds and you would have taken away space and time. The mind organizes the “manifold of raw intuition” – the mindindependent world in itself – and does so via its inbuilt, a priori concepts or forms of space and time. Of course, Kant made no attempt to explain how these concepts were possible in the first place. They must have their origin in some reality. They can’t be produced out of nothing for no reason. There must be some rational basis for them, rather than merely conveniently assuming them. The answer, as ever, lies in mathematics. Minds are Fourier frequency domains, and, via Fourier mathematics, such domains can produce Fourier spacetime domains, and that is the entire and complete explanation for the existence of space and time. They are simply byproducts of well-known Fourier mathematics, and have no other reality. Space and time are in the mind, just as Kant said, but they are also in the “world” since the world is the collective Fourier product of monadic minds. Space and time are just inevitable consequences of Fourier mathematics. Human beings have bicameral brains. One hemisphere (the left in the typical person) deals with Fourier spacetime functions, and this gives rise to spacetime consciousness, while the other hemisphere (the right) deals with Fourier frequency functions, and this is concerned with our non-local, universally-connected unconscious. It’s all in the math! If you removed everyone’s left hemisphere, there would be no such things as matter, space, time or consciousness! The world would exist in itself ... as a pure, non-local, immaterial, unconscious, noumenal frequency domain, outside space and time, with absolutely no sensory appearance.

***** Space, time and matter are mathematical constructs deriving from Fourier spacetime mathematics. Space and time are certainly not absolute and entirely mind-independent, as Newton claimed. They have no reality outside mathematically configured minds. The Aesthetic is about the conditions of experience. These, in truth, are wholly mathematical, and nothing to do with Kant’s metaphysical arguments.

The Metaphysical Deduction “In the metaphysical deduction we established the a priori origin of the categories as such through their complete concurrence with the universal logical functions of thought.” – Kant With what right, Kant asked, do we apply the categories – which are not acquired from experience – to the contents of experience? Why does the world as we experience it conform to our logic? Kant gives a metaphysical answer, but the real answer is of course mathematics. A mathematical sinusoidal wave is both a carrier of information (Form) and information that can be experienced (Content). Rationalism deals with Form and empiricism with Content. The world we experience conforms to our logic because Form and Content (rationalism and empiricism) are indissolubly linked. They are two sides of a single ontological mathematical coin.

The Transcendental Deduction “[T]he objective validity of the categories, as a priori concepts, rests on the fact that through them alone is experience possible (as far as the form of thinking is concerned). For they then are related necessarily and a priori to objects of experience, since only by means of them can any object of experience be thought at all. “The transcendental deduction of all a priori concepts therefore has a principle toward which the entire investigation must be directed, namely this: that they must be recognized as a priori conditions of the possibility of experiences (whether of the intuition that is encountered in them, or of the

thinking). Concepts that supply the objective ground of the possibility of experience are necessary just for that reason.” – Kant

Sensible Input? Kant insisted that sensible input is needed for knowledge. In fact, this is wholly false. As soon as you have sensible input, you leave behind knowledge and enter the world of interpretation, i.e. interpreting what your senses are showing you, and human history has shown that people can propose any number of interpretations. That’s not, and never can be, knowledge ... it’s just belief and opinion. Knowledge relates purely to infallible, indisputable Truth, and only math qualifies.

The Empirical Doctrine “...the empirical doctrine of the soul … must remain even further removed than chemistry from the rank of what may be called a natural science proper.” – Kant The soul can be made part of natural science simply by treating it mathematically (via noumenal rather than phenomenal mathematics). This is achieved by defining the soul as an autonomous Fourier frequency domain ... an immaterial singularity outside space and time. It was only because Kant couldn’t grasp math in any terms other than those of Newtonian physics involving absolute space and time that he couldn’t conceive of the soul as the ultimate mathematical object ... a frequency domain not in space and time at all! Chemistry is a proper natural science ... and arguably the most important in practical terms, and the study of the soul has nothing to with empiricism, but is all about rationalist ontological mathematics.

Mind Study How should we study the mind? Kant’s answer was that we should use a transcendental method using transcendental arguments. In fact, we should use a mathematical method, using mathematical arguments, specifically those associated with Fourier mathematics, linking the frequency domain to the spacetime domain.

Concepts and Percepts Empiricists say that knowledge begins with experience (percepts), and concepts evolve to organise them. Rationalists say that knowledge begins with reason (concepts), and percepts are possible only thanks to these innate concepts.

The Answer If you accept that this is a rational, intelligible universe with a rational answer (i.e. there are no miracles, whether happening via “God” as religion claims, or randomness, as science claims), you have no rational alternative but to accept that the fabric of existence comprises noumenal, ontological, transcendental, non-sensory, non-experienceable, invisible, analytic mathematical waves (organised into autonomous monads), and that these do nothing but convey information (Content), which monadic minds then interpret as the non-mathematical empirical world. Humans have never grasped that they are looking at a world of information that they are interpreting in various ways, but which has to be conveyed by something that can never be seen because only its Content can be detected, not its hidden mathematical Form.

Synthesis Kant said that three kinds of synthesis are involved in organizing information: 1) apprehending in intuition, 2) reproducing in imagination, and 3) recognizing in concepts. Synthesis of apprehension concerns raw perceptual input, synthesis of recognition concerns concepts, and synthesis of reproduction in imagination provides the bridge between the input and its formal recognition. The three fundamental faculties of the mind are: 1) Sensibility (which deals with intuition), 2) Understanding (which deals with concepts), and 3) Imagination (which holds our mental contents and reproduces what we have apprehended). Apprehension and reproduction are inseparable: you cannot get the first without the second occurring automatically. Recognition requires the other

two but is not required by them (although they would be useless without the third step). Acts of synthesis are performed on those things to which we are passive in experience: intuitions (Anschauungen).

***** For Kant, imagination really means “image-making”. When we use our imagination, we are not making things up. Rather, we are putting together raw data into something recognisable.

Transcendental Apperception Transcendental apperception performs a “synthesis of all appearances according to concepts” into “one experience” (“...it subordinates all synthesis of apprehension … to a transcendental unity”). Apperception concerns consciousness of oneself and one’s acts of thinking, i.e. we can say, “I know that I am an “I”, and I know that I am thinking.” This is different from being aware of all the individual perceptions, imaginings, feelings, memories, and so on, which flit through our mind. An animal might be conscious (aware) of all of its mental experiences as they happen, and yet lack apperception, i.e. the ability to tie all of these data together and know that they are being experienced as a stream of consciousness by a single, unitary, unifying entity (“I”). Merely having a “stream of consciousness” does not in fact make you authentically conscious; you must know that the stream belongs to you. Animals aren’t conscious despite having a “stream of consciousness” (i.e. consciousness of one thing after another, being aware of their surroundings, experiencing reality ... but this mental activity is not drawn together under a unifying “I”). Their stream of consciousness is experienced, but not by an “I”. Only if you are an “I” can you reflect on past, present and future, can you have a complex memory, can you reason, and rationally plan for the future. At all times, you are a contemplating “I”. “I” is what has the stream of consciousness, and knows it’s having it, but is not the “stream of consciousness” itself. Animals can’t reason because they live in the present moment, having the present experience in the stream of consciousness, but do not know that each element in the stream belongs to them. You can’t “think” (consciously) if you don’t know you’re an “I”. It’s the “I” that does the thinking. As Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.” An animal can’t

say this, and can’t think consciously. It has experiences of which it’s “conscious”, but this is a very primitive consciousness, “preconsciousness”, we might say. True consciousness is actually “meta consciousness”, meaning being conscious of being conscious. Kant said, “Inner sense is not pure apperception, consciousness of what we are doing; for this belongs to the power of thinking. It is, rather, consciousness of what we undergo as we are affected by the play of our own thoughts. … the I that I think is distinct from the I that it, itself, intuits …; I am given to myself beyond that which is given in intuition, and yet know myself, like other phenomena, only as I appear to myself, not as I am …” Apperception gives rise to consciousness of oneself and one’s states, hence is more than just “inner sense”. To be conscious, it’s not enough to be conscious of inner states but to know you are conscious of them. Consciousness involves representing intuitions we have received, but self-consciousness or meta-consciousness concerns synthesis: “synthesis …, as an act, … is conscious to itself, even without sensibility”; “… this representation is an act of spontaneity, that is, it cannot be regarded as belonging to sensibility” [Kant]. Animals know Nature solely through the senses; humans know themselves through pure apperception, which has nothing to do with the senses. It’s transcendental, not empirical. Our empirical self has “inner sense”; our transcendental self has apperception. The transcendental self exists as an inherently non-empirical, immaterial object (monad) outside space and time. The transcendental self doesn’t inherently know itself any more than the empirical self. It attains apperception only through the acquisition of language. There’s a vast gulf between a creature without language compared with one with language. They experience the world entirely differently. Language, not the Kantian synthetic a priori, is the basis of all non-sensory, conceptual thinking (of a non-mathematical nature). Without it, you have nothing but your sensory and emotional experiences, and maybe a flash of some kind of obscure intuition. Language-consciousness is entirely different from non-language consciousness, and the more language skills you have, especially those of Nature’s language (mathematics), the more conscious and rational you are.

***** The transcendental apperception of the thinking subject is, Kant says, the capacity of that subject (the “I,” Ego, Self) to generate a meaningful world of experience by unifying all its perceptions according to the categories of human understanding.

***** “It must be possible for the ‘I think’ to accompany all my representations; for otherwise something would be represented in me which could not be thought at all. … I call it pure apperception, to distinguish it from empirical apperception … The unity of this apperception I likewise entitle the transcendental unity of self-consciousness, in order to indicate the possibility of a priori knowledge arising from it. For the manifold representations, which are given in an intuition, would not be one and all my representations, if they did not all belong to one self-consciousness.” – Kant

***** Kant draws the important distinction between consciousness of oneself and one’s states by performing acts of synthesis, and consciousness merely of a stream of unsynthesized representations (which is what animals experience).

The Transcendental Self The transcendental ego or self is a condition, not an object, of knowledge, i.e. we can know nothing of this self as an empirical object, but we could have no knowledge at all without this. Reason reveals its necessary existence, not the senses. We encounter it through our own internal experiences, feelings and intuitions. According to Kant, it synthesizes sensations according to the categories of the understanding. It is the self that must underlie all human thought and perception. It unifies consciousness (rather than allowing it to be just many streams of disparate experiences running into each other, but not “belonging” to anything in particular). It

precedes all experience, and is a condition of all experience, but can itself never be an object of experience, only a subject. Since Descartes, the Ego, or “I” – from which all experiences and thoughts begin – has replaced God as the starting point of certainty. We start from “I think therefore I am” and work our way out from there, rather than with, “There is a God that created everything.” These are radically different worldviews. Illuminism starts with the monad – the living mathematical mind – and works out the nature of the world from there. There is no special monad, no “God Monad”, no Creator. All monads are eternal, uncreated and uncaused. The concept of “God” is now converted into an evolutionary capacity of monads, i.e. something they can become in due course, after an immense dialectical trajectory. The monad, not “God”, is the Alpha and Omega of all things.

***** “Transcendental”: preceding any experience. “Transcendent”: beyond any experience. The Transcendental Self is also Transcendent: it both precedes any sensory experience and is beyond any sensory experience. The monadic Transcendental Self grounds all knowledge in an irrefutably, mathematically certain starting point, free from any speculation. All certainties flow from mathematical monads.

Fichte Johann Gottlieb Fichte denied Kant’s schema that the “I” was facing a world of things-in-themselves (noumena) that could be known only as they appeared (as phenomena). He believed in a world flowing from pure Ego (God, we might say), which constructed a world of non-ego so as to come to knowledge of itself, and to perfect itself by overcoming this seemingly alien world (in Hindu terms, the Ego creates Maya – the world of illusion – and then, by slowly coming to understand this illusion, comes to a complete understanding of itself). You cannot grow if you never have to overcome resistance. We ourselves are sparks of the Absolute Ego, i.e. fragments of “God”.

***** Fichte’s successors Schelling and Hegel regarded his system as too subjective (a species of subjective idealism). Schelling subsequently produced a system based on “objective idealism”, while Hegel’s system was described as “absolute idealism”, which is of course the position of Illuminism.

Ego and Non-Ego In Illuminism, each of is a monadic Ego, and everything that’s not us is, from our perspective, Non-Ego. But, for each of us, the Non-Ego comprises none other than all of the other members of the Monadic Collective. So, there’s just us as individual monads and then all the rest of the monads. Nothing else exists. The universe comprises nothing but monads.

***** Buddhists don’t believe in the Transcendental Self. For them, all that exists is a transient, contingent, ephemeral “bundle” of ever-changing identity, with no core. They believe in process, not substance.

Kant versus Hegel Kant argued that Consciousness of Self is not Knowledge of Self. In Hegel’s system, Absolute Knowledge of Self is what the dialectic finally delivers. In ontological mathematics, we start with mathematical knowledge of the monadic Self and then work our way out from there.

It’s Not How It Appears Kant’s transcendental thinking allowed him to radically sidestep the scientific notion that we are exactly what we appear to be (a contingent “material” entity and nothing else). Instead, we are nothing like what we appear to be. For Kant, we could never know what we actually are. In Illuminism, we can know – we are mathematical monads.

The Undivided

Only a unity can consider a plurality and still consider itself one. We have many thoughts going through our mind at once, yet all of this belongs to a single, integrated system. We don’t have a plural consciousness to accommodate our plural thoughts. The reason for this is that our thoughts belong to our own unique monad ... our soul! We must always think of ourselves across a variety of experiences, and not as many separate centres having these experiences.

Anti-Materialism Kant found materialism repugnant, yet immensely powerful. He believed that his transcendental system spiked materialism’s cannons by creating a noumenal space where scientific materialism has no writ. Kant the philosopher may have been rather skeptical towards the existence of the soul, but, as a man, he was convinced of its reality.

What Can We Know? Kant believed that we can “know” some things, but not all things. However, what he called “knowledge” others might call belief, interpretation, opinion, conjecture or fantasy. In fact, we can only know one thing ... ontological, transcendental mathematics ... and everything else concerns how we interpret and experience mathematical reality.

Knowledge Empirical knowledge = science (mathematical concepts applied to sensory data) = “physical” knowledge = phenomenal knowledge (of appearances). Transcendental knowledge = ontological mathematics (mathematical concepts alone, not applied to the phenomenal world) = “metaphysical” knowledge = noumenal knowledge (of things in themselves). All empirical knowledge is underpinned by transcendental data, all of physics is underpinned by metaphysics, all phenomena are underpinned by noumena, all of science is underpinned by mathematics. The scientific world is what you see. The mathematical world is what you don’t see. It’s the fabric of existence itself. Existence is literally made out of noumenal, ontological, invisible, immaterial, eternal mathematical waves = pure energy.

To think “transcendentally” means 1) to think in terms of pure analytic, ontological mathematics, or 2) to infer from observations and experiences what conditions must necessarily underlie these observations and experiences, i.e. what conditions must support them at an ontological and epistemological level.

***** Intuitive, i.e. sense-derived knowledge (in Kantian terms), cannot provide any knowledge of anything non-sensory. Science, a sensory subject, fails as soon as it goes beyond the senses, and thus it fails at the level of quantum mechanics, which is incomprehensible in scientific terms. It’s the equations of quantum mechanics that work, but these are mathematical, not sensory.

Functionalism Kant’s conception of the mind was functionalist, i.e. about studying what it does and can do ... all of its functions. According to functionalist thinking, we can acquire knowledge of the mind’s functions without knowing anything about how the mind is built. Science itself is essentially functionalist, i.e. it’s all about acquiring “knowledge” of how the world works, but without knowing anything about how the world is actually made (what it is ontologically). Function does not dictate Form, but Form always underlies function. We can work out how things function – at the observable level – without having any knowledge of what they are at the level of ontological Form (the unobservable level). However, once we rationally grasp the ontological level, we can understand function at an enormously more sophisticated level. That’s why it’s so important to move away from science to ontological mathematics.

Before or After? A posteriori knowledge = knowledge that derives from experience; empirical knowledge. A priori knowledge = knowledge that does not require experience; analytic, rationalist knowledge.

A priori, or pure, concepts of the understanding (also called categories) = concepts under which perceptions must be subsumed before they can serve for judgments of experience (which alone count as empirical knowledge). There are twelve Kantian a priori concepts, arranged in four groups of three: Unity, Plurality, Totality; Reality, Negation, Limitation; Substance, Cause, Community; and Possibility, Existence, Necessity.

The Cosmological Idea The cosmological idea = the concept of the universe taken as a whole. This is an idea of reason since we can never have direct experience of the whole world.

Ideas of Reason Ideas of reason = these are concepts whose objects cannot be given in any possible experience. The three most important are: 1) the cosmological idea (the total world), 2) the theological idea (God), and 3) the psychological idea (soul). Also included is the idea of the unknowable thing in itself: that which causes us to receive the content of perceptions (e.g., colours, tastes, sounds, smells, and so on). Ideas of reason cannot be known in the strict Kantian sense.

Experience Experience = intuitions (i.e. sense perceptions, located in spacetime) plus judgments (which are the work of the understanding). External experience = consciousness of bodies as external appearances. Internal experience = consciousness of oneself in time.

***** A priori forms of sensibility [intuition] = Space and Time. These are added to all perceivable objects, giving them a location and appearance in space and time, and turning them into empirical, “scientific” objects, of which we can have scientific knowledge. Our minds add space and time to everything we can experience. In other words, space and time come from our minds and do not exist otherwise.

Meanings Sensibility: “capacity to acquire representations as a result of the way in which we are affected by objects” [Kant]. Intuition = concrete perception; “that by which a cognition refers to objects directly” [Kant]; “takes place only insofar as the object is given to us” [Kant]. Pure intuition = “pure form of sensibility” [Kant]; “the readiness a priori of the mind [to receive] … sensations” [Kant]. Space and time are the a priori pure intuitions; they are absolute, independent of, and precede, sense impressions. Knowledge (1) = based strictly upon judgments that are known a priori, including judgments pertaining to mathematics, and judgments deriving directly from the a priori concepts of the understanding. (Similar to Hume’s relations of ideas.) Knowledge (2) = knowledge of nature or phenomena, arising from the sensory contents supplied by sensibility, the a priori forms of sensibility that turn sensory contents into percepts located in space and time, and the a priori concepts of the understanding that impose cause-and-effect relationships (and other intellectual structures) upon percepts. “Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind.” [Kant] (Similar to Hume’s matters of fact.) Metaphysics (1): the science of synthetic a priori judgments concerning nature and the a priori concepts of the understanding that accompany them, which judgments or concepts “find their application in experience”; metaphysical knowledge of this sort is possible. This is “good” metaphysics. Metaphysics (2): the pursuit of knowledge of noumena or transcendent ideas of reason; an unavoidable activity of reason, but one unable to give us knowledge of nature. Noumena: these include things in themselves; necessarily believed-in objects of ideas of reason; noumena are “transcendent”, outside all possible knowledge.

Phenomena: = appearances; things organized in terms of space and time and formed into experience by the understanding; nature as studied by natural science. Things in themselves: the causes of phenomena; they do not appear in sensibility or (impure) intuition; sometimes this term is used more broadly to refer to any noumenon. Psychological idea: the concept of the absolute subject of particular experiences; the immortal soul. Cosmological idea: the concept of the total world. Theological idea: the concept of God. Pure mathematics: mathematics without application to the external world. Theoretical reason: concerned with the faculty for generating concepts beyond the scope of the understanding (and thus knowledge); the ideas of God and the soul are produced by theoretical reason. Practical reason: reason used to make moral choices. Synthetic a priori proposition: a synthetic proposition knowable a priori. Transcendent: a description of anything that goes beyond any possible experience. Transcendental philosophy: Kant’s own term for his philosophical project. It concerns whether and how synthetic a priori propositions are possible. Kant’s philosophy crumbles if synthetic a priori propositions are impossible. However, it could be reconstituted and expanded via analytic a priori mathematics. Understanding: the faculty that organizes our experience by subsuming perceptions (or “intuitions”) under the a priori concepts and creates knowledge of the external world.

***** “I have limited knowledge in order to make room for faith.” – Kant We have limited sensory knowledge in order to make room for reason.

Space and Time “Space is not anything objective and real; it is neither a substance nor an accident nor a relation; rather it is subjective and ideal and proceeds from the nature of the mind by a stable law, as the scheme (schema) of cocoordinating all external sensa.” – Kant “Time is not something objective and real. It is neither an accident nor a substance, nor a relation; it is [instead] the subjective condition, necessary because of the nature of the human mind, of coordinating all sensibilia by a certain law, and it is pure intuition. For we coordinate substances and accidents alike, as well according to simultaneity as to succession, only through the concept of time ...” – Kant For Kant, space and time are the necessary conditions of “sensitive knowledge.” They are the a priori conditions of all experience. Traditionally, people imagine objects in space and time (with space and time being considered independent of minds), which produce a sensory experience in passive, receptive minds. This remains the basic scientific materialist model of reality. Imagine how difference science would be if space and time were considered to have their origin inside our minds instead of having anything to do with the external world. This was the revolutionary step Kant took. If space and time originate in the mind rather than the external world then scientific materialism is false, or a radical misinterpretation of scientific idealism. In Illuminism, the universe comprises minds and their perceptions, and nothing else. So space and time, as Kant says, have their origin in the mind. However, minds are inherently mathematical, and the space and time they generate flow directly from Fourier mathematics, and would be impossible without it. We can mathematically describe how minds construct space and time; Kant simply assumed space and time as arbitrary, unexplained, “faculties” of the mind.

***** Pure intuition is a formal intuition of space and time, serving as an a priori manifold for the construction of a priori sciences such as mathematics and

physics. Space and time are aspects of our active minds, and are not things in the world. Sensibility, for Kant, is the projection of an a priori pure intuition present in the subject. Science’s understanding of space and time, whether Newtonian (absolute) or Einsteinian (relativistic), is totally false. Any conception of space and time that divorces them from the mathematical workings of the mind is wrong.

***** In Kant’s system, science does not relate to an external material world, but, rather, a pre-given internal mental world. How could science prove this to be false? What experiment could it conduct? Imagine if we all look at the world via goggles that come equipped with “science”, i.e. science is built into the goggles rather than into the world. How can science prove the “externality” of science, i.e. how can it show that there’s a world independent of mind? It can’t. Bishop Berkeley demonstrated this three hundred years ago, and has never been disproved. In Illuminism, the world is made of minds, and minds come inbuilt with mathematics, from which we derive science. It’s impossible for science to refute this worldview.

Transcendental Logic Transcendental logic describes the conditions of the possibility of experience, i.e. it transcends the world, making judgments in a synthetic and a priori manner. It forms a key part of Kant’s transcendental project.

Schematism Schematism concerns the application of concepts to the empirical domain. Pure concepts, in Kant’s system, cannot be directly and synthetically applied but require a “third”, which mediates between sensibility and the understanding. The “third” is the imagination, and plays an indispensable role in the formation of knowledge. Its mediation requires a schema for each concept, and the results of the synthesis of sense and concept are synthetic a priori judgments.

Active Mind

Is there an active world that the mind passively consumes? Or is there a passive world that the mind actively constructs? For Kant, the mind imposes on the ultimate material of experience its own forms of cognition, determined by the structure of the human sensibility and understanding. Things cannot be known except through these forms. The ultimate material of experience is deemed to be nonmental. In Illuminism, there’s nothing other than mind and its contents.

***** The forms of the mind are the necessary conditions to there being “objects” at all. Kant says that space, time and the a priori concepts or categories of the understanding are a priori conditions for the possibility of experience. When an appearance becomes an object of our awareness, we have a sensation or experience. For Kant, “experience” means either a mere subjective sensation or an objective perception, which in turn means the objective knowledge of a perceptual object. Knowledge requires intellect as well as sensibility, with intellect being the faculty of thought that employs concepts. We use concepts for describing and understanding objects. These propositions express what Kant calls “judgments” (he uses “judgment” and “proposition” interchangeably). Judgment is the basic unit of knowledge. The two elements of judgment are concepts and objects. A judgment (proposition) describes an object by using concepts. Intellect can provide concepts, but not objects. It is the function of sensibility to provide objects. The direct awareness of an object is called intuition, which can mean either the act of direct awareness or the object of this awareness. Universals or concepts concern general conditions, while intuition provides the means for specificity and individuation. Objects of intuition can be singled out and referred to as “this” and “that”, something that universals can’t do, e.g. the concept of a human cannot single out any particular human. The ability to discriminate one particular object from another depends on sensibility (involving intuition). Intellect supplies the ability to describe them in terms of universal concepts. Sensibility deals with particular things, and intellect with general things (universals). Only through their

cooperation can they produce judgments (propositions), which are the basic units of knowledge. In Kant’s scheme, neither intellect nor sensibility alone can produce knowledge, which is why reason, in Kant’s view, goes wrong when it leaves behind sensibility. However, if sensibility actually concerns mathematical objects, and so does reason, then both are united in mathematics and reason can operate validly without sensibility since it’s still addressing mathematics (intelligible, non-sensible mathematics). Kant creates an epistemic dualism involving concepts and percepts, or Form and Content. Kant said, “Concepts without intuitions are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.” What Kant should have said is Form without Content is empty; Content without Form is blind. All Form is accompanied by Content; you cannot explain the reality we encounter via Form alone (rationalism), or Content alone (empiricism). Ultimate reality – prior to any experience – can be described exclusively rationalistically in terms of mathematical Form. However, as soon as minds start experiencing the world, we must address Content, and Content is completely different from Form. It does not obey rationalism and logic, hence why we live in a rational universe that, in many ways, does not seem rational at all. That’s because we have become confused between Form – which is always rational (objective and conceptual), and Content – which is always empirical (subjective and sensory). Kant’s system divides all elements of knowledge into two general classes: thoughts and intuitions (concepts and percepts). What Kant failed to grasp was that all concepts are Form, and all percepts are Content, but they always go together. There are no situations where you can find Form on its own, or Content on its own. Kant thought, in effect, that Form could transcend Content and be considered in isolation (where it became “metaphysical”, i.e. entirely divorced from physical nature). This is plain wrong and has disastrous consequences for his epistemology and ontology, and prevents him from seeing how only ontological mathematics can furnish the type of system he wants to construct. Kant’s notion of two worlds of phenomena and noumena leads, in his system, to the division of the intellect into two levels: Understanding and Reason. The Understanding deals with the world of phenomena while Reason treats the world of noumena (things in themselves). In Illuminist terms, Kantian “understanding” reflects scientific empiricism and

materialism, while Kantian “reason” reflects mathematical rationalism and idealism. Kant was extremely hostile to pure, theoretical reason, while Illuminism is completely receptive to it. In Kant’s system, a posteriori elements are concerned with the subjectivity of experience, while a priori elements are objective (i.e. applicable to all mental subjects). Human perception begins with subjective sensations, which are then converted into objective “knowledge” via the framework of a priori intuitions and concepts. The a priori elements are the “transcendental” conditions for converting subjective empirical data into objective experience. They cannot be experienced, yet are essential for experience. They constitute our “experience goggles”.

The Beautiful and the Sublime Kant recognized two types of objective aesthetic experience: the Beautiful and the Sublime, i.e. he claimed that everyone could agree what was beautiful and what was sublime. As regards the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Kant redefined “beautiful” in those terms as merely “agreeable”. The “agreeable” varies from one person to another – “Everyone has his own taste” – while the genuinely beautiful (or the sublime) is universal. With aesthetic judgments, it’s not the concepts but, rather, the feelings that reflect universality. In other words, Kant thought that in the realm of aesthetics, feelings occupied the same kind of position as concepts in the understanding.

Best Religious Joke No Way! Yahweh!

Human “What is it that makes us human? It’s not something you can program. You can’t put it into a chip.” – Terminator Salvation

“All men should strive to learn before they die, what they are running from, and to, and why.” – James Thurber

Direct Realism Science is based on a commonsense view known as “direct realism”, the notion that we directly perceive physical objects that exist independently of our perception. No scientist ever seriously challenges this view. Even quantum mechanics and relativity theory – which destroy all commonsense notions – are never truly internalised by scientists. No scientist has confronted what quantum mechanics and relativity theory mean ontologically and epistemologically. Scientists have no interest in ontology and epistemology, and it’s exactly this contempt for philosophy that allows them to treat quantum mechanics and relativity as if they do not challenge the direct realism worldview at all (although, in fact, they make it rationally impossible to maintain such a worldview). In other words, science, by emphasising instrumentalism and pragmatism, blatantly ignores the ontological and epistemological impossibilities raised by its belief system. It couldn’t care less that it’s riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes. As long as science “works”, no one cares what it means. Scientists have more or less zero interest in meaning. After all, they regard reality itself as fundamentally meaningless. In the view of Descartes, the perceived object is not a physical object but merely a collection of sensations. Some sort of physical object may underlie those sensations and even cause them, but we have no direct access to physical objects as the commonsense view holds. The Cartesian position view is known as representationalism because the perceptual world is assumed to “represent” (but with an unknown degree of accuracy) the physical world. Now, if we have no direct access to physical objects then we have no empirical evidence for their actual existence (since we only have an idea of them, and that idea may have been produced without any material object at all to underpin it). Bishop Berkeley denied that there were any physical objects, while David Hume said that, even if they did exist, we could have no reliable knowledge of them since there were no necessary connections between objects and perceptions. We can never know if physical objects really underlie our perceptions of what we suppose to be physical objects,

i.e. we can never know if the stuff of scientific materialism actually exists. It might all be mental (which was Berkeley’s conclusion: “matter” is simply a redundant hypothesis). A perceived object, for Hume, is nothing more than a collection of sense impressions that do not represent anything (or we can never know if they do). This empiricist view of perception is labelled “phenomenalism” because sense impressions are phenomena. It has also been called “subjective idealism”, a term derived from Berkeley’s theory of ideas. Berkeley used the word “idea” to refer to all objects of immediate awareness – perceptions, memories, emotions, etc. Kant rejected both direct realism and phenomenalism, but accepted representationalism.

***** Kant’s word “sensibility” acts as a collective label for all organs and functions of sensation. Kantian sensibility reflects two elements: a priori and a posteriori. The a priori elements are space and time, which, since they belong to human sensibility, do not belong to the physical world, as science claims. It can’t be sufficiently stressed how important and radical this idea is, and how much it undermines scientific materialism and empiricism. Of course, scientists dogmatically refuse to engage with such issues and just ignore them, to the extreme detriment of the scientific project. Science, lacking a formal ontology and epistemology, is staggeringly incoherent, irrational and anti-intellectual. Science is a pragmatic method, not an intellectual system that any rational person could ever regard as the answer to anything in any fundamental sense. Science helps you solve to practical problems via an interconnected set of ad hoc, arbitrary and heuristic tools, but it is not in any sense an authentic system of knowledge, and the idea that science could ever arrive at a “final theory of everything” is laughable because that would imply that science had arrived at a definitive ontology and epistemology, but no scientist on earth has the vaguest idea of what ontology and epistemology are, and how they can be connected to science. These are philosophical matters, but science is the ultimate perversity ... a philosophy that utterly rejects philosophy. Merely to present a scientific equation for “everything” hardly constitutes an answer to everything if no one knows what the equation

means ... what it tells us about reality in itself and what it’s made of, about mind, life, free will, consciousness and purpose. It’s one thing to have a very useful equation or system (such as quantum mechanics), but an entirely different things to attach a formal meaning to it. Imagine that science presented a “final theory of existence” that could be interpreted in a thousand different ways (reflecting a thousand different ontologies and epistemologies). Of what use would such a theory be? It might prove very useful in various practical situations, but it would be absolutely useless in explaining reality to you, or the meaning of your life. It’s not the “theory of everything” as a practical, non-ontological, nonepistemological equation that people want. It’s a formula that definitively explains reality to us, i.e. it answers “life, the universe and everything”. Who wants “42” as the answer to existence, yet this, in slightly more sophisticated terms, is what science is seeking to present to us as the ultimate answer. What we want to know about is the soul, immortality, causality, the afterlife, “God”, the rational origin and cause of the universe, morality, teleology, the meaning of life, etc. ... absolutely everything that science refuses to engage with. The scientific “answer” to everything will not be recognised by any nonscientist as the answer to anything at all. Scientists are so dumb that that they just don’t get it that their “answers” aren’t answers, but merely tools, techniques and methods deployed in a limited number of problem-solving exercises regarding the superficial world of appearances. Science should be banned from referring to a final theory of everything since one thing’s for sure ... it definitely won’t be!

***** The a posteriori elements of Kantian sensibility are sensations. Space and time are called the forms of intuition because they furnish the framework for receiving and presenting sensations. In the Kantian lexicon, the two terms “pure” and “a priori” are interchangeable with each other. They are opposed to “empirical” and “a posteriori”, respectively. The a priori elements necessarily precede the a posteriori elements. The Kantian a priori is equivalent to the Cartesian term “innate”, i.e. we all come equipped with an inbuilt operating system that precedes all

experiences (contrary to the empiricist notion that we begin as completely blank canvasses onto which empirical content is written). The a priori elements inhere in the subject, Kant says, while the subject receives the empirical data from the outside world. Thus the empirical elements are alien to the subjective mind, while the a priori elements are innate. The empirical elements are also labelled “appearances” (phenomena). The pure intuitions of space and time are the framework, schema, model or screen for presenting the appearances of the objects that exist independently of our sensibility. The objects in themselves are known as noumena and are supposed to exist beyond space and time. The phenomenal world is the sensible world, accessible to our sensibility. The noumenal world is the supersensible world that transcends our sensibility. In Platonic terms, it’s the intelligible world, although Kant considered it “unknowable”. It’s vital to grasp that our sensibility presents the appearances of things in themselves, but not the actual things-in-themselves, which remain utterly opaque and mysterious. The constructed appearance of the thing gets in the way of thing in itself. Human “knowledge”, therefore, is strictly limited to the world of phenomena or appearances, while the noumenal world is inaccessible and unknowable. In Illuminism, as in Platonism, the noumenal world is entirely knowable. In the case of Illuminism, this is because the noumenal world is entirely described in terms of analytic ontological mathematics ... transcendental mathematics.

Phenomenalism Phenomenalism is a theory of perception. It transfers the emphasis from objects towards how we perceive and experience objects, even to the extent that we can’t know if the objects actually exist independently of our minds (as in idealism). We shouldn’t say, “The leaf is green.” Rather, we should say, “I perceive a green leaf.” With this way of thinking, we aren’t referring to a definite object, but only to our perception of an object. In a sense, we are blurring the distinction between dreams and reality. We can have an experience of a green leaf in our dreams just as well as we can in “reality”. Phenomenalist thinking is all about what we actually perceive and experience, and avoids referring to anything else.

Percept versus Concept What we can perceive and what we can conceive are two very different things. Science is about what we can perceive; mathematics is about what we can conceive. Religion is too, and non-empiricist philosophy.

Monadologia Physica (1756) In Kant’s early work Monadologia Physica (Physical Monadology), he sought to unify science and metaphysics in a systematic philosophy of Nature. In effect, he was attempting to physicalise Leibniz’s idealistic (mental) Monadology. He wanted to combine metaphysics with geometry, to apply the propositions of mathematics to philosophy, to bring physics and metaphysics together in one. His central idea was to adopt Newton’s scientific method as a model for metaphysics, and this meant introducing Newtonian action-at-a-distance to Leibniz’s monadic framework.

Idealism versus Materialism Idealism: mind is the cause, matter is the effect. Materialism: matter is the cause, mind is the effect.

Causation So, is there or is there not a logical contradiction in saying that something happened without a cause? If the universe is mathematical, there is a contradiction and it then becomes impossible for the statement “every event must have a cause” not to be true. In scientific thinking, there’s no contradiction in saying that an event has no cause (indeed, much of modern scientific thinking now relies on acausation). As ever, science and ontological mathematics cannot both be true. You must choose one or the other.

Rational Empiricism? Kant sought to combine empiricism and rationalism in order to explain how we construct our knowledge. His epistemology could thus be described as “rational-empiricism” or “empirical-rationalism.” It was a “critical philosophy” insofar as it sought to limit the claims of reason, which he

believed had an innate tendency to overreach itself and draw unwarranted conclusions, divorced from the observable world.

***** Synthetic a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is based on experience and adds “new information” (non-tautological) to the subject. Synthetic a priori knowledge is knowledge acquired through reason alone, independently of experience, that’s both universal and necessary, and that provides information about the way the world is constituted (such as “every event has a cause”).

The Beginning of Knowledge? Kant said, “All our knowledge begins with experience”, making him an empiricist. However, he also knew that unadulterated empiricism logically leads to total skepticism, as Hume had demonstrated. So, Kant added, “But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience.” In other words, he saw that some rationalism was still required, but he was always wary of reason operating apart from experience. He said, “The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. It was thus that Plato left the world of the senses, as setting too narrow limits to the understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the ideas, in the empty space of the pure understanding. He did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance – meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his understanding in motion.” In effect, Plato left behind science and arrived at pure mathematics (which has no need of experience at all). This is always how the “game” ends up. You either have to conclude that we live in an empirical, scientific universe or a rational, mathematical universe. There is no mid-ground (of mathematical science or scientific mathematics).

*****

Kant claimed that any metaphysical conclusions about what reality is like beyond the limits of experience have no valid ground. Thus, the nonphysical self (soul), the infinity of the universe, and God could not be legitimate objects of human knowledge. He did not deny their existence, but did deny that we could have knowledge of them. Kant confined knowledge to the bounds of experience, but resisted Hume’s conclusion that we have access to nothing but a series of fragmented, discrete sensations. In such a Humean world, science would be impossible, and we would have no knowledge at all.

The Choice The choice isn’t between religious design and scientific randomness. Existence itself can be inherently designed and rational ... by virtue of being made of math. No one needs “God”, and no one needs the miraculous accidents that characterise modern science.

The Godlike View All humans self-evidently have a human perspective of reality, and there’s no reason whatsoever to expect that perspective to be reliable and accurate. Indeed, human history proves that humanity has produced countless weird and wonderful “explanations” of reality. Which of these should we believe? Do any of them constitute knowledge? Are any of them true? Well, of course, none is! The question is whether humanity also has access to a non-human perspective – God’s view – that necessarily precedes human existence. The answer is yes – mathematics. Mathematics reflects the eternal truths of reason, the eternal truths of “God”. Through reason – perfect, analytic reason – we arrive at God’s view of reality. Plato and Aristotle could both have told you that thousands of years ago. Kant believed it was impossible to leap outside the human perspective, and he explicitly critiqued “pure reason”. That was his fundamental error. It is in fact pure reason that liberates us from human error and the unreliable, fallible human senses. Rationalist knowledge is necessary, a priori, certain, immutable, eternal, infallible, absolute and Platonic. It’s the only true knowledge, freed from human delusion.

Kant sought to embark from Hume’s starting point (in experience rather than reason), without ending up where Hume ended up (in total skepticism and nihilism). He did so by inventing an entirely bogus category called “synthetic a priori”. This provides his bridge between empiricism and rationalism, but if it’s wrong – which it is – his entire philosophy fails at that point. In fact, the proper bridge between rationalism and empiricism lies in considering each as the opposite side of a single ontological coin. Rationalism defines Form, and Empiricism concerns Content. Mathematical Form conveys informational Content. We experience the Content, but not the Form. However, we can rationally work out the Form ... using pure mathematical reason (God’s reason). Traditionally, empiricists regarded the mind as passive when confronting the world, and merely recording the impressions provided by the senses. In this view, knowledge conforms to its objects. The problem is, as Hume highlighted, that we don’t know for certain that it does. How would we establish this? We would need two perspectives: that of our experience of reality and that of reality itself, independent of our experience. We could then compare and contrast the two, and see how much they have in common. This is impossible. Our experience of reality, and reality in itself, belong to different categories, so it’s a category error to imagine that we can compare and contrast the two. Reality in itself can never be anything like how we perceive and experience reality. Kant’s famous trick was to reverse the commonsense empirical view. Instead of our minds being passive with regard to the external world, merely registering what was out there, he proposed that our minds were active and actually constructed what we experience. We experience the world our own minds create! If we can the work out what rules apply to our minds’ constructions, we can then avoid Hume’s skepticism. We can have “real” knowledge of the empirical world because it was the world we ourselves built with our mental apparatus. We don’t see a framework of existence “out there” (as science holds). Rather, there’s no framework out there, only “in here” (in our minds). In Illuminism, there is a framework “out there” (and “in here”) – ontological mathematics. It’s pure math, utterly noumenal and invisible, but conforming to our reason. To say that existence is made of math is to say that it is made of reason, exactly as Hegel said (“The real is rational, and the

rational is real”). The whole of reality is an expression of how reason exists ontologically, and ontological reason is none other than ontological mathematics.

***** In short, Kant says that objects conform to our knowledge rather than our knowledge conforming to objects. Hume’s skepticism – involving a stream of fragmented, fluctuating, acausal sense data – can be escaped only if the mind imposes a rational, ordered, organised structure on it. In Illuminism, this rational, ordered, organised structure comes not so much from the mind but from the fibre of existence itself, which is none other than ontological mathematics (sinusoidal waves). Moreover, minds themselves are ontological mathematical units (monads), hence are totally compatible with the mathematical fibre of existence. Indeed, existence is literally made out of monadic mathematical minds and their sinusoidal contents, hence why the universe is intelligible to those minds. Kant said that the world appeared to us as it does because of the mind’s properties and how it structures the world. He did not however explain what the mind is, how it came to be, how it came to have these properties and to structure the world in this way. All of this can be explained as soon as we understand the mind to be a mathematical entity that constructs the world according to mathematical laws. There’s a correspondence between the mind and the world because they are both made of math. If this weren’t true, there could be no correspondence, and knowledge would be impossible. The universe would be entirely chaotic and unintelligible. Hume argued that a series of particular observations cannot give us certainty and universal laws. This is wrong. They can in a world made of mathematics. If anything else were true – if the universe were made of anything other than mathematics – Hume would be entirely right. It’s not Kant that saves us from Hume’s skepticism and nihilism, it’s math. Kant said, contra Hume, that we can find certainty and universal knowledge within experience if the mind organizes experience in a necessary and universal way. This is all well and good, but if you can’t explain what the mind itself is made of, you have simply relocated Hume’s skepticism and nihilism from the external world to the internal mind. When Kant admits that reality in itself cannot be known, we realise that all he has

done is argue that we construct a knowable illusion, which we then treat as reality. But, as he himself points out, it’s not reality. True, ultimate reality is unknowable in Kant’s system, hence his ontology and epistemology relate to illusion and not reality, hence are formally worthless if we want to know the true nature of existence. All of the defects of Kant’s philosophy can be rectified by returning to his great predecessor – Leibniz, with his dazzling Monadology. The only problem for Leibniz was that the mathematics of his day wasn’t adequate to his wondrous conception of reality ... but now it is. Thanks to Euler’s Formula, Fourier and Riemann mathematics, we can turn Leibniz’s Monadology into a formal, mathematical explanation of everything. Kant’s philosophy was just a temporary aberration, a straying from the true path. Hegel got things back on track, but he wasn’t a mathematician, so couldn’t give his philosophy the mathematical underpinning it required. Ontological mathematics corrects and unites the philosophies of Leibniz and Hegel.

***** The mind, says Kant, does not conform to the external world, but the contents found in mental experience do conform to the mind. This is very close to solipsism. We can easily escape it by arguing, as ontological mathematics does (and, indeed, as Kant’s philosophical successors did), that the mind does conform to the external world because the external world is made of mind (monads), i.e. the structures of the mind are exactly the same as the structures of the world because both are rooted in monadic minds (and ultimately mathematics).

Constructivism Kant has been called a constructivist because his philosophy asserts that the mind constructs its objects out of the raw materials provided by the senses. He explains neither what minds are, nor what the senses are (or sense data), nor how sense data gets to us from an unknowable, acausal, noumenal world outside space and time. For Kant, things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena) exist in the world of our experience, which is constructed by the mind from data somehow provided by things-in-themselves (noumena) that exist outside our experience.

Kant emphatically doesn’t say that the mind creates reality out of nothing at all (i.e. reality is a total fantasy). Rather, he says that it constructs it out of an unknowable reality. But is that any improvement? If we can never know ultimate reality (reality in itself), it might as well be a fantasy! Kant’s philosophy is, in the end, anti-knowledge. It denies that we can ever have any true knowledge, hence it’s really just a sophisticated representation of Hume’s skepticism and nihilism. Where Hume is utterly skeptical, Kant seeks to construct an illusion about which we can have “knowledge”, but how can anyone call this genuine “knowledge”? Hume himself argued that the knowledge we think we have is illusory, so how is he different from Kant, apart from the fact that Kant systemized the illusion and Hume didn’t? Hume would have regarded Kant’s system as pointless, and no kind of rebuttal of his key points. For Kant, the way reality appears to us (the only reality that we can “know”) depends on the contribution of both the senses and the intellect, i.e. our senses alone do not present reality to us, as most people, especially scientists, continue to delusionally believe to this day. “Common sense” is invariably wrong. The mind, says Kant, imposes its own form on the sense data, and, in doing so, generates the objects that we “know”. Imagine how radically different science would be if it agreed with Kant? In fact, several interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the standard Copenhagen interpretation come perilously close to proposing that minds construct reality (via their observations). In Copenhagen QM, ultimate “reality” comprises an invisible, abstract, unreal, noumenal mathematical potentiality wavefunction ... from which minds “select” actual outcomes (by randomly “collapsing” the wavefunction” via specific observations). Copenhagen QM has therefore taken Kant’s a priori categories and a priori forms of space and time, and relocated them from mind to “unreal” wavefunctions, from where specific outcomes are then randomly chosen via the mind’s observations. If you think that’s better than Kant’s system, you’ve got a serious problem. It’s pure mysticism and obscurantism, dressed up in mathematical language to make it look credible. In fact, ultimate reality comprises mathematical waves that inherently belong to minds, and minds are fully deterministic mathematical agents obeying mathematical laws of cause and effect. There’s no abstractness, unreality, random “collapse”, unobserved cats that are simultaneously dead

and alive, or any of the other absurd elements claimed by scientific materialists and empiricists. For Kant, what exists outside us is a world of unknowable things-inthemselves (noumena). In ontological mathematics, a world of other monads is what exists outside us. There’s nothing else. Monads are “hidden variables”. We cannot sense them any more than we can sense the mind or soul of any other person. They are not part of the “scientific” world of sense experience. We can’t leap outside our experience to see reality as it actually is. It’s inherently hidden from our senses ... but not from our reason. In Kant’s system, no content can be assigned to noumena. In ontological mathematics, monadic noumena can be precisely defined by an exact analytic equation. Noumena, in Illuminism, are precisely definable. In Kant’s system, they are simply a limiting concept, whose existence must be assumed in order for the rest of the system to work. It’s extraordinary to say, as Kant does, that we don’t know anything about noumena, and then to claim that we do know something about them, namely that they exist. This is a blatant contradiction. How can we know of the existence of something we know nothing about? All of Kant’s successors rightly scoffed at this absurdity. Bishop Berkeley, before Kant, rightly concluded that if we don’t know of “matter” – if we can’t encounter it in any way, via our senses or reason – it either doesn’t exist, or can have no conceivable relevance to us, in which case we lose nothing by regarding it as non-existent, and it serves no purpose to refer to it at all. Noumena, for Kant, lie beyond any possible experience and any possible knowledge, but that simply serves to consign ultimate reality to sheer mysticism, and is an insult to philosophy, science and mathematics. The traditional way of illustrating Kant’s system is to imagine that everyone wears green goggles, hence sees everything in terms of shades of green. If you understand that you are wearing such goggles, and that you can’t remove them, you can infer that reality in itself is probably not green and that you see it as green purely because of the goggles you are forced to wear. Of course, reality in itself could be green (the possibility is not excluded, but it would render the goggles somewhat redundant), or it could be any other colour, or no colour at all. We just don’t know.

The goggles establish the character of our experience a priori. No matter what, we will see a green world. Anything that appears in our experience is certain to be green. However, what if we conceive of ultimate reality as having no sensory properties – as being totally invisible to the human senses? Does that mean that ultimate reality has no properties at all? Let’s say that the Kantian goggles are none other than the human senses (which we can indeed never remove). Can we imagine something that has properties but cannot be detected by the senses? Yes, we can – reason, rationalism, logic, ontological mathematics. The truth is that the senses allow us to interpret non-sensory mathematics, to give mathematics an “appearance”. They do so by ignoring the Form of mathematics, and instead concentrating on the Content of mathematics. To put it another way, they interpret the information carried by mathematical waves while ignoring the information carriers (waves) themselves. Minds need information much more than they need to know what carries the information. People watch TV every day without having the vaguest idea of how a TV works. They watch the Content, not the Form. So it is with life. The Content is what we use to live, to make our decisions. Knowing that this information is carried by sinusoidal waves isn’t going to save you from being eaten by a shark. If you want to understand ultimate reality, you need to know about the carrier, but, in terms of your day-to-day life, it’s more or less worthless to you, just as understanding how a TV works is worthless to you unless that happens to be your job! The Kantian goggles place space, time, and his twelve categories, over everything, and make them intelligible only within that context. (In Copenhagen QM, the world is made “intelligible” via unreal, abstract, probability wavefunctions, which do the same job as Kant’s goggles). For Kant, we can’t know anything at all about what reality is like in the absence of the goggles (and in Copenhagen QM we can’t know anything about what reality is like in the absence of probability wavefunctions) ... and thus Kant fulfilled his objective of creating a space for religion and faith, i.e. the goggles show us the scientific world, but they don’t show us everything, so there’s room for God and the soul, beyond the deadly reach of science. For Copenhagen QM, there’s nothing beyond unreal mathematical abstract wavefunctions, but since these have no actuality in the first place,

it’s impossible to work out what claim Copenhagen QM is making regarding fundamental ontology and epistemology. No scientist cares a hoot. All that scientists want is a formula that works, and they have no interest in the validity of the formula beyond its ability to predict phenomena. They have zero interest in its meaning. No one with any regard for meaning could end up claiming that unreality is the basis of reality (!), that potentiality is the basis of actuality. In Illuminism, it’s eternal, noumenal, ontological mathematics – conveyed by monadic minds – that lies beyond science’s goggles. Science, sadly, is so dumb and philosophically illiterate that it doesn’t believe that anything lies beyond its goggles (i.e. there are no “hidden variables”). It believes that what the goggles reveal is reality, and there can be nothing else. The implicit first step of the scientific method is PUT ON YOUR SCIENTIFIC GOGGLES. The implicit second step is IGNORE THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING THAT CAN’T BE SEEN USING THE GOGGLES. The fatal third step is IN FACT, DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING THAT CAN’T BE SEEN WITH THE GOGGLES. The scientific method is equivalent to the goggles. The goggles show you everything that can be revealed to the goggles, and nothing else. Likewise, the scientific method reveals everything that can be revealed to the scientific method, and nothing else. The reason why science can’t tell us about ultimate reality is because ultimate reality is rational, not empirical; intelligible, not sensible; mathematical, not scientific. Science can never disprove anything of what we have said. Kant was wise enough to say that there’s a level beyond empirical reality. He called it unknowable (while we call it knowable ontological mathematics). Science, however, dogmatically and ideologically denies the existence of anything beyond the reach of its method, even though it has no rational grounds for doing so, and even though science is riddled with unobservables (such as unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions). Kant criticised “pure reason” for exceeding its proper limits. He should instead have criticised science. The scientific method is inherently limited to what is amenable to it, and is 100% useless beyond that. Rather than accept this – the unarguable truth of the situation – science brazenly claims that anything in principle beyond its method cannot exist.

Science can’t disprove the existence of God or the soul (mind) and yet it acts as if these have been disproved because they are inaccessible to the scientific method. Autonomous mind is given no agency in science because it fundamentally denies the existence of minds not built from material atoms (hence dependent on the laws of atoms). Rather than accept that it can’t say anything about the mind (since mind is immaterial, outside space and time, and nothing to do with material atoms), science forces the mind to conform to materialism (i.e. it says that it must result from material atoms, though it has never even begun to explain how). Scientists are far too stupid, unimaginative, dogmatic, closed-minded and brainwashed to imagine anything beyond science. They laughably claim that they go “wherever the evidence leads”. They certainly don’t go where reason leads ... and what is “evidence” without reason to understand it?

The Problem To be fair to Kant, he was writing at a time before all of today’s vast knowledge was available. No one can deny that he was a towering genius, but there’s also no question that he made fundamental errors. His biggest problem was that he could not account for what the mind is made of and why it operates the way it does, and why it doesn’t operate this way for other animals.

Intuitions? Kant refers to the raw data of sense perception as intuitions. Intuition, for Kant, means “the object of the mind’s direct awareness.” It doesn’t mean “special insight”, as in the modern sense of the word. To experience the greenness of grass is to have a sensory “intuition”. Kant’s system would have been much better if he had considered intuition in the modern, Jungian sense of the word.

***** For Kant, experience flows from two powers of the mind: sensibility and understanding. Sensibility is a passive power. It’s simply the ability of the mind to receive sensory intuitions. These come from noumena, via an unknown mechanism. So, we now know something else about some

noumena: they can apparently cause minds to receive sensory intuitions from them. By themselves, these sensory intuitions are just abstract raw data without form or meaning. However, they are then acted upon by the understanding: the active power of the mind that organises the intuitions into meaningful objects (phenomena; appearances) by applying space, time and categories to them.

***** What Kant’s system lacked was the intuitive counterpart of sensibility: the ability of the mind to receive non-sensory (non-scientific) intuitions. Jung’s system adds just such an ingredient, to counterpoint the senses.

The Double-Edged Sword Thanks to the internet, never has so much knowledge been so easily accessible to the human race. Also thanks to the internet, never have so many means of distraction been available. This means that humanity will split into two: those who have the discipline, patience and passion to concentrate on the knowledge (and become geniuses), and those with no discipline, patience or passion for knowledge, who will become dunces, constantly distracted by trivia and nonsense. The people of knowledge will be like Gods, while the others will resemble the retards depicted in the satirical movie Idiocracy. Which path will you follow?

Passive and Active The mind has the capacity for passive reception (sensibility) of perceptual data (intuitions). It then actively frames the data in terms of space and time and the categories [of understanding]. One problem with Kant’s scheme is that if the mind acts in the preconfigured way he suggests, why do babies take time to understand the world? If they are wearing exactly the same fixed “goggles” as adults, why it does them so long to be adults? Moreover, blind people who recover their sight after many years should immediately see properly again ... but they don’t. People have to learn to see again. This makes no sense in terms of Kant’s scheme of fixed perceptual goggles.

With ontological mathematics, the problems babies encounter when they first view the world arise because the human mind is attuned to Content rather than Form, and our experience of Content does not have any of the fixed, rational, lawful properties of Form. We have to learn how to have understandable experiences. The capacity is not inherently given to us, as Kant suggests.

The Categories of the Understanding The categories of the understanding are a set of organising principles that are applied after the spacetime framework has been established. The categories are concepts that allow us to form intuitions into meaningful objects that we can experience and contemplate. The categories are pure, a priori concepts, without which we could never establish empirical concepts. We do not derive the categories of the understanding. They are given to us.

The Spectators and the Theatre According to Hume, we are but passive spectators in a world of constantly changing sensations (colours, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and textures). Within our experience, we find a rapid succession of perceptions: a perpetual flux and movement. The perceptions are like actors passing across the stage of a theatre while we watch, looking at one and then another, and failing to notice many of them. This is just a giant disconnected jumble that we imagine makes some kind of sense, but our knowledge is entirely illusory. This is the true logic of empiricism, including the empiricism that underlies science. Science avoids this irredeemable skepticism purely by invoking the ultimate rationalist, ordering subject – mathematics. In Kant’s scheme, we don’t experience this jumble. Rather, our inbuilt faculties of mind ensure that we are watching something inherently ordered and organised, obeying cause and effect, hence we can indeed have knowledge of this system. We don’t see fragments and disconnected pieces: we see wholes and continuous processes. It’s as if we are at the theatre and have the exact stage plan, all of the actors’ scripts, stage positions, and timings, and all of the director’s directions.

The Sensory Language It may not seem like it, but the “senses” are languages. They have to be learned, and they can be forgotten or impaired. Some people who have a stroke lose their language skills and have to relearn how to read, write and speak. Equally, some people can become blind and, if they recover their sight some time later, it’s not a question of resuming where they left off. Rather, they have to relearn how to “see”, i.e. they have to relearn the language of sight. It’s not a given, as Kant suggests. All languages other than mathematics – including sensory languages – are social languages learned in a social context. Mathematics is Nature’s only pure language ... because it’s the language of existence itself.

Mediation Because we can never switch off our mental sensory faculties, we can never have a pure, unmediated experience of the world in sensory terms. Reason alone takes us to the unmediated nature of existence: mathematics ... numbers. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers.”

Baby World William James described the experience of a baby as a “buzzing, blooming confusion”. That’s a good description of Hume’s understanding of reality. It also describes what a blind person recovering his sight would first experience.

What Is Reality Like? We can have objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world because it has a certain structure. That structure is nothing to do with Kantian a priori “categories” but purely to do with ontological mathematics. No matter what situation we find ourselves in, it will always be a mathematical situation. There are no non-mathematical occurrences. According to Kant, we can never know reality in itself because we can never encounter it before our minds have done their job of processing, filtering and mediating it. According to Illuminism, we can know reality in itself ... mathematically. Mathematics is what reality is before the mind does any mediation; it’s unmediated reality, reality with no appearance ... with nothing added by our human minds.

Humanity’s main problem with knowledge is what we add to it ... stuff that has no right being there, such as religious faith, hope or mysticism, or science’s sensory obsession. It’s essential to remove the “human” from our human understanding if we wish to understand what reality was like before any humans even existed! Everything other than mathematics is all about the human. Religious people use their human feelings to understand reality, while scientists use their human senses. Both are false.

Soul, World, God According to Kant, our minds are designed (how, by whom?!) to work in conjunction with experienceable noumena (but, oddly, not with nonexperienceable noumena, which simply begs the question of why some noumena can be experienced and others not). So, for Kant, we cannot have knowledge of anything that transcends experience, such as the soul or “God”. Rationalists would have no trouble at all accepting “God” – a nonsensory entity – if his existence could be proved using purely ontological arguments, while empiricists would continue to deny his existence because of the inherent absence of sensory “evidence”. In fact, ontological arguments prove the existence not of God, but of mathematical monads (souls). However, as with God, the empiricists won’t accept rational arguments, and they continue to demand the rationally impossible: for an intrinsically non-sensory thing to be available to sensory experiments; for there to be sensory evidence of the non-sensory. It’s exactly because scientists refuse to accept hidden variables and rational observables that they have failed to understand that what underlies science is pure, transcendental math. Only by invoking transcendental mathematics can science arrive at a final theory of everything.

***** Kant’s categories have been compared to mathematical functions, such as x3. This function is a template, but produces no object until a specific value for x is inserted, at which point we move from an abstract formula to an actual thing (a numerical result). The formula is a universal, the specific result a particular.

All categories are functions that act on values supplied to them to produce specific outcomes. The functions are Forms, the specific values Content. Any individual number on its own tells us nothing. The pattern becomes clear only when we grasp the universal formula that unites the disparate particulars. Science is all about trying to work out the “formula for everything” from an endless number of particular, contingent, sensory observations. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, is all about working out the formula for everything from rational, necessary, analytic first principles, and has no need whatsoever of human observations. Well, which route do you think is the most likely to succeed?

Transcendental Illusions Given Kant’s epistemology, we cannot know such things as the soul, the world-as-a-whole, or God, since these are all outside the bounds of possible experience. So, Kant describes the metaphysical attempts to reason about these things as producing nothing but “transcendental illusions.”

***** To think of the world as a whole, we would have to take a Godlike perspective outside space and time. This is exactly what ontological mathematics affords us (and science doesn’t). Kant gives a series of arguments leading to conflicting conclusions (called “antinomies”). He infers that because rational arguments – or at least his version of them – establish contradictory conclusions, reason must have gone beyond its proper bounds. But pure reason can’t exceed its bounds. It’s pure analytic tautology that is necessarily consistent and complete. When all of Kant’s so-called antinomies are analysed using ontological mathematical arguments, they don’t produce any contradictions at all. Once again, Kant just got his math wrong.

The Summary Kant claimed that we can never know reality as it is in itself because our minds structure our experience of reality. A single set of forms and

categories does the structuring, and these are universal to every human knower. According to Illuminism, we can know reality as it is in itself because we and the world are both made of math, the quintessentially knowable subject.

Inevitable Correspondence Kant’s central claim is that the mind shapes and forms the reality we experience. In order for this to produce anything other than a fantasy world, there must be an affinity between the categories of the mind and the nature of reality. The mind couldn’t interact with reality at all if it wasn’t compatible with it, if it belonged to a different category (as in Cartesian substance dualism), if their respective structures were totally different. Given that there’s an inevitable correspondence between the way in which the mind works and the way in which reality works, we must be able to work out the structures of reality from the structures of our mind, or vice versa. This means that Kant’s insistence that we can’t know what reality is like outside the mind is manifestly wrong. (As above, so below!) In Illuminism, the world is made of minds (monads) via ontological mathematics, hence there can be no difference between the structures of the mind and the structures of the world. Specifically, they are linked by Fourier mathematics. Absolutely nothing else can explain the mind-body (mind-world) problem. All of Kant’s philosophical successors made mind the basis of reality in order to explain how mind can understand reality, i.e. they were all idealists, not materialists. They were all correct. There is no such thing as “matter”, of the kind scientists believe in. Scientific materialism works because it uses dimensional mathematics. Idealism failed because it didn’t use mathematics at all. Illuminism salvages idealism by showing how mathematics can be applied to it after all: via dimensionless mathematics, namely that which applies to immaterial, autonomous Fourier frequency domains outside space and time ... soul singularities. This is the biggest innovation in modern scientific and philosophical history, returning the intellectual community to the monadic world conceived by Leibniz, and, before him, Pythagoras.

Evolution Evolution is all about adaptation in order to survive, prosper and grow. Evolution necessarily involves a feedback loop between the structures of the world and the structures of the mind. Our cognitive abilities have developed in response to the external environment, indicating that our minds must conform to reality rather than that our experience of reality must conform to the a priori, non-evolving structures of the Kantian mind. Kant, writing long before Darwin, had a non-evolutionary outlook (and effectively took an Abrahamic Creationist stance whereby God designed our minds in a certain way, and nothing then subsequently changed). Hegel’s philosophy, on the other hand, is all about dialectical evolution. Kant’s static view is wrong and Hegel’s right. This is a dynamic, evolving world. Evolution follows from the notion that the world is made of mind, and that minds are teleological entities seeking to convert all of their potentiality into actuality (in terms of subjective Content ... they are already fully actual in terms of objective Form). This means that minds are continually altering their relationship with the external world in order to adapt better to it and have more control over it. On this planet, the human race – the highest of all animals in this world – shows what mind is capable of. In other worlds, there are beings much more advanced than human beings. We might call these “Angel Planets”. And there are other planets that are populated by Gods! We might call these planets heavens! Illuminism is all about building heaven on this earth, i.e. turning it into a God planet.

The Anthropological Critique According to Kant’s philosophy, we all necessarily experience space and time in the same way. However, anthropologists have shown that people in different cultures may perceive spatial and temporal relationships radically differently. Moreover, Einsteinian spacetime relativity is completely incompatible with Kant’s model of a fixed spacetime reality. Space and time in fact originate in Fourier mathematics, and are derived from frequency functions (mental functions) outside space and time. Space and time have no other conceivable basis. They are purely mathematical relations and have no reality outside of mathematics.

Reason Anyone who says that reason isn’t the answer to existence is ipso facto claiming that existence is irrational. But how can existence be irrational? ... its inherent irrational contradictions would annihilate it instantly or turn it into a chaotic mush incapable of manifesting any order, organisation or pattern. Moreover, if existence is irrational, it has no rational answer, so one crazy, irrational answer is as good as another – meaning that there is no answer at all ... you can believe whatever you like. Of course, that’s exactly what irrational people want ... to believe that whatever crazy, self-serving faith system they have constructed is the answer, and thus they can go around telling everyone how smart and enlightened they are. All prophets and gurus, and even many scientists and philosophers, have been of this ilk. Frankly, we don’t care what irrational people say. They’re all mad. They can delude themselves as long as they like that there is some irrational answer to existence. They will thereby remain morons forever and be powerless when the Army of Reason at last flexes its muscles.

***** RM: “Seems to me that the more complicated we get, the farther from the truth we find ourselves... can a mathematical equation get us any closer to Source; or is its only purpose to distract us from the focus required to achieve this end; illumination, if you will? Maths and science is like a double-ended crowbar banging away at the Gates of Knowledge; while the Portal stands wide open inside our Hearts.. there comes a stage in every journey to illumination; when maps are no longer required....” There you have it ... the irrational gibberish of an anti-reason emotionalist, someone who believes that connecting to the “Source” (undefined, naturally!) is all about his personal feeling, experiences and sensations ... total solipsism and narcissism, typical of so many Western Buddhists and New Agers, of the love and light gang. Are you really going to agree with this nut, this clown? What does this idiot have to offer that allegedly surpasses science and math? ... well, nothing but his own hopes, beliefs, personal “experiences” and yearnings. Yup, those will definitely reveal the Truth to us. Not!!!

*****

Why do people such as RM rail against reason, science and math so much? It’s out of pure self-interest, of course. They know they aren’t rational, and they’re useless at science and math and don’t understand them at all, so why would they want to be in world of reason, science and math? People like RM are the inevitable dialectical resistance to rationality. Being irrational, the last thing they want is a rational world. Heaven on earth will be built despite these dinosaurs and Luddites, not because of them.

***** Unfortunately, Illuminism attracts two types: irrationalists (interested in mysticism and New Age bullshit), and rationalists (interested in philosophy, science and mathematics). There can be no dialogue between them, so they ought to split apart.

The Choice Do you want the world to be run by Big Business for Big Business, or by the People for the People? It’s one or the other.

Knowing the Unknowable? In Kant’s philosophy, our knowledge is necessarily confined within the boundaries of human experience, and it’s impossible for us to know anything about reality as it is in itself (noumenal reality). This immediately raises the issue of how we can know that the noumenal realm even exists. If it’s genuinely unknowable, we can’t know it exists, and nor can we validly extrapolate from our experience to anything outside our experience (which is the conclusion science draws). To be consistent, Kant should have said nothing at all about the noumenal world, about any reality external to our experience. However, had he taken this approach, he would not have been grounding our experience in any external reality, and his philosophy would have been seen to be pure subjective idealism, even more extreme than Bishop Berkeley’s (who invoked “God” to guarantee the external world), and would not have addressed Hume’s ultra skepticism in the slightest. Epistemologically, science suffers from an almost identical problem to Kant. Kant cannot validly talk about anything beyond human experience, and can’t even legitimately claim there’s anything outside human

experience. His chosen method makes this impossible. By the same token, science can address only those things susceptible to its defining method, and can’t validly refer to anything beyond the reach of that method. The difference between Kant and science is that Kant said that the world beyond human experience exists but is unknowable, whereas science arrogantly and insanely claims that the world beyond the scientific method doesn’t exist at all, i.e. it seeks to define reality exclusively in relation to its method, and refuses to contemplate any limitation to its method. There is no logical basis whatsoever for such a conclusion on science’s part. This inference is driven by a fanatical ideology and dogmatism ... an unmistakable, irrational, quasi-religious faith. All of science’s claims about ultimate reality are laughable because they are all predicated on things that science has worked out via the scientific method, but ultimate reality is outside the scientific method, hence you can’t describe it in terms relating to the scientific method. In Kantian terms, science has catastrophically exceeded its proper limits (as Kant claimed with regard to reason in his Critique of Pure Reason), and generated metaphysical absurdities. A modern Kant would have a field day writing a Critique of Pure Science. Scientists are so dumb philosophically that they have no idea that the entire logic of their system is fatally flawed and that the arguments that demonstrate this have been available for centuries! It’s about time every scientist read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, simply replacing the word “reason” with the term “scientific method”. The scientific method takes the exact role of reason in Kant’s work. It’s valid when it relates to the observable world, and has no validity beyond that. Science, in order to avoid concluding that there exists a rational (purely mathematical) world beyond the scientific world – i.e. a world of dreaded “hidden variables” – literally asserts that non-existence precedes the world of the scientific method. In other words, you don’t go from an invisible reality to a visible reality, a hidden reality to a revealed reality, a frequency reality (Singularity) to a spacetime reality (via Fourier mathematics), a noumenal mental reality to a phenomenal material reality, but from nonexistence outside the scientific method to existence compatible with the scientific method ... via an inexplicable, random, spontaneous, miraculous bridging event. Scientists might as well invoke “God” ... creating something out of nothing at all.

Science, as regards its fundamental claims about reality, is staggeringly silly and almost deranged. Science is wholly the prisoner of its method. No scientist on earth is capable, or wants to, think outside that box. Any scientist who dared to challenge the primacy of the scientific method would instantly be excommunicated. His funding would be stopped and he would be mocked and ridiculed by other scientists. His career would be ended there and then. The idea that scientists are open-minded and follow the evidence wherever it leads is one of the greatest jokes and acts of propaganda ever perpetrated against humanity. A scientist is every bit as dogmatic and closed-minded as an Abrahamist, just in a sensory (“evidential”) way rather than emotional (faith) way. Kant was humble when he said that his system involved unknowable elements. Science suffers from no such humility. It states that anything outside the scientific box is non-existent ... which is why it then has to say that the scientific world miraculously leapt out of non-existence! There’s nothing else in its system. You have non-existence and science. That’s it. So, if you need to “explain” anything outside science (that gets science started), you invariably have to resort to random events occurring indeterministically out of nothing ... like pure magic! Science is a binary system of non-existence and temporal, contingent science. Ontological mathematics is a mono system of eternal, necessary mathematical existence. Science is irrational and involves miracles. Ontological mathematics is hyperrational and excludes all miracles. Science is effectively a religion that has replaced “God” (miraculously creating things out of nothing for his divine reasons) with “non-existence” (miraculously creating things out of itself for no reason at all). Science thus offers an even worse and more irrational explanation of ultimate reality than religion! All of the irrational absurdities of science can be swept away by underpinning it with ontological mathematics. Given that science already has mathematics at its core, it’s astounding that science hasn’t embraced mathematics in its entirety. To save science from its insane claims about everything coming from non-existence – an idea the ancient Greeks ridiculed and rationally

disproved thousands of years ago – the only thing that science is required to do is admit that ultimate reality reflects mathematical hidden variables that cannot be reached via the scientific method. It absolutely refuses to do so. It would rather accept a miraculous emergence of existence from nonexistence than a rationalist, eternal world of mathematics where existence is permanent and the scientific world is generated from an underlying mathematical reality. How bizarre is that?! Why does science have such a problem with reason and mathematics? It’s truly incredible. That’s what happens when you become the prisoner of your senses and experiences (empiricism). Kant did, and so did science. Mathematics is liberation from the senses and our personal human experiences. It’s pure reason ... exactly what Kant foolishly criticized.

Causation Hume and Kant both pointed out that causality is not an item of experience and perception (we perceive events, not the causes linking them; we infer these), leading Hume to deny its real existence, and Kant to claim that it was an inbuilt faculty of our minds (and otherwise didn’t exist). In fact, we inhabit a dynamic, ontological mathematical universe, and causality is built into ontological mathematics. There is no other rational way to explain the ubiquity and necessity of causation (and the fact that it applies to both the noumenal and phenomenal domains: there is no causation dualism, as Kant implies).

Ontological Logic There are two types of “ontological” logic ... that which pertains to mathematical Form (the information carrier) and that which pertains to Content (the information carried). The ontological logic associated with Form is necessary and eternal and simply reflects the analytic tautologies of ontological mathematics (hence is highly Aristotelian and Leibnizian). The ontological logic associated with Content is contingent and temporal, and reflects Hegelian dialectics. A huge number of problems in logic stem from being unable to distinguish between these two types of logic, or misapplying the logic of Form to Content, or the logic of Content to Form. Science is a bogus implementation of ontological mathematics that happens to work very well because its method forces accord with the

observable world. One might refer to a “science of logic” in the same way: practical logic that works very well in most situations, but is fundamentally false at the ultimate level. With modal logic, there is a natural tendency to mix Form and Content, i.e. for modal logic to be useful, like science, but not actually true in any fundamental sense.

“God” Kant thought of God as a consciousness that apprehended objects directly – as they are in themselves and not by means of space and time. But does that also mean that God has no categories of understanding? In Kantian terms, how can it be claimed that this God is even capable of thinking? He certainly doesn’t think in any human way!

The Faculty of Understanding “Without sensibility no object would be given to us; and without understanding no object would be thought.” – Kant The understanding: the faculty that applies concepts to sensory experience.

The Thing-In-Itself Kant claimed that the thing-in-itself, although outside space and time, causes sensations in the spacetime sense organs of the knowing subject. He didn’t give any mechanism. In Kant’s world, a perceived, experienced object, rather than mere raw sensation, is given to the mind by sensibility (sensation plus space plus time), together with the application of the twelve categories of the understanding.

Kant The Critique of Pure Reason has been described as a grand theory of perception. There are three classes of theories of perception: (1) direct realism, (2) representationalism, and (3) phenomenalism. Direct realism is the simplistic “common sense” view ... the one that rules scientific thinking. Most people think in the same way as scientists.

They believe that when we look at the world we are seeing something “out there”, existing physically and independently of our minds. Few people are intelligent enough to think in terms of representationalism or phenomenalism. These require you to transcend common sense and scientific thinking, and to start seriously contemplating that the world in itself isn’t anything like how it appears to us, hence that a subject such as science can’t tell us anything about how things really are. It’s virtually impossible to take scientific materialism seriously unless you subscribe to the childish notion of direct realism. Once you have no confidence that what you are seeing when you look at the world is really what’s there, your state of consciousness changes forever, and your notion of what science can achieve is ineradicably altered (and limited). Science, to put it bluntly, is a crude worldview predicated on the “truth” of direct realism ... that what you see is what you get, that seeing is believing. Science is one of the most simplistic models of reality that you can get. Anyone who subscribes to direct realism is incapable of accepting the existence of anything that is not directly observable – such as the soul or “God”. The whole scientific method is of course devoted to what is observable, and science insists on regarding anything not susceptible to the scientific method, i.e. anything unobservable – such as the soul – as non-existent. This all flows from the acceptance of direct realism. As soon as you concede that you have no idea that what you think you are seeing is really there in that form, it’s game on. You can leave behind science. But where do you go after science? There’s only one destination for a rational person ... mathematics. What we see when we look at the world is actually our interpretation of a 100% mathematical world. Mathematics, in itself, is not physical (material), it’s not in space and time and has no appearance. Mathematics in itself belongs to a mental Singularity. If your mind is powerful enough, you can start to grasp that the world you believe you are seeing is nothing other than mathematical information locked inside a Singularity, and that you yourself, and everyone and everything else, is likewise locked inside this Singularity. What you think of as matter is just your interpretation of mathematical information. What you think of as space and time is just your interpretation of mathematical information via Fourier mathematics. What you think of as appearance is

merely the Content that accompanies all mathematical Form. What you “see” is the mathematical information carried by mathematical information carriers (mathematical sinusoids) that you never see. This mathematical reality has nothing to do with the scientific worldview. It has nothing to do with direct realism. You cannot even begin to conceive of ultimate reality until you have managed to transcend common sense, materialism, direct realism and science. All of these generate Maya – the illusion of what reality is. The Truth is a most astonishing one. The whole of existence resides in just a single immaterial point outside space and time – the mathematical frequency Singularity. Absolutely everything is permanently trapped inside this Singularity. It’s just one infinitely concentrated mental vibration that can vibrate in every conceivable way. The physical world is merely a mental image, a mental projection, produced by pure, analytic mathematics. There is no “death”. There is no separation. Everything is absolutely alive, mental and interconnected in the Singularity. Mathematics controls all of this. The death of a physical body is simply the termination of a contingent collection of mathematical information. You yourself are an eternal, necessary node of mathematics ... a monad (mathematical mind). When you ponder the meaning of life, what you are really doing is pondering what the best mathematical configuration is that you can possibly attain. This is the solution of your life, the answer to your existence. You are a self-solving, self-optimising mathematical system and when you have solved your own equation you will absolutely, literally, be God! Divinity is nothing but a property of mathematics, corresponding to perfect symmetry.

***** The movie that has come closest to revealing how weird reality is, and how it’s nothing like how it appears to be, is The Matrix, but even that hardly touches on how truly bizarre existence is. Consider the scientists present in the Matrix. They would all be advocates of direct realism, they would accept as reality everything in the Matrix, they would subscribe to “seeing is believing” and “what you see is what you get”, they would accept the scientific method, and conclude that anything not susceptible to it didn’t exist, and yet they would be absolutely wrong about everything! Science

can’t allow you to escape from the Matrix. It even denies the possibility of anything being outside the Matrix. The Matrix is the scientific method. The science of the Matrix is shaped by the rules of the simulation that determine the Matrix, but those rules don’t apply to those people who aren’t in the Matrix at all, who are in an entirely different reality where different rules apply. It’s impossible for science ever to get outside of itself, ever to transcend itself and see what’s really going on outside it. The Truth is what lies beyond science ... mathematics. If you escape from the scientific world, you reach the mathematical world ... and there’s nowhere beyond that. What comes after physics is metaphysics, and metaphysics is just ontological, transcendental mathematics. You imagine yourself as a physical object ... but you’re not. You imagine yourself in space and time ... but you’re not. You imagine yourself completely separate from everything else ... but you’re not. These are all illusions produced by the properties of transcendental, ontological mathematics. Well, have you taken the red pill yet? Are you ready to become a God like Neo? That’s the prize on offer to all those who become truly illuminated. You can become a God only if you understand the mathematical reality you are in. Otherwise, you will remain in a state of endarkenment. It’s a simple fact that only the ontological mathematics of the Illuminati can bring you to enlightenment. It’s the one and only path since it’s the one and only true reality. You can kid yourself on as much as you like about “enlightenment”. You can believe in karma, or nirvana, or moksha, or Zen, or Tao, or yoga, or meditation, or faith, or mysticism ... or whatever. But it’s all bullshit and self-delusion. That’s a fact. No one outside the Illuminati has ever been enlightened because only the Illuminati have ever understood what reality is and given it an exact answer ... ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation, and expressing Leibniz’s Monadology, the science of monads (souls).

Beyond Science says that nothing exists beyond science. In fact, what exists beyond science is math! What could be more rational?! Everything follows from that single truth.

The War That Never Happened Out of a mixture of ignorance, lack of interest and political correctness, the Western intelligentsia have never turned their cannons on Eastern religion and mysticism. It would be a bloodbath if they did. Nothing of Eastern “wisdom” would remain standing. Abrahamism has been destroyed by science. It’s about time it destroyed Eastern religion too.

The Sublime versus Beauty “The sublime moves, whilst the beautiful charms.” – Kant “[The sublime includes] ... bold, overhanging and, as it were, threatening rocks, thunderclouds piling up in the sky and moving about accompanied by lightning and thunderclaps, volcanoes with all their destructive power, hurricanes with all the devastation they leave behind, the boundless ocean heaved up, the high waterfall of a mighty river...” The sublime arises through an excess of sensory information: vastness, wildness, chaos, night, solitude, the far horizon, storms, hurricanes, the desert that never ends, the plain that goes on forever, great, impenetrable forests, shadows, death, formlessness. It’s the faculty of imagination that allows us to experience the sublime. The excessive build up of sensory stimuli in imagination shuts down the Understanding (prevents it from functioning), and thus we are presented with a spectacle that transcends any understanding or rationalisation. It overwhelms us. We feel the sheer immensity of the power of Nature. We are catching a glimpse of infinity. St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, the Pyramids and the Grand Canyon are three Kantian examples of the sublime. Speaking of the Pyramids, Kant said, “...in order to get the full emotional effect from the magnitude of the pyramids one must neither get too close to them nor stray too far away. For if one stays too far away, then the apprehended parts (the stones on top of one another) are presented only obscurely, and hence their presentation has no effect on the subject’s aesthetic judgment; and if one gets too close, then the eye needs some time to complete the apprehension from the base to the peak, but during that time some of the earlier parts are invariably extinguished in the imagination before it has apprehended the later ones, and hence the comprehension is never complete.”

If Form is the essence of understanding and reason then Formlessness (an excess of Content such as it has no clear limit) is the essence of the irrational, of the imagination. It can arouse a feeling of terror in people, and abject inferiority. Many thinkers have become profoundly disturbed – even to the point of psychosis – by the notion of “bad infinity” ... infinity that just goes on and on. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy says, “Bad Infinity ... Hegel’s term for an endless series advancing from one thing to another, like a straight line with no end. It is an infinite series of causes and effects and is separated from the finite. A bad infinity contrasts with true infinity, which is closely associated with the finite, for something that is infinite in one perspective can also be finite in another. True infinity is like a circle, finite but unbounded, and it is associated in Hegel’s system with the negation of the negation. From the perspective of bad infinity, God is infinite and the world is finite, and hence there arises a contrast between God and the world. Hegel claims that this division is overcome in the perspective of true infinity.” Illuminism, based on Euler circles and their waves is all about good infinity, and “bad infinity” is formally impossible. Science is based on bad infinity, on infinite contingent regress.

Knowledge Kant claims that things in themselves are unknowable. For something to become an object of knowledge, it must be experienced. Experience doesn’t just happen as a matter of course. It’s carefully structured by the a priori design of the mind. Space and time come from the mind, not from the world itself. Yet there’s something we don’t need any experience of in order to have complete knowledge of it ... mathematics. So, what is knowledge? Is it something we impose on the world via the mysterious structures of our minds, whose origins and design are left permanently unexplained by Kant? How can we call that knowledge of the world? It’s knowledge of the world we have constructed using minds of which we have no knowledge (!). Knowledge of a construct via unknowable means cannot constitute any kind of knowledge of the world, of ultimate reality.

However, if knowledge of the world is built into the world by virtue of the world being made of mathematics then we can have full knowledge of the world without having any experience of it at all! That’s what transcendental, ontological mathematics is all about. It describes the necessary, eternal nature of existence. Kant’s philosophy is actually about how we experience mathematical reality, about how mathematical reality appears to us. However, contrary to what he concludes, ultimate (noumenal) reality is not unknowable. Rather, it’s the only thing that can be absolutely known – since it’s nothing but mathematics in itself ... pure rational Form. Mathematical rationalism is what we can know; scientific empiricism is about what we experience. Experience is not knowledge.

What Is the Difference Between “Gnosis” and “Episteme”? Q. “In Greek philosophy, Plato especially, what is the difference between ‘gnosis’ and ‘episteme’? Both apparently designate different types of knowledge, but I couldn’t find any precise description of the differences between the two.” – YeahPhil A. “Presocratics do not usually use the word episteme, they prefer gnosis. In Plato, episteme is regularly about the forms. The hypotheses that episteme is the same as perception, true opinion, or true opinion with an account, are all refuted. Plato uses gnosis relatively rarely, although he does use it of knowledge of the beautiful. For Heraclitus, ‘People are deceived about the gnosis of the obvious things.’ For Aristotle, episteme is about the causes, represented in syllogistic deductions. Aristotle says that episteme may be distinguished into practical, productive, and theoretical, and that theoretical episteme into mathematical, physical, and theological. In Aristotle, episteme is often translated as science. The Aristotelian term gnosis is used about particular facts, observable and unobservable. Episteme by contrast, sometimes refers to scientific knowledge or to a body of truths known. Mathematics or astronomy counts as episteme. Sometimes refers to crafts and disciplines that lack a demonstrative structure, but are also cases of episteme, a body of truths. Aristotle explicit comments are mostly about episteme, if we think of episteme as continuous with the philosophy of science. Aristotle says that all animals share some kind of gnosis because

they all have the faculty of perception. In general, in old Greece Gnosis means more knowledge by perception, particular facts, episteme means more knowledge by systematic study or demonstration. In the New Testament, gnosis appears with the sense of spiritual knowledge. In later Greek writers, it is used especially of esoteric knowledge.” – Ricardo In modern terms, there are two types of “knowledge”: rationalist (relations of ideas) and empiricist (matters of fact). In ancient Greece, rational knowledge would be more likely to be associated with episteme, and empirical knowledge with gnosis (although it very much depends on a particular philosopher’s chosen usage of the terms). Wikipedia says, “Gnosis is used throughout Greek philosophy as a technical term for experience knowledge (see gnosiology = “the philosophy of knowledge and cognition”) in contrast to theoretical knowledge or epistemology.” This is a bit simplistic, but perhaps captures the right spirit of the ancient difference between gnosis and episteme. As gnosis came to be associated more and more with spiritual (religious) rather than “physical” (scientific) experience, it had less and less to do with the phenomenal world. We use the term gnosis because of its link to noumenal (non-scientific) knowledge. However, we also directly associate it with ontological, transcendental mathematical epistemology ... since it’s radically different from scientific “epistemology” (if such a thing can be said to exist).

Gnosiology “As a philosophical concept, gnosiology broadly means the theory of knowledge, which in ancient Greek philosophy was perceived as a combination of sensory perception and intellect and then made into memory (called the mnemonic system). When considered in the context of science, gnosiology takes on a different meaning: the study of knowledge, its origin, processes, and validity. Gnosiology being the study of types of knowledge i.e. memory (abstract knowledge derived from experimentation being ‘episteme’ or teachable knowledge), experience induction (or empiricism), deduction (or rationalism), scientific abductive reasoning, contemplation (theoria), metaphysical and instinctual or intuitive knowledge. Gnosiology is focused on the study of the noesis and noetic components of human ontology.

“Within gnosiology, gnosis is derived by noesis. Noesis refers to the experiences or activities of the nous. This makes the study and origin of gnosis and gnosiology the study of the intuitive and or instinctual.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, in the end, gnosiology, epistemology, transcendence, transcendentalism, noesis and ontology all converge. Mathematics is what unites them all.

The Transcendental Philosophy “I call transcendental all cognition that deals not so much with objects as rather with our way of cognizing objects in general insofar as that way of cognizing is to be possible a priori. A system of such concepts would have the name ‘transcendental philosophy’.” – Kant What is needed is a full transcendental mathematical, not philosophical, description of cognition.

The Attack When science attacks religion, it is in fact also attacking the ontology and transcendentalism of mathematics. When mathematics attacks the irrationalism of mainstream religion, it is in fact also attacking the irrationalism of science.

Appearance The only way to understand ultimate reality is to imagine it stripped of all appearances, of everything to do with the human condition. What remains? What’s left when the human perspective is taken away? ... mathematics, the least human thing you can get ... that which precedes humans. The Big Bang was a dimensionless, immaterial singularity event. It had no link with anything human. It was a purely mathematical event. Scientists claim that nothing at all (non-existence) preceded the Big Bang, rendering the Big Bang a miracle. Ontological mathematics asserts that the temporal, contingent Big Bang universe arose from an eternal, necessary mathematical order via a simple symmetry-breaking occurrence that produced a Fourier mathematical spacetime eruption. There are no miracles. Well, where do you stand?

The Principle Many people find the idea of 100% inheritance tax ridiculous. Well, here’s a simple principle of life to ponder. Should people make their living from their own sweat and efforts, or those of others? There’s an old name for those who enjoyed a wealthy life obtained at the expense of others ... usurers. Usury used to be a major crime in Christianity. Why does usury (parasitism) become acceptable because you are feeding off your own dead parents ... because you are living off what they earned and not what you earned? Doesn’t that make the crime even more disgusting?! What decent parents would want to raise lazy parasites who can’t make their own way in life through their own efforts? So, to everyone who opposes the principle of making your own way in life – i.e. who supports inheritance – fuck off you filthy usurers and parasites. Hell mend you!

Intuition For Kant, intuition is the process of sensing or the act of having a sensation. For Kant, there is never passive observation or knowledge. It’s always active. It’s always constructed.

***** “Intuition and concepts constitute... the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge.” – Kant Kant made a fundamental error in is his attempt to define knowledge. He tried to combine empiricism and rationalism into a single-aspect, rather than dual-aspect, entity. Rationalism and empiricism are the respective sides of a single coin, but have entirely different natures. Rationalism is about Form while Empiricism is about Content. Form concerns the carrier of information, and Content the information carried. We reason our way through the intelligible world of Form, and we sense, emote and intuit our way through the sensible world of Content. Form is about knowledge of eternal truths of reason. Content is about the interpretation of “facts”. This interpretive process can never constitute knowledge, yet Kant sought to claim it does. You don’t make the

interpretation of sensory information something more than that by bogusly imposing synthetic a priori “forms” on the process. Kant’s system is itself an interpretation. Synthetic a priori forms are an untenable speculation. Kantian “intuitions” do not constitute an element of our knowledge but an element of our interpretation. Likewise, Kantian “concepts” – divorced from an analytic system of eternal truths (i.e. rationalist mathematics) – do not constitute an element of our knowledge but of interpretation. Kant’s system is a speculative attempt to define knowledge, but has nothing to do with real knowledge. Nietzsche had Kant most in his sights when he said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Only mathematics can constitute knowledge since all of it is true by analytic definition. Everything else is interpretation. Mathematics is about “concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them”, and is the sole Truth. As for an “intuition without concepts”, what Kant should have said is that all intuitions are necessarily interpreted according to some schema. The schema that we use to interpret the sensory world is the one conferred on us by evolution – by natural selection – not by any Kantian synthetic a priori system. All sensory information is carried by analytic sinusoidal waves, but how we interpret this information depends on how we evolved. Plainly, we interpret sensory information in radically different ways from sharks, bees, ants, bats, and so on (and even from each other). These creatures obviously have viable, valuable sensory systems, yet Kantian concepts do not apply to them, i.e. they have no “knowledge” in Kant’s sense (or, alternatively, very different Kantian concepts relating to a very different understanding and concept of reality). Animals are not conscious and have no Kantian knowledge (in comparison with humans), and yet can navigate their way around the world with complete ease. The different sensory capacities of animals surely contradict the whole of Kant’s philosophy. Are their spacetime sensibilities different ... but surely they can’t be since that would imply radically different types of science and math? Are the categories that apply to them different ... but surely they can’t be? We would have to conclude that a different Kantian synthetic a priori system applied to each different animal to explain the differences between them all, yet this doesn’t make any sense regarding anything that is truly a priori. If Kant’s scheme is right, why does it apply only to humans, and not to all animals equally?

How is it even possible for each different animal to be subject to a different Kantian synthetic a priori system? How did these different systems come to be? How do they relate to each other? The implication is that “God” designed and assigned a different Kantian cognitive scheme to each animal. Kant’s entire philosophy collapses as soon as this intelligent design is replaced by evolutionary theory (which didn’t exist in Kant’s day). Had Kant been writing after Darwin, he would never have proposed the scheme he did: it’s entirely refuted by evolution. We are not assigned an a priori cognitive apparatus. It evolves. In essence, evolution is a system for testing different implementations of Fourier mathematics. For example, every different type of eye in nature has different Fourier consequences. Colourblind humans perform different Fourier processing from those with colour vision. The relative proportions of rods and cones in retinas lead to different Fourier consequences. The Fourier processing that takes place in Nature depends on the nature and design of the physical organs involved in processing sensory information. Kant’s philosophy, no matter its flaws, is unquestionably a great intellectual accomplishment and a treasure trove of good and interesting ideas, but it’s simply wrong. It’s wrong because it has practically nothing to do with ontological, transcendental mathematics.

***** “If man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on.” – Immanuel Kant If man subscribes to idiotic religious beliefs, he must not complain when those who do not share those beliefs mock them. People have no right to have their idiotic and dangerous ideas respected. “But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.” – Immanuel Kant Our interpretation begins with experience, not our knowledge. Our knowledge has nothing to do with experience and is all about mathematics. Knowledge does not arise from the unfolding of a posteriori experiences, but from the application of a priori reason. Pure reason is knowledge-based while experience is interpretive (meaning that it’s swallowed by belief,

opinion, conjecture and hypothesis). When reason is pressed into the service of our interpretive experiences, it’s fatally corrupted and becomes synthetic a posteriori rather than analytic a priori. Science, with its synthetic a posteriori observational method, is inherently anti-knowledge in a formal sense. Science is about interpretive modelling, and nothing else. “So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.” – Immanuel Kant That’s almost the opposite of how most people act. That’s a statement of the Superego, but most people are ruled by their Id. “A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose.” – Immanuel Kant Nietzsche continually mocked this kind of moral thinking. “From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned.” – Immanuel Kant Only mathematics provides perfect, Platonic timber ... from which the whole universe is constructed. “What can I know? What ought I to do? What can I hope?” – Immanuel Kant You can know mathematics. You ought to behave rationally, and you should hope, or rather know, that reason will cure everything in the end ... via the dialectic that exists for exactly that purpose. “Nothing is divine but what is agreeable to reason.” – Kant Indeed! “God” is pure reason.

Transcendental Idealism “Transcendental idealism, also called formalistic idealism ... term applied to the epistemology of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who held that the human self, or transcendental ego, constructs knowledge out of sense impressions and from universal concepts called categories that it imposes upon them. Kant’s transcendentalism is set in contrast to those of

two of his predecessors – the problematic idealism of René Descartes, who claimed that the existence of matter can be doubted, and the dogmatic idealism of George Berkeley, who flatly denied the existence of matter. Kant believed that ideas, the raw matter of knowledge, must somehow be due to realities existing independently of human minds; but he held that such things-in-themselves must remain forever unknown. Human knowledge cannot reach to them because knowledge can only arise in the course of synthesizing the ideas of sense. “Transcendental idealism has remained a significant strand in later philosophy, being perpetuated in various forms of Kantian and Neo-Kantian movements of thought.” – http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602428/transcendental-idealism

Q. Was Kant an empirical realist or transcendental idealist? A. “If the world of experience (experience of what? – of things-inthemselves) exists independently of thought, then it follows that we do not know (read: think) the things in themselves. That is, things in themselves are unknowable. Instead, what we think and know are ‘transcendental objects’, which are defined more precisely as ‘intelligible correlates of sensible appearances’.” – StreetlightX The world of experience does not exist independently of the world of thought. In a universe of monadic minds, everything is thought! “Experience” (empiricism) is a type of thinking that excludes pure reason (rationalism). It deals with contingent, temporal Content rather than necessary, eternal Form. We experientially encounter Content (information carried) and not Form (the information carrier), i.e. we encounter phenomena and not noumena. Things-in-themselves are the information carriers, and things-as-they-appear are the information carried. We can know the information carriers, via pure reason, which leads us to ontological mathematics. We can never know the world of experiences and phenomena because this world does not comprise the stuff of knowledge, but only of interpretation. In other words, Kant was 100% wrong. Kant accused Plato, the great rationalist, of being 100% wrong, but Plato was right all along. Knowledge relates to timeless (eternal) facts and laws – things that are infallibly, indisputably, analytically, absolutely true. What Kant was talking about was actually Interpretation, not Knowledge. What

he was saying was that we systematically interpret reality in a certain way thanks to the way our minds are pre-designed, and this constitutes “knowledge” ... but it’s not ... it constitutes a consistent interpretation (model/schema), but no kind of knowledge. Science commits exactly the same error. Kant got everything the wrong way around. It’s the noumenal world that is knowable (not unknowable) and the phenomenal world that is unknowable (not knowable) ... exactly as Plato said. The phenomenal world can only ever be about interpretation, and not knowledge. In the phenomenal world, Nietzsche is right ... there are no facts, only interpretations. Only in the noumenal world are there facts, laws, knowledge and Truth. The noumenal world is the world of Form, of Reason, of Ontological Mathematics.

***** “Kant himself considered his philosophy to be ‘empirical realist’; it’s not by chance that he included a ‘Refutation of Idealism’ in the second edition of the Critique, nor that he protests vehemently against the idealist label in the Note II to §13 of the Prolegomena. Obviously, as with almost everything in Kantian scholarship, how to interpret this realism is a source of controversy (see, among others, Paul Abela’s interesting book, Kant’s Empirical Realism). But the main idea seems to be this: idealism denies the reality of matter, assuming only the existence of minds. The analogies of experience, however, have demonstrated that to cognize anything as substance, we need recourse to a permanent substrate that fixes our references. So, for we to cognize our mind as a substance (i.e. as persisting through time, or better, as forming a particular biography), we need recourse to a permanent substrate. But, in our all-too-human case, this can only be our own body. Hence, in order to cognize our minds, we need recourse to our own body. Since our own body is material, it follows that, to cognize our minds, we need recourse to something material. Therefore, matter exists (is real). “The reason why transcendental idealism leads to empirical realism, and that transcendental realism leads to empirical idealism, according to Kant, is because, in a transcendental idealist framework, we have immediate perception of the reality of matter, whereas in a transcendental realist framework, since the matter is considered apart from our representation of

it, we can never be sure that the representation matches this matter. The reasoning is complicated and presupposes the whole Analytic of Principles (the place where the category of ‘reality’ is given its meaning, in connection with the Anticipations of Perception), but one should note that Kant’s cleavage between the thing and the object is a major step in that direction, in that it allows us immediate access to the object, even while denying cognition of things. To cognize things is a contradiction in terms: we can only cognize objects, that is, things considered inside a relational context that forms a system, a system which we call ‘experience’ (so there is no experience of the thing in itself, there is a cognition of objects that is called experience). “Finally, I would add two remarks. The first is that, as McDowell and, before him, Heidegger made clear, Kant is not after a theory of knowledge, he is after a theory of cognition. In other words, the relation he is investigating is more fundamental: it’s not how we can know facts about the world, but how we relate to the world at all. What that means is that the primary phenomenon that Kant is trying to explain in the Critique is intentionality, the capacity of conscious to refer to objects. Secondly, from this it follows that thought should not be conflated with knowledge, which is precisely why we can think the thing as it is in itself (and even think the noumena, to a certain extent), but cannot know it. We can form for ourselves a concept of it, but since no intuition corresponds to this concept, it is merely an empty thought (but still a thought!).” – Nagase “I know that Kant was adamant that matter is a reality, but as far as labels go (which is not very far), I still find ‘empirical realism’ to be a strange way of characterizing Kant’s philosophy, even if Kant himself called it as such. But otherwise yes, I agree with you totally.” – StreetlightX The “permanent substrate that fixes our references” is not matter, but, rather, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics. It’s absurd to conceive, as Kant does, of matter that is outside space and time and has no appearance or space-occupying mass. Contrary to what Kant says, thought and knowledge go together when they concern pure reason (mathematics). It’s experience and knowledge that should never be conflated. Experience always goes with interpretation, never with certainty.

Thoughts and Minds What are thoughts? Thoughts are sinusoidal waves. They have a rational Form and empirical Content. They can be subjectively experienced by monadic minds. What are monadic minds? They are autonomous, complete and consistent sets of sinusoids (thoughts), i.e. a particular set of thoughts uniquely belongs to them, but they can also encounter thoughts (sinusoids) relating to the external world (the world of all other monads). There’s nothing else ... just minds and their thoughts. Everything – minds and “matter” – is made of analytic sinusoids. Ontological, transcendental mathematics is a strictly monistic system.

Transcendental idealism “Perhaps the central and most controversial thesis of the Critique of Pure Reason is that human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves; and that space and time are only subjective forms of human intuition that would not subsist in themselves if one were to abstract from all subjective conditions of human intuition. Kant calls this thesis transcendental idealism. One of his best summaries of it is arguably the following: We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us. We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual

perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for its being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different. (A42/B59–60) [Kant] “Kant introduces transcendental idealism in the part of the Critique called the Transcendental Aesthetic, and scholars generally agree that for Kant transcendental idealism encompasses at least the following claims: “In some sense, human beings experience only appearances, not things in themselves. “Space and time are not things in themselves, or determinations of things in themselves that would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of human intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion a) at A26/B42 and again at A32–33/B49. It is at least a crucial part of what he means by calling space and time transcendentally ideal (A28/B44, A35–36/B52)]. “Space and time are nothing other than the subjective forms of human sensible intuition. [Kant labels this conclusion b) at A26/B42 and again at A33/B49–50]. “Space and time are empirically real, which means that ‘everything that can come before us externally as an object’ is in both space and time, and that our internal intuitions of ourselves are in time (A28/B44, A34–35/B51–51). “But scholars disagree widely on how to interpret these claims, and there is no such thing as the standard interpretation of Kant’s transcendental idealism. Two general types of interpretation have been especially influential, however. This section provides an overview of these two interpretations, although it should be emphasized that much important scholarship on transcendental idealism does not fall neatly into either of these two camps. 3.1 The two-objects interpretation “The two-objects reading is the traditional interpretation of Kant’s transcendental idealism. It goes back to the earliest review of the Critique – the so-called Göttingen review by Christian Garve (1742–1798) and J. G. Feder (1740–1821)[9] – and it was the dominant way of interpreting Kant’s

transcendental idealism during his own lifetime. It has been a live interpretive option since then and remains so today, although it no longer enjoys the dominance that it once did. “According to the two-objects interpretation, transcendental idealism is essentially a metaphysical thesis that distinguishes between two classes of objects: appearances and things in themselves. Another name for this view is the two-worlds interpretation, since it can also be expressed by saying that transcendental idealism essentially distinguishes between a world of appearances and another world of things in themselves. “Things in themselves, on this interpretation, are absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if no human beings were around to perceive them. Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real in that sense, because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers. Moreover, whenever appearances do exist, in some sense they exist in the mind of human perceivers. So appearances are mental entities or mental representations. This, coupled with the claim that we experience only appearances, makes transcendental idealism a form of phenomenalism on this interpretation, because it reduces the objects of experience to mental representations. All of our experiences – all of our perceptions of objects and events in space, even those objects and events themselves, and all non-spatial but still temporal thoughts and feelings – fall into the class of appearances that exist in the mind of human perceivers. These appearances cut us off entirely from the reality of things in themselves, which are non-spatial and non-temporal. Yet Kant’s theory, on this interpretation, nevertheless requires that things in themselves exist, because they must transmit to us the sensory data from which we construct appearances. In principle we cannot know how things in themselves affect our senses, because our experience and knowledge is limited to the world of appearances constructed by and in the mind. [MH: we cannot even legitimately say that things-in-themselves causally generate sensory data, given that causation applies to the phenomenal rather than noumenal world, and nothing can be known about the supposed interface between the two worlds.] Things in themselves are therefore a sort of theoretical posit, whose existence and role are required by the theory but are not directly verifiable. [MH: Much the same is true of the “wavefunction” in the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics ... it’s an unreal, unverifiable, noumenal abstraction – hence

incompatible with scientific empiricism, materialism and positivism – but is required by the theory, i.e. it represents an inherent contradiction of the entire scientific paradigm, yet science cannot proceed without it. No scientist ever dares to comment on this fatal contradiction.] “The main problems with the two-objects interpretation are philosophical. Most readers of Kant who have interpreted his transcendental idealism in this way have been – often very – critical of it, for reasons such as the following: “First, at best Kant is walking a fine line in claiming on the one hand that we can have no knowledge about things in themselves, but on the other hand that we know that things in themselves exist, that they affect our senses, and that they are non-spatial and non-temporal. At worst his theory depends on contradictory claims about what we can and cannot know about things in themselves. This objection was influentially articulated by Jacobi, when he complained that ‘without that presupposition [of things in themselves] I could not enter into the system, but with it I could not stay within it’ (Jacobi 1787, 336). [MH: Exactly the same can be said of Copenhagen quantum mechanics.] “Second, even if that problem is surmounted, it has seemed to many that Kant’s theory, interpreted in this way, implies a radical form of skepticism that traps each of us within the contents of our own mind and cuts us off from reality. Some versions of this objection proceed from premises that Kant rejects. One version maintains that things in themselves are real while appearances are not, and hence that on Kant’s view we cannot have experience or knowledge of reality. But Kant denies that appearances are unreal: they are just as real as things in themselves but are in a different metaphysical class. Another version claims that truth always involves a correspondence between mental representations and things in themselves, from which it would follow that on Kant’s view it is impossible for us to have true beliefs about the world. But just as Kant denies that things in themselves are the only (or privileged) reality, he also denies that correspondence with things in themselves is the only kind of truth. Empirical judgments are true just in case they correspond with their empirical objects in accordance with the a priori principles that structure all possible human experience. But the fact that Kant can appeal in this way to an objective criterion of empirical truth that is internal to our experience has not been enough to convince some critics that Kant is innocent of an

unacceptable form of skepticism, mainly because of his insistence on our irreparable ignorance about things in themselves. “Third and finally, Kant’s denial that things in themselves are spatial or temporal has struck many of his readers as incoherent. The role of things in themselves, on the two-object interpretation, is to affect our senses and thereby to provide the sensory data from which our cognitive faculties construct appearances within the framework of our a priori intuitions of space and time and a priori concepts such as causality. But if there is no space, time, change, or causation in the realm of things in themselves, then how can things in themselves affect us? Transcendental affection seems to involve a causal relation between things in themselves and our sensibility. If this is simply the way we unavoidably think about transcendental affection, because we can give positive content to this thought only by employing the concept of a cause, while it is nevertheless strictly false that things in themselves affect us causally, then it seems not only that we are ignorant of how things in themselves really affect us. It seems, rather, to be incoherent that things in themselves could affect us at all if they are not in space or time. [MH: All of the criticisms of Kant’s position are valid, and this last is the most serious of all. However, it can be fully rectified via noumenal, ontological, transcendental mathematics.] 3.2 The two-aspects interpretation “The two-aspects reading attempts to interpret Kant’s transcendental idealism in a way that enables it to be defended against at least some of these objections. On this view, transcendental idealism does not distinguish between two classes of objects but rather between two different aspects of one and the same class of objects. For this reason it is also called the oneworld interpretation, since it holds that there is only one world in Kant’s ontology, and that at least some objects in that world have two different aspects: one aspect that appears to us, and another aspect that does not appear to us. That is, appearances are aspects of the same objects that also exist in themselves. So, on this reading, appearances are not mental representations, and transcendental idealism is not a form of phenomenalism. [MH: Science typically treats appearances as things in themselves, and rejects the concept that there is anything real that does NOT appear to us.]

“There are at least two main versions of the two-aspects theory. One version treats transcendental idealism as a metaphysical theory according to which objects have two aspects in the sense that they have two sets of properties: one set of relational properties that appear to us and are spatial and temporal, and another set of intrinsic properties that do not appear to us and are not spatial or temporal (Langton 1998). [MH: Fourier ontological mathematics could be considered in these terms: it has two aspects, one dealing with the empirical relations of spacetime, the other dealing with the eternal rational necessities of the immaterial frequency domain outside spacetime.] This property-dualist interpretation faces epistemological objections similar to those faced by the two-objects interpretation, because we are in no better position to acquire knowledge about properties that do not appear to us than we are to acquire knowledge about objects that do not appear to us. [MH: We are if – and only if – these properties are mathematical, in which case they belong to mathematics’ innate and ontological system of knowledge.] Moreover, this interpretation also seems to imply that things in themselves are spatial and temporal, since appearances have spatial and temporal properties, and on this view appearances are the same objects as things in themselves. But Kant explicitly denies that space and time are properties of things in themselves. [MH: If things in themselves are Fourier frequency functions (outside space and time), their “appearances” are Fourier spacetime functions. They are the same thing represented in two mathematically different, but functionally equivalent, ways. Space and time are not properties of things in themselves (Fourier frequency functions), but are properties of “phenomena” (Fourier spacetime functions). Mathematically, there is no contradiction at all.] “A second version of the two-aspects theory departs more radically from the traditional two-objects interpretation by denying that transcendental idealism is at bottom a metaphysical theory. Instead, it interprets transcendental idealism as a fundamentally epistemological theory that distinguishes between two standpoints on the objects of experience: the human standpoint, from which objects are viewed relative to epistemic conditions that are peculiar to human cognitive faculties (namely, the a priori forms of our sensible intuition); and the standpoint of an intuitive intellect, from which the same objects could be known in themselves and independently of any epistemic conditions (Allison 2004). [MH:

Ontological, transcendental mathematics takes this kind of approach, i.e. we have two views of reality, one human, temporal, a posteriori, synthetic, inductive, materialist, empirical and scientific, the other eternal, a priori, analytic, deductive, idealist, rationalist and mathematical, the two views being linked via spacetime Fourier mathematics and non-spacetime frequency Fourier mathematics, creating a single, whole, integrated, complete and consistent theory.] Human beings cannot really take up the latter standpoint [MH: They can mathematically, and only mathematically!] but can form only an empty concept of things as they exist in themselves by abstracting from all the content of our experience and leaving only the purely formal thought of an object in general. [MH: That is, pure rational Form and no empirical Content.] So transcendental idealism, on this interpretation, is essentially the thesis that we are limited to the human standpoint, and the concept of a thing in itself plays the role of enabling us to chart the boundaries of the human standpoint by stepping beyond them in abstract (but empty) thought. [MH: But it’s NOT empty provided it’s treated via ontological, transcendental mathematics.] “One criticism of this epistemological version of the two-aspects theory is that it avoids the objections to other interpretations by attributing to Kant a more limited project than the text of the Critique warrants. There are passages that support this reading. But there are also many passages in both editions of the Critique in which Kant describes appearances as representations in the mind and in which his distinction between appearances and things in themselves is given not only epistemological but metaphysical significance. It is unclear whether all of these texts admit of a single, consistent interpretation. “Finally, since Kant invokes transcendental idealism to make sense of freedom, interpreting his thinking about freedom leads us back to disputes between the two-objects and two-aspects interpretations of transcendental idealism. On the face of it, the two-objects interpretation seems to make better sense of Kant’s view of transcendental freedom than the two-aspects interpretation. If morality requires that I am transcendentally free, then it seems that my true self, and not just an aspect of my self, must be outside of time, according to Kant’s argument. [MH: Your true, monadic self is in the immaterial frequency domain, outside space and time, and that’s exactly why you are mentally free relative to the material spacetime

world.] But applying the two-objects interpretation to freedom raises problems of its own, since it involves making a distinction between noumenal and phenomenal selves that does not arise on the two-aspects view. If only my noumenal self is free, and freedom is required for moral responsibility, then my phenomenal self is not morally responsible. But how are my noumenal and phenomenal selves related, and why is punishment inflicted on phenomenal selves? It is unclear whether and to what extent appealing to Kant’s theory of freedom can help to settle disputes about the proper interpretation of transcendental idealism, since there are serious questions about the coherence of Kant’s theory on either interpretation.” – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/

Objects Empirically real objects = phenomenal objects (material, spacetime objects). Transcendentally real objects = noumenal objects (immaterial, frequency objects).

Externality Technology gives us numerous ways to enhance our human bodies: 1) The combination of tools (blades), fire and cooking is equivalent to humans being supplemented with an external stomach. (We process food via this external stomach before we ingest and digest it in our actual stomach; the external stomach does most of the work that our own stomach would otherwise have had to do, allowing us to absorb food much more efficiently, and providing us with vastly more calories/energy.) 2) Books and computers are an external memory and brain. 3) Fires are external heat. 4) Clothes are an external skin. 5) High heels are external height. 6) Make-up is external beauty.

7) Medicine is an external immune system for fighting disease. 8) Weapons are an external aggression system. 9) Religions are an external moral code. 10)

Economics is an external barter system.

11)

Politics is an external control system.

12)

The police are an external security system.

13) Drugs and alcohol are an external reward/pleasure/dopamine system. 14) bodies. 15)

Homes are external bodies for sheltering our actual Bodies are an external expression of the internal soul.

The Mathematical Ontological Argument The ontological argument states that from the mere concept of a being containing every perfection, it’s possible to infer its actual existence ... and this being is called “God”. This argument is highly problematic and has been challenged by many philosophers, Kant above all. What, for example, does a phrase such as “containing every perfection” mean? However, what happens if we cast the ontological argument in mathematical rather than philosophical terms? What if we say that a necessary being is defined by a complete and consistent mathematical formula which contains no contradictions and expresses without any limits whatever it does express, and is always, necessarily equal to “nothing” (the ground state of the universe) ... but with this “nothing” being the net result of an infinite positive “something” perfectly matched by an infinite negative “something”. Is it possible for such a being not to exist? What could prevent its existence? Inherent contradictions can’t stop it because it has no contradictions. Neither inconsistency nor incompleteness can prevent it, because it is both consistent and complete. The requirement for an external supply of energy can’t stop it, because it is itself infinite energy (it has infinite positive and negative energy), and it’s a perfect user of energy (i.e. it’s a perpetual motion “machine” that expends no energy, hence

can never “run down”). Being “nothing”, it has no requirement for anything, and what can possibly stop “nothing”? The only thing that can exist is “nothing” because “nothing” is the only thing that has no requirements, and cannot be prevented by anything. Therefore, if “nothing” is possible, “nothing” must exist. Moreover, if one “nothing” can exist, an infinite number of “nothings” must exist, since exactly the same considerations apply to one and all. It’s meaningless and redundant to refer to “bare” nothing (i.e. nothing devoid of any content) as an existent. However what of “full” nothing (i.e. nothing that’s a balance of infinite positive something and infinite negative something)? This is exactly what existence is: “full nothing” – infinite something with no net effect (because positive perfectly balances negative, like yin and yang in Taoism). Because it’s nothing, nothing can prevent it, hence it necessarily exists since it can’t not exist given that there’s no sufficient reason to prevent its existence. Only mathematics can define existence. Existence is pure, analytic, perfect math. It’s impossible for it to be anything else since anything else would automatically generate reasons for why it can’t exist. Anything that has any reason whatsoever against its existence cannot exist. That’s the fundamental rule of existence. Anything that exists can have no objections to its existence, no barriers to its existence, no contradictions involved in its existence, and no requirements in order for it to exist. The only things that satisfy these ontological requirements are monads defined by the God Equation – the complete, consistent and perfect formula for existence, reflecting the principle of sufficient reason. This is the true ontological argument ... an entirely mathematical argument, and that’s why ontological mathematics is the one and only explanation of existence.

Infinite Beings Infinity is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Infinity exists as the flip side of nothing (that than which nothing lesser can be conceived). Monads are infinite beings. They are infinite in their energy, and they are infinite in duration (eternal). Because they require nothing, they cannot perish. Because they are net dimensionless points, they have no net parts and cannot come apart. A point can never perish.

***** When Kant critiqued the ontological argument, he essentially proved that existence is not inherent in a finite being’s concept ... but this is not the concept of “God”, and nor is it the concept of monads. Monads and “God” are infinite beings and infinite beings are necessary because their flip side is “nothing”. Nothing can prevent the existence of nothing, so nothing necessarily exists. Any number of ontological objections can be raised against “finite somethings”, but none against “infinite nothings”. Kant’s arguments are irrelevant with regard to nothing and infinity. His claims are purely finitary contentions. Kant said, “In whatever manner the understanding may have arrived at a concept, the existence of its object is never, by any process of analysis, discoverable within it; for the knowledge of the existence of the object consists precisely in the fact that the object is posited in itself, beyond the (mere) thought of it.” This is plain wrong, for the reasons we have set out above. When it comes to the concept of “full nothing”, that concept is the concept of existence itself (i.e. that which cannot prevented, hence necessarily exists). The existence of that concept’s object is, by a process of analysis, absolutely discoverable within it. The thought of it is its existence. The existence of the object consists precisely in the fact that the object is posited in itself as the (mere) thought of it! Existence, in these circumstances, is a predicate and a perfection, and can be inferred directly from the concept of “full nothing”, contrary to Kant’s claims. We can state the ontological arguments in these terms: 1) Everything you conceive as belonging clearly, distinctly, and mathematically to the nature or essence of something can be asserted as true of something. 2) You perceive clearly, distinctly, and mathematically that existence belongs to the nature or essence of a “full nothing” (monad). Therefore, existence can be stated as true of a “full nothing” (monad); that is, a “full nothing” (monad) exists. And if one monad exists, infinite monads exist (unless there’s a sufficient reason why there should be an ontological limit).

Existence is a property or quality in these circumstances, and must take part in the essence of a “full nothing” (monad). All mathematical perfections belong clearly and distinctly to the essence of a necessary mathematical being (monad). Existence is a mathematical perfection and therefore existence belongs to the essence of a necessary mathematical being (monad). Hegel said that the real is rational and the rational is real. So, things exist (are real) by virtue of being ontologically rational. A rational thing is something that is compatible with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, a thing whose existence can never be contradicted by the Principle of Sufficient Reason. All such things are purely mathematical. What is existence? It’s the rational possibility of existence combined with the absence of anything to prevent that possibility from being actualised ... with the absence of any rational obstruction. If it’s rationally possible, and it can’t be rationally prevented (i.e. it’s necessary), it must exist. If it’s not forbidden, it’s compulsory. If it can exist, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t exist, it’s necessary and it will exist. Existence is simply the actualisation of unobstructed, necessary mathematical possibility and potentiality. Kant argued that the refutation of the ontological argument automatically entails the refutation of the cosmological argument. The latter argument infers the existence of a necessary being from the general fact of existence. As Kant states it: “If anything exists, an absolutely necessary being must also exist.” Kant is wrong. He should have said, “If anything exists, existence is absolutely necessary (since existence can’t miraculously spring from nonexistence, as science claims). If life exists, life is absolutely necessary (since life can’t miraculously spring from non-life.) If mind exists, mind is absolutely necessary (since mind can’t miraculously spring from nonmind.) Putting all of these together, existence is absolutely necessary and is both living and mental, hence it’s expressed through living minds that exist necessity ... these are Leibniz’s monads.” The cosmological argument, which Leibniz called contingentia mundi, declares that every contingent being must have a cause, which, in its turn, must have another cause, and so on until this chain of causes reaches an absolute and necessary cause. This is what necessarily exists. Traditionally,

it’s called “God” but it’s actually the God Equation, expressed through infinite, necessary, eternal, living minds (i.e. monads = souls). Since the cosmological argument requires a necessary cause for the contingent causes in the causal chain, it departs from the experience of the world’s contingency. Experience cannot be used to explain necessity since necessity is outside experience (which concerns contingency only). Since Kant’s system is all about defining “knowledge” in terms of what can be experienced, it can tell us nothing about ultimate reality. You must go outside experience (contingency and temporality) to explain ultimate reality (necessity and eternity). To explain reality, you must leave behind empiricism (science) and go to rationalism (mathematics). You must leave behind physics and turn to metaphysics. Kant’s system is necessarily incompatible with the ontological, cosmological and physico-theological arguments. They are not false in themselves, only in terms of his system, which artificially forces falsehood on them, just as the scientific method artificially forces falsehood on the concept of the soul (which is inherently incompatible with the scientific method). Contingency and temporality concern the finite while necessity and eternity concern infinity, which is the other side of “nothing”. In the end, everything comes back to zero/infinity monads ... the fundamental units of existence. Ultimate reality necessarily departs from the finite and embraces the infinite.

Hegel Contra Kant Implicit in the original ontological argument is the notion that one infinite being (“God”) must exist. However, the principle of sufficient reason immediately says that if one such being is possible, infinite such beings must be possible too, implying that we can have infinite autonomous infinities (as argued by Leibniz), rather than one infinity (as argued by Spinoza). Kant’s attack on the ontological argument separates existence from infinity. When he says that existence is not a predicate, this is certainly true of finite (scientific) things, but not of infinite (mathematical) things. As soon as existence and infinity are reunited, Kant’s argument fails. Infinity/zero (monads) must exist because nothing can prevent them. They have no contingency and thus existence is one of their necessary properties.

Infinity and necessary existence always go together. Equally, finity and contingency always go together, in which case there’s no necessity of existence (i.e. existence is indeed, as Kant says, not a predicate in such circumstances). In effect, Kant redefined the ontological argument to suit his own philosophy of “knowable” limits, and thus entirely missed the point of the true ontological argument. Hegel rightly scoffed at Kant’s argument as “naive and barbarian”. It’s trivially true that being and concept are different in relation to finite, contingent beings. However, in infinite, necessary beings, being and concept are the same thing. Concept and being cannot be united in finite beings, but the proper ontological proof refers to an infinite being, which Kant doesn’t consider since he denies that it’s an object of knowledge. In other words, Kant limits reality to what can be experienced, and then treats the ontological argument in those terms, but that’s not what the ontological argument is about at all. It has no connection whatsoever with what can be experienced. It’s all about zero and infinity, which are inherently beyond experience, hence beyond Kant’s system ... but not beyond mathematical reason. If we take Kant’s version of the ontological argument seriously then it’s formally impossible to prove the existence of anything at all, or make any sense of the existence of anything at all. Existence must be a predicate of something in order for there to be anything at all. But it must be a predicate of necessary, eternal things, not contingent, temporal things. Kant said, “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.” When it comes to infinite/zero beings (monads), the object’s existence is analytically contained in the concept since necessary, eternal things can’t not exist. As Hegel said, existence is stated as a predicate of infinite beings only and not of finite beings or things (such as contingent thalers).

To understand the concept of a necessary, eternal being is to rationally know that it can’t be just a concept, but must also actually exist. Existence is a necessary part of the package, and non-existence is a contradiction, hence impossible. This true is analytically (in the manner of Leibnizian philosophy), not synthetically (in the manner of Kantian philosophy). Hegel’s philosophy is all about knowing the necessary, eternal Absolute ... via his dialectical process.

***** The ontological argument was first stated by Anselm who defined God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Well what, mathematically, can be conceived that is greater than a zero/infinity monad? Only a “God monad” ... and this is exactly what the dialectic accomplishes, the conversion of monads that are perfect in Form at the beginning of a Cosmic Age but not in Content (they have no meaningful Content whatsoever ... they are total potential and no actualisation) into Gods (perfect in Form and Content, perfect in Self-Knowing). How could we – finite, contingent beings in Kant’s system – conceive of something perfect, necessary and infinite if it didn’t actually exist? How can you conceive the inconceivable? If it’s conceivable, isn’t forbidden and isn’t contingent, it must exist.

***** Monadic mathematics (i.e. ontological, transcendental, noumenal mathematics) is necessary, eternal and must exist. There is no necessity whatsoever for science to exist, which is why science is based on infinite contingent regress, or the notion that a scientific world can literally jump out of non-existence for no reason at all, via no mechanism at all. When you have contempt for necessity, reason, eternity, analysis and logic, that’s exactly the kind of mad conclusion you can reach.

Different Selves According to Kant, the Empirical Self is completely causally determined, but the Noumenal (Transcendental) Self that underlies it is not causally determined since it’s outside space and time, hence it can produce an action

without itself being caused by anything. Thus it can be a “first beginning” of action, a first cause, an uncaused cause. In Illuminism, our mind is outside space and time (hence not driven by spacetime causality), and our body is in space and time (hence driven by spacetime causality, but also able to be directed by our “first beginning” mental decisions). Kant’s scheme is bizarre. The Empirical Self, he says, is causal, and all its actions completely determined, but the Transcendental Self is acausal, and none of its actions are determined. He said, “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.” In other words, if reason prompts you to do something, the action is noumenally generated. Since time doesn’t apply to the noumenal domain, no earlier temporal event could have been the cause of the action.

Practical Reason Reason – in its practical rather than theoretical use – provides us with imperatives. It tells us what we ought to do, i.e. it provides our proper, rational moral code. “...there are some natural causes in the possession of a faculty which is not empirical, but intelligible, inasmuch as it is not determined to action by empirical conditions, but purely and solely upon grounds brought forward by the understanding...” – Kant If we ascend from the empirical to the transcendental object, we ascend from the empirical, phenomenal world to the rational, noumenal world ... from the sensible to the intelligible. Science deals with the empirical character of things, while mathematics deals with their intelligible character (which is the transcendental cause of the former). Science is the empirical manifestation of mathematics.

“Man is a phenomenon of the sensuous world and, at the same time, therefore, a natural cause, the causality of which must be regulated by empirical laws. As such, he must possess an empirical character, like all other natural phenomena. We remark this empirical character in his actions, which reveal the presence of certain powers and faculties.” – Kant “If we consider inanimate or merely animal nature, we can discover no reason for ascribing to ourselves any other than a faculty which is determined in a purely sensuous manner. But man, to whom nature reveals herself only through sense, cognizes himself not only by his senses, but also through pure apperception; and this in actions and internal determinations, which he cannot regard as sensuous impressions. He is thus to himself, on the one hand, a phenomenon, but on the other hand, in respect of certain faculties, a purely intelligible object – intelligible, because its action cannot be ascribed to sensuous receptivity. These faculties are understanding and reason. The latter, especially, is in a peculiar manner distinct from all empirically-conditioned faculties, for it employs ideas alone in the consideration of its objects, and by means of these determines the understanding, which then proceeds to make an empirical use of its own conceptions, which, like the ideas of reason, are pure and non-empirical.” – Kant “That reason possesses the faculty of causality, or that at least we are compelled so to represent it, is evident from the imperatives, which in the sphere of the practical we impose on many of our executive powers. The words I ought express a species of necessity, and imply a connection with grounds which nature does not and cannot present to the mind of man. Understanding knows nothing in nature but that which is, or has been, or will be. It would be absurd to say that anything in nature ought to be other than it is in the relations of time in which it stands; indeed, the ought, when we consider merely the course of nature, has neither application nor meaning. The question, ‘What ought to happen in the sphere of nature?’ is just as absurd as the question, ‘What ought to be the properties of a circle?’ All that we are entitled to ask is, ‘What takes place in nature?’ or, in the latter case, ‘What are the properties of a circle?’” – Kant “But the idea of an ought or of duty indicates a possible action, the ground of which is a pure conception; while the ground of a merely natural action is, on the contrary, always a phenomenon. This action must certainly be

possible under physical conditions, if it is prescribed by the moral imperative ought; but these physical or natural conditions do not concern the determination of the will itself, they relate to its effects alone, and the consequences of the effect in the world of phenomena.” – Kant “Whatever number of motives nature may present to my will, whatever sensuous impulses – the moral ought it is beyond their power to produce.” – Kant “They may produce a volition, which, so far from being necessary, is always conditioned – a volition to which the ought enunciated by reason, sets an aim and a standard, gives permission or prohibition. Be the object what it may, purely sensuous – as pleasure, or presented by pure reason – as good, reason will not yield to grounds which have an empirical origin. Reason will not follow the order of things presented by experience, but, with perfect spontaneity, rearranges them according to ideas, with which it compels empirical conditions to agree. It declares, in the name of these ideas, certain actions to be necessary which nevertheless have not taken place and which perhaps never will take place; and yet presupposes that it possesses the faculty of causality in relation to these actions. For, in the absence of this supposition, it could not expect its ideas to produce certain effects in the world of experience.” – Kant “Now, let us stop here and admit it to be at least possible that reason does stand in a really causal relation to phenomena. In this case it must – pure reason as it is – exhibit an empirical character. For every cause supposes a rule, according to which certain phenomena follow as effects from the cause, and every rule requires uniformity in these effects; and this is the proper ground of the conception of a cause – as a faculty or power. Now this conception (of a cause) may be termed the empirical character of reason; and this character is a permanent one, while the effects produced appear, in conformity with the various conditions which accompany and partly limit them, in various forms.” – Kant “Thus the volition of every man has an empirical character, which is nothing more than the causality of his reason, in so far as its effects in the phenomenal world manifest the presence of a rule, according to which we are enabled to examine, in their several kinds and degrees, the actions of this causality and the rational grounds for these actions, and in this way to

decide upon the subjective principles of the volition. Now we learn what this empirical character is only from phenomenal effects, and from the rule of these which is presented by experience; and for this reason all the actions of man in the world of phenomena are determined by his empirical character, and the co-operative causes of nature. If, then, we could investigate all the phenomena of human volition to their lowest foundation in the mind, there would be no action which we could not anticipate with certainty, and recognize to be absolutely necessary from its preceding conditions. So far as relates to this empirical character, therefore, there can be no freedom; and it is only in the light of this character that we can consider the human will, when we confine ourselves to simple observation and, as is the case in anthropology, institute a physiological investigation of the motive causes of human actions.” – Kant “But when we consider the same actions in relation to reason – not for the purpose of explaining their origin, that is, in relation to speculative reason, but to practical reason, as the producing cause of these actions – we shall discover a rule and an order very different from those of nature and experience. For the declaration of this mental faculty may be that what has and could not but take place in the course of nature, ought not to have taken place. Sometimes, too, we discover, or believe that we discover, that the ideas of reason did actually stand in a causal relation to certain actions of man; and that these actions have taken place because they were determined, not by empirical causes, but by the act of the will upon grounds of reason.” – Kant “Now, granting that reason stands in a causal relation to phenomena; can an action of reason be called free, when we know that, sensuously, in its empirical character, it is completely determined and absolutely necessary? But this empirical character is itself determined by the intelligible character. The latter we cannot cognize; we can only indicate it by means of phenomena, which enable us to have an immediate cognition only of the empirical character. [The real morality of actions – their merit or demerit, and even that of our own conduct, is completely unknown to us. Our estimates can relate only to their empirical character. How much is the result of the action of free will, how much is to be ascribed to nature and to blameless error, or to a happy constitution of temperament (merito fortunae), no one can discover, nor, for this reason, determine with perfect

justice.] An action, then, in so far as it is to be ascribed to an intelligible cause, does not result from it in accordance with empirical laws. That is to say, not the conditions of pure reason, but only their effects in the internal sense, precede the act.” – Kant “Pure reason, as a purely intelligible faculty, is not subject to the conditions of time. [MH: Pure reason (= ontological mathematics) is eternal: it has nothing to do with space and time, as science does; it’s entirely outside the temporal, contingent order.] The causality of reason in its intelligible character does not begin to be; it does not make its appearance at a certain time, for the purpose of producing an effect. [MH: This is an excellent way of defining an uncaused cause, a first cause ... reason itself can have no cause, hence cannot be part of infinite contingent regress.] If this were not the case, the causality of reason would be subservient to the natural law of phenomena, which determines them according to time, and as a series of causes and effects in time; it would consequently cease to be freedom and become a part of nature. We are therefore justified in saying: ‘If reason stands in a causal relation to phenomena, it is a faculty which originates the sensuous condition of an empirical series of effects.’ For the condition, which resides in the reason, is non-sensuous, and therefore cannot be originated, or begin to be. And thus we find – what we could not discover in any empirical series – a condition of a successive series of events itself empirically unconditioned. For, in the present case, the condition stands out of and beyond the series of phenomena – it is intelligible, and it consequently cannot be subjected to any sensuous condition, or to any time-determination by a preceding cause. [MH: This is a vital passage since it demonstrates that reason is eternal and necessary, while the senses (and experiences) are temporal and contingent. If you subscribe to the senses (and empiricism), as scientists do, you ipso facto cannot explain eternal reality since you have cut yourself off from reason and its eternal character. Mathematics, on the other hand, stays true to the eternal nature of reason, hence, uniquely, can explain the eternal order of existence.]” – Kant “But, in another respect, the same cause belongs also to the series of phenomena. Man is himself a phenomenon. His will has an empirical character, which is the empirical cause of all his actions. There is no condition – determining man and his volition in conformity with this

character – which does not itself form part of the series of effects in nature, and is subject to their law – the law according to which an empirically undetermined cause of an event in time cannot exist. For this reason no given action can have an absolute and spontaneous origination, all actions being phenomena, and belonging to the world of experience. But it cannot be said of reason, that the state in which it determines the will is always preceded by some other state determining it. For reason is not a phenomenon, and therefore not subject to sensuous conditions; and, consequently, even in relation to its causality, the sequence or conditions of time do not influence reason, nor can the dynamical law of nature, which determines the sequence of time according to certain rules, be applied to it. [MH: When we use reason properly, we are stepping outside the temporal, contingent order of science.]” – Kant “Reason is consequently the permanent condition of all actions of the human will. Each of these is determined in the empirical character of the man, even before it has taken place. The intelligible character, of which the former is but the sensuous schema, knows no before or after; and every action, irrespective of the time-relation in which it stands with other phenomena, is the immediate effect of the intelligible character of pure reason, which, consequently, enjoys freedom of action, and is not dynamically determined either by internal or external preceding conditions. This freedom must not be described, in a merely negative manner, as independence of empirical conditions, for in this case the faculty of reason would cease to be a cause of phenomena; but it must be regarded, positively, as a faculty which can spontaneously originate a series of events. At the same time, it must not be supposed that any beginning can take place in reason; on the contrary, reason, as the unconditioned condition of all action of the will, admits of no time-conditions, although its effect does really begin in a series of phenomena – a beginning which is not, however, absolutely primal.” – Kant “I shall illustrate this regulative principle of reason by an example, from its employment in the world of experience; proved it cannot be by any amount of experience, or by any number of facts, for such arguments cannot establish the truth of transcendental propositions. Let us take a voluntary action – for example, a falsehood – by means of which a man has introduced a certain degree of confusion into the social life of humanity,

which is judged according to the motives from which it originated, and the blame of which and of the evil consequences arising from it, is imputed to the offender. We at first proceed to examine the empirical character of the offence, and for this purpose we endeavour to penetrate to the sources of that character, such as a defective education, bad company, a shameless and wicked disposition, frivolity, and want of reflection – not forgetting also the occasioning causes which prevailed at the moment of the transgression. In this the procedure is exactly the same as that pursued in the investigation of the series of causes which determine a given physical effect. Now, although we believe the action to have been determined by all these circumstances, we do not the less blame the offender. We do not blame him for his unhappy disposition, nor for the circumstances which influenced him, nay, not even for his former course of life; for we presuppose that all these considerations may be set aside, that the series of preceding conditions may be regarded as having never existed, and that the action may be considered as completely unconditioned in relation to any state preceding, just as if the agent commenced with it an entirely new series of effects. Our blame of the offender is grounded upon a law of reason, which requires us to regard this faculty as a cause, which could have and ought to have otherwise determined the behaviour of the culprit, independently of all empirical conditions. This causality of reason we do not regard as a co-operating agency, but as complete in itself. It matters not whether the sensuous impulses favoured or opposed the action of this causality, the offence is estimated according to its intelligible character – the offender is decidedly worthy of blame, the moment he utters a falsehood. It follows that we regard reason, in spite of the empirical conditions of the act, as completely free, and therefore, therefore, as in the present case, culpable. [MH: Tell it to Sam Harris ... the standard bearer of the scientific free-will deniers. We are freer the more rational we are, hence less free the more stupid and irrational we are.]” – Kant “The above judgement is complete evidence that we are accustomed to think that reason is not affected by sensuous conditions, that in it no change takes place – although its phenomena, in other words, the mode in which it appears in its effects, are subject to change – that in it no preceding state determines the following, and, consequently, that it does not form a member of the series of sensuous conditions which necessitate phenomena according to natural laws. Reason is present and the same in all human actions and at

all times; but it does not itself exist in time, and therefore does not enter upon any state in which it did not formerly exist. It is, relatively to new states or conditions, determining, but not determinable. Hence we cannot ask: ‘Why did not reason determine itself in a different manner?’ The question ought to be thus stated: ‘Why did not reason employ its power of causality to determine certain phenomena in a different manner?’ But this is a question which admits of no answer. For a different intelligible character would have exhibited a different empirical character; and, when we say that, in spite of the course which his whole former life has taken, the offender could have refrained from uttering the falsehood, this means merely that the act was subject to the power and authority- permissive or prohibitive – of reason. Now, reason is not subject in its causality to any conditions of phenomena or of time; and a difference in time may produce a difference in the relation of phenomena to each other – for these are not things and therefore not causes in themselves – but it cannot produce any difference in the relation in which the action stands to the faculty of reason. [MH: When we enter the world of reason, we leave behind time and space and embrace the eternal order ... of the Gods!]” – Kant “Thus, then, in our investigation into free actions and the causal power which produced them, we arrive at an intelligible cause, beyond which, however, we cannot go; although we can recognize that it is free, that is, independent of all sensuous conditions, and that, in this way, it may be the sensuously unconditioned condition of phenomena. But for what reason the intelligible character generates such and such phenomena and exhibits such and such an empirical character under certain circumstances, it is beyond the power of our reason to decide. The question is as much above the power and the sphere of reason as the following would be: ‘Why does the transcendental object of our external sensuous intuition allow of no other form than that of intuition in space?’ But the problem, which we were called upon to solve, does not require us to entertain any such questions. The problem was merely this – whether freedom and natural necessity can exist without opposition in the same action. To this question we have given a sufficient answer; for we have shown that, as the former stands in a relation to a different kind of condition from those of the latter, the law of the one does not affect the law of the other and that, consequently, both can exist together in independence of and without interference with each other.” – Kant

“The reader must be careful to remark that my intention in the above remarks has not been to prove the actual existence of freedom, as a faculty in which resides the cause of certain sensuous phenomena. For, not to mention that such an argument would not have a transcendental character, nor have been limited to the discussion of pure conceptions – all attempts at inferring from experience what cannot be cogitated in accordance with its laws, must ever be unsuccessful. Nay, more, I have not even aimed at demonstrating the possibility of freedom; for this too would have been a vain endeavour, inasmuch as it is beyond the power of the mind to cognize the possibility of a reality or of a causal power by the aid of mere a priori conceptions. Freedom has been considered in the foregoing remarks only as a transcendental idea, by means of which reason aims at originating a series of conditions in the world of phenomena with the help of that which is sensuously unconditioned, involving itself, however, in an antinomy with the laws which itself prescribes for the conduct of the understanding. That this antinomy is based upon a mere illusion, and that nature and freedom are at least not opposed – this was the only thing in our power to prove, and the question which it was our task to solve.” – Kant

The Experience Racket Have you noticed that old has-beens always refer to their “experience” and never to their reason, intelligence, understanding and knowledge? Funny, that. Einstein had done his best work by the age of 26 (1905 was his glory year when he wrote his four Annus Mirabilis papers). By the time he was an “experienced” veteran, he had stopped contributing to cutting-edge science, and was regarded by his colleagues as a silly, outdated old dinosaur. Einstein said, “The only source of knowledge is experience.” Hmmm, his extra experience certainly didn’t help his scientific knowledge, which is a bit awkward when you’re a scientist! Oscar Wilde said, “Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.” Well, then, “Reason is what we call our correct answers.” A young, smart person can always outgun an old stupid person with plenty of “experience”. Young people refusing to listen to old bores has always been the formula for human innovation and progress. The old aren’t on the front line of human advancement. In fact, they are usually the obstacles in the way. Planck said that science goes forward one funeral at a

time! The “experienced” ones have to perish before originality stands a chance. Experience is valuable only when it’s allied to the highest intelligence. Leibniz was doing his best work just before his death. When experience is allied to stupidity – as is normally the case – it leads to all of the ills of the human race.

***** Voltaire said, “Is there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of others?” So, of what value is the experience of others to you? Albert Camus said, “You cannot create experience. You must undergo it.” This means that there’s no point in listening to the experience of others. Only when it happens to you does it mean anything to you. Otherwise, it’s a useless abstraction. Kant said, “Experience without theory is blind.” Don’t listen to the blind. If they’re not people of intelligence, reason, understanding and knowledge, ignore them. Experienced old fools have had far too much say in our world.

***** “As Hobbes had seen more clearly than most, belief in a god not only limited the human imagination and the human capacity for reason, and drove humans to commit unmentionable acts in his name; it also gave unlimited power to a priestly caste.” – Anthony Pagden, The Enlightenment: And Why it Still Matters The sinister priests, “community elders”, and old trolls on Facebook pages are always those who tell you that you must bow to their experience. Fuck that! These are the people that reason says we must destroy if we wish to be free, if we wish to become what we truly are.

Two Types of Reason Mind reflects “frequency reason”. Matter reflects “spacetime” reason. Mind has will; matter does not. Psychology studies mind. Science studies matter. What is required is an expanded science that combines psychology and scientific materialism ... this new science is scientific idealism predicated on the ontological mathematics of monads (autonomous minds).

The Chosen People? “We are Jews, a people created by God for a historical mission and blessed by him. ... It has and always has been Israel’s task to sustain the basic pillars of the world.” – Rabbi Regina Jonas (the world’s first ordained female rabbi) There is no Creator, no Jewish God, and the Jews have no historical mission whatsoever. The pillars of the world are mathematical. There will come a time when the word “Jew” refers to an extinct ethnic group of narcissistic human beings ... but mathematics will go on exactly as before. When the last Jew has gone from this world, the world will not collapse. The Jews are the most deluded people in history, humanity’s maddest members. They fantasised their God into existence and worshipped him as though he were real. There is no “God”. There is a God Equation.

Transcendental Realism, Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism By Henry E. Allison, University of California at Davis “The debate regarding the interpretation of Kant’s idealism is usually seen as turning on the best way to understand his transcendental distinction between appearances and things in themselves: that it marks either a contrast between two types of thing (the ‘two-object’ or ‘two-world’ view) or one between two sides or aspects of ordinary empirical objects (the ‘twoaspect’ view). But, even though I have long been associated with the latter camp, I have also thought for many years that this is not the most helpful way to frame the issue. The problem lies in an ambiguity inherent in the two-aspect view. It can be understood either metaphysically, as a thesis about the kinds of properties attributable to empirical objects, that is, as a form of property dualism in which these objects are assigned both phenomenal and noumenal properties, or methodologically, as a contrast between two ways in which such objects can be considered in a philosophical reflection on the conditions of their cognition. Accordingly, I take the fundamental question to be whether transcendental idealism is to be understood in the latter way or as a form of metaphysical dualism (whether

as a thing or a property dualism being a matter of relative indifference). And I have further thought that the best way of addressing that question is through a consideration of the view which Kant opposes to transcendental idealism, namely, transcendental realism. If this realism is identified with a particular metaphysical doctrine then transcendental idealism must be as well; but if, as I maintain, transcendental realism cannot be so understood, then neither can Kant’s idealism.”

***** “All ‘empirical realism’ means for Kant is that objects (in the Kantian sense, i.e., as opposed to things) appear in space. However, here we must recall that for Kant, space is not something that belongs to things-inthemselves, but rather issues from mind as the form of intuition. Whether or not things-in-themselves are spatial is, for Kant, something we can never know.”

Space and Time Twice? “A transcendental realist mistakenly considers space, time, and objects alike, to be real in themselves, quite independently from the human perception of them. This is the case for dogmatism (Leibniz) and empiricism (Locke) alike. Both must, according to Kant, consider appearances – the spatial-temporal objects of everyday experience – as imperfect shadows of a transcendent reality. Indeed, if one considers that objects exist in space and time in themselves, one is always left to wonder whether his or her ideas really correspond to the objects. The dogmatist will be forced to make arbitrary decisions and the empiricist will end up in skepticism: Like Hume, he will come to doubt every rational inference of the mind.” – http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Transcendental_idealism#Tran scendental_idealism_vs._transcendental_realism

The Thing and the Object For Kant, there is a distinction between the thing and the object. We have access to the object – the thing with an appearance added to it via the

mind’s conceptual apparatus for doing exactly that – but never to the thing in itself (because we can never encounter it without the appearance we have superimposed over it). We can’t cognize things, only objects. We can’t experience things, only objects. An object comprises a thing plus the mental system used to interpret it. We cannot encounter a thing without our inbuilt interpretation of it. A knowable experience, for Kant, must involve this interpretation. But this is emphatically not knowledge of the thing. We have no knowledge at all of the thing. Kant is simply misusing the word “knowledge”. We have knowledge of our construct, but real knowledge concerns reality, not our construct (our model, our simulation, our simulacrum, our projection) of reality. If we can’t encounter reality in itself, we can’t know reality, and if we can’t know reality, how can anyone claim that we have any knowledge? This in fact is exactly the problem with science. If you study science, you gain knowledge of the Meta Paradigm of science, its philosophy, its model, it’s mode of interpretation ... but that’s all. Knowledge of a system is not knowledge of reality. You could gain complete knowledge of Judaism, Christianity or Islam and not thereby know a single thing about reality. Here’s the whole problem with “knowledge” ... what is it knowledge of? There are countless interpretations of reality of which you can gain as much “knowledge” as you like, but they remain nothing but interpretations. How do you know which one is right? This was exactly the issue that Plato pondered, and he came to a simple and obvious conclusion, namely, that the Truth must be absolute, immutable, infallible and eternal, and outside all particular, relative viewpoints, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses, beliefs and interpretations. Only such Truths can constitute knowledge in any real and proper sense, i.e. knowledge of reality itself. Kant’s system is just another interpretation. The extremely curious thing about his system is that he openly says that reality-in-itself cannot be known. In other words, he denies that Platonic knowledge is possible. That makes him a skeptic, not unlike Hume. The difference between Kant and Hume is that whereas Hume simply acknowledges that we can’t have any Platonic knowledge and leaves it at that, Kant wants to show that we can have systematic “knowledge” of our interpretation of reality, while reality in itself remains forever off-limits. But knowledge of an interpretation, no matter how thorough, simply isn’t knowledge. It’s just a very elaborate opinion ... exactly like science.

Kant has merely relabelled his philosophical opinion “knowledge”, but that’s exactly what it isn’t ... as even he admits by confessing that noumenal reality – reality in itself – is forever unknowable. At least Kant knew his “knowledge” was a sophisticated fraud. Science, on the other hand, believes its way of interpreting reality is reality! Science is too philosophically illiterate to realise that all it has done is what Kant did ... label an opinion as knowledge, but without adding Kant’s rider that true reality can’t be known via such interpretive systems. Nothing has changed since Plato’s day ... what means do you have for establishing that your interpretation of reality is anything more than an opinion? Only mathematics qualifies as anything other than opinion. That’s because, uniquely, mathematics is, in ontological terms, a system of complete and consistent analytic tautology. By definition, it can’t be wrong or false. It’s the only conceivable rational basis for rational existence, for a rational universe. Science believes it’s more than an opinion because it matches quasimathematical guesses to observations of the observable world. It neglects to consider that reality in itself is unobservable, hence science can say nothing about it. Kant said that synthetic a priori judgments must exist to make sense of our experiences. Even if this were true, he had no right to refer to this as “knowledge”. Making sense of our experiences in an artificial way does not tell us what reality is. Science makes sense of our observations according to its schema, but, again, this isn’t telling us what reality is. It’s scandalous that so many scientists think it is.

Reason and Evolution The human sense organs have evolved over countless years for the purpose of allowing us to survive and reproduce. They have not evolved in any way to reveal Truth to us. Science, bizarrely, regards our senses as organs of Truth, and is predicated on the senses showing us reality. Science regards anything that is not, at least in principle, amenable to sensory detection as non-existent. We only have one genuine organ of Truth – our reason – but even this organ has been subjected to evolution. Most people use their reason in the

context of surviving and reproducing. They don’t use it to pursue the Truth. That’s why there are so few mathematicians and philosophers in the world. The thing about True Reason is that it infallibly reflects eternal necessity. It can never be wrong. Our human reason is contingent, temporal and evolutionary, just like our senses (and in fact can be considered as a kind of “sixth sense”). However, unlike them, reason has an endpoint, a final destination it can reach ... Absolute Reason = Truth. The more rational we are, the better we are at reasoning, and the closer we are to ultimate reality, to Absolute Truth! Rational people are truthful people. All the rest are liars. They are lying to themselves and others all the time. Mainstream religion is a total lie, and science would be total lie too, were it not for its use of mathematics, which forces it to have some relationship with the Truth (although scientists themselves have not worked this out).

Accidents Scientists are always talking about cosmic “accidents”. What on earth is an “accident” in a rational, intelligible universe? Accidents, of which scientists are so weirdly fond, are the opposite of rationalism and intelligibility. They are random noise, chance events devoid of formal cause and explanation. Scientists don’t want an answer to existence. What they want to say, and have said, is that everything that can happen does happen. But that’s not an explanation of anything at all. That’s just an unexplained statement, a claim without evidence or proof. Even worse, it fails to realise that even the very notion of what is possible, and what possibility is, needs an explanation, a cause, a sufficient reason. If we don’t know why certain things are impossible, how would we be able to assert what is possible? We need a rational, intelligible definition of possibility, but this is exactly what science refuses to provide, which is why it’s predicated on inexplicable, miraculous chance and accident. No intellectual would ever find science appealing. It’s for second-rate minds that refuse to engage with deep questions and deep explanations. Scientists are technicians who think about “how”. They are never thinkers who ask “why?”

How Can We Know?

It’s not a question of how we can know facts about the world, but, rather, of how can we relate to the world at all. We can relate to the world only if we are the world! ... made of exactly the same stuff as the world. (As above, so below.) Otherwise, we would be in a situation of Cartesian substance dualism, with its unbridgeable interaction problem. Only one substance can provide a complete, consistent, perfect and eternal platform for existence ... mathematics!

Thought and Knowledge Thought, Kant says, should not be conflated with knowledge. We can think about things without having any knowledge of those things: we can think the thing as it is in itself, but cannot know it. We can form for ourselves a concept of it, but since no intuition corresponds to this concept, it’s merely an empty thought (but still a thought!).

***** “But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. For it may well be that even our empirical knowledge is made up of what we receive through impressions and of what our own faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as the occasion) supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it. This, then, is a question which at least calls for closer examination, and does not allow of any off-hand answer: -whether there is any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori, and distinguished from the empirical, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.” – Kant

***** “I endorse a ‘transcendental realism’ according to which science knows the real but the nature of this ‘real’ is not strictly speaking objectifiable. The basic idea is that we know the real through objects, but that the real itself is not an object.” – Ray Brassier, Interview With Ray Brassier – Against an Aesthetics of Noise

Transcendental Realism versus Empirical Realism Empirical realism demands that all valid statements must refer to observable properties and objects: reality is that which is given in experience. This is the scientific worldview. Transcendental realism asserts that all valid statements must refer to unobservable, mathematical properties and objects (noumenal, rational, hidden variables) and the existence of ontological mechanisms that are not directly visible (above all causation, and the conveyance of all information in the universe by invisible mathematical sinusoidal waves), all of which would not be admissible to the empirical realist. This is the transcendental, ontological mathematical worldview. It obeys reason and intellect, whereas the scientific view obeys the irrational and unintelligible senses. (Science works purely because it illegitimately employs rationalist mathematics to bolster its otherwise alchemical, mystical, irrational empiricism.) Transcendental realism is interested in discovering laws that express unseen mechanisms. Hume claimed that causal relations are contingent, whereas transcendental realism says they are necessary. Hume conceived a world of mere “regularities”, which were psychological in origin, and which, in his way of thinking, could emphatically never be proved, and never form any authentic system of “knowledge”. The fact that we expect something to happen in a certain way because it did in the past does not mean that it will in the future. Because he has effectively outlawed any unseen binding laws as “nonempirical”, Hume’s world possesses nothing to constrain it. As Kant realised, you can escape Hume’s skepticism only by positing unseen laws that make everything work in the way we observe them to work. These laws are necessarily non-empirical, hence contradict Hume’s extreme empiricism. Science claims to be empiricist – to be based on a method of observation of the world we experience – yet it uses mathematics to construct scientific laws that are inherently unobservable, so how can they be consistent with a science predicated on empiricism? It doesn’t make any sense. Science, it can never be stressed enough, is not an intellectual, rational ontology and epistemology providing us with absolute knowledge of reality, but merely a set of ad hoc and heuristic techniques to solve practical

problems that we encounter in the observable world. Its pragmatism is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness. Science keeps forgetting that it’s nothing more than a technique and method with no logical basis. In fact, it blatantly violates logic by combing rationalism and empiricism without making any attempt to account for how this union – this unholy alliance – can be rationally defended given its inherent contradictory nature. Science keeps slipping into the self-delusion that it’s a coherent ontology and epistemology when it’s nothing of the kind. Science offers no authentic knowledge at all. What it offers are ways and means to manipulate the observable world, but it can’t explain what that world is and what underlies and causes that world. Science, especially its cosmological branch, keeps straying into outright philosophy and metaphysics – where it has absolutely no right to be. Scientists are so philosophically illiterate that they imagine that their empirical method can yield rational truths about existence. This delusion flows from their use of mathematics – the quintessential rational, lawful subject. Scientists don’t realise that every time they refer to quasimathematical scientific equations, formulae and laws, they are blatantly contradicting their own empiricism since none of these laws can ever be observed, experienced or experimentally detected. They are all inferences of exactly the kind that Hume, the great empiricist, dismissed out of hand. Science invalidly moves from observed Humean “regularities” to causal laws via mathematical inference. It’s a stratagem that works purely because the world is in fact mathematical, so if you use mathematics and force it to comply with observations on the empirical world, you are going to get something that succeeds in practical terms, but which doesn’t tell you anything about ontology and epistemology because you have made no attempt whatsoever to explain what mathematics actually is ... so how can you logically deploy it to explain a reality that you insist is not mathematical? Science, in order to become a formal ontology and epistemology, must be underpinned by non-empirical, transcendental, ontological, noumenal mathematics. A world of Humean empirical regularities must be grounded in nonempirical laws if we are to make sense of the world. Kant realised this, and he proposed his world of the synthetic a priori to cure Hume’s skeptical system. However, there’s no such thing as the synthetic a priori. What is

needed is in fact the analytic a priori system of mathematics. Only mathematics can allow empirical “regularities” to be explained rationally. Science uses mathematics, but doesn’t know why (beyond the practical fact that it’s stunningly successful), and can’t explain its role and validity within an empirical subject. Being pragmatic and extremely hostile to philosophy (despite the fact that it is a philosophy!), science never bothers to examine its own assumptions, Meta Paradigm, philosophy and validity. It refers all questions of its validity to its empirical method, not to any ontology or epistemology, i.e. it says that it is reflecting truth and reality if its laws match what is observed. The trouble is that its laws are always changing in the light of new experiments, and have no necessary, analytic basis. Science is always in need of experimental verification, and always susceptible to experimental falsification, so it never takes on the character of absolute Truth and Knowledge. It’s always a provisional “truth”, but that’s not truth at all. Truth is that which is eternally, unarguably, infallibly, absolutely and Platonically true ... exactly what science can never deliver! The tragedy is that scientists are so dumb they think that science is in the Truth game. There’s all the difference in the world between a Humean system of observed regularities underpinned by nothing, and a Kantian system of observed regularities underpinned by unseen laws, which convert them from mere regularities (which we can’t trust) into causal phenomena that we can trust. Science – which is a philosophy that refuses to acknowledge that it’s a philosophy – simply doesn’t get into the logic, ontology, epistemology and rational consistency of its claims. It’s a ferociously antiintellectual, instrumental subject that, like capitalism, cares only about results and not about Truth. No one in search of Truth would ever turn to science!

***** Kant argued that transcendental idealism (not transcendental realism) was compatible with empirical realism (science). Transcendental realism isn’t compatible with empirical realism, but is compatible with empirical idealism. The transcendental idealist, Kant insists, can afford to be a realist on the empirical level. When saying that external things are “real,” he means

“real” within the necessary conditions of the human faculties of thought and intuition. For a transcendental realist, the reality lies in what we don’t observe rather than what we do observe, and the empirical world is always a mental idea that we know for a fact has no independent reality. This is true even in Kant’s system. However, Kant is committed to saying that we can’t “know” the noumenal, transcendental world, and, in this sense, it’s not real ... whereas the empirical world, as something “knowable”, is ipso facto real. With transcendental realism, we can know the noumenal, transcendental world, and we can also know the empirical world constructed from it (via ontological mathematics).

Transcendental Idealism “[E]verything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations, which in the way in which they are represented to us, as extended beings, or as series of changes, have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts. This doctrine I entitle transcendental idealism.” – Kant For Kant, empirical science can be trusted (if it’s properly conducted) because it recognizes that the laws of the mind apply to our sensory perceptions via the a priori mental forms of intuition (time and space). Modern science does not and cannot make any claims about what things ultimately are. It does not deal with their metaphysical significance, and, in fact, it denies – without rational justification – the existence of anything that does not correspond to any sensory perception (e.g. “God”, the soul, the afterlife and eternal life). Kant says that we can’t know what lies beyond the science, but something definitely exists beyond it. Science says that we can ignore anything beyond science, which amounts to denying that anything exists outside science. Kant believed that his transcendental idealism put all illusory assumptions firmly in their place. He insisted that anything we can “know” about things is known only through the mind’s a priori laws applied to external things capable of causing sensory impressions in us. Anything that does not conform to that, anything that transcends it, cannot be known in

Kantian terms. Given this framework, philosophers (and scientists) are free to apply these laws for practical purposes, while remaining agnostic about the ultimate nature of existence, and also leaving room for valid religious faith. Given the assault of science on religion, Kant probably did the best possible job in the circumstances of defending the Christian faith, of establishing a tenable space for it where science couldn’t get at it to maul it. However, the notion that we can’t know a rational universe through the exercise of reason is simply absurd. So, how can rational reality be rendered fully knowable through reason? ... only through transcendental, ontological mathematics: a complete and consistent rational system. Kant took the side of the senses against the intellect and said that intellect was valid only when it limited itself to sensory matters (this is exactly the same stance that science takes). Illuminism takes the side of the intellect against the senses and says that intellect is valid only when it limits itself to intellectual matters, i.e. mathematical matters. Our knowledge goes wrong whenever we try to interpret sensory Content, and we start inventing all sorts of ridiculous theories to account for what’s going on. We have to understand that we live in a world of both rational Form and empirical Content. Knowledge applies strictly to Form, while Content is all about opinion, belief, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. None of that constitutes “knowledge”. We live in a universe of rational information carriers (mathematical sinusoids), but what we experience is the information they carry (the Content, not the Form). No epistemology can be correct unless it’s predicated on the right ontology. Kant’s ontology was entirely wrong since he took a scientific rather than mathematical approach to knowledge. He put empiricism above rationalism. In effect, he said that everything non-empirical was mystical and unknowable. Science went even further and said everything nonempirical didn’t exist at all. Illuminism goes the opposite way and says that only the non-empirical is knowable, while the empirical is purely interpretive and speculative. When it comes to empiricism, we agree entirely with Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Genuine facts apply only to rationalism. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, and all such facts are analytic eternal truths of reason.

The Empirical Illusion Kant, like science, was obsessed with the senses, and not with reason. Science, bizarrely, regards itself as a rational subject, but it is in fact a sensory subject that will always contradict rationalism whenever rationalism seems inconsistent with empiricism. You can’t win a Nobel Prize in science unless there’s experimental evidence for your theory. In other words, sensory, experimental arguments are regarded as defining science, not rational arguments that rely on analytic proof rather than sensory evidence. The irony is that science’s longed-for “final theory of everything” won’t be part of science at all! It will be impossible to experimentally verify it in all of its details, hence will be an unverifiable inference from an inadequate set of experiments. At all times, it will be liable to falsification, hence will never be “final” but merely provisional. Isn’t it staggering that not a single scientist on earth actually understands this? Just as ultimate reality was unknowable for Kant, so it will be permanently unknowable for science ... unless science turns into transcendental, ontological mathematics = scientific idealism.

The Third Eye “The third eye (also known as the inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept referring to a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight.” – Wikipedia If we refer to the third eye (or inner eye) as intuition, and we say that it has direct access to frequency data rather than spacetime data, then we can revolutionize Kant’s philosophy. Kant believed that the senses brought the mind raw data that was converted into spacetime information and then acted upon by the categories of the understanding, designed to interpret spacetime experiences. Invoking the third eye, we can entirely bypass this route. The third eye brings frequency data (non-spacetime data) into the mind, and it’s then acted upon by pure reason (rather than the categories of understanding), giving us direct access to reality in itself. The route Kant describes gives us scientific knowledge. The third eye route gives us transcendental, ontological mathematical knowledge.

The sensory eyes are underpinned by the intuitive third eye; spacetime is underpinned by frequency, science is underpinned by mathematics, sensory “understanding” is underpinned by pure reason.

The Kantian Paradox Kant performs one of the most audacious manoeuvres in the history of philosophy: he affirms the existence of something – noumenal reality ... reality in itself – which he then affirms to be unknowable (!). Had Leibniz been alive, he would have laughed his head off at this supreme con trick. How can you know that something exists if you then assert that it’s unknowable? This is a blatant contradiction, hence blatantly false. Apart from Schopenhauer, no one followed Kant, and even Schopenhauer radically altered Kant’s system. Kant was important for raising a plethora of new ways of thinking about philosophical issues, but he certainly wasn’t right in his central claims. Had he been born in the twentieth century, he would have seen that almost of his ideas have been repudiated by non-Newtonian science, by new mathematics, and by the philosophy that came after him.

The Unconditioned Absolute Kant claimed that people’s reason leads them to assume the existence of three unconditioned absolutes: God, the soul, and the total world. Schopenhauer, opposing this view, pointed out that Abrahamists in fact consider the soul and the total world to be conditioned by God, and so, for them, “God” is the sole unconditioned absolute. As for pantheists, “God” and the world are one and the same. As for Buddhists, they reject the existence of the individual soul. In Illuminism, monads are the sole unconditioned absolute, and they make both the total world and God (or, more accurately, “Gods” since each soul can be transformed into a God). Gods (plural), and the world, come purely from monads. When all religious, philosophical and scientific notions are swept aside, all that remains is transcendental, ontological mathematics: reality in itself, reality without any phenomenal appearance ... reality as pure, perfect, unerring ontological reason.

*****

For Kant, metaphysics is the attempt to gain knowledge of the unconditioned through pure reason. He argued that if reason exceeds what he regarded as its proper limits by attempting to go beyond the bounds of experience to know the unconditioned, it necessarily lapses into various fallacies that he labelled “paralogisms”, “amphibolies” and “antinomies”. He thus declared that metaphysics, understood as the attempt to know the unconditioned through pure reason, is impossible. He was wrong. What he was saying in effect was that reason is incomplete and/or inconsistent, and is useful only when conditioned by sensory experiences. In fact, true metaphysics is simply transcendental, ontological mathematics, which is a complete and consistent system that cannot under any circumstances generate contradictions, fallacies, paradoxes, paralogisms, amphibolies and antinomies. Pure reason is absolutely, infallibly correct ... provided it is carried out exclusively with regard to transcendental, ontological mathematics. When it is, the whole basis of Kant’s philosophy is seen to be mathematically and metaphysically false.

***** Kant understood the unconditioned as whatever completes a series of conditions, i.e. the final cause, the last unit of analysis, the ultimate subject of predication. It is of course monadic mathematics that corresponds to the unconditioned. “...conceptions of pure reason (transcendental ideas) ... [have to do] with the unconditional synthetical unity of all conditions. It follows that all transcendental ideas arrange themselves in three classes, the first of which contains the absolute (unconditioned) unity of the thinking subject, the second the absolute unity of the series of the conditions of a phenomenon, the third the absolute unity of the condition of all objects of thought in general. “The thinking subject is the object-matter of Psychology; the sum total of all phenomena (the world) is the object-matter of Cosmology; and the thing which contains the highest condition of the possibility of all that is cogitable (the being of all beings) is the object-matter of all Theology. Thus pure reason presents us with the idea of a transcendental doctrine of the soul (psychologia rationalis), of a transcendental science of the world

(cosmologia rationalis), and finally of a transcendental doctrine of God (theologia transcendentalis). Understanding cannot originate even the outline of any of these sciences, even when connected with the highest logical use of reason, that is, all cogitable syllogisms – for the purpose of proceeding from one object (phenomenon) to all others, even to the utmost limits of the empirical synthesis. They are, on the contrary, pure and genuine products, or problems, of pure reason.” – Kant As ever, Kant’s own reason and, indeed, imagination, fails him. What he’s actually talking about is ontological mathematics. The thinking subject is the mathematical, uncreated monadic soul (not the created nonmathematical soul of Abrahamism), the “world” is the product of the Monadic Collective (hence is a mathematical construct), and the “being of all beings” isn’t a being at all, but, rather, the God Equation that defines all monads, none of which is special in relation to the others (i.e. there is no such thing as a “God Monad”).

Amphiboly Amphiboly: a sentence or phrase that can be interpreted in more than one way; an ambiguous or equivocal statement; a confusion arising from ambiguous sentence structure. “For Kant the ‘amphiboly of the concepts of reflection’ occurs when either the empirical use of the understanding is confused with the transcendental, or when a concept of reflection properly applicable to either sensibility or the understanding is improperly applied to the other or to both terms.” – Blackwell Reference Online Ironically, Kant’s own work is full of amphibolies, flowing from his failure to define the ontology of mathematics.

Knowability Knowability is a zero-sum game. Either the world of noumena is knowable, or the world of phenomena is knowable. Kant claimed that the noumenal world of reality in itself is unknowable, but the world derived from it is “knowable” because we construct it to be so. In fact, it’s the noumenal world of Form – defined by ontological mathematics – that’s knowable in any true meaning of the word. We can never “know” the phenomenal world

because it’s a world of Content ... of empiricism, contingency, sensation, emotion, intuition, opinion, belief, conjecture, hypothesis and interpretation. For sure, we can and do experience this world, but experience is exactly that – experience. It’s not knowledge, and has nothing to do with knowledge. A collection of all conceivable empirical facts still wouldn’t shed a single light on what reality is ... because reality is rational, not empirical, intelligible, not sensible. You can’t get from Content to Form, from truths of fact to truths of reason, from empiricism to rationalism. It’s a category error to think you can. They will always remain two opposite sides of the coin. The accumulation of facts about the observed world is NOT the accumulation of knowledge about reality in itself ... as science shows with its endless hypotheses, theories, speculations, interpretations and reinterpretations, its falsification and verification principles (which have no conceivable connection with eternal, absolute, infallible, indisputable, immutable, perfect, necessary, analytic truths of reason). Kant got so many things wrong because he didn’t understand mathematics well enough. Had he done so, he would have seen that nearly all of his criticisms of reason are a misguided and fallacious attack on mathematics, which can never be wrong. Mathematics has nothing to do with the senses and empiricism that Kant chose to revere so much. He did so because he was under the spell of Newtonian science, which is now known to be ontologically false, and wrong scientifically as soon as you leave behind the normal conditions that pertain on earth. Kant was a prisoner of his time, particularly regarding matter. He couldn’t conceive that the universe was grounded in analytic mathematics rather than speculative “matter”, whose legitimacy Berkeley had already decisively and fatally destroyed. Modern philosophers are just as mathematically illiterate as Kant and too bamboozled by science to know what they’re talking about, while scientists are philosophically illiterate and thus clueless about how to think rigorously about their subject (if they did, they would see that it logically must be converted into transcendental, ontological mathematics ... into scientific idealism based on the mind rather than matter).

The Triad

“Kant explains that there are three fundamental ideas of metaphysics corresponding to three basic concepts of the unconditioned: God, freedom and immortality. ...” – Frederick Beiser “...it is obvious that there exists among the transcendental ideas a certain connection and unity, and that pure reason, by means of them, collects all its cognitions into one system. From the cognition of self to the cognition of the world, and through these to the supreme being, the progression is so natural, that it seems to resemble the logical march of reason from the premises to the conclusion. [The science of Metaphysics has for the proper object of its inquiries only three grand ideas: GOD, FREEDOM, and IMMORTALITY, and it aims at showing, that the second conception, conjoined with the first, must lead to the third, as a necessary conclusion. All the other subjects with which it occupies itself, are merely means for the attainment and realization of these ideas. It does not require these ideas for the construction of a science of nature, but, on the contrary, for the purpose of passing beyond the sphere of nature. A complete insight into and comprehension of them would render Theology, Ethics, and, through the conjunction of both, Religion, solely dependent on the speculative faculty of reason. In a systematic representation of these ideas the above-mentioned arrangement – the synthetical one – would be the most suitable; but in the investigation which must necessarily precede it, the analytical, which reverses this arrangement, would be better adapted to our purpose, as in it we should proceed from that which experience immediately presents to us – psychology, to cosmology, and thence to theology.]” – Kant Metaphysics is just ontological mathematics and it has the following grand ideas: 1) The God Equation (= the ontological principle of sufficient reason), 2) the monads defined by the God Equation, 3) the freedom of monads, 4) the immortality of monads, 5) the unconscious and conscious of monads, 6) the evolution of monads, 7) the teleology of monads, 8) the “material” world constructed from the Monadic Collective, 9) the evolution and ultimate fate of this world, 10) the nature of time, space, and frequency and their mathematical relations, 11) the problem of mind-matter interaction, 12) the nature of “death”, 13) the nature of reincarnation, 14) the end of the universe, and 15) the birth of the next universe. There is no shortage of grand metaphysical issues. And they’re all mathematical.

The Paralogisms Paralogism: a fallacious argument, an item of illogical or fallacious reasoning that appears superficially logical or is assumed to be logical. “The negative part of the Critique, which contains the criticism of pure reason promised in the title of the book, is the Transcendental Dialectic, whose task is to expose ‘transcendental illusion’ fostered by human reason. The illusion is natural and inevitable, according to Kant. It culminates in conflicts within reason itself; hence the title ‘dialectic.’ “Reason is the source of transcendent principles. A principle is transcendent when it explicitly applies to objects which cannot be experienced, as opposed to immanent principles (those of the analytic), which are explicitly limited to empirical objects. These principles are concocted by reason in its effort to unify the principles of the understanding by completing them. They employ Ideas, concepts whose intended objects are, as it were, free-standing, and which provide a foundation for the objects of experience. The idea of the soul is that of the seat of all our representations; that of the world is the idea of the totality of the universe; that of God is the idea of the ground of the possibility of all objects in general. Corresponding to these three ideas are three sections of the Dialectic: the Paralogisms, the Antinomy, and the Ideal, respectively. “The three-fold division corresponds exactly to the three objects of Wolffian ‘special metaphysics.’ The basis of Wolff’s division was this. Theology deals with the necessary being (God), while the other two deal with contingent beings. Psychology’s object is the soul, which is a special kind of contingent being. Cosmology concerns the world, which is the aggregation of all contingent beings which exist. Kant’s systematization of the three areas of special metaphysics follows a three-fold division of types of syllogism in Aristotelian logic. The categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms correspond to the doctrines of the soul, the world and God, respectively. This division is universally condemned as being so artificial as to be useless. “The Idea of the soul is that of a single simple substance in commerce with a body. Not surprisingly, the four predicates determining the Idea of the soul are said to correspond to the four types of category: quantity, quality, relation and modality, respectively. In the first edition, this yields a division of the Paralogisms into four. In the second edition, Kant dropped

the soul/body connection in favour of a generic description of the soul as that which thinks. Thus the soul is that which thinks, and that which thinks is a single, simple substance. Since we have dealt with the content of the first edition Fourth Paralogism above, we will follow the lines of the second edition treatment of the Paralogisms. “The doctrine of the soul begins with the fundamental datum that I think. As Kant had emphasized in the Analytic, the judgment that I think must at least be possible in order for me to make any judgment at all. It is the ‘vehicle’ of all representations. Kant adds in the Paralogism that ‘I think’ is an existential judgment, that I exist thinking. So there is something which thinks. But what is this something? There are three ways in which it might be represented: 1) as the object of inner intuition, 2) as the subject of judgments, 3) as an object which underlies the object of inner intuition, i.e., as a thing in itself which is a thinking thing. “I represent myself as an object of inner intuition by representing successive states in time. As we saw in the Refutation of Idealism, such a representation is not that of a permanent substance, so the soul as construed by metaphysics is not given through inner intuition. It is only the appearance of an unknown something = x. As Kant construes the Paralogisms, one starts with a set of analytic truths about a thinking subject and concludes from them properties of the soul as a thing in itself. We think ourselves as a simple subject which is identical through time, but this has nothing to do with anything but ourselves as appearance. “To say that I think myself as subject is nothing more than to say that I think myself as that which thinks. This judgment is patently analytic. If it is added that this subject is substance, the judgment is again analytic, if the concept of substance thus attributed is that of a subject which is not a predicate of any other subject (this is the ‘logical’ meaning of the category of substance). A mistake occurs when attributes permanence to the subject, i.e., makes a ‘real’ use of the category of substance. For permanence applies only to objects in time, but the metaphysical subject, the thing in itself, is not in time. We are unable in particular to infer from the substantiality of the I which thinks to the immortality of the soul. “Perhaps immortality follows from the simplicity of the subject. The Wolffian argument was that because the soul is a simple subject, it cannot be dissolved into parts, and hence cannot be destroyed by any force in nature. The simplicity of the soul is said (by Kant) to be analytic in this

sense: that the I which thinks a complete thought is the same I which thinks each component of the thought. But this unity is merely formal: it has nothing to do with any underlying reality. All it says is that we cannot think any multiplicity in the single ‘I.’ But this is only because the representation of the ‘I’ is empty, ‘the poorest of all representations.’ “Although we cannot infer from the unity of the bare representation ‘I’ to the real simplicity of a substance, we can at least state that whatever the ‘I’ is, it is not material. This is because matter is merely outer appearance, quite distinct from the object of inner intuition, which is not in space. However, it is quite possible that the objects of both inner and outer intuition share a common substratum. And the substratum may be a composite, in which case the soul may be divisible after all. So the immortality of the soul cannot be inferred from its immateriality. “The final property attributed to the soul is that of unity through change. From this is inferred its personality. But again, the initial inference from the ‘I’ to its unity is merely analytic. The ‘I’ is the subject of our thinking, of our representation, and time is the form of inner intuition. Thus time itself depends on the ‘I,’ which therefore must be regarded as being the same at all times. But this unity is merely subjective: I cannot from my own point of view represent myself as anything other than a unity. But objectively, I might be a succession of substances, each passing along the content of thinking as a series of balls in contact with one another pass along motion when one end is struck. In this case, there would be no metaphysical unity and no basis for personality. “In summary, the problem of the Paralogisms is that the unity of consciousness, of the ‘I think’ is conflated with the unity of an object. The only way in which we are given to ourselves as object is through inner intuition, and as such we are subject to the categories. But the categories do not determine the unity of consciousness; the unity of consciousness is a condition for the application of the categories. And time does not determine the unity of consciousness; the unity of consciousness is a necessary condition for the representation of objects in time.” – G. J. Mattey

Space and Time Space and time in Kant’s system are intuited. Spatial and temporal relations are only experienced by the passive, receptive part of the mind and are separate from the active part concerned with the intellect.

Given the importance of space and time to mathematics (certainly as it applies to physics), Kant is almost saying that mathematics constitutes the intuitive mind. We see the scientific world because we are wearing mathematical goggles. By the same token, we will see the rational, noumenal world if we are wearing our rational, noumenal goggles of transcendental, ontological mathematics.

The Symmetry Imperative “Always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle of your action to become universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action.” – Kant’s Categorical Imperative All selfish, self-interested, libertarian and anarchic individualists could never sign up to Kant’s system. They want to do their own thing, and fuck everyone else. They are all negative libertarians, whereas Kant’s scheme belongs firmly to positive liberty. Free-market capitalism is the ultimate anti-Kantian economic system. Communism is very close to the Kantian ideal! Mathematically, we can analyse morality in terms of symmetry. Let’s define “bosonic” symmetry as a single state (community) in which everyone can exist at once. It’s fair, just, equal. The perfect bosonic political and economic system is communism, but humans are not good enough for communism. Only Gods can be communists. The motto of bosonic symmetry is, “All for one, and one for all.” The bosonic people say, “We’re all in it together.” This is the world of the Freudian Superego. “Fermionic” antisymmetry relates to the world where no two people can share the same state at once. It’s the system that celebrates the individual rather than the collective. It’s the status quo of today’s world. People are selfish, atomistic, egotistical, narcissistic, isolationist, standoff. They remain stuck in their little boxes (houses). They are lonely little consumers in a game-theory world of ruthless self-interest. The motto of fermionic antisymmetry is “Me, me, me ... because I’m worth it.” The fermionic people say, “I’m alright Jack.” This is the world of the Freudian Ego, conceived in terms of rejecting the Superego, but also being too afraid of

the wild Id. This is the world of Last Men, of liberals, and worshippers of the market. Asymmetry is the world of the anarchists and libertarians. The law of the jungle applies. There’s no order at all. Everyone does whatever they want and rails against anyone daring to tell him what to do. The asymmetrics say, “Every man for himself.” The antisymmetry motto is: “Fuck You!” This is the world of the uncontrolled Freudian Id. Kantian morality is bosonic morality. The morality of the capitalist democratic world is fermionic. The Tea Party, Randroids, and anarchocapitalist libertarians despise the bosonic world (the Collective), hate the fermionic world (cronyism) and long for total asymmetry (chaos), where anything goes. Mathematically, the bosonic people will win in the end. The world is heading towards a perfect Singularity – the bosonic world that corresponds to “God”.

The Error Kant’s philosophy and science both go wrong for exactly the same reason: they cannot conceive of knowledge of anything beyond the reach of the senses. Kant at least acknowledges that there’s a world beyond the senses. Science denies even this. Neither Kant nor any scientist ever conceived of an immaterial, nonspacetime domain of pure frequency ... a mental domain. Eastern religion has mystically conceived of such a domain and refers to it as the Oneness, the Void, nirvana, Brahman, and so on, while Abrahamism calls it “God”. Of Brahman, Wikipedia says, “...the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world, which cannot be exactly defined. It has been described in Sanskrit as Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss) and as the highest reality.” This is just an obscurantist description of a transcendental, ontological mathematical, monadic Singularity precisely and analytically defined by the God Equation. You will never understand what reality is unless you can transcend all thoughts of matter, space and time (i.e. the scientific, Kantian world), and project your mind into an immaterial mathematical Singularity outside space and time – a frequency domain of pure mind. This domain is beyond

the reach of science and Kant, so neither of these can help you. Only intuition and reason can take you there. Intuition is simply “super reason” ... it allows you to see many things at once, while ordinary reason requires you to methodically proceed step by step, one thing at a time.

The Five Mathematical Ways There are five ways of understanding the world in mathematic terms: 1) Classical science (including ancient Greek Atomism and the classical empiricism of John Locke): the world comprises real material objects (atoms) with a measurable mathematical length, breadth, height, speed, mass, volume, density, moving through a mathematical space, while a mathematical clock ticks in the background. This is the simplest and most obvious way to apply mathematical thinking to reality, and underlies the success of Newtonian physics. Up to a point – in the situations we typically encounter in the world – it provides a simple, successful and accurate model of observed reality. Even today, most people, especially materialists, think of reality in these terms. 2) Kantian philosophy: all the mathematical elements of the classical model actually exist in our minds, i.e. we have no knowledge what reality is like in itself, but our minds construct from it the model of classical science by imposing inbuilt mental categories and the intuitions of space and time on it. To put it another way, we have no idea if mathematics exists in the world in itself, but it certainly exists in our minds, and we then interpret the world according to its rules. So, Kant has relocated mathematics, and actual mathematical objects, from the world to the mind, which then imposes it on the world, thereby constructing mental mathematical objects that we treat as the traditional mathematical objects of classical science. 3) Quantum science: the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics depicts “reality” as a mysterious, abstract, unreal (!), mathematical potentiality wavefunction that “collapses” into observed reality via an act of observation, without which it would never collapse and remain forever locked into abstract

potentiality rather than real actuality. This is an extremely mystical vision, so it’s no wonder it ends up being linked to Eastern mysticism. It’s every bit as obscurantist. 4) Einsteinian relativity: According to Einstein’s kinematic special theory of relativity, two objects moving in a straight line at a constant speed with regard to each can each consider itself stationary and the other at motion, and, by virtue of its motion, to be manifesting time dilation and length contraction. In these relativistic terms, it’s formally impossible to assign any ontological meaning to motion, time and space, mass and energy since it’s all “relative”. In effect, all of these things just become labels that are manipulated in mathematical formulae, and have no meaning beyond those manipulations. Reality is thus rendered entirely mathematical, but relativistically rather than absolutely, which means that it cannot be given a formal, analytic explanation. Such a system has no definite foundations to which we can refer. 5) Transcendental, ontological mathematics: The world is absolutely mathematical (hence relativity is false), it requires no observers to collapse wavefunctions (hence Copenhagen quantum mechanics is false), it is absolutely mathematical in itself (hence Kantian philosophy is false), and there are no mathematical objects that exist independently of minds (hence classical scientific materialism is false). The world comprises noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematical monads, which exist in an immaterial, frequency Singularity outside space and time, but these construct what we experience as the classical scientific world of matter, space and time via well-known Fourier mathematics for converting frequency functions into spacetime functions. It’s all in the math! It is mathematical spacetime that creates the conditions for the experience of a sensory world, of the type slavishly believed in by scientific materialists ... but it all derives from mind and could not exist without mind, hence materialism is false. All plausible theories of existence are mathematical, and the issue is about interpreting the mathematics of reality correctly ... about defining the ontology of mathematics. Science is successful purely because it uses mathematics, and, otherwise, it would be no more useful than augury. All

non-mathematical theories of existence – such as Abrahamism and Karmism – are utterly absurd and devoid of any value and sense. They are literally meaningless stories (Mythos) that have no connection with the Truth (Logos). Kant claimed that any attempt to apply the concepts and principles of the understanding independently of the conditions of sensibility – i.e. any nonempirical, transcendental use of the understanding – is illicit (creating transcendental illusions). Of course, this amounts to a claim that mathematics, which has absolutely no need of the senses or experiences, is illegitimate and not a source of knowledge. This is false and ridiculous. Yet again, Kant’s attack on “pure reason” is actually an attack on mathematics. Kant complained that metaphysicians sought to deduce a priori knowledge simply from the pure concepts of the understanding, without any reference to the senses. But that’s exactly what rationalism does, what mathematics does. True knowledge is 100% conceptual – analytic – and has zero relation to the senses, which are always interpretive and mired in contingency. Kant said that the effort to acquire metaphysical knowledge through concepts alone was doomed to fail. In fact, it was his attempt to use a bogus synthetic a priori scheme to make sense of empiricism that was doomed to fail! Kant said that human reason tended to apply unconditioned considerations to the conditioned objects of human experiences, and thus to objectify and render “knowable” unconditioned things that, in his opinion, could never be known, such as an all-powerful God, the immortal soul, and the eternal and perhaps infinitely large world. Kant asserted that the unconditioned is in principle unknowable. No it’s not ... it’s fully knowable via mathematics. Kant excluded the unconditioned God, the soul, and the world from the realm of the knowable, but, in fact, they are all knowable mathematically. He then ridiculously argued for the practical necessity of God, the immortality of the soul, and freedom in the sphere of morality. They are unknowable in actuality, in his opinion, yet we must invoke these unknowables morally. This was the sort of gibberish that Nietzsche loved to mock, and which he smashed to smithereens. Kant spoke of “rational faith”. There’s no such thing. Kant suffered from two disastrous failings: he was determined to carve a “rational” space for

faith and morality that was outside the scientific arena, and he didn’t realise that “pure reason” is actually pure, noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics, and is eternal, absolute, infallible and Platonic, i.e. it’s the only true knowledge possible. Rationalism can never be applied rigorously to something as subjective and interpretive as morality, and it has zero to do with faith.

Nobel Idiocy “...to a very good approximation the world really does obey Newton’s laws.” – Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate No, the world doesn’t obey Newton laws. To a very good approximation, Newton’s laws obey the ontological mathematical laws of the world.

Knowledge, Understanding and Sensibility Kant proposed that knowledge requires the cooperation of two faculties: understanding and sensibility. He argued that if no intuition [Content] could be linked to a concept, the concept could still be a thought, but now as pure Form without any object, and no knowledge of anything in the phenomenal world would be possible by means of it. Yet again, this reveals a fallacy in Kant’s thinking. Form and Content are inseparable. You can’t get Form without Content, or vice versa. They are opposite sides of one coin. The Form side is purely rationalist, i.e. can only be understood in terms of reason, and, in fact, in terms of ontological mathematics alone. The Content side is purely empirical, i.e. it’s how we experience information, how we experience math. Content is the experience of Form, and precisely because of that it conceals Form from us. Only intuition and reason can take us beyond experience, the Content, to the Form itself. The Content concerns our sensations, perceptions, feelings, desires, will, beliefs, opinions, and so on. It’s all the stuff of empiricism. Form itself is all the stuff of rationalism. By trying to apply Form to Content, rather than keeping Form and Content separate on their respective sides of their single coin, Kant’s thinking went disastrously wrong. Above all, he became an enemy of “pure reason”, which is in fact the tool we use to gain systematic knowledge of the only real truths – the eternal, immutable, necessary truths of reason, the truths of Form.

We can never have knowledge of experiences since they are inherently not rational things, hence cannot form any part of an analytic, complete and consistent knowledge system. The mathematical function – Form – associated with the colour red can be known, but the colour red – the Form’s Content – can only be experienced. Experience, bluntly, is not knowledge. We could present a colour-blind person with full knowledge of the mathematical Form associated with red, but he would not thereby have the experience of red, i.e. we could give him knowledge of what red is, we could mathematically define it for him, yet that would tell him nothing about how red is experienced. Knowledge and experience are radically different things. Knowledge is strictly objective, universal, analytic and rationalist. If we are rational, we can all agree on what knowledge is. However, we can offer no proof whatsoever that two people in a blue room both experience “blue” in the same way. Experience is entirely subjective, hence has nothing to do with objective knowledge. Consider science. Its method is all about empirical observations, yet the knowledge part of science is supplied wholly by the objective, rationalist mathematical equations and formulae that define the laws of science. As soon as it’s granted that there are entities that we can’t experience from the outside (such as our own souls, which we always experience from the inside, and not via our senses as material objects in spacetime) then scientific materialism is plainly wrong since objects of knowledge exist that are beyond the reach of the external, observational, sensory method of science. We can have knowledge of the Form of the soul, but we cannot have any objective external experience of it, only the subjective internal experience of it, which is unique to all of us, and is what makes us what we are. Science, by definition, can have no knowledge of the soul, hence can have no knowledge of fundamental reality since reality is predicated entirely on monadic mathematical souls. That’s a rational fact. Science’s own method, an empiricist method, is what prevents it from being a true system of knowledge, and means that it can never arrive at a grand unified, final theory of everything. Science has defined external experience as reality, while wholly denying internal experience. In essence, it rejects free will, intuition, introspection,

consciousness, the unconscious and qualia. Absolutely none of these things features in any scientific theory, hence none of them ever can be part of science. Science will never explain them. It has no means to do so. Just as Kant’s system and the assumptions from which he worked made it impossible for his philosophy to be true, so science cannot be true because of the fallacious empiricist assumptions on which it is predicated. If you don’t get your fundamental ontology right, you will never understand true reality. All sorts of ingenious schemes – such as Kantian philosophy and scientific materialism – can be constructed that will never succeed in accounting for the ultimate nature of things. They will always be clever illusions, mere opinions, beliefs and interpretations. That’s a fact. They will always be infected by Mythos elements and will never reflect true Logos. They will always contain fundamental errors and fallacies. In Gödelian terms, they will always be inconsistent and/or incomplete. As soon as you grasp that true knowledge is about objective reason, and nothing to do with subjective experience, you realise that ontological mathematics alone can provide an authentic system of rational knowledge that’s eternally true and indisputable. Only ontological mathematics is a necessary system of knowledge. All other systems are contingent, hence are interpretive, as Nietzsche understood so well. If you reject mathematics as the essence of reality, as Nietzsche did, and as Hume did, you are left with nowhere to go but relativism, perspectivism, skepticism, solipsism, and nihilism. Every Gödelian incomplete and inconsistent system can be picked apart. Only one system is Gödelian consistent and complete, and that’s ontological mathematics, defined by a single formula – the God Equation, its singular nature being exactly what makes it Gödelian consistent and complete.

***** Kant denied the Platonic, rationalist stance that true knowledge is strictly intelligible, not sensible. He defined knowledge to be based on empiricism, albeit with an unconvincing pseudo-rationalist, a priori underpinning. Kant’s philosophy flows from a blatant fallacy, namely, that a priori judgments can be synthetic rather than analytic. As soon as this error is corrected, Kant’s system makes sense only in terms of ontological mathematics. Analysis alone yields true knowledge of objects, of objects in themselves rather than as their appearances.

***** Content is Form’s appearance. Because we see the Content, we cannot see the Form. Reason – our non-sensory faculty – reveals Form to us.

Morality Kant said we could not know of the world beyond its appearance. We could not access the world in itself. We could not say anything knowledgeable about it in terms of “pure”, speculative or metaphysical reason. However, we could use our “practical” reason to act as if it existed, and to accept the existence of God, the soul and free will (although we could never know that these truly existed.) We could deal with moral judgments, but not with provable ideas.

***** The world is made of mathematical Form, but Form has an appearance (which is Content) and it is this that we sensorily encounter and experience. The question is how we get beyond the appearance, the Content, to the Form itself. How do get beyond the information carried to the information carrier? It is this extraordinary problem that has baffled the finest minds of the human race for so long. The Truth has an appearance, and the appearance is the Lie that deceives us about the nature of the Truth. The appearance is Maya – the illusion – and it ensnared both science and Kant.

Disrespect No religion has the right to be respected. Islam has no right to be respected. When it isn’t respected, it threatens to kill you, or actually does ... and that’s precisely why it shouldn’t be respected, and must not be tolerated by any decent person. Islam is an inherently terrorist religion since it threatens everyone who disagrees it with eternal pain and suffering in hellfire. Why would any sane, rational person not resist this tyrannical, monstrous abomination to the maximum degree? There’s no excuse for being a Muslim. It’s predicated on absolute evil, and is nothing but Devil worship and terror. Any religion that promises that its God will lavishly reward anyone who murders and dies for it has no place in a civilised society. Any religion that

does not prohibit homicidal-suicidal martyrdom must be banned as an inherent threat to public safety. Islam understands that what haunt’s a man’s mind in the night is what rules him in the day. It trades on the fear of hell ... and no healthy religion can have such a basis. No such religion – and Judaism and Christianity stand right alongside Islam – has any place in a civilised society. If angels can fall from heaven into hell, can devils rise up into paradise? Is that the hope of all the bloodstained, evil Abrahamists, who would murder their own children if their Devil-God commanded it?

Ideas For Kant, the mind is the creator of ideas. In ontological mathematics, the mind is mathematical. It’s made of mathematics, and all ideas are equally made of mathematics. Ideas have rational, noumenal Form, and empirical, phenomenal Content. For Kant, the mind is the only source of knowledge. However, Kant had no idea what the mind was in itself. If the mind is in fact mathematical – which it is – then mathematics is the source of all knowledge. For science, randomness is the source of all knowledge (!), which is an absurdity, and the exact opposite of knowledge. It’s now the case that no subject is as ideologically opposed to reason and knowledge as science. Science is credible for one reason alone: despite its empiricist dogma, its engine is rationalist mathematics, which is the true source of order, reason, causation and knowledge.

Transcendence “Being in love is the only transcendent experience.” – Armistead Maupin Reason is transcendent. “Worship is transcendent wonder.” – Thomas Carlyle Science is mundane wonder. “People wouldn’t even go into science unless there was something much bigger to be discovered, something that is transcendent.” –David Eagleman Really?! Why don’t they agree with transcendental, ontological mathematics in that case?

“Remarkable contributions are typically spawned by a passionate commitment to transcendent values such as beauty, truth, wisdom, justice, charity, fidelity, joy, courage and honour.” – Gary Hamel What of science then? It has a passionate commitment to mindlessness, purposelessness, meaninglessness, randomness, chance, accident and indeterminism. What kind of person finds that inspiring? “Religion is one dimension of culture, a transcendent element of it.” – Francis Arinze The only true religion is transcendental mathematics.

Ideas of Reason Kant called God, the soul, and the total world Ideas of Reason since they are not things we can encounter empirically. (We can obviously encounter parts of the world but not its totality, and not its origins.) For Plato, Ideas were perfect Forms, standards or archetypes from which copies – visible objects of perception – were generated. Kant’s Ideas of Reason, however, were not accessible to knowledge (which Kant believed had to result from perception) and were understandable only through abstract thinking derived from concepts. Kant maintained that the three different kinds of Ideas of Reason – psychological ideas (relating to the soul), cosmological ideas (relating to the cosmos), and theological ideas (relating to God) contained all of metaphysics (with physics thus being the study of the empirical world).

The Soul Leibniz identified the monadic soul as the ultimate substance, or ultimate subject underlying all the predicates that can be applied to a subject, the thing that is left when all of the predicates are removed. Kant saw Leibniz’s work as pure metaphysics. In Kant’s scheme, the understanding allows us to make sense of experience by applying a priori concepts to empirical intuitions, thus producing “knowledge”. Therefore, since souls aren’t empirical, no Kantian knowledge can be gained regarding them, hence they are metaphysical speculations. In Illuminism, metaphysics is in fact ontological mathematics and we can have total knowledge of souls mathematically. In fact, “metaphysical”

knowledge is the only sure knowledge we can have, and it’s physical knowledge that is speculative and interpretive. When we encounter any physical “fact” whatsoever, we are immediately required to interpret it, and the spectrum of interpretation is infinite, just as the interpretation of any novel is infinite ... one interpretation for every different reader. A novel is a definite “fact”, but no two people will agree on its qualities, properties, interpretation, and meaning. Even the author might change his mind about it. All interpretive processes are subjective, contingent, temporal, dialectical and can be deconstructed. No one would describe all of humanity’s religious and philosophical speculations as “knowledge”, and things don’t get any better with the empirical, sensory “knowledge” of science. Take the “fact” of the blue sky. Well, what does “blue” mean? Do we all experience exactly the same phenomenon when we see blue? How would we know? How would we compare? If blue constitutes empirical knowledge, why can’t we describe blue to a blind person? When colour-blind people look at the sky, they don’t see blue. Why should we believe that people with colour vision have greater “knowledge” of reality than people without? Do some people have superior colour vision, superior senses in general, and even senses that others don’t possess? Do they therefore have more knowledge? Do they see reality differently? Do animals see reality entirely differently from us? Is their “knowledge” better or worse than ours? What is a sense organ? How does it function? How is the data it collects interpreted by the brain? Is there a mind behind the brain that performs further interpretation? What is “matter”? How can it interact with mind? Is matter a thing in itself, or something derived from mind? Where does matter come from? Who or what made it and why? How do we know that our sensory interpretation of matter actually reflects what matter is? And so on. In other words, even the simplest apparent empirical “fact” gets us mired in a neverending interpretive process, all deriving from philosophical and even metaphysical notions – from which Kant’s system is supposed to save us. Kant’s philosophy, like science, pretends to offer us “knowledge”, but, in fact, can never escape speculative interpretation. Only the analytic, tautological facts of mathematics can rise above interpretation. 1 + 1 = 2 can be rewritten as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, i.e. it’s a logical identity, and eternally

true by virtue of that fact. No one can challenge it. It’s logically impregnable. Only the statements of mathematics can constitute legitimate knowledge. Everything else is interpretation. Science, which Kant revered so much, and in which he placed so much trust, is just an empirical, sensory misinterpretation of mathematics. Kant attempted to define science as “knowledge”, but he misunderstood the nature of science. As far as Kant was concerned, Newtonian science was definitive, yet we now know that it has been refuted by Maxwellian electromagnetism, Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics. If Newtonian science were based on Kant’s infallible, synthetic a priori judgments, i.e. if we all wear Newtonian goggles, hence can’t see the world in any other way than in terms of Newtonian physics, then Newtonian science could never have been overthrown. Yet it has been, so Kant’s philosophy has been formally falsified. Moreover, any scientific theory can be falsified, so none can constitute true knowledge. Only the eternal truths of math cannot be falsified, hence only they can be true, and only they can constitute knowledge. Kant, genius though he undoubtedly was, made countless mistakes, and his entire philosophy is riddled with fallacies. However, wrong philosophies can prove highly useful in allowing us to dialectically arrive at the one true philosophy – ontological mathematics.

The Ego The soul is the thinking ego, the thinking “I”. All internal states relate back to an “I”: “I think”, “I laugh”, “I am doing this”, “I am doing that”, and so on. The “I” is fundamental, indivisible, unique and indispensable. We must be an “I” in order to have conscious experience. A non-I – a machine with no soul – cannot experience anything at all. In Kant’s philosophy, this “I” is not a thing or a concept that we can have knowledge of in itself. In Leibniz’s philosophy we certainly can, and, in modern Illuminism, we can even give it a precise mathematical definition and raise it up as the quintessence of knowledge. It’s the monadic Self.

***** If “outer” sensations imply there’s an external world – something outside us and independent of us – “inner” sensations imply that there’s an internal

world, something that isn’t independent of us, hence is us. This is the interior world of the soul or ego that has nothing to do with the external world of matter and science. For Descartes, we could know more about the “thinking I” than we could about the external world, whose legitimacy and reality we could easily and validly doubt. Just as Kant inverted Plato regarding what we can know, he inverted Descartes regarding what we should doubt. Descartes said we should accept mind in itself (the soul) and doubt matter. Kant said we should accept matter and doubt the soul. Kant was thus doubly wrong.

The Three Major Faculties In the Kantian world, mental activity is expressed through three major faculties: 1) The faculty of sensibility uses the pure intuitions of space and time to form our sensations into empirical intuitions. Via this faculty, we organize what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. For Kant, the pure intuitions of space and time provide the context for mathematics and allow us to reason mathematically. 2) The faculty of understanding uses pure concepts to form our empirical intuitions into appearances. This faculty allows us to make sense of what we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste by applying a priori rules that amount to the universal laws of Nature, and so helps us make general inferences and conclusions. That, in the Kantian system, is what science is all about. So, mathematics concerns the pure intuitions of space and time while science is about the concepts that are then applied to that framework. 3) The faculty of reason allows us make sense of purely mental concepts. While the faculties of sensibility and understanding enable us to make sense of experience (empiricism), the faculty of reason deals with concepts alone (rationalism). It does this via “ideas”, which seek to give wholeness and completeness to the concepts we apply in experience. In short, our faculty of sensibility gives us math, our faculty of understanding gives us science, the faculty of sensibility and the faculty of understanding together give us empiricism, and our faculty of reason gives

us metaphysics (rationalism). Metaphysics, as the product of pure reason, deals only with ideas and cannot tell us about how things are in themselves (unless of course things in themselves are ideas!). Metaphysics, for Kant, is the arena where reason overreaches itself and is totally detached from experience. Descartes, unlike Kant, questioned the reliability of the senses, and looked to reason and intellect for certainty. Kant questioned the reliability of reason, and looked to experience to provide whatever certainty was possible. Reason, for Kant, deals with psychological ideas, cosmological ideas and theological ideas. Psychological ideas pertain to thinking substances. Cosmological ideas concern the world as a whole (including its origins). Theological ideas concern God and the total explanation of reality.

The “I” According to Kant, sensing and thinking are representations, and representations must take place within a subject. For things to be seen, heard and thought there has to be a subjective consciousness doing the seeing, hearing and thinking. Otherwise, these would all be “free-floating”. The subjective consciousness is of course the “I”. The “I” is not encountered in experience; rather, it’s the very basis of conscious experience. An experiencing agent can experience everything other than itself. It can however be aware of itself. Since the “I” is not available to experience, we cannot apply to it those categories that we use to frame experience. Descartes, in Kant’s opinion, tries to do exactly that, applying the concept of substance and other concepts of the pure understanding to “I”. However, if “I” is ultimately a rationalist mathematical monad, then Descartes is right in his approach and Kant is wrong. Kant suggests that we should think of “I” in the way he thinks of thingsin-themselves. We can infer that it exists, but we cannot “know” anything about it. Pure reason, engaging in metaphysics, cannot tell us anything substantive about the way things are, Kant insists. Yet all of this is false if we can know things-in-themselves via ontological mathematics.

The Three Ideas Pure reason supplies three transcendental ideas: 1) The idea of a transcendental science of the soul (psychologia rationalis: rational psychology). 2) The idea of a transcendental science of the world (cosmologia rationalis: rational cosmology). 3) The idea of a transcendental science of God (theologia transcendentalis: rational theology). We progress from knowledge of self to knowledge of the world to knowledge of a Supreme Being. We progress from the conditioned to the unconditioned (pure principles separated from any possible experience). “Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality.” – Kant

Reason Reason naturally seeks to move beyond all empirical considerations, and it does so when it reaches pure, analytic, ontological mathematics.

***** Kant, like science, maintains that the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and free will cannot be affirmed on any empirical grounds. Kant consigns all of these to mystical, noumenal “unknowability”. In fact, they are all affirmable and knowable via ontological mathematics (with God being replaced by the God Equation).

***** Kant argued against the Leibnizian position that we can have a priori knowledge of the human soul, the world-whole, and God. However, if the world is mathematical then we emphatically can, and Leibniz is right. In the end, Kant’s whole philosophy fails because, like science, he failed to understand the ontology of mathematics. We cannot “know” transcendent or transcendental objects, Kant says. But we can if these objects are in fact mathematical objects (which require

no experience, hence can be fully known a priori).

Compatibilism Compatibilism says that we are free if the causes of our actions are internally rather than externally determined, i.e. they come from us and not from not-us. Kant argues that even if the cause of a person’s action is internal to him, it’s not necessarily free. If the cause is in the past – e.g. if the person’s action today can be traced to a decision he took yesterday, or to his childhood character, or the genes he was born with, or any influence at all from the past – then it is not within his control now. For Kant, the real issue is not whether the cause of a person’s action is internal or external to him, but whether it’s in his control right now. That’s possible only if our decision-making does not take place in time (or space for that matter). In Kant’s scheme, freedom is possible because the noumenal domain – where the transcendental self resides – is outside space and time (whereas the phenomenal domain is inside space and time). Kant’s transcendental idealism allows that the cause of a person’s action can be a thing in itself outside of space and time, i.e. a noumenal self, which is free because it’s not part of phenomenal nature. In Kant’s account of free will, our freedom doesn’t depend on nature or nurture, our genes or how we were brought up, or any external influences acting on us. All of our intentional, voluntary actions are immediate effects of our noumenal (rather than phenomenal) self, which is causally undetermined since it’s outside empirical, phenomenal spacetime causation. Our noumenal self is an uncaused cause outside of space and time, outside the deterministic laws of phenomenal nature. Kant is absolutely correct that freedom must originate in first causes outside space and time. He’s absolutely wrong that this entails an unknowable noumenal domain. In fact, mathematically, all that’s required is to define a domain outside space and time, and this is exactly what the Fourier frequency domain – the mental domain – is. Via the frequency domain, we can knowably and mathematically furnish exactly the scenario Kant rightly claimed was essential for freedom to be anything other than an illusion. Kant claimed that “compatibilism” didn’t solve the problem of free will because it located the problem in the wrong place, i.e. it said that the

problem was about internal agency as opposed to external agency, whereas the problem is about being outside space and time as opposed to inside space and time. In fact, true compatibilism requires both issues to be resolved in one, i.e. we must be internal agents, free of external compulsion, and our minds must be outside space and time (which they are in the frequency domain). So, Kant’s position isn’t anti-compatibilist at all. It’s simply a better version of the compatibilist thinking of his time. It adds an extra ingredient to the traditional compatibilist position (which simply reflects internal agency versus external agency) by adding the requirement that internal agency must additionally be located outside space and time. However Kant’s formal position, as he presents it within his philosophy, doesn’t work. The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy says, “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.” All of the problems just described vanish if we recast Kant’s philosophy in terms of ontological Fourier mathematics, with a noumenal (mental) domain outside space and time interacting with a phenomenal (material) domain inside space and time. Only ontological mathematics can save Kant’s philosophy.

***** Free-will denier Sam Harris – a dogmatic scientific materialist – accepts only the existence of the phenomenal, empirical (scientific) self, ruled by the laws of matter. He refuses to contemplate a noumenal, rational (mathematical) self outside matter, space and time, hence outside the Meta Paradigm of science. Anyone who agrees with Harris’s arguments is ipso

facto denying that there’s anything beyond science. His arguments are ludicrous once you accept the existence of a Kantian noumenal world ... which all religious, spiritual and mathematical people are obliged to do. If you agree with Harris, you are neither spiritual, religious nor mathematical. You are an atheistic, nihilistic, scientific materialist.

The Imaginary Focus Kant suggests that each of the three transcendental ideas of reason serves as an imaginary point (focus imaginarius), upon which our intellectual investigations hypothetically converge. The idea of the soul guides our empirical investigations in psychology, the idea of the world guides our empirical investigations in physics, and the idea of God unifies psychology (the science of the mind) and physics (the science of matter) in one unified Science (or reality itself). In fact, it’s the God Equation that unifies mind and matter, via Fourier mathematics.

Reason There are “ideas of sense” (our sensory impressions of the contingent, temporal external world of space and time) and “ideas of reason” (our nonsensory thoughts concerning the necessary, eternal world outside space and time ... thus an internal world, a Singularity). The rationalist philosophers held that all knowledge comes ultimately from reason, and not from the senses and experiences. For rationalists, the role of reason was fundamental in allowing us to make sense of ultimate reality, while the role of sense was more or less to deceive us, to delude us, to stop us thinking about ultimate things and preoccupy us with the contingent things of the moment. For Leibniz, the hyperrationalist, the ideas of sense were just confused ideas of reason. We should not “look” but think if we want to gain access to the Truth. True knowledge of the world comes about by thinking about things clearly and precisely, and not getting too perplexed by our sense impressions. The knowledge we arrive at in this way is a priori – entirely independent of experience. Using this approach, we can arrive at definitive knowledge of the world, the soul and “God”. Kant called this view “dogmatism”, i.e. that reason by itself can tell us things about the sensory world and also about things we can never sense – such as the soul, the total universe and God.

Given his attack on rationalism, and his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant was plainly an empiricist. Science too – with its emphasis on observation and its contempt for pure, analytic reason – is extremely empiricist. It’s this obsession with empiricism that prevents scientists from grasping that the true basis of science is ontological mathematics, which has no need for observation whatsoever. Science will never produce a final theory of everything because such a theory must reflect necessity, eternity and reason – which means pure mathematics – while science refuses to depart from contingency, temporality, and the senses. It all comes back to Plato who said that true reality is intelligible, while false reality is sensible. Plato’s conception was rationalist and mathematical. Science says, contra Plato, that true reality is sensible, not intelligible. But only an intelligible world can have an intelligible answer. A sensible world cannot ... which is why science ends up making the deranged claim that existence miraculously and randomly pops out of non-existence for no reason, and, therefore, that there are no eternal laws of existence.

The Eternal Laws Science cannot define what a law is ontologically. Let’s state a “First Law of laws”: Laws can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, all laws are eternal and necessary. This being the case, these eternal, necessary laws must inhere in things that are themselves eternal (because otherwise we would have free-floating laws as the basis of reality, but not grounded in any actual ontological things, which is absurd: reality cannot be made of free-floating laws, but can and must be directed by laws). Those eternal ontological units that enshrine the eternal laws of existence are mathematical monads. In science, nothing is deemed eternal: no monads and no laws, and not even energy (which is somewhat absurd given the First Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, meaning that it must be eternal). Scientists deny that any lawful state and corresponding ontology preceded the Big Bang, hence they literally claim that the laws of the spacetime world, like the spacetime world itself, erupted out of nothing at all, for no reason at all, with no

explanation at all – the biggest miracle ever conceived, and the most unlikely thing ever conceived. It’s absolutely impossible for laws to summon themselves out of nonexistence. Laws are either eternal, or there are no laws at all. There is no mid-ground. Eternal laws are self-evidently beyond empiricism, but not beyond rationalism. Eternal laws are a priori, analytic and deductive. They have nothing to do with the empirical, observational, inductive method by which science swears. It’s exactly because science doesn’t understand the fundamental nature of law that it will never arrive at the single “God Law” (reflecting the final theory of everything) that defines existence. There is nothing more certain than that nothing at all in this universe arises miraculously, randomly, out of non-existence, for no reason at all, with no explanation at all ... yet the whole of modern science is insanely predicated on exactly this. Why? So that science can avoid even the merest whiff of “God”. But it’s not “God” that’s being debated ... it’s the God Equation, the defining formula for ontological mathematics. Religion doesn’t come into at all. This is an intellectual, rational issue and has nothing to do with faith, feelings ... or the irrational senses so revered by science!

***** Hume, the most fanatical empiricist of all, opposed “matters of fact and real existence” to “relations of ideas”. His position was developed into the claim that concrete truths regarding actualities concern the contingent, a posteriori and synthetic whereas abstract truths regarding “idealities” concern the necessary, a priori, and analytic. This is “Hume’s fork”. Science has completely followed Hume, and so did many philosophers, culminating with Wittgenstein who regarded all analytic truths as mere tautologies that said nothing at all about the real world. This is the single biggest intellectual error in history! The Truth is that that reality is 100% mathematical, hence based on nothing but tautology, eternity, necessity, the a priori, and the analytic. Far from being “empty”, mathematical tautology is the richest mine of all, from which flows every fact of the world. What Wittgenstein wholly failed to grasp was that there are two types of tautology: one that relates to the eternal, necessary elements of reality (mathematics), and one that relates to

how those eternal elements can contingently and temporally combine (science). The eternal, necessary elements of reality (analytic sinusoidal waves) never change, but these elements can combine in infinite different ways (as wavefunctions). So, what we have is a necessary, eternal, analytic, a priori system that, via the simple expedient of combining these elements in different ways, produces the contingent, temporal, synthetic, a posteriori world – the world of “concrete facts” – that we actually encounter in life (and to which Wittgenstein was so devoted). Yet, in terms of Form, this latter, temporal, contingent world flows entirely tautologically from the eternal, necessary world (i.e. it can never contradict the eternal laws of existence). Its non-tautological aspect relates to Content, which is about how the world is experienced by us – how it appears to us – rather than how it actually is in itself. The world is divided into two: information carried and information carrier. The world of the information carrier is pure tautology (i.e. it obeys eternal, deterministic laws). The world of the information carried is anything other than tautology. We can have absolutely no idea in advance how we are going to experience something. The laws of existence dictate the objective Form of the world, but have nothing to say about how its Content is subjectively experienced by living monadic minds. It’s this subjective element in objective existence that creates the non-tautological world. The key point to bear in mind is that we ourselves – our monadic minds – are the entities that combine necessary elements into contingent wavefunctions ... which we then experience in our different ways. The world of our experience is all about the contingent functions we all generate in interaction and feedback with each other. The world has a necessary, eternal foundation, but we construct the temporal world we live in on a contingent basis by virtue of the collective and individual choices we make. Think of reality as a piano. The keys all exist forever. What doesn’t exist forever is what music we are going to play with it! The piano is eternal and necessary while the music we play on it is temporal and contingent. The piano reflects pure tautology; the music played on it doesn’t. Every wavefunction has an objective mathematical Form, but its Content is subjectively experienced. That’s the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

All necessary, eternal things are true in all possible worlds whereas all contingent, temporal things reflect a particular world. To put it another way, there is one and only one piano available in all possible worlds, but every particular world involves playing a unique composition on that single piano. The piano itself is known a priori, but we can have no a priori knowledge of what will be played on it. That’s for us – the players – to decide. What’s for sure, however, is that we will all play together, and we will all play dialectically, and the dialectic will conclude with us all jointly playing the Music of the Spheres, the Music of the Gods. Ontological mathematics tells us all about the piano. Science tells us about how the piano is actually played. Math is eternal and necessary, science temporal and contingent. The central problem of science is that it thinks it’s telling us about the piano itself, which it can never do. The piano is absolutely mathematical and can only be considered mathematically.

***** How can laws be self-creating? In order for the Big Bang to be controlled, laws must be in place beforehand, otherwise, the laws are being shaped by what they are shaping ... a formula for absolute chaos!

***** According to science, there are infinite cosmic pianos (creating a Multiverse). But, if that’s true, then there’s no answer to existence. We live in a random universe, with no explanation, playing random music on random pianos for no reasons.

Mathematical “Experience” We inhabit an entirely mathematical universe, i.e. made of nothing but math, but why does the average person have no sense at all that this is a mathematical world? Here’s the fundamental problem ... to say that the universe is mathematical is ultimately to say that it’s made of numbers, and that its laws exclusively reflect the relations between numbers. Pythagoras said all of this 2,500 years ago. However, ordinary people completely resist this

notion. They are repelled by numbers, and regard them as just marks on a paper, or weird abstractions. A number, however, is an ontological thing – a real existent – and that means it has ontological properties. If we simply call numbers “frequencies” (i.e. specifiers of energy Form and energy Content), we can start to comprehend what’s really going on. Consider a precise shade of blue in the electromagnetic spectrum. This is associated with a precise electromagnetic frequency. So, we now have a direct mapping between content (an exact shade of blue) and a number (frequency; energy specifier; mathematical form). In other words, when our ontological minds encounter this specific ontological frequency, they do not encounter its form (its mathematical number), but the precise shade of blue we mentioned. The experience of the colour blue is, of course, entirely different from our knowledge of mathematical forms, of numbers. To put it another way, our minds, in experiential terms, always encounter what the number empirically signifies (what its experiential content is), and never the number itself (pure form). The numbers are rational, their content empirical, and this fact goes to the heart of the war between rationalism and empiricism. To say that the sky is blue is to make an empirical statement about content, and to avoid making a rational statement about form. If we were talking rationally, rather than empirically, we would say that the “colour” of the sky is a blend of numbers (frequencies), and we would list all of the numerical frequencies involved in generating the perceived blueness of the sky. In both cases, we are talking about exactly the same thing – a property of the sky – but we are referring to it in two entirely different ways. In one case, we are referring to how we experience it (as a vivid colour; empiricism); in the other case we are referring to how we understand it (as a set of numbers = energy frequencies; rationalism). We are describing exactly the same thing from two opposite perspectives. We are looking at one coin, but we can choose only one side from which to view it. There is always a hidden side, a “dark side of the moon”, so to speak. We never get both sides of the coin at once, the complete, whole view. Only “God” can see that. It’s this problem of perspective that has bedevilled the debate between rationalists and empiricists. An empiricist would say that the colour of the

sky is an empirical, scientific “matter of fact”. But, viewed from the opposite perspective, it’s a rational, mathematical truth of reason. Wittgenstein dismissed mathematics as empty tautology, with nothing to tell us about the world, thus spectacularly failing to grasp that all ontological statements about mathematics are actually statements about empirical content as much as rational form. All mathematical statements, propositions, forms or functions can be known rationally (using mathematical reason), but all of these can also be experienced as pure, non-mathematical content. No one considers “blue” to be a mathematical fact, but that’s exactly what it is. If we could see the other side of the coin of a specific shade of blue, we would find an exact numerical frequency, i.e. a specific mathematical fact. This is true of all of our sensory, emotional and intuitive experiences. If we could see their other side, we would find only numbers (energy frequencies). Thus, all matters of fact are actually truths of reason, but we will always find it more or less impossible to properly map them to each other. In other words, whenever we encounter content, we have a certain experience, but what we get no access to are the hidden mathematical frequencies from which this experience is factually constructed. It has a precise mathematical reason for being as it is, but we would need to enjoy a Godlike perspective to see what that reason is (i.e. to see exactly what numbers are involved in producing the experience). Science seeks to explain empirical matters of fact using unobservable, non-empirical, rational mathematical laws. This works well enough in practice, but it collapses when we have no matters of fact to deal with, such as the state of the universe that preceded the Big Bang. Here, only truths of reason can serve us, but scientists and empiricists such as Wittgenstein refuse to accept truths of reason as bearing on the world at all.

***** Numbers are frequencies. They are energies. And all frequencies/ energies produce subjective experiences, i.e. they have content that we interpret in various ways. Numbers are logical, rational, and mathematical. Their contents, however, are experiential, and experience is neither logical, rational nor mathematical.

We can calculate in advance how to combine two numbers (energies). What we can’t calculate in advance is how we are going to experience their combination. Therein lies all the trouble between empiricism and rationalism, content and form. Before we can understand reality, we have to understand the difference between form and content, between numbers and how numbers are subjectively experienced by minds. There is no such thing as an experience that isn’t the flipside of mathematics (precise numbers). What science does is try to map ad hoc mathematical laws to experimental observations of the world. What it fails to realise is that it should be using complete and consistent, analytic and pure mathematics, rather than bungled, botched, impure, inconsistent and incomplete “scientific” mathematics. Science goes catastrophically wrong as soon as it has no experimental data to work with, and becomes nothing but wild and ridiculous speculation. If it were working using a constrained, analytic, ontological mathematics, this speculation would never happen, and scientists could describe with absolute mathematical precision the mathematical state that preceded the Big Bang. Science works because it uses mathematics. And it fails because it doesn’t use mathematics properly ... only in a bizarre, ad hoc, heuristic way.

***** Reality comprises numbers and the laws that govern numbers, but every number is associated with a non-mathematical experience, and it’s these experiences – this empirical content – that we actually encounter. Unless we’re incredibly smart, we have no reason to believe that we are looking at the empirical flipside of mathematics, so people instantly persuade themselves that this isn’t a mathematical universe. Yet haven’t they wondered why mathematics is so essential to the success of science in describing the world if the world is non-mathematical? It really couldn’t be simpler ... science unwittingly uses mathematics because mathematics is reality, but science, by focusing on empirical, observable content, acts as if mathematics isn’t reality, and that’s exactly why it goes so badly wrong and can’t tell us anything about ultimate reality (which must be considered in terms of pure mathematics alone, pure reason).

***** So, have you got it? We live in a world of numbers, but we never see numbers, only the empirical content to which they are attached. Accordingly, we have no idea at all that we are in a world of numbers. The content of numbers – their empirical appearance, so to speak – hides their mathematical form from us. If we could see the form rather than content, we would all be 100% certain that we live in a 100% mathematical world. But reason can show us exactly what’s going on ... because it completely bypasses content and experience.

Chess The world is like a chess game. Mathematics defines the board, pieces and rules. What is science? It’s the attempt to work out chess by observing the moves of the players, without knowing what chess is. How will science understand variable pawn moves, right-angled knight moves, pawn promotion to Queen, castling, stalemate, zugzwang, and so on? Can you work out a complete and consistent rational system of immense complexity merely by empirical observation? Really?! Science certainly hasn’t managed it. But pure reason can.

Abstraction? A posteriori/empirical concepts ... abstracted from perceived objects. A priori/rational concepts or “categories” ... not abstracted from perceived objects, but applicable to perceived objects. Ideas ... neither abstracted from nor applicable to perceived objects.

Precede Existentialism says that “existence” precedes “essence”. In fact, in terms of necessary, eternal things (monads), essence and existence are one and the same thing. For a necessary thing, to exist is its essence.

Experience versus Knowledge

Kant says that ultimate reality (reality-in-itself) 1) cannot be experienced by the human mind, and 2) is unknowable. Kant is right about the first point, and wrong about the second. It can be known ... mathematically. As for science, it claims that everything “knowable” must be capable, at least in principle, of being experienced or observed, hence it denies that there’s any such thing as noumenal, ultimate reality. Science acknowledges that the beginning of the universe cannot be experienced or observed even in principle, hence denies that it can be known, hence says it happens randomly, miraculously, for no reason, with no possible explanation. This is the worst and least rational explanation of reality provided by anyone ever. It’s the only one that asserts that existence magically comes from non-existence, that existence simply summons – magics – itself into existence. The most disturbing thing of all is that scientists love this “explanation” and are totally convinced by it. But it’s not an explanation ... it’s the total opposite. It absolutely avoids explanation. It asserts that things “just happen”, which is no explanation. In ontological mathematics, everything has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise. Ontological mathematics obeys the principle of sufficient reason, hence generates a rational, intelligible universe. Science ultimately claims that things happen for no reason at all – the whole universe just miraculously appears out of non-existence. This means that science does not reflect the principle of sufficient reason, hence is incapable of generating a rational, intelligible universe. Science, despite its self-serving propaganda, is based on miracles and magic ... just like a religion. The sole thing that saves science from being a joke is of course that it uses mathematics, hence can borrow – illegitimately – the rationalism, order and organisation that comes with mathematics. Alchemists deployed the “scientific method”, i.e. they performed careful observations, repeated experiments, tested hypotheses, and so on, yet alchemy was fantastical nonsense. Why? Because it mapped religion, spirituality and philosophy to observations, i.e. it tried to explain observations non-mathematically. Modern empirical science came into its own with Newton who mapped mathematics to observations. Newton couldn’t explain why mathematics was relevant to observations of the real universe, and he refused to “feign hypotheses” (at least in public). To this day, no scientist has ever explained what mathematics is and why science cannot function without it. Well, we can explain it easily ...

mathematics is reality, which is why you need to use mathematics to describe and define the world. Mathematics is the language of existence. It provides the only true ontology and epistemology of reality. All other rival ontologies and epistemologies are false. Science believes that mathematics is relevant only to the observable world and observable things, and rejects any mathematics that is not deemed relevant to observation (such as imaginary numbers, negative numbers, zero and infinity). “Non-relevant mathematics” is regarded as abstract and unreal. This is science’s central error. In fact, all of the numbers of mathematics are relevant to reality since this is a mathematical, and not a scientific, universe. Science simply gets its math wrong. It can’t define what mathematics is, and hence it doesn’t know how to use mathematics properly, and simply tries to match it to observations. It rejects any math that cannot be used to map to observable patterns, i.e. it’s predicated on observation when it should in fact be predicated on mathematics. Science fails exactly because it privileges the scientific method over the mathematical method. Science, by its very nature, will never explain ultimate reality for the simple reason that ultimate reality is mathematical, and mathematics in itself cannot be observed. Mathematics carries the information that defines the observable world, but the carrier itself is never observed. Scientists have never grasped this simple point. They’re too philosophically illiterate and ignorant even to give any thought to it. They’re not sufficiently rational and intellectual. Mathematics transcends the scientific world of experiences, observations and perceptions. Transcendental mathematics is what explains transcendental reality ... the rational reality that’s there but which we don’t experience (but which we can reach through our reason and intellect).

Contra Reason Anyone who opposes reason is ipso facto irrational. How can irrational people explain reality? Their “answer”, whatever it is, must be irrational. No irrational person can explain a rational universe. They can only “explain” an irrational universe, but why would anyone prefer one irrational

answer over another? All irrational answers are equally irrational, hence none is more valid than another, none is truer or falser. Irrationalism leads to relativism and the impossibility of genuine knowledge. Rationalism leads to a single, absolute, incontestable answer to existence, and the answer is of course 100% mathematical. It’s emphatically not “scientific”. Science is just another irrational attempt to explain reality. Science is irrational because it’s based on the irrational senses rather on reason and intellect. Its sole saving grace is that it uses mathematics, hence cannot but reflect – to a limited degree – mathematical, rational Truth. Science is saved from being alchemy and soothsaying purely thanks to math. Yet scientists are so stupid that they have never once attempted to address the ontology of mathematics and explain what mathematics actually is; how it exists in the world. What do you expect – they’re not rational!

What We Can Know? According to Kant, we cannot know the objects of the world, but only our perceptions of such objects. According to Illuminism, we can know the objects of the world ... because they are mathematical objects and you don’t need any observations, perceptions or experiences to understand a priori, analytic mathematics. For Kant, the world is our representation of something unknowable in itself. For Illuminism, the world is our representation, our interpretation, of knowable mathematics. For Kant, causality is a relation among representations, but not between them and something else that is not represented (the noumenal world). In Illuminism, causality is built into ontological mathematics and applies to everything. It’s ontological, not a “relation”. Kant says that space, time and causal relationships are not features of reality in itself. Illuminism says that space, time and causation are purely mathematical. Kant says that all of our concepts derive from a priori knowledge (“transcendental idealism”). Illuminism says that all of our concepts derive from a priori mathematics (ontological mathematics = transcendental realism). For Kant, a priori knowledge reflects categories of quantity (unity, plurality, totality), categories of quality (reality, negation, limitation), categories of relation (substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect,

reciprocity), and categories of modality (possibility, existence, necessity). For Illuminism, a priori knowledge reflects mathematics only, and everything mentioned by Kant is derivable from mathematics. For Kant, anything we experience is located by our mind in space and time and is classified by our mind within those a priori forms. For Illuminism, anything we experience takes place within an exclusively mathematical framework. Space and time are derived from a mental, mathematical, noumenal Singularity via Fourier mathematics. Space and time pre-exist, says Kant, but only in our mind. Illuminism says that space and time are consequences of Fourier mathematics. Kant says that knowledge is in our mind, and therefore everything that we know is in our mind (space, time, material objects). Illuminism says that our minds are mathematical entities, and mathematics itself is knowledge in our minds, hence we require no experience of it (mathematics is innate). We derive space, time and material objects from math. The qualia of an object (colour, smell) are not, Kant says, in the object but in our mind. They are manufactured by the perceptual subsystem of our mind. Illuminism says that all the waves that comprise reality are waveForms (information carriers), but every wave-Form is always associated with wave-Content (perceptual information carried), just as every visible light frequency (Form) is associated with a specific colour (Content). Qualia relate to how we subjectively experience mathematical Content (rather than Form). According to Kant, one cannot “infer” the existence of objects (as Descartes had done). According to Illuminism, the existence of objects can and must be inferred, and this must be done mathematically and rationally. For Kant, a priori understanding is indispensable to perception. For Illuminism, a priori mathematics is indispensable to perception. For Kant, experience involves processing sense data (applying a priori categories to perceptions). For Illuminism, experience involves processing mathematical Content. For Kant, the human mind is an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. For Illuminism, the human mind is a mathematical mind that can generate its own mathematical functions, and thereby interact with the mathematical world. It can experience the Content of any mathematical functions external to it, and also those internal to it.

Kant says that perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be “noise”. Illuminism says that all perceptual input is mathematical and is interpreted empirically. Kant says that it is the process of “recognizing” perceptions that generates consciousness (the self). Illuminism says that consciousness is meta-thinking ... when you can reflect on the fact that you’re thinking and the fact that you are recognising perceptions. Kant says that knowledge depends on the structure of the mind. Illuminism says that knowledge depends on the structure of mathematics, and minds themselves are mathematical structures.

Analytic Propositions With an analytic proposition, its predicate is logically contained in the subject, hence its negation would be logically meaningless e.g. it would be absurd to deny that “Barack Obama is a person” since the concept of any human being – such as Obama – includes the fact that they are a person. The truth of an analytic proposition is self-evident once the concepts involved are properly analyzed, hence knowledge is not increased. With synthetic propositions, on the other hand, their truth is not self-evident, hence they are said to increase knowledge. They are derived from experience (synthesis; the a posteriori) and not from analysis (the a priori). With ontological mathematics, all statements regarding eternal necessity are analytic. However, analytic necessities can be mathematically combined into synthetic functions, which have no necessity (they are purely contingent). Analysis relates to the eternal order of necessary things, while synthesis relates to the contingent functions that can be generated by combining the necessary components in various ways. In relation to the English language, we might contend that its words constitute the eternal, necessary part of the language, while all the different books constructed from the words comprise the synthetic, contingent, temporal order of existence. We could destroy every book, but the English language would remain, and we could start all over again. So it is with the universe. We can destroy every contingent, temporal function, but the eternal, necessary functions will remain.

*****

As regards the English language, its words are constantly mutating. New words are created, while old words slip away into obscurity. Meanings and usage are always changing. All manmade languages are of this nature. Even their core elements are contingent, not necessary, hence can never give us Truth. They are always mired in relativism and perspectivism. Mathematics, the only non-manmade language – the language of existence itself – is the only language whose fundamental units (numbers, points, lines and curves) can never change under any circumstances.

***** Anything whose basic units are not essential, eternal, necessary and a priori can never be linked to eternal Truth. Kant’s philosophy had no such basic units, and nor does science – hence both are fundamentally false. Science – absurdly – attempts to define Truth with regard to the unreliable, fallible human senses, with regard to inherent sensory contingency and temporality, with regard to appearance. This is an ideology doomed from the get-go. All it can give us are provisional, contingent truths, always in need of more verification, and always in danger of being falsified. Under no circumstances can this ever amount to Truth. The difference between scientists and mathematicians is that the former aren’t interested in “Big”, permanent Truth, and are perfectly happy with little, practical, problem-solving truths, true for the moment only. It’s no surprise to find that this tactical rather than strategic approach to truth results in scientists believing in a purposeless, meaningless, random, indeterministic reality – where there are no eternal truths. Truth, with a capital “T”, goes hand in hand with eternal, necessary, a priori truths – an eternal order of existence – yet such truths are denied by scientists. That’s why they claim that non-existence precedes the Big Bang. Self-evidently, the hypothesis of non-existence is incompatible with that of an eternal order of existence. The absolute difference between a scientific and mathematical treatment of reality is that the latter demands that whatever state preceded the Big Bang must belong to an eternal, mathematical order of existence, whereas the former has existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason, and is perfectly happy with this as an “explanation”. This reveals how utterly irrational and anti-intellectual scientists are. Math is what gives science all of its power, yet scientists still refuse to

embrace it as the true foundation of their subject, and continue to look to contingent, interpretive, sensory experiments as the ground of science. They have no relationship with the eternal Truth at all, which is why they completely disregard “God”, the soul ... and ontological, transcendental mathematics!

Senses and Thoughts Senses perceive objects (particulars). Thought deals with concepts (universals). Synthetic propositions apply a concept (a universal) to an object (a particular). Kantian concepts are: 1) A posteriori/empirical concepts (abstracted from perceived objects). 2) A priori/rational concepts or “categories” (not abstracted from perceived objects, but still applicable to perceived objects). 3) Ideas (neither abstracted from nor applicable to perceived objects). Synthetic a priori propositions are applications of categories (a specific kind of concept) to perceived objects. The subjective universe of perceived things is transformed into the objective universe of causally linked physical objects by the application of categories to perception. A Humean, chaotic, senseless universe of disconnected events is thus converted into an ordered, meaningful universe of connected events. It’s the thinking being – not the world itself – that creates this ordered, meaningful reality (by means of the categories). The mind constructs ordered reality, which otherwise would not exist.

Empirical Propositions Empirical (a posteriori) propositions: their truth depends on perception, e.g. “My car is red.” Non-empirical (a priori) propositions: their truth does not depend on perception, e.g. “Souls exist”. (This means that souls have necessary

existence ... it’s part of their essence, as per the ontological argument, which has nothing to do with experience and experiments.)

Synthetic Propositions Synthetic propositions: their truth is not self-evident. Analytic propositions: their truth is self-evident. Synthetic a priori propositions: their truth is not dependent on empirical reality, but only on intuition. In Kant’s scheme, such propositions can be denied without logical absurdity. He claimed that all mathematical propositions are synthetic a priori: they depend on the pure, a priori intuitions of space and time (and if space and time were different, they would in turn be different). Intuition is of a “spatial” kind in geometry (judgements of geometry are about the structure of space), and of a “temporal” kind in arithmetic (judgements of arithmetic are about the structure of time: “Arithmetic attains its concepts of numbers by the successive addition of units in time.” – Kant). Mathematics is in fact analytic a priori, and none of its propositions can be denied without logical absurdity. As Wittgenstein pointed out, mathematics is just a system of tautology. Mathematics is not the consequence of space and time. Rather space and time are consequences of mathematics. Where Kantian mathematics is based on the pure a priori intuitions of space and time, physics also makes use of Kant’s synthetic a priori propositions. This is critical because it means that Kant associates causality and substance with physics and not with mathematics. If he had linked them to mathematics instead, he would have arrived at ontological mathematics!

***** In reality, all theories of science constitute synthetic a posteriori (empirical) judgements: they are capable of revision indefinitely. Mathematics, on the other hand, is analytic and a priori (not synthetic and empirical), and is never subject to revision. That’s why mathematics alone, and definitely not science, can underpin an eternal order of existence. Physics is synthetic and empirical, but also relies on a partial implementation of the analytic a priori judgments of mathematics.

Hume argued that there are only analytic a priori and synthetic empirical (a posteriori) judgments. Kant believed he had corrected Hume via his new synthetic a priori propositions. In fact, there are no such things, so Hume was right. Kant fabricated a new “logical” category on which to base his philosophy. By doing so, he automatically invalidated his philosophy. There are no new logical categories. All of true logic is eternal, necessary, analytic and a priori.

***** A Kantian synthetic a priori judgement is one that is true not because of experience or the predicate being logically contained within the subject. Kant uses the “transcendental argument” to “prove” the existence of such judgments. The transcendental argument is a set of methods to use the mind’s own functioning to increase the mind’s own knowledge.

Ideas Ideas are due to an infinite series of deductive inferences (why? ... why? ... why? ..., and so on). Ideas cannot be applied to experience. There are three main ideas: 1) Psychology – what is the soul? 2) Cosmology – what is the total world? 3) Theology – what is God (the complete explanation of reality)? Kantian categories can only validly be applied to perceptions. When they are applied to non-perceived (abstract) ideas, this leads to an antinomy (where a thesis and its antithesis can both be proven true). Metaphysics, for Kant, involves the misapplication of categories.

Antinomies The essence of the four Kantian antinomies is that, using Kant’s methodology, both sides of the argument can be proven true: 1. Thesis: “The world has a beginning in time and is limited as regards space” versus Antithesis: “The world has no beginning and no limits in space.”

2. Thesis: “Every complex substance is made of simple parts” versus Antithesis: “Nothing is composed of simple parts.” 3. Thesis: “Humans have free will” versus Antithesis: “Humans have no free will.” 4. Thesis: “There exists a necessary being (God) in the world” versus Antithesis: “There does not exist a necessary being (God) in the world.” The domain of the thesis is the spiritual (religious) world, while the domain of the antithesis is the spatiotemporal (scientific) world. In Illuminism, the domain of the thesis is the mathematical, frequency, mental world, and the domain of the antithesis is the mathematical spacetime, material world. Note that Hegel rejected the notion that Kant’s antinomies couldn’t be solved, and created his dialectic (crucially including a synthesis phase) to solve them. Contemporary Illuminism asserts that they are all resolved via strict mathematical arguments reflecting an eternal, necessary, mathematical order of existence.

Wittgenstein On Mathematics “All mathematics is tautology.” – Wittgenstein True. “A tautology’s truth is certain, a proposition’s possible, a contradiction’s impossible.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics is about tautology, and contains no contradictions. Science is about propositions, and is full of contradictions. “We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws of geometry.” – Wittgenstein Which is why we can’t look to science for ultimate answers. “Mathematics is a logical method ... Mathematical propositions express no thoughts. In life it is never a mathematical proposition which we need, but we use mathematical propositions only in order to infer from propositions

which do not belong to mathematics to others which equally do not belong to mathematics.” – Wittgenstein And that’s exactly how you produce a dog’s dinner of scientific nonsense. It’s the total misapplication and misinterpretation of mathematics. “There can never be surprises in logic.” – Wittgenstein Who wants surprises in logic?! “The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.” – Wittgenstein The only questions that can be exactly put and answered exactly are those of mathematics. “Everything that can be said, can be said clearly.” – Wittgenstein Everything that is said clearly is said mathematically. Everything else is said through a glass darkly. “The process of calculating brings about just this intuition. Calculation is not an experiment.” – Wittgenstein But science is. “A mathematical proof must be perspicuous.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics alone offers perfect, eternal, unarguable clarity. “Mathematics is a motley of techniques and proofs.” – Wittgenstein You mean science (but without the proofs ... science prefers “evidential” experiments). “There is no religious denomination in which the misuse of metaphysical expressions has been responsible for so much sin as it has in mathematics.” – Wittgenstein WTF! “With my full philosophical rucksack I can only climb slowly up the mountain of mathematics.” – Wittgenstein And you definitely never got to the summit ... Truth itself.

“No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.” – Wittgenstein That’s because we all have unique souls. “Telling someone something he does not understand is pointless, even if you add that he will not be able to understand it.” – Wittgenstein True enough! “What Copernicus really achieved was not the discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view.” – Wittgenstein Exactly the same is true of science! “The mathematician Pascal admires the beauty of a theorem in number theory; it’s as though he were admiring a beautiful natural phenomenon. It’s marvellous, he says, what wonderful properties numbers have. It’s as though he were admiring the regularities in a kind of crystal.” – Wittgenstein Mathematics is the perfect crystal of eternity. Mathematics is Indra’s Net of perfectly reflecting jewels. “Genius is what makes us forget the master’s talent.” – Wittgenstein “The popular scientific books by our scientists aren’t the outcome of hard work, but are written when they are resting on their laurels.” – Wittgenstein All “popular” science writers have long since ceased to be proper scientists. The same is true of TV scientists. “The quarrel [between Newton and Leibniz] is simply the expression of evil weaknesses and fostered by vile people. Just what would Newton have lost if he had acknowledged Leibniz’s originality? Absolutely nothing! He would have gained a lot. And yet how hard it is to acknowledge something of this sort: someone who tries it feels as though he were confessing his own incapacity. ... It’s a question of envy of course. And anyone who experiences it ought to keep on telling himself: ‘It’s a mistake! It’s a mistake!’.” – Wittgenstein Newton’s hatred of Leibniz reflects science’s hatred of pure mathematics and philosophy.

“Death is not an event in life; we do not experience death.” – Wittgenstein Because we never die. We simply shed bodies, just like snakes. “Even when all the possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.” – Wittgenstein Exactly! That’s why we need math. “What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the flybottle.” – Wittgenstein ... Out of the scientific bottle. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Speak for yourself!

Transcendence Everyone is seeking transcendence, one way or another ... via love, faith, knowledge, the sublime, the beautiful, the mystical, reason, power, connection, “God”, Oneness, cosmic consciousness, and so on.

Math versus Science Science = empirical mathematics, phenomenal mathematics, synthetic mathematics, mundane mathematics, physical mathematics. Science obeys the scientific method. Ontological mathematics = rational mathematics, noumenal mathematics, analytic mathematics, transcendental mathematics, metaphysical mathematics. Ontological mathematics obeys the mathematical method. You only have to do one thing to save science ... underpin it with ontological mathematics. The sole way for science to arrive at a “final theory” is for it to abandon the scientific method as its main justification and instead turns to the mathematical method of analytic tautology. It must turn from contingent experimental evidence to necessary mathematical proof. To put it another way, science must cease being so hostile to reason while being so receptive to the sensory; it must become rationalist rather than empiricist. Already, science cannot do without mathematics. All that it’s required to do is accept the logic of that ... and embrace mathematics in

its entirety, not just those parts of mathematics that seem to work well with sensory observations. All we are pointing out is the logical, rational step that science must take if it wishes to provide a final theory of existence.

The First Law of Thermodynamic Continuity? So, does the First Law of Thermodynamics imply that something can erupt out of non-existence for no reason at all and with no explanation at all – as science claims – provided that the something thereby produced has an equal positive and negative component, meaning that “something” balances to “nothing” (ensuring that there’s no technical violation of energy conservation)? Doesn’t that look like a Sophist’s version of the First Law of Thermodynamics, an exercise in clever, specious accounting? If the First Law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, doesn’t that mean that energy is eternal? Surely it doesn’t mean that energy can be summoned out of nothing at all just so long as its net effect never exceeds nothing (which is what science says)? That looks incredibly like energy being created from nothing at all ... from non-existence!!! In fact, how can that conclusion possibly be avoided? Isn’t the First Law of Thermodynamics about the continuity of energy? That is, you can’t have non-existence (non-energy) discontinuously and miraculously leading to sudden energy production (but of such a nature that the energy produced has zero net effect). In these terms, the Big Bang, as conceived by science (whereby the free-lunch universe springs out of nothing at all, but has an overall energy of zero), is emphatically an outrageous and impossible violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics of ontological energy conservation and continuity. In order to explain away the Big Bang, science has constructed a wholly fraudulent interpretation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, whereby energy is not eternally conserved, but, rather, can come and go at will, provided the accountant’s energy calculations always have a net effect of zero. Such a universe would be a universe of magic, miracles and total chaos – nothing like the observed universe. Moreover, the absurd Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics allows enormous violations of energy conservation (amounting to borrowing energy from the past and/or future!), provided the violation is rapidly rectified (via energy borrowing being swiftly repaid). Again, this is

a silly exercise in energy bookkeeping and has no connection with energy in ontological terms. Anyone who thinks that science’s Big Bang, or science’s take on quantum mechanics, is compatible with ontological energy conservation is retarded. Go back to bed! In ontological mathematics, the First Law of Thermodynamics is in fact a mathematical law, not scientific. It describes an infinity of 1) positive sinusoidal waves, 2) negative sinusoidal waves, 3) real sinusoidal waves, and 4) imaginary sinusoidal waves. These are eternal, analytic, immutable, indestructible, immaterial, noumenal, ontological, Platonic waves, outside space and time. They are the invisible, immortal fabric of existence, from which all visible things come. Their total sum is exactly zero, and this is true at all times and forever. Compare and contrast the mathematical First Law of Energy versus the scientific First Law. In the mathematical version, energy in itself is simply mathematical waves – eternal analytic vibrations – which can be neither created nor destroyed. Nor can they be transformed. It’s the contingent combinations of waves – wavefunctions – that undergo transformation, not the necessary waves themselves. There is an eternal mathematical order of existence, immaterial and outside space and time, outside the entire paradigm of science. Science, on the other hand, claims that non-existence is “unstable” – although it can’t explain how or why, or even how such a claim makes any sense. It believes that non-existence can randomly and spontaneously generate existence ... that energy can come from nothing (i.e. can be created and destroyed), provided that it never has any net non-zero value (or, even more ridiculously, doesn’t violate any non-zero condition for any sustained length of time). If you’re a rational and intelligent person, you will understand that science’s version of the First Law of Energy is ridiculous, and the precise opposite of ontological energy conservation. It literally claims that energy can come from nothing, and return to nothing, in complete contradiction of the First Law. It seeks to claim to be consistent with the First Law on the basis that a net result of “nothing” hasn’t in fact produced any energy out of nothing, because “nothing” is exactly what remains when the bookkeeping is done. It’s an accountant’s understanding of energy! This is a spectacularly bogus, specious and fraudulent argument because it has at its core the exact

opposite of the true First Law of Energy – that energy is eternal, that nothing necessary can be created, and nothing necessary destroyed. Only ontological mathematics is consistent with an eternal order of energy. So, what preceded the Big Bang? According to science, non-existence did, and it magically, miraculously and inexplicably generated the material world of spacetime out of nothing at all for no reason at all. The world in effect summoned itself into existence – the most ludicrous claim ever made in the history of thought, even worse than that an eternal, necessary “God” created the universe out of nothing! According to ontological mathematics, on the other hand, an immaterial, immortal Fourier frequency domain (Singularity), outside space and time, preceded the Big Bang, and the material world of spacetime was constructed from it via an inverse Fourier transform. It’s all in the math! Rational ontological mathematicians, unlike irrational scientists, do not have to invoke magic, miracles, randomness, spontaneity, accident, chance, inexplicable wavefunction collapse, indeterminism, acausality, the violation of the First Law of Energy, and all the rest of the garbage that science claims is “rational”. Scientists cannot in any way prove their speculations to be true, and they cannot in any way contradict ontological mathematics, yet they believe science to be the unarguable truth of reality. What a joke! Ontological mathematics utterly, unarguably, rationally, proves that science is false and mathematics true. Do the math! Scientific materialists are barely more rational than Abrahamists and Karmists, and some of their “explanations” of reality are even worse! They are every bit as blind, dogmatic, and ideological as the worst religious fundamentalists. They don’t even realise it. These ‘tards imagine themselves open-minded and rational!

Clever Clogs? Scientists think they’re being really clever by getting rid of an eternal, necessary “God”, but what they’re actually doing is getting rid of an eternal, necessary God Equation, the true grand unified and final theory of everything. Science believes that non-existence can miraculously produce existence, and that means that science cannot reflect an eternal order of existence

(since any proposed state of non-existence is self-evidently incompatible with eternal existence). Any true final theory of existence must be eternal. Science’s won’t be. That’s a fact. Hence it won’t be a final theory. Scientists are pursuing an impossible dream. Any rationalist could tell them that. The final theory of everything is and must be strictly mathematical. There are no other candidates. The central problem of science is that it refuses to admit any eternal, necessary, analytic, a priori elements into science, i.e. hidden variables incompatible with the contingent, empirical, observational method of science. Even Kant – himself an enthusiastic empiricist – saw the essential need of a priori elements in any comprehensive explanation of reality, to free it from contingency and skepticism (which are rife in science). Science’s ideological refusal means that it will be forever stuck in contingency, and will never arrive at any final theory of anything at all. When science threw out “God”, it threw the baby out with the bath water. What “God” and the God Equation have in common is that they are eternal, necessary and a priori. The catastrophic error of religion was to personalise and anthropomorphise the God Equation, thus turning a hyperrational equation into an absurd “being” onto whom silly humans could project all of their ridiculous human fears, beliefs, hopes and wonders – as we see most archetypally with the Jews, the self-proclaimed “Chosen People”. To recover the God Equation from “God”, you simply have to remove all of the extraneous, ludicrous, humans traits projected onto it, the personality and the anthropomorphication. Religion is the God Equation with an incongruous human face attached to it. It’s the God Equation with a human appearance. When you get rid of that appearance, you are left with pure reason and mathematics. Now, what atheist wants to turn his back on truth and reason? ... yet that’s exactly what atheistic scientists do! The God Equation does exactly the thing that any plausible religion requires ... it defines the immortal soul. The existence of the soul is precisely what science denies, hence science can never be on the side of the Truth. The only worth of science is as a pragmatic problem-solving tool in the world of appearances (phenomena). To imagine it tells us even one thing about ultimate reality, about the fundamental nature of existence and meaning of life, is bonkers.

Science is a method and tool. That’s all it can ever be. It’s not an explanation of anything, and has no ontology and epistemology. It’s a contingent, temporal speculation and method, and nothing more than that.

***** All of the absurd claims of science concerning existence miraculously leaping out of non-existence; unobserved cats that are simultaneously dead and alive; unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions; indeterministic wavefunction collapse to produce “actuality”; the need for observers and observations; the Multiverse of infinite random worlds; infinite clones of us; machines that can become alive and surpass humans; Darwinism predicated on random mutations; life coming from non-life; mind coming from non-mind; acausation; accident and chance; the denial of free will; the denial of teleology and meaning, and so on ... they all have a single source, namely science’s refusal to countenance an eternal, necessary, rational, logical, analytic, a priori order of existence. Without such an order, there is nothing to ground reality, to give it any necessary pattern, purpose and meaning.

Eternity The nature of eternity defines the difference between science and ontological mathematics. Mathematically, we can reduce the debate to the difference between linear eternity (science) and cyclical eternity (ontological mathematics). With linear eternity, there is no definable beginning and no definable end ... it’s a system of infinite contingent regress. No matter how far back you go, you never arrive at a necessary foundation. It’s “turtles all the way down”. It’s impossible for such a system to reflect any meaning or purpose. It has no reason to be. It just is. This is how science views reality. Science’s popular inflation theory says, courtesy of Wikipedia, “In many models of inflation, the inflationary phase of the Universe’s expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the Universe. This occurs because inflating regions expand very rapidly, reproducing themselves. Unless the rate of decay to the non-inflating phase is sufficiently fast, new inflating regions are produced more rapidly than non-inflating regions. In such models most of the volume of the Universe at any given time is inflating.

All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal.” With regard to a putative standalone Big Bang, science claims that existence is born out of non-existence (it has a start in time) and then goes on forever (it has no end in time), but suffers permanent heat death during its lifetime, rendering it infinitely sterile for the rest of eternity. There is no negentropy to combat entropy (which drives the heat death). With a universe based on circles and corresponding periodic waves (closed infinities rather than the open infinities of linear systems), we can define a starting point and then watch the system depart from that starting point, up to a maximum point of departure, after which it begins its return to the starting point, and so on forever, producing an infinite oscillating universe. This provides the universe with an inherent purpose – to return to the beginning after leaving the beginning – and gives it a clear meaning (completion, wholeness, return ... all the things signally lacking in scientific contingency). A necessary eternal universe – one based on analytic, a priori principles – is necessarily a cyclical, periodic universe since we have to be able to return from all contingent futures to the necessary starting point we have defined (namely the state that precedes the current Big Bang universe, or any Big Bang universe). This is what ontological, transcendental mathematics is all about, and it has nothing to do with experience and experiments. It is worked out using pure mathematical reason. A contingent eternal universe – such as that envisaged by eternal inflation theory – never returns to any analytic starting point, so belongs to an inexplicable order of infinite contingent regress, with no conceivable explanation. The conventional standalone Big Bang theory is even crazier. It miraculously summons existence out of nothing at all, and then this contingent universe subsequently exists forever. This automatically raises a famous objection that Leibniz made against Newtonian Creationism, namely, why did “God” (or non-existence – it will serve just as well) “decide” to suddenly make existence (the world) happen 13.5 billion years ago? Why not yesterday or a trillion years ago? It’s totally random and miraculous. There’s no sufficient reason for it. As ever, science refuses to engage with such questions – dismissing them as “mere philosophy” – and that’s exactly why science can never

provide any satisfying answer to anything. It ignores all of the fatal objections raised against it, and just spins its own silly, solipsistic, randomist little stories, and all the scientists pat each other on the back and say how wonderful and smart they all are. These people are living in La La land ... just like religious fundamentalists. They are an affront to reason and intellect. No genuinely smart person would ever refuse to answer philosophical questions.

***** The very notion that non-existence can produce existence that then goes on forever is offensive to reason, and to all notions of balance, harmony, symmetry and sufficient reason. Science produces completely asymmetric, contingent “explanations” of reality, while ontological, transcendental mathematics furnishes a necessary system based on inevitable symmetry breaking, followed by inevitable symmetry restoration, all in the neatest analytical way. It’s all in the math! It’s all based on Fourier sinusoidal waves derived from ontological Euler circles. Why are scientists willing to accept contingent, dimensional, nonanalytic “strings” as the fundamental units of the world, but not necessary, dimensionless, analytic sinusoids? It’s because they despise a priori analytic necessity since it contradicts their contingent, empirical scientific method – the “God” all scientists worship even though it contradicts a priori reason itself. Scientists, in other words, refuse to accept that existence has a necessary, analytic, a priori, mathematical answer ... and that automatically means that it has no answer at all, no purpose at all and no meaning at all ... all statements that scientists would immediately agree with! That’s why science is fundamentally atheistic and nihilistic, why it’s utterly skeptical towards rationalism and ontological, transcendental mathematics (which completely dispenses with scientific materialism, empiricism, contingency and irrationalism). Well, which side are you on – rationalism and necessity or empiricism and contingency? Your understanding of reality, and therefore the solution you give to existence, depends on which side you support. You will not be able to take the other side seriously once you have made your choice. We

make our choice based on rationalism. How do you make yours? What you choose says everything about you.

***** The most horrifying thing about scientists is that they are certain they’re right, even though they have absolutely no rational basis for that conclusion. (If they did, they would be able to, and eager, to refute every point we have made in the God Series – good luck with that, guys!) That makes them just like the Abrahamists and Karmists they sneer at – driven by faith, ideology and dogmatism, and wholly opposed to reason.

Science’s First Law Problem Scientists often say that it’s meaningless to ask what happened before the Big Bang because, in their philosophically illiterate opinion, it’s meaningless to refer to anything happening before “time began”. This means that they associate existence with the passage of time ... that’s a metaphysical not a scientific claim. To refute them, we can easily point to the existence of an immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. This is something that exists without any time passing: exactly what is denied by science. It’s purely mental, not physical. It’s consistent with all of the laws of existence, but not with what science claims existence is. The simple fact is that what came before the Big Bang was the eternal Singularity. Eternity always precedes temporality. According to science, non-existence precedes the Big Bang ... an absurdity that fatally undermines the whole of science. If science can’t get this right, how can it get anything right? Consider this problem ... if non-existence preceded the Big Bang then what of the First Law of Thermodynamics? If there was only non-existence before the Big Bang then, plainly, the First Law of Thermodynamics didn’t exist either. But how can a fundamental law of existence not exist? It’s impossible. It’s a fatal contradiction in the “logic” of science. If you think about it, the reason why science says that something can come from nothing at all without the First Law of Thermodynamics being violated is that there was no First Law to be violated ... it didn’t exist! You can’t violate a non-existent. If the First Law didn’t exist, energy is free to be made out of nothing at all ... which is exactly the claim that science makes. So, not only does

science literally claim that energy can be created out of nothing (thus contradicting the true, eternal First Law of Thermodynamic Continuity), it even makes the insane claim that the First Law of Thermodynamics itself can be created out of nothing! And indeed that all laws are made out of nothing ... like magic! Science, ultimately, is a religion, predicated on miracles. Consider this ... how can any sane, rational person claim that it’s idiotic to ask what happened “before” the Big Bang? Is it insane to ask what the status of the laws of existence was before the Big Bang? If it is, then how can we say that the Big Bang belongs to any lawful order at all? How can we say that the Big Bang was an event controlled by scientific laws if they didn’t exist ... and, if it wasn’t, how can it belong to science at all? Either the laws of existence are eternal, as ontological mathematics asserts, or the laws of existence can be miraculously plucked out of non-existence, as science claims. That would make those laws temporal and contingent, not eternal and necessary. But contingent laws cannot have an explanation. They have no necessary ground, no sufficient reason. They are formally miraculous. You might as well believe in God. Which is it ... is existence eternal, as in ontological mathematics, or is existence something that randomly and miraculously springs out of nonexistence for no reason at all, as in science? If there is an eternal order of energy (reflecting the fact that energy exists forever and can be neither created nor destroyed) then it’s absurd to claim that you cannot ask what state preceded the Big Bang. This state must exist, and must be analytic (non-empirical). It must in fact be 100% mathematical and have nothing at all to do with science (which is a materialist, empiricist philosophy concerning space and time, contingency and temporality). Scientists are so dumb, so unimaginative, so mathematically illiterate, that they can’t imagine a non-spacetime order of existence ... an eternal, mathematical, frequency order of existence ... a mental, not material, order. It’s this frequency order in which the eternal laws of existence inhere. In order for there to be eternal laws there must be something in which they can inhere. They inhere in the mathematical Singularity of monads = immortal mathematical minds = souls! The eternal laws of existence are maintained by eternal mathematical souls.

Soul World ... Mind World ... Mathematical World ... “God” ... precedes the Material World of Science. Soul World is what precedes the Big Bang. Just as Plato said, souls “fall” into the material world. They create it and then they inhabit it. That’s the explanation of our reality. It’s a transcendental mathematical explanation and has nothing to do with scientific materialism and empiricism. It’s a rational, intelligible solution that has nothing to do with the senses and experiences. Are you smart enough to understand the answer to existence? That’s the real question. Science’s “explanations” regarding ultimate reality are ludicrous, embarrassing, and laughable. They are wholly specious, irrational, illogical and unintelligible. Science ultimately resorts to miracles to explain existence. Science is a religion ... a really bad one that doesn’t make any sense! It’s an irrational faith in the senses and experiences, and has total contempt for reason and intellect. Not a single scientist on earth would ever dare to debate with us regarding these issues. That’s how sad, pathetic and anti-intellectual science is.

The First Law Catastrophe “In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant – it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. “A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist [i.e. one that produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy]. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. ... “The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its

surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.” – Wikipedia Assuming that we regard the universe (or Multiverse!) as an isolated system, the only way to rationally interpret the statement that energy can be neither created nor destroyed is to conclude that all energy has existed forever. If it hasn’t existed forever then, self-evidently, it has been created out of nothing, hence can also be annihilated – a blatant violation of energy conservation. Yet science talks of a “zero energy” universe in exactly these terms. As John Gribbin says, “This is how the Universe could have appeared at a point, out of nothing at all. The Universe only looks so interesting because its zero overall energy is divided evenly between a lot of mass and a lot of negative gravitational energy.” In other words, science says that there is no objection whatsoever to energy being created out of nothing at all, provided it’s exactly “balanced” between mass (positive energy) and gravity (negative energy). The same sort of thinking is extended to quantum mechanics: energy can be borrowed out of nothing at all ... so long as it is paid back. The more energy that is borrowed, the quicker it must be repaid. None of this is consistent with any genuine law of energy conservation. In fact, it’s the opposite of energy conservation. According to science, you can make energy whenever you like, and destroy it whenever you like, just so long as you do it in the right, balanced way. So, here we have an absolute difference between science and ontological mathematics. According to the latter, all of the energy in the universe has existed forever. It really can’t be created or destroyed under any circumstances. Nor does it make any sense to talk of energy being “borrowed” from anywhere (then “repaid”). Energy is absolutely conserved at every instant. The state that preceded the Big Bang was a state consistent with eternal and necessary energy conservation. None of this is true with contingent, temporal science. Anything can happen at any time. You can produce whole universes out of nothing. You can create and destroy as much energy as you like – provided it’s balanced, hence does not technically violate energy conservation. So, which is right? As soon as you accept a true law of energy conservation, scientific materialism is automatically falsified.

Why does science refuse to engage with these questions? It’s not an intellectual discipline at all, just a collection of contradictory and crazy assertions. If science does not respect an authentic law of energy conservation, it’s no different from magic. Anything can emerge from anything at any time ... and that’s more or less what scientific Multiverse thinking says. If you truly accept the conservation of energy on an ontological, continuous, eternal basis, you cannot be a scientist. Science rejects a true law of energy conservation. What is a monadic soul? It’s an ontological, eternal energy system – exactly what science denies!

The Triple Problem Reality is made out of numbers (mathematics), but numbers are information, and information is interpreted as Content ... as sensory data. Think of the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Every different frequency is associated with a different colour, i.e. each different number (frequency) has a different sensory property. In fact, the whole of reality is based on different frequencies being interpreted in different sensory, emotional and intuitive ways. We don’t see the frequency (the number), we experience the frequency (as non-number, as informational Content). Moreover, we “understand” the world via non-numerical, nonmathematical, manmade verbal languages, which are ideal for telling stories (Mythos), but useless for dealing with the mathematical Truth of reality (Logos). In other words, our senses, emotions, intuitions and languages all conspire to convince us that reality is anything other than mathematical. Only the finest, brightest, most rational and intelligent minds can cut through all of the phenomenal illusions placed in our path and arrive at the noumenal Truth that the unseen substrate to existence is pure mathematical sinusoidal waves – the ultimate information carriers. Ontologically, sinusoidal waves are numbers, i.e. numbers do not exist as anything other than the frequencies, amplitudes and phases of mathematical waves, and all numbers have non-numerical, sensory and empirical Content associated with them, as we see with the different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.

If you accept that this is an information universe, you must accept that something carries the information. Because you encounter the information carried, you do not encounter the information carrier, i.e. you experience the information as phenomenon and not as noumenon (the information in itself). Mathematical waves are the information in itself, but these can never be detected by anything. They are ontological, noumenal causes, but only their ontological, phenomenal effects are perceived. You need to be a rationalist, not empiricist, to grasp that mathematics underlies everything but can never be detected in itself. You need to be a genius to understand this. And, if you don’t “get it”, you can be sure that all of your opinions about the nature of ultimate reality are false and delusional. Whether you like it or not, mathematics is the Source. Science uses mathematics all the time. Has science ever explained what mathematics actually is and why it’s essential to science? You must be joking. Science can’t even begin to explain why it has mathematics at its core – i.e. it can’t explain itself – yet it purports to be able to explain the universe to us. How ridiculous! Not a single person outside the Illuminati has ever explained what mathematics is ontologically, and what numbers are ontologically. If you think you’re so smart, go right ahead and state what mathematics is and how and why it exists at all. Bear in mind that the truths of mathematics are eternal, and that means, of course, that mathematics precedes any human being.

The First Law of Life Scientists mock the notion of the “spontaneous generation” of life. Wikipedia says, “Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.” Aristotle said, “[Some animals] spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects,

while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs.” The remarkable thing is that science, despite its protestations, surely does believe in the miraculous generation of life from death, from dirt or dust. According to science, life comes about by arranging lifeless atoms in certain ways, and mind from organising mindless atoms in particular ways. If you think it’s irrational to claim that life magically comes from nonlife and mind from non-mind then you are obliged to conclude that there’s a First Law of Life and Mind, equivalent to the First Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. mind and life can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed (via consciousness arising from the unconscious, for example, or necessary life shifting from one contingent body to another via reincarnation). This First Law of Life and Mind is enshrined in Leibniz’s Monadology, but is rejected by scientific materialism, according to which life and mind are contingencies that magically emerge – with no conceivable rational explanation, mechanism or precedent – from dust ... dead, inert atoms. It’s truly astounding that scientists consider themselves rational when their arguments are so often shown to be based on magic and miracles, on the utterly inexplicable and illogical.

***** “Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process of life arising from nonliving matter such as simple organic compounds.” – Wikipedia What’s the difference between scientifically approved abiogenesis and scientifically laughable spontaneous generation? Er, not much ... if anything at all! Well, go on, explain the difference! “John Desmond Bernal has identified a number of ‘outstanding difficulties in accounts of the origin of life’. He suggests that earlier theories such as spontaneous generation were based upon an explanation that life was continuously created as a result of chance events.” – Wikipedia Isn’t that exactly what Darwinism says?! Life, in science, doesn’t happen by design, and nor does it reflect an eternal order of life (such as Leibniz’s Monadology does). It happens by accident, by chance ... spontaneously.

“Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century. This belief was paired with a belief in heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers). Classical notions of spontaneous generation, which can be considered under the modern term abiogenesis, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on.” – Wikipedia Isn’t scientific biology a theory of heterogenesis, i.e. living things can arise from things that are not living? What scientist has ever explained how that is possible? Did Darwin? Has Dawkins? Yet such people claim to know the “facts” of evolution.

***** One way to explain the “spontaneous” generation of physical life would be to say that monadic (mental) life-forms enter into clumps of dirt, dust or organic compounds, thus animating them. Science has no such mechanism open to it, so has to say that life emerges miraculously and magically.

***** Here’s the truth ... the conservation of energy is the same as the conservation of ontological mathematical sinusoids. And that’s the same as the conservation of life and mind. Ultimate reality comprises immortal, indestructible, living, mental, mathematical energy systems ... souls!

The Scarab Beetle “Several species of the dung beetle, most notably the species Scarabaeus sacer (often referred to as the sacred scarab), enjoyed a sacred status among the ancient Egyptians. ... The scarab was linked to Khepri (‘he who has come into being’), the god of the rising sun. The ancients believed that the dung beetle was only male in gender, and reproduced by depositing semen into a dung ball. The supposed self-creation of the beetle resembles that of

Khepri, who creates himself out of nothing. Moreover, the dung ball rolled by a dung beetle resembles the sun. Plutarch wrote: ‘The race of beetles has no female, but all the males eject their sperm into a round pellet of material which they roll up by pushing it from the opposite side, just as the sun seems to turn the heavens in the direction opposite to its own course, which is from west to east.’” – Wikipedia

***** Well, things either miraculously create themselves out of nothing (like Khepri) or they exist eternally. Science says that the universe magically self-creates out of nothing. Ontological mathematics says that the universe is eternal. Well, which is it?!

Hume’s Fork “All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.” – David Hume Hume divided all propositions of human reason into two different kinds: 1) Relations of Ideas, and 2) Matters of Fact. This binary division is called Hume’s fork. Relations of Ideas are propositions whose truth can be known simply by inspecting the ideas to see if the asserted relation holds. They are truths because of their meanings, analytic definitions and the logical relations between such ideas. They are true or false a priori. If such a proposition is true, to deny it is to commit a logical contradiction. The only genuine Relations of Ideas concern mathematics (including geometry, algebra, and arithmetic). Mathematical proofs exclusively reflect Relations of Ideas. As Hume pointed out, knowledge derived from Relations of Ideas is totally different from that associated with Matters of Fact. It’s essential to realise that only Relations of Ideas can constitute absolute, infallible, Platonic knowledge. Matters of Fact are always interpretive, and interpretation is

always unreliable, fallible and speculative, frequently lurching into irrational belief. Matters of Fact correspond to direct sense experience. Each matter of fact is contingent; its negation is conceivable, involves no contradiction and represents a distinct possibility. These are propositions whose “truth” (or, rather, interpretation) can only be known by experience – by observing the world to see if they are true or false. However, they involve all manner of interpretive problems. Imagine a person with colour vision staring at the sky and calling it “blue”, while a person with non-colour vision stares at the same sky and has no idea what the other person is talking about. So, is it really a “matter of fact” that the sky is blue? Or is at always a subjective interpretation that others might disagree with? In the end, “matters of fact” are “consensus facts” – but that has nothing to do with truth. There might be a consensus in many places that Jesus Christ is “God”. That doesn’t make it true. Equally, the fact that most people regard the sky as blue simply raises all sorts of issues, especially regarding whether we all agree that the sky is blue, and whether we are all having the same subjective “blue” experience. How would we know? Matters of fact are always highly dubious and can always be subject to significant revision and interpretation. Transcendental, ontological mathematics is always on one side of the fork (that of Relations of Ideas), while empirical science is always on the other (that of Matters of Fact). Therefore, both can’t be true as the basis of ultimate reality. It must be one or the other. Tellingly, mathematics does not make any appeals to science, but science routinely appeals to mathematics, meaning that science does not in fact stick to the “Matters of Fact” side of the fork, but actually becomes a bizarre hybrid, invalidly mixing Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. This mixing makes science practical and successful, but totally destroys all of its logical coherence. Science can never be a complete and consistent system – it can never produce a final, grand unified theory of everything – precisely because it’s sitting on two sides of a logical fork at once ... a blatant contradiction. To define ultimate reality, you must choose one side of the fork or the other. You can’t ride both horses, yet this is exactly what science attempts to do.

Reality, if it’s rational, must reflect Relations of Ideas. If it’s irrational, it will reflect nothing but empirical, contingent Matters of Fact (i.e. subjective interpretations that are swallowed by infinite contingent regress as science attempts to explain each such matter of fact, but without using any eternal, necessary ontological elements). With Matters of Fact, we end up in a world of Humean skepticism. Most especially, we can’t experience causation, so causation can’t be a Matter of Fact. A world without any formal rational causation is automatically an irrational world. Causation is the glue that holds together Relations of Ideas concerning dynamic ontological mathematics (i.e. mathematics in motion). Matters of Fact prohibit us from predicting anything about the future since we can never know, as a matter of fact, that the future will resemble the past. We can’t be certain that the supposed “causal relations” that seem to have held in the past will continue to hold. Like all other matters of fact, they could turn out to be false in the future, without any necessary contradiction. This is an important issue for science, and Hume was the first to draw attention to it, but science has never made any attempt whatsoever to formally address this problem. Science is predicated on the reliability and repeatability of experiments in order to establish the validity of scientific theories. But if there’s no reason to suppose that future experiments will necessarily resemble and repeat past experiments, how can we proceed with science at all? The terrible problem articulated by Hume has never worried scientists for the simple reason that they have dogmatically ignored it (not because they have any answer to it). This means that science is a castle built on sand. It has no necessary, reliable foundations whatsoever. It’s just a provisional set of Humean “regularities”. Hume’s arguments highlight the problem of induction. If experiments provide evidence for hypotheses, and scientists test hypotheses with their experiments, when have enough experiments been conducted to know that a hypothesis is “correct” (and that it can then be classified as a “theory”)? It’s always possible that the next experiment will not conform to the hypothesis; that it will instead falsify rather than verify the hypothesis. No scientist can ever prove that a hypothesis is true via induction. With Relations of Ideas, we can deduce and prove every proposition. With

Matters of fact, we cannot deduce and prove anything at all. All we can do is accumulate evidential support for a theory. Where rationalists deduce that particular events will happen as a result of general principles and innate ideas, scientists induce general hypotheses from particular events. However, no matter how many particular events are observed, an induction will never produce certainty. “Black swans” can happen at any time. Therefore, science can never be a system of knowledge, but merely a set of highly educated guesses and approximations (predictions) exhibiting a high confidence level (but no certainty). What is seriously irritating about scientists is that so many of them believe that science deals with “facts”, “knowledge”, “reason” and “truth”. It does nothing of the kind! It’s a fact that mathematical knowledge cannot be the same as scientific knowledge, and that automatically raises the problem of what we are to regard as true “knowledge.” Wittgenstein notoriously dismissed mathematics as empty tautology that told us nothing about the “real” world. In other words, he denied that mathematics and Relations of Ideas constitute “knowledge”. Therefore, he was on the side of scientific matters of fact, and the evidential, experimental verification of those facts. But Wittgenstein – a professional philosopher – totally failed to address Hume’s philosophical objections to the validity and legitimacy of scientific “knowledge”, and he equally failed to refute Nietzsche’s assertion that there are no facts at all, only “interpretations”. Wittgenstein’s entire philosophy is just an interpretation of language, whether manmade languages or the “scientific” language of the senses. It has nothing to do with knowledge and Truth. Scientists and empiricist philosophers like Wittgenstein are only interested in the “facts” of the observable world, and dismiss anything unobservable as “metaphysical” and “meaningless”. This is just their interpretation, opinion and belief, of course. They cannot prove their stance in any way, and they can’t disprove metaphysics in any way. In fact, true metaphysics is none other than Relations of Ideas (Platonic Ideas) = ontological, transcendental mathematics. Science and empiricism are mired in interpretation, temporality and contingency. We can’t get to truth, eternity and necessity using them. The question, therefore, becomes very simple ... does “knowledge” relate to the eternal, intelligible, rational, infallible world of Plato’s Forms (Ideas), or to

the temporal, sensible, empirical, fallible world of science? These are two radically different and incompatible ways of designating knowledge. Scientists and empiricists have no interest in the unobservable world (which they consider non-existent, pure fantasy, or utterly irrelevant), so they stick to matters of mundane fact. Of course, everyone else is interested in transcendence, in everything that surpasses our mundane experiences, our temporality and contingency. These can never belong to the matters of fact side of Hume’s fork. That means that we must look to relations of ideas for our transcendent knowledge, the knowledge that links us to eternity, necessity, the infallible and absolute ... the eternal rather than temporal order of existence, the religious and spiritual rather than scientific and empirical order. If you want to have knowledge of existence itself, scientific matters of fact can never help you. However, transcendental, ontological, noumenal mathematics gives you exactly what you need to understand ultimate existence that transcends all of our mortal experiences. The Truth is Platonic, not scientific. It’s all about eternal truths of reason and relations of ideas, about eternity and necessity, the analytic and tautological, the infallible and absolute ... the domain of “God” (God Equation) and the soul (the mathematical monad). Given this analysis, it’s obvious how much of a charlatan Wittgenstein was. The vast majority of his philosophy is blatantly false. He, like Kant, simply never grasped the ontology of mathematics. His pathetic, cryptic, empiricist, scientific, language-focused meanderings do not reveal the Truth of reality at all. What he despised and regarded as meaningless – metaphysics – is the only route to Truth ... but only if it’s conducted strictly mathematically. Mathematical reason, not our sensibility, is the faculty by which we acquire knowledge of the laws of nature and the eternal order of existence. There’s no other way. Temporal, contingent, interpretive “facts” are useless. The supreme irony is that although Wittgenstein rubbished mathematical tautology and revered science, science itself is utterly reliant on mathematics and that means it inherits a huge amount of mathematical tautology. Wittgenstein is silent on this blatant contradiction in his philosophy. You can’t go around dismissing mathematics and trumpeting science if science can’t in fact do without mathematics!

Where transcendental, ontological, noumenal mathematics is complete and consistent and obeys analytic relations of ideas, science borrows mathematics in such a bungled and botched way that it turns “scientific” mathematics into something wholly inconsistent and incomplete. Science is exactly what you get when you try to use relations of ideas and matters of fact in a single system. Whatever else can be said of such a system, we know a priori that it can never be consistent and complete, hence cannot be a system of Truth and Absolute Knowledge. Consider relativity theory and quantum mechanics. These are two fantastically successful theories, both experimentally “verified”, yet the two theories are entirely incompatible. The finest scientific minds of the last several decades have futilely tried to reconcile them, without getting anywhere near an answer. They never will because science is incapable of resolving problems of this nature since they concern fundamental ontological and epistemological matters, but science has no formal ontology or epistemology. All that science does is match hypotheses to experimental data. Relativity and quantum mechanics have both passed this test ... so how can science proceed? Well, an experiment is needed that can definitively refute one or other theory, or indeed both. However, when such experiments come along – such as those concerning Bell’s Inequality Theorem – they are deliberately misinterpreted so as to preserve the preferred theories. In other words, when major scientific theories are formally falsified, scientists simply refuse to accept the result and what they then do is reinterpret the experiments so that no falsification has occurred. This turns out to be a staggeringly easy exercise since science has no ontology and epistemology, and you require these in order to prove that a falsification has occurred. Without them, you can deploy any old ad hoc argument to preserve your preferred theory ... exactly as they do in religion, which also lacks any formal ontology and epistemology. You can’t disprove the pet theories of people who refuse to respect reason. That’s true whether you’re dealing with religious or scientific fanatics. Look at the Law of Energy Conservation. As we have shown, you can easily bend it to say something radically different from the face value statement that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The prevailing interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity can easily be shown to be false – we have already done so throughout the God

Series – but no veteran scientist would ever read our books. They don’t want to know that the theories on which their careers and reputations are built are false. Our appeal is always to the next generation of scientists, those who have not yet been corrupted by the scientific establishment and careerism, and still have open, rational minds. There’s no point at all in attempting to reason with established scientists. They didn’t get where they are today by being dazzling philosophers who could understand the intricate rational arguments we have deployed against science. As soon as you accept the scientific method – something that deals with matters of fact rather than relations of ideas – you have already demonstrated that reason isn’t your thing, that you don’t have much respect for it and would prefer to privilege your senses over your intellect.

***** Why do humans think that the future will resemble the past? Hume’s answer is simply custom or habit (repeated occurrence). We can’t know or prove that it will. Hume wrote, “Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past. Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact, beyond what is immediately present to the memory and the senses.” In Hume’s system, custom and habit, not reason, gives us the expectation that the future will resemble the past. Reason, therefore, is not the operative faculty in our beliefs about the future. Science can’t refute Hume, so doesn’t even bother to engage with the issues he raises. You are an anti-intellectual if you’re a scientist because you’re not interested in getting to the bottom of things, and you spend a vast amount of time avoiding the truly deep issues ... those of ontology and epistemology.

Relations of Ideas Relations of ideas can only prove other relations of ideas, hence can’t prove anything outside of how they relate to each other. This has led many philosophers to infer that relations of ideas do not have any explanatory power concerning the “real” world, and do not have any “reality” at all.

However, this conclusion is patently false if the world is in fact made eternal mathematics, entirely reflecting eternal relations of ideas. What’s for sure is that relations of ideas can’t be used to prove matters of fact, and vice versa. Therefore you have to come down on one side or another: rationalism (relations of ideas) or empiricism (matters of fact). “God” and the soul aren’t matters of fact. They are relations of ideas. “God” and the soul are mathematical. They are consistent with reason. They are not scientific and empirical.

***** “...Quine proposes that it is the whole field of science and not single statements that are verified. All scientific statements are interconnected. Logical laws give the relation between different statements, while they also are statements of the system. This makes talk about the empirical content of a single statement misleading. It also becomes impossible to draw a line between synthetic statements, which depend on experience, and analytic statements, that hold come what may. Any statement can be held as necessarily true according to Quine, if the right changes are made somewhere else in the system. In the same way, no statements are immune to revision.” – Wikipedia Quine’s analysis of science is a potent one. One of the reasons why it’s so hard for anything to be formally falsified in science is that everything hangs together, and, if a major part goes, the whole thing goes. For example, materialism fails if any causal agency is ever attributed to autonomous mind. Empiricism fails if there are any “hidden variables”. The scientific method fails if there are unobservable noumena. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics fails if frequency domains are regarded as ontological, or if non-localism is truly accepted. Relativity fails if space and time are defined by complex numbers rather than real numbers. And so on. Obviously, scientific careerists will never accept the end of their Meta Paradigm, so they simply keep reinterpreting their system to preserve its essential features. They ignore all anomalies and dismiss anything inconvenient to their worldview. That’s why science is a quasi-religion. It’s an unreasonable faith in the senses, just as most of religion is an unreasonable faith in stories and feelings. Both science and religion despise reason, and will always find ways to reject pure reason. It’s no mistake that

Kant, a person of great religious faith and great respect for science critiqued “pure reason”. Instead, he should have critiqued the senses, the feelings and faith!

Form and Content Instead of Relations of Ideas we could refer simply to rational Form, and instead of Matters of Fact, we could refer simply to the empirical experience of Content. Content is the appearance of Form: it’s how we actually encounter it. We don’t experience the world rationally but nonrationally (empirically), which is why we don’t think it’s mathematical at all. Reality in itself is always hidden from us by its appearance. With our senses, we can never get beneath the mask. In fact, they are exactly what present the mask to us. Only non-sensory intuition and reason reveal the Truth to us. Humanity will never grasp reality until it truly understands the difference between Form and Content. Hume didn’t, Kant didn’t, and science doesn’t.

The Con Man’s Calling Card Any old man who blabbers on about his “experience” is trying to say that you are necessarily deficient in comparison with him (if you are younger), and that you must therefore bow to him and worship his “wisdom”. Such old men always make the claim that you will inevitably agree with them when you are “older, wiser and more experienced” – hence they are mocking you as a “neophyte”. When anyone calls you a Neophyte, you should immediately respond by calling them a Senectus. Senectus means “Old Age” in Latin, and is personified as a decrepit, infirm, weak-minded deity with a walking stick, presiding over the decline of life, the melancholy loss of vitality and potency. He is, in other words, the god of impotence and erectile dysfunction. He can’t get it up anymore, so he’s determined to put you down (so that you can be as limp-dicked as he is!). These old men are always trying to big themselves up to compensate for their waning powers. They are always trying to dominate, bully and control the young ... because they are terrified of what will happen when the young pay no heed to them at all and they then become totally invisible.

“Community elders” are the most sinister people in the world, always trying to force the young to obey their view of life, and their beliefs ... in order to preserve their own status and position in the pecking order. Without their “seniority”, they’re nothing. To deal with these people (other than via Route One – just telling the old dinosaurs to fuck off), you simply have to say that you are not persuaded by old men’s experience – after all, it was experienced old men who gave us the totally fucked-up, insane world we’re all living in now – but only by reason, intelligence, understanding and knowledge. Unless the old man can provide reasoned arguments – rather than merely screaming hysterically about his “experience” and demanding that everyone should respect him because he read a book thirty years ago that you haven’t read – you will treat him with the contempt his ignorant, irrational opinions warrant. Some old people are great. They are intelligent, constructive, helpful and genuinely wise. Their experience and native intellect have served them well. Others just rant. They never say anything intelligent, are always destructive and unhelpful, and they are always trying to bully you into agreeing with them. Never listen to such people. Any young person with an agile, rational mind can run rings around a decaying has-been. If they take you on, you should mock them relentlessly. Always refer to them as “old man”. These dinosaurs are always saying how great they are and how pathetic and naive you are. Are they trying to help you or bully you? Never pay any heed to anyone who is not being constructive and helpful towards you. These dinosaurs are literally claiming that they are superior to you ... for no other reason than that they have lived longer!

***** The “logic” of empiricism – which treats rationalism with contempt – is indeed that the more experienced you are, the “wiser” you are. So, look around you ... are the old wise? Have the old given us a wonderful paradise on earth? Obviously not, so fuck them! They are the problem, not the solution. It’s precisely their “experience” – their “wisdom” – that has screwed the world. For experience to be valuable, it must reflect open minds and receptivity to new things and new ideas. In fact, what we normally find with the

“experienced” is that they get more and more set in their ways, more and more dogmatic and inflexible, saying the same things over and over again, and having exactly the same experiences over and over again, i.e. not learning anything at all, merely repeating the failures of the past. That’s why corporations, when they’re going through a downsizing exercise, “let go” of the old, experienced dinosaurs. If corporations value “experience” so much, why are the experienced ones the first to be chosen for redundancy?! The dinosaurs hold up as Bibles books they read thirty years ago (when they were young!). They never refer to a book they read yesterday. If today’s book has much more knowledge than the book of thirty years ago (which is almost inevitable), it means that the old book is now redundant – exactly like the “experience” of the person who read it and found it so wondrous. Only the truly great works stand the test of time. The dinosaurs don’t read new books. They gave up reading and learning long ago. They now rely on their “experience”! You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. They’re waiting to be put down.

***** Empiricism is all about experience. But we are rationalists, and we wouldn’t dream of looking to temporal, contingent experiences to tell us about eternal, necessary reality. How dumb would you have to be to think that experience counts for shit? How many billions of people have lived? How many trillions of experiences have they had? And how many of them have explained to you exactly what existence is in itself ... what the meaning of life, the universe and everything is? We’re not here to tell you about our experiences and to put you down because you are less experienced than we are. If you’re a genius, we don’t care what age you are. We care about people’s reason, intelligence and understanding, not their “experience”. Reason landed men on the moon, not “experience”. Billions of “experienced” people wouldn’t have a clue how to send a rocket to the moon. Experience must be allied with reason to have any worth at all. Who in their right mind would ever look to an experienced old Abrahamist, Karmist or conspiracy theorist for wisdom, enlightenment and knowledge?

*****

Q. If experience is so great, why are so many old people so stupid and clueless? What they lack is intelligence, not experience. Q. If experience is so great, why do politicians never learn anything from history? As Hegel said, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”; “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” So much for experience! Isn’t it time for reason?

Free Speech As Paris and Copenhagen have shown, Muslims want to kill free speech. What should free speech do to protect itself? Kill Muslims?! Well, that would be to use the exact logic deployed by Islam. The full force of free speech should be turned against Islam. It’s totally incompatible with modern civilisation. It’s an ancient, ignorant superstition that has completely failed to evolve. It’s good at only one thing ... generating fanatical, murderous belief in very badly educated people, and breeding psychopathic hatred in them of all those who don’t share their beliefs. That’s its defining purpose. It has been wildly successful in this regard. Aggressive young men from underprivileged, sub-educated backgrounds are extremely attracted to Islam since it promises them a sacred cause, violent revenge against their enemies, seventy-two virgins, a lake of wine, and a seat beside Allah. What’s not to like? If you incentivise extreme violence, and dignify and glorify it by calling it “jihad” (holy struggle), extreme violence is exactly what you will get. There can be no question that Islam provides a theological justification for mass murder. That makes it unacceptable in the West.

The Illuminati Some clown asked why Alex Jones, David Icke and Henry Makow never mention the AC site. Well, Makow has done so – to “prove” that we are anti-Christian Devil worshippers! He certainly got the first part right – we despise Christianity. As for the second part, it’s Makow, not us, who worships the Devil-God of Abrahamism.

Why would Jones and Icke refer to the true Illuminati? It would destroy the conspiracy theories they peddle. They’d need to quit their lucrative business of scaring the sheeple. That’s never going to happen. Their fictional narratives about the fictional Illuminati are very clear. They will never change their script. You can bet on it. People will go on believing them. Why? Because they want to! It couldn’t be any simpler. The “Illuminati” of conspiracy theories is a bizarre amalgam of Jesuits, Jews, Bolsheviks, Freemasons, Nazis, Ivy League graduates, World Bankers and aliens (!) – absolutely nothing to do with the Enlightenment Movement. Conspiracy theories about the Illuminati are like “vinegar valentines” – insult cards rather than love cards to the real Illuminati. People love hating reason, knowledge and intelligence! So it goes.

Gold The Inca believed that gold was the tears of the sun. The Aztecs thought it was the excrement of the Gods!

Buddhism You cannot be sympathetic to both Buddhism and Illuminism. Buddhism denies the essential self, while Illuminism is predicated on the essential self.

Eternity Either existence is eternal, or non-existence is eternal. Since we exist, there’s prima facie evidence that existence is eternal. To deny that existence is eternal, yet to account for the stark fact of our existence, is to hold that eternal non-existence has as a property the capacity to miraculously, magically, spontaneously and randomly generate existence. Such a position is absolutely untenable and irrational since non-existence can, by definition, have no properties whatsoever, least of all the means to generate its opposite: existence. Unbelievably, modern science is predicated on exactly such self-evident nonsense ... the claim that existence can spontaneously pop out of nothing for no reason, with no explanation. So, eternal existence must be true. That implies that either some kind of eternal God exists (as religion has always claimed), or an eternal God

Equation exists (as ontological, transcendental mathematics asserts). It’s one or the other. What’s for certain is that scientific materialism is false. Isn’t it an amazing thing that we can be 100% certain that science is falser in its claims about ultimate reality than religion?! Science has no necessity, and is totally incompatible with an eternal order of existence. It is pure contingency and temporality. Only irrational sensing types are attracted to science.

Perpetual Motion “One classification of perpetual motion machines refers to the particular law of thermodynamics the machines purport to violate: 1) A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. 2) A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics. 3) A perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always) defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine, as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal. Such a machine would not serve as a source of energy but would have utility as a perpetual energy storage device.” – Wikipedia

Wikipedia says, “Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.” This is exactly true of monads. They are energy. They are their own internal energy supply. Wikipedia says, “Perpetual motion is impossible to ever achieve because of friction and other sources of energy loss.” There is no friction, no energy loss, in the monadic world of frequency, only in the spacetime world. Mind is frictionless. It experiences no resistance. Only matter is linked to friction and resistance. Bodies die because of friction and other material forces that cause physical degradation. Souls go on. Souls are made of pure light – a perfect collection of complete and consistent photons. They fit together perfectly without any friction, obstruction, or resistance. They are perfect superconductors. In the frequency domain, perpetual motion breaks no laws of thermodynamics. The prohibitions against perpetual motion apply to the spacetime, contingent, temporal, material world, not to the eternal, necessary world of frictionless mind. Science is based on the notion that “machines” need an external energy supply. They need no such supply if they are mental and have their own internal, infinite energy supply. Science refuses to grant eternal agency to anything; it refuses to agree that things can have their own energy, which has no connection with the rest of the world. It refuses to acknowledge an eternal order of energy ... one that can by definition never degrade under any circumstances. So, science has to rely on energy being conjured out of thin air, in total violation of any true law of energy conservation. If you genuinely accept that energy can be neither created nor destroyed then you also accept that energy persists forever without any loss. The laws of thermodynamics, as conventionally understood, relate to the material, not the mental, world. You must be absolutely clear about the difference. Science emphatically isn’t. It denies the very existence of autonomous mind. Leonardo da Vinci said, “Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists.” The place to find perpetual motion is in the mind, not in the material world. The same is true of limitless “free energy”, with which conspiracy theorists are so obsessed.

Wikipedia says, “‘Epistemic impossibility’ describes things which absolutely cannot occur within our current formulation of the physical laws.” This does not speak to mental laws. They can absolutely violate material laws since they belong to an entirely different order of existence (the eternal, necessary frequency Singularity rather than the temporal, contingent spacetime world of matter). As ever, science gets it all wrong and draws hopelessly false conclusions about the future of the universe (such as that it will suffer the heat death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington said, “The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” This is typical scientific materialist nonsense. There is no mention of the anti-entropy (negentropy) law demanded by cosmic symmetry. Wikipedia says, “Noether’s theorem, which was proven mathematically in 1915, states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry of the action of a physical system. For example, if the true laws of physics remain invariant over time then the conservation of energy follows. On the other hand, if the conservation laws are invalid, then the foundations of physics would need to change.” The whole problem with science is that its laws do not “remain invariant over time”, or, to be more accurate, over all states. According to conventional Big Bang theory, there were no laws of science whatsoever before the Big Bang. Nothing existed at all. Therefore, the laws were magicked into existence at the Big Bang ... an utterly discontinuous event and a blatant violation of “continuous symmetry”. In truth, Noether’s theorem can never be consistent with scientific materialism, but only with eternal, necessary ontological, transcendental mathematics. Wikipedia says, “Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic fields occurring in certain materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature.”

The monadic mind has no physical temperature, and no electrical resistance whatsoever. It’s a perfect system, which is exactly what is required by anything that belongs to eternal necessity.

Kantian Science Isn’t it remarkable that Kant was so plausibly able to interpret science in terms of his transcendentalism and idealism, i.e. his non-materialism? How can anyone place any trust any scientific materialism when it rests on no solid ground at all? Materialism is an article of quasi-religious faith for scientists. The materialist hypothesis is absolutely not required for science to work. Only fanatical sensory dogmatism prevents scientific materialism from being converted into scientific idealism, predicated on mind as the primary reality.

Free Souls A “free” soul is one whose body has just died, and so is now free to enter a new body (via reincarnation).

Many Paths? You hear self-appointed “gurus” proclaiming that there are many paths to Enlightenment. Maybe so, but there’s only one destination. So, forget the paths ... what’s the destination? That’s what you need to focus on. There are many paths to Manhattan, but if you don’t take a path that terminates at Manhattan, you’ll never reach Manhattan. Exactly the same is true of Enlightenment. Enlightenment is a specific state and there are countless paths that don’t lead you there, so you had better know exactly what path you’re on and where it’s leading. Or do you imagine that any random path is as good as any other? That’s how to get nowhere! Buddhism is the road to nowhere. So is science.

One Answer Existence has only one answer. If you claim that there are as many answers as there are people then: a) you are a total relativist, b) you have denied that there’s any Absolute Truth or Absolute Knowledge, c) you have said that

any answer is as good as any other, d) you have claimed that any answer is no truer or falser than any other. To claim that there are many answers is actually to say that there are no answers at all. It would be like a mathematics exam where anyone can give whatever answers they like, and everyone gets a 100% test score. Sure, people have provided “answers”, but they are any old answers, and totally meaningless. Therefore, there is only one answer. Well, do you know what it is? Where’s your analytic, eternal proof? Do you think your “experience”, your faith, your senses, your emotions, and your mystical intuitions are going to help you? Dream on! The world is full of idiots who think they know the answers but simply believe their own self-serving propaganda.

Termination Point “The doctor developed a way to open up a wormhole to another dimension that we call Null Space. It’s a kind of limbo that runs parallel to our world. When you leave Null Space you can emerge at any point in the universe. ... It also has time travel properties. You can go backwards or forwards in time. The doctor teleported the plane to Null Space. It went in, but didn’t come out.” – from the movie Termination Point, about an exponential spacetime crisis that might potentially bring about the end of the universe. In terms of ontological mathematics, the “Null Space” is actually the immaterial frequency domain, outside space and time.

Eternal Energy So, all you worshippers of science, does the First Law of Thermodynamics state that you can genuinely never create or destroy energy, as ontological mathematics asserts, or that you can create and destroy energy as much as you like, provided that there’s no sustained net effect, as science claims? To put it another way, ontological mathematics says that there’s an eternal order of energy, thus an eternal ontology and epistemology, which has an exact (mathematical) net effect of zero, while science says that existence can randomly, spontaneously, miraculously and inexplicably leap out of non-existence, just so long as no net effect is ultimately left behind, implying an entirely different ontology and epistemology.

Well, go on, all you geniuses who think you know shit about science, which version is right, which version is more rational and logical? Not a single scientist anywhere on earth has ever dared to answer this question, and none ever could. Can you do any better? Are you fucking hard enough and tough enough? It’s very simple, if energy is eternal – and can be neither created nor destroyed under any circumstances – then the whole of scientific materialism immediately falls. Its basic ontology and epistemology are 100% false. That’s a fact. If science cannot define energy properly, it can’t define anything properly. What came before the Big Bang? If energy is eternal then it automatically follows that immaterial, non-spacetime energy preceded the Big Bang, i.e. frequency (mental) energy in an immaterial Singularity outside space and time. Otherwise, the Big Bang magically summoned itself out of nothing at all, for no reason at all, as science ludicrously and irrationally claims. Can you disprove what we have said about the true – mathematical – version of the First Law of Energy? Good luck with that. If you can’t, why are you a slavish believer in the quasi-religion of science? You’re a person of faith, not of reason and knowledge. It’s a zero-sum game between science and ontological mathematics. If one is right, the other is automatically wrong. Math doesn’t need science at all ... but where would science be without math? So, which is the senior partner? Which actually tells you about fundamental reality? It’s a nobrainer for any rational person, but that excludes scientific materialists – the woo woo gang. Like religious fanatics, they dogmatically refuse to engage with questions such as these, and never draw any attention to them.

***** Where is your “scientific method” to resolve this issue? Ho, ho, ho. Good luck with that! The scientific method can’t tell you a single thing about the rational, intelligible, eternal, necessary order of existence.

The Meaning of Number

Number, ontologically, is energy. Numbers are frequencies of sinusoidal waves. They are not abstract pencil marks you make on a piece of paper. Waves – i.e. numbers (energy) – comprise the fabric of existence. We exist in an ocean of waves, numbers, information, energy. These all mean the same thing. Numbers are waves. Waves are energy. Energy is information. Numbers are eternal. The eternal laws of existence are simply the eternal laws of numbers = mathematics! Numbers ... mathematics ... preceded the Big Bang, hence the Big Bang was a purely mathematical event. Specifically, it was a Fourier mathematical event, with frequency (mental) functions generating spacetime (material) functions via a cosmic inverse Fourier Transform. Do the math!

The Dialectic The point of the cosmic dialectic is to overcome subjective unreason. The universe is mathematical, but also unconscious. How does an unconscious mathematical system solve itself? How does it optimise itself? It can’t carefully, rationally plan what to do. It can’t sit down and work out a strategy. So, what it does is execute the necessarily crudest rational procedure possible – the dialectic. It proposes one thing (the thesis) and then brings this into conflict with its opposite (the antithesis). When the smoke clears, what remains is the synthesis. This serves as a new thesis, which will in turn generate a new antithesis, and a new synthesis, and so on. We keep going round and round, but, critically, each iteration is higher than the previous one – like a spiral – and the process converges on a final conclusion, the apex of the spiral – the Omega Point. The dialectical process resolves all contradictions, errors, falsehoods, fallacies, delusions, opinions, interpretations, hypotheses, conjectures, inconsistencies, and incompleteness. It brings the universe to mathematical, rational perfection, which is the point of perfect mathematical symmetry. This is where mathematical Form and Content align, where Form (which was always consistent and complete) at last coincides with subjective Content (which was inconsistent and incomplete until “cured” by the dialectic).

The dialectic is guaranteed to turn unreason into reason, or, to be more accurate, non-optimised subjective reason into optimised objective reason. Most people in the world deploy extremely primitive subjective reason, based on their feelings, senses and mystical intuitions. It’s not that they are irrational, but, rather, that their rationality is crude, infantile, inefficient and ineffective. Smart people use reason far more effectively than stupid people. Humanity has, over tens of thousands of years, progressed from living in caves to landing men on the moon because of the dialectical evolution of reason, and nothing else. Faith didn’t land men on the moon; opinion didn’t land men on the moon; guessing didn’t land men on the moon; old men banging on about their “experience” didn’t land men on the moon; priests, rabbis, imams, gurus, popes, sages, shamans, witch doctors, magicians, Buddhas, and the spiritually “enlightened” didn’t land men on the moon. Haven’t you got the message yet? It’s the smart, rational, knowledgeable, intelligent people who lead humanity forward. They are the ones on the side of the advancing, rational dialectic. All the rest are the antithetical dialectical forces they are obliged to overcome. We have countless enemies – the legions of morons who wouldn’t understand ontological mathematics and ontological dialectics in a trillion years. They oppose us because they are terrified of us. They know we spell their doom. They are the dinosaurs waiting for extinction. Reason will wipe out all those opposed to reason. Soz! It’s when your capacity for reason starts exploding exponentially that you achieve gnosis, gain complete knowledge of the workings of reality, and become God. The universe has a rational answer, and when you are rational enough, you can know it and live it ... and that’s what God is. The prize on offer to all Illuminists is that you will become the Gods that consciously direct the universe towards its Omega Point. You will be the ones in the driving seat, fulfilling the internal impulse of existence towards perfection. All the rest – the followers – will be riding on your tails. As an inevitable stage of the dialectic, the blind, rationally sub-optimal unconscious is turned into visionary, rationally optimal consciousness, which can then rationally plan how best to conclude the dialectical process, and it does so through the actions of all-powerful rational Gods, the Gods

that have evolved from amongst humanity! Are you one of them? Do you have the potential? The Illuminati is the secret society devoted to the completion of the dialectic and to being the agents of dialectical culmination, a task reserved exclusively for those rational and smart enough to become Gods. The stupid are not eligible to be Gods ... they are eligible to get on their knees to worship Gods! Are you one of those who can drive the universe to its appointed conclusion? Only the finest human beings are eligible, only they are called, and the worst of humanity will resist them to the bitter end. So it goes.

***** The dialectic is the quintessence of polarisation. You cannot arrive at the Truth via hippie consensus, “respect” or “love and light”. The Truth isn’t the mid-ground, the liberal centre, the position of maximum tolerance of error, falsehood and delusion. The Truth is as extreme as it gets.

***** The world must be liberated from the long, unendurable darkness. This benighted world must be illuminated, so that it can fulfil the greatest of all destinies, the divine destiny. Are you one of the evolving Gods, or one of the enemies of the dialectical Gods, and a believer in the decrepit Creationist Gods of ancient myth?

Sophia Sophia ... wisdom. Philosophy ... love of wisdom. Science ... knowledge (Latin). Gnosis ... knowledge (Greek). Logos ... Reason. Mathematics ... Learning.

Illuminism is all about reason, learning, knowledge, and wisdom. We are opposed to organised religion, faith, New Age syncretism and spiritualist bullshit, doped-out hippie nonsense, “love and light” claptrap, conspiracy theories, woo merchants, scientific materialists, and so on. We don’t rate the experiences of stupid people, only of smart people who have learned from their mistakes and put their experience to good use, rather than simply becoming arrogant, self-inflated and in thrall to their own propaganda and self-delusions. We advocate using the scientific method to study the empirical, phenomenal, observable world, and the mathematical method to study the rational, noumenal, unobservable world. We want to bring about a Second Enlightenment where a True Age of Reason is inaugurated, and the scientific and mathematical methods are extended to all aspects of society (to replace the religious, moral, political and economic “methods”).

Gnosis Gnostics aim to achieve gnosis (enlightenment). Gnosis does not mean experience, it does not mean love, or faith, or peace, or kissing, or hugging, or chanting “om”, or sitting cross-legged under a tree, or meditating, or any of the other garbage that’s fallaciously associated with enlightenment by those who haven’t the vaguest idea what enlightenment is. If you think you’re well on the path to enlightenment then where is your rational answer for what reality is? Put up or shut up. If you can’t provide such an answer, you’re just a blowhard and charlatan. We have provided our exact answer in the God Series of books, involving millions of words, and we defy anyone on earth to refute us. It’s impossible to defeat reason and knowledge. That’s a fact, and only a fool – an empty vessel, toom tabard, and false prophet – would try. Experience doesn’t trump reason. Empiricism doesn’t beat rationalism. No empiricist ever has or ever could define existence. Existence has only one rational answer – transcendental, ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula). Illuminism emphatically isn’t for everyone. It’s only for the smartest people on earth, and that means the most rational, intelligent and knowledgeable.

Don’t listen to any narcissists who can’t disprove a single word or number of ontological mathematics, yet blabber on incessantly about how false, phoney and worthless Illuminism is. We know that we are casting peals before swine, but we also know that there are a few higher souls out there who are intellectually capable of recognising the truth when they come across it. If you don’t understand mathematics – or, alternatively, music, light, electricity or holography (which all express it in ways that are more concrete to the human mind) – you will never understand existence. The mystery of existence is the mystery of mathematics. All the strange things of existence are encapsulated in the two numbers zero and infinity. There could be no eternal, necessary order of existence but for zero and infinity. Science ontologically rejects these two numbers, which is why it’s mired in contingency and temporality, why it believes that existence can miraculously jump out of non-existence. As you would expect, stupid people will convince themselves that math is not the answer. That’s the nature of such people. Math isn’t the answer people are looking for. Math is the answer they aren’t looking for. So, naturally, they don’t find it. Who wants the Truth? Certainly not the average person. They want any old bullshit that makes them feel good. You could write the answer to existence in letters and numbers a thousand metres high in the sky, and the average person still wouldn’t “see” it. We have zero interest in what average people consider the answer to existence, or what they think they’re looking for. What they’re really seeking is the validation of their own egos, delusions, fantasies, opinions, beliefs and interpretations. They are entirely self-serving. It has always been thus. Mathematics is the answer to existence because it’s the thing furthest removed from human self-delusion. Here’s the real issue – do you believe that you are smarter than reason itself? Do you think you can beat reason? All enlightened people reach a very simple conclusion ... nothing can be superior to reason, and reason is expressed through mathematics. From that everything else follows. We have a rational universe purely because it’s made of reason (mathematics), and, if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be rational. People who think something other than math/reason is the answer to the rational/ intelligible universe are just unbelievably dumb ... and totally irrational (natch)!

It’s easy to show people the answer to existence, but getting them to understand it is more or less impossible. You need to be rational to understand the rational universe. You need to be intelligent to understand the intelligible universe. People are neither rational nor intelligent ... which is why they believe never-ending bullshit. If you’re clever, you’ll already know that, and you will treat with contempt the irrationalists who try to tell you that you’re wrong and that they’re right because they have “experience”, or faith, or sensory “evidence”, or mystical intuition, or whatever other nonsense such people discharge.

***** Here’s a message to all stupid people ... don’t worry, you will all be cured in the end ... by the dialectic. That’s its job ... to turn fools (base metal) into Gods (gold).

Authority Many scientists ridiculously claim that science is anti-authoritarian. Science is in fact almost wholly hierarchical and predicated on authority figures. Scientists are amongst the most conservative people – those most prone to authority and hierarchy – you could ever have the misfortune of meeting. It takes the deaths of the leaders of the scientific establishment for science to move on. Religious nutters think they are moral. Scientific nutters think they are rational. So it goes.

Miracles What are the laws of nature? Did they pop out of nothing and then evolve? If a miracle is defined as a violation of the laws of nature then how do we refer to events that allegedly happened prior to the existence of the laws of nature? They can’t violate laws that don’t exist. However, nor are these events rational or lawful (since there are no rational laws to reflect), which renders them magical and miraculous.

A miracle ought to be defined as anything irrational, inconsistent, and inherently incompatible with laws of nature. In which case, anyone who denies that the laws of nature are eternal is claiming a miraculous origin of the laws of nature. Well, here’s the thing ... if the laws of nature as regards spacetime and matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang (since there was no spacetime or matter), as science claims, then these laws were generated miraculously! That is, science is formally predicated on the miraculous appearance of laws of nature out of nothing at all, yet science claims to be a rational undertaking (!). If you do not accept the existence of miracles then you are committed to agreeing that the laws of nature are eternal, and that means that the laws of spacetime and matter already existed prior to the Big Bang (because otherwise they would have miraculously appeared from nowhere). Mathematically, there’s an extremely easy way to make sense of this situation. Prior to the Big Bang, what existed was a pure frequency domain – an immaterial Singularity outside space and time. Thanks to well-known Fourier mathematics, frequency functions can be translated into spacetime functions. In other words, the laws of spacetime and matter did not magic themselves into existence out of nothing, but are eternally implicit in the eternal mathematical laws of nature regarding immaterial frequencies outside space and time. And what are such frequencies? What are immaterial entities outside space and time? They are none other than immortal, indestructible mathematical souls. They are eternal, autonomous Fourier frequency domains. They are singularities. Singularities = minds! Soul World is what precedes the Material World of science.

The Natural Deceiver? Nature does not deceive. Humans misinterpret Nature, hence deceive themselves about Nature. Nature is fully knowable if you speak the language of Nature, and do not misinterpret it via manmade languages and belief systems. Galileo said, “Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols

are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.” Mathematics is indeed the language of Nature, of the very fabric of existence. If you do not accept this, you are simply irrational and do not understand the first thing about Nature. The first task in understanding existence is not to look to your “experiences”, your beliefs, senses, feelings, mystical intuitions, stories (Mythos), prophets and gurus, holy texts, opinions or interpretations, but to understand how Nature sees itself, what its own language is – entirely independent of the human race – and what Nature is actually made of. Pythagoras gave the answer two and half thousand years ago: “All things are numbers; number rules all.” The eternal things that precede humanity and are wholly independent of the human race are numbers, and thus mathematics. Mathematics is Nature. Humanity is so bad at understanding reality because it’s so bad at math, and so ignorant of math. Not a single religion of the world has ever proclaimed mathematics as the Truth. They have proclaimed everything other than math to be the “Truth”, and have thus told humanity nothing but lies. And science has lied as much as any religion.

Kant’s Ethics Kant insisted that there is an absolute good, or at least the idea of it. He claimed that the existence of morality is as evident as the existence of physical objects. His “categorical imperatives” can be considered as the universal laws of morality, equivalent to the universal laws of science. Kant offered the peculiar argument that the only evidence of God is that there’s no justice in this world, and therefore there must be an afterlife where justice is done (!). This would be true if morality were a real aspect of existence (if something such as karma were true) ... but it’s not. Kant sought to make reason the final authority for morality. He said, “Choose your action as if the principle guiding your action were to become a universal law.” Only a rational principle can rise above subjective opinion and belief. It’s time we constructed a purely rational morality – with no relationship to faith, feelings, prophets, gurus, mysticism, cultural customs and holy books.

The Proof of God? Kant argued that proofs of God are flawed because they apply an idea to experience as if it were an a priori category, which it isn’t. However, this raises the issue of why it isn’t, i.e. why doesn’t Kant build “God” into his system of pre-established categories that apply to all experiences? He could have applied the “unconditioned” as a category ... as the a priori necessity for completion of all conditioned series, which would have made his system rationalist rather than empiricist. In effect, Kant chose to split reason in two: that applying to experience via the categories (“physics”), and that applying to what goes beyond experience (“metaphysics”, i.e. the exercise of pure reason, which he found most wanting). What he should have done was make metaphysics all about mathematics, and make mathematics the bedrock, the substrate, of physics ... the unconditioned that completes conditioned physics. Kant was bedazzled by Newtonian physics, and sought to make his philosophy consistent with it, while also creating a space for God and faith. What he should have done was make his philosophy consistent with ontological, transcendental, eternal, necessary mathematics.

An Idea of Reason An “Idea of Reason” is a concept that is neither abstracted from, nor applicable to, sense-experience: it “transcends the possibility of experience”. The numbers of mathematics are ideas of reason. Crucially, they are ontological ideas that exist necessarily. Where a concept is an idea of reason where no intuition can be adequate to it, the expression of the concept must necessarily be made by means of a symbol (rather than by an object of experience). This is nowhere truer than in mathematics, of course! Numbers are the ultimate symbols ... ontological symbols.

A Different, Higher Understanding “There emerges, therefore, a peculiarity of our (human) Understanding in respect of the Judgement in its reflection upon things of nature. But if this be so, the Idea of a possible Understanding different from the human must be fundamental here. (Just so in the Critique of Pure Reason we

must have in our thoughts another possible [kind of] intuition, if ours is to be regarded as a particular species for which objects are only valid as phenomena.) And so we are able to say: Certain natural products, from the special constitution of our Understanding, must be considered by us, in regard to their possibility, as if produced designedly and as purposes. But we do not, therefore, demand that there should be actually given a particular cause which has the representation of a purpose as its determining ground; and we do not deny that an Understanding, different from (i.e. higher than) the human, might find the ground of the possibility of such products of nature in the mechanism of nature, i.e. in a causal combination for which an Understanding is not explicitly assumed as cause.” – Kant

The Transition ...from the Categories to the synthetic a priori Principles of the pure Understanding. ... Kantian Empiricism. ... from the Ideas to the a priori Principles of Reason, i.e. the absolute metaphysical principles. ... Kantian Rationalism.

The Non-Vanishing Illusion “The transcendental illusion does not vanish even when it has been detected and when its illusory character stands clearly revealed by transcendental criticism.” – Kant What about science? – the empirical illusion. Or religion? – the faith illusion. These illusions don’t vanish even when their fundamental errors are detected. Their irrational believers won’t give up on them.

The Three Ideas The three highest ideas of reason, the three transcendental ideas are: the Soul, the World-Whole, and God. Kant insists on a rigid dichotomy between the constitutive concepts of understanding and the regulative ideas of reason. He says that the concepts direct understanding towards “real” (empirical) focal points, while ideas direct understanding towards imaginary (rational) focal points. They are, he

says, “heuristic fictions” (thus the Soul, World-Whole and God are heuristic fictions, which may have an authentic reality, but one which we can never “know”).

Pure and Practical Reason Pure concepts or ideas of reason: the product of pure reason alone. The practical ideas of God, freedom and immortality reflect the pure, theoretical ideas of God, total-world and soul. Ideas go beyond the possibility of experience. If these propositions are not necessary for “knowledge”, their importance must concern only the practical, which involves the ends for which rational action is undertaken. The three practical objects of reason are relevant to the practical question of “What is to be done? ... What must I do?”

Plato versus Kant For Plato, ideas were real, objective things that existed in a separate, intelligible, transcendent domain. For Kant, ideas were subjective concepts in the human mind. Kant denied that ideas govern the structure of the sensible world (unlike the Platonic ideas, and unlike Kant’s own categories and forms of intuition). Kant’s ideas succeed only in producing the illusion of insight into objects that transcend the sensible world. They do not give us genuine knowledge of the kind Plato sought. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics exists in a transcendent domain and governs the structure of both the mental and physical worlds. Mathematical monads cause sensible things to exist and to have whatever properties they have, and they also fulfil the epistemological role of enabling us to acquire knowledge of sensible things through our grasp of ontological Fourier mathematics.

***** “Nevertheless, there is a limited but important sense in which Kant shares Plato’s views of ideas. Both Plato and Kant regard ideas as normative standards against which the sensible world is to be measured, and they agree that ideas are not drawn from experience, because nothing in

experience can ever fully measure up to the standard of ideas. In this sense, Kant regards ideas as useful – indeed ‘indispensable’ in the case of moral ideas – for representing ends or goals that we strive to achieve, although he rejects Plato’s view that our grasp of ideas constitutes knowledge of an intelligible realm that the visible world itself somehow strives to imitate. Besides the three special transcendental ideas, Kant holds that there are many ideas of reason that function as goals or standards in this way ... but although Kant under Plato’s influence recognizes many ideas of reason, he privileges the transcendental ideas of the soul, the world-whole, and God that correspond to the central topics of Leibniz-Wolffian special metaphysics. Kant holds that these three ideas produce transcendental illusion and he gives a special account of how reason’s demand for the unconditioned necessarily generates these ideas. ... The three main ideas of reason – soul, world, and God – cannot refer to any objects beyond experience but must be used within experience to order cognitions of the understanding. ... Theoretical reason does have a legitimate use, not as constitutive of the transcendent objects it purports to present but only as regulative in relation to the cognitions of the understanding.” – The Cambridge Companion to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason edited by Paul Guyer

Cognition “Thus all human cognition begins with intuitions, goes from there to concepts, and ends with ideas.” – Kant

Meanings Idea: A concept formed by pure reason that purports to permit cognition of “objects” beyond the limits of possible experience. The empirical self: that which exists in time as the correlate to our consciousness of outer objects in space. The transcendental self: that which is presupposed in all consciousness of the empirical self as existing in time, hence the transcendental self is timeless (eternal). The Psychological idea: the concept of the absolute subject of particular experiences; the immortal soul.

The Cosmological idea: the concept of the universe taken as a whole, as a totality. The Theological idea: the concept of God. Metaphysics: For Kant, metaphysics has for the particular object of its enquiry only three ideas: God, freedom and immortality. Intuition (concrete perception): “That by which a cognition refers to objects directly” [Kant]; “Takes place only insofar as the object is given to us” [Kant]. Pure intuition: “Pure form of sensibility” [Kant]; “The readiness a priori of the mind [to receive] … sensations” [Kant]. Sensibility: “The capacity to acquire representations as a result of the way in which we are affected by objects.” – Kant Transcendent: anything that goes beyond any possible experience. Understanding: the faculty that organizes our experience by subsuming perceptions (or “intuitions”) under the a priori concepts, thus creating “knowledge” of the external world. Knowledge: knowledge of nature or phenomena. Knowledge in the Kantian sense of the word arises from the sensory contents supplied by sensibility, the a priori forms of sensibility that turn sensory contents into percepts located in space and time, and the a priori concepts of the understanding that impose cause-and-effect relationships (and other intellectual structures) upon percepts. “Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind.” – Kant External experience: the way in which one is conscious of bodies as external appearances. Internal experience: the way in which one is conscious of oneself in time. Experience: intuitions (i.e. sense-perceptions, which are located in space and time) plus judgments (which are the work of the understanding). Noumena: things in themselves, necessarily believed-in objects of ideas of reason; noumena are “transcendent”, i.e. outside all possible knowledge; they are studied via metaphysics (which Kant regards as bogus).

Phenomena: appearances, organized in terms of space and time, and formed into experiences by the understanding; they are studied by natural science. Theoretical reason: the faculty for generating concepts beyond the scope of the understanding and knowledge, such as ideas of God and the immortal soul. Practical reason: reason used in making moral choices.

Math Historically, mathematicians and logicians have attempted to define mathematics without knowing what it actually is. The task is to know what it is before you seek to define it, i.e. the ontology of mathematics comes before anything else, before any mathematical formalism. If you don’t get this right, what is that you think you’re defining ... a fantasy, an illusion, an empty abstraction, a weird version of logic?

The Truth Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Existence. Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Eternity. Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Necessity. Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Deduction. Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Ontological Reason. Ontological Mathematics = the Science of Transcendence.

Necessary Necessary: NOT contingent; logically required; NOT determined empirically. Eternal reality is all about what is necessary, not what is contingent and temporal. If you do not accept an eternal, necessary order of existence, you must resort to miracles to explain temporal contingency, and that’s exactly what science does.

Knowing

Science claims that there are objects of knowledge “out there”, and our task is to come to know them. Kant asserts that objects “out there” aren’t knowable at all. Rather, our minds make them knowable to us by placing our inbuilt knowledge schema over them. In other words, our minds are the source of an object’s “knowability”, not the object in itself, which is formally unknowable. The mind is the centre of our process of knowing, not the external world, as science claims. Objects conform to the laws and concepts that our understanding confers on them. We, not the object, furnish the object’s knowable properties. The object supplies nothing more than its existence and ability to be a sense object for our minds. Once you view science in these terms, your understanding of it changes irrevocably. It’s a construct of mind, not a thing in itself that reflects an objective material reality independent of our minds (as scientists naively believe).

Transcendent and Transcendental Transcendent: beyond all possible experience. Transcendental: providing “the necessary condition for the possibility of” [Kant]; concerning the inbuilt mental apparatus that allows us “knowledge” of the empirical, scientific world. Prior to Kant, “transcendental” was treated synonymously with “transcendent”. Transcendent metaphysics: The traditional, “bad” metaphysics that Kant criticised. Kant’s own system can be called transcendental metaphysics, but how seriously you take Kant’s philosophy entirely depends on how much you agree with his assumptions. As far as Illuminism is concerned, Kant catastrophically failed to understand the ontology of mathematics, so all of his assumptions were false as a direct consequence. Kant’s philosophy can however be salvaged simply by redefining his unknowable “noumenal” world according to knowable ontological, transcendental mathematics.

Space and Time Space: form of outer intuition. Time: the form of inner and outer intuitions (since our spatial perceptions are located in time).

Phenomenon and Noumenon

Phenomenon: what we experientially encounter. It’s the product of sense and thought. Noumenon: what we don’t encounter. It’s the product of rational thought only.

Transcendental Idealism versus Empirical Idealism Empirical idealism says that empirical objects are nothing but perceptions; they have no reality outside our conception of them. Empirical realism says that empirical objects are real; they have a reality external to us. Science reflects an empirical realist paradigm. Transcendental idealism says that empirical objects (phenomena) are merely representations, not things in themselves (noumena). However, insofar as we can “know” phenomena and not noumena, the empirical objects can be regarded as real, and the transcendental objects as unreal. Transcendental realism says that we can (rationally, not empirically) know things in themselves, hence they are fully real, while empirical objects are, therefore, just ideas in our minds. Transcendental realism can be linked to empirical idealism while transcendental idealism can be linked to empirical realism (as it was by Kant). With Kantian empirical realism, we mentally impose space and time on empirical objects in order to render them knowable. With transcendental realism of the kind Kant opposed, space and time are considered real in themselves, independent of our senses, and objects are real within space and time. “Transcendental” plus “realism” equals “transcendent” – a reality beyond our experience. “Transcendental” plus “idealism” equals “non-transcendent” – a reality we can experience. With empirical idealism/transcendental realism, if our ideal representations of external existences are of a wholly different nature from those real existences, we can make no comparison between what we empirically “know” and what we transcendentally “know”.

With empirical realism/transcendental idealism, we gain “knowledge” of our representations at the expense of any knowledge of what is being represented, beyond the fact that they exist.

***** A much easier way to think of all of this is to define empirical objects as real within space and time (empirical realism), while transcendental objects are real outside space and time (transcendental realism). Empirical objects exist within the material world of spacetime; transcendental objects exist within the immaterial frequency domain (Singularity). With regard to the empirical realist viewpoint, the frequency domain is transcendentally ideal (unknowable). With regard to the transcendental realist viewpoint, the spacetime domain is empirically ideal (i.e. it’s all in the mind). Science believes that the former viewpoint is correct, while ontological, transcendental mathematics asserts that the latter viewpoint is true. (Photons – immaterial, dimensionless particles – belong to the ontological mathematical reality of frequency, not the scientific “reality” of spacetime.) The trick to understanding quantum mechanics is to realise that both viewpoints must be considered. Once they are, all of the “mysteries” of quantum mechanics vanish. They arise purely because a single perspective is used when two are demanded, i.e. quantum mechanics must be handled from an immaterial frequency domain perspective outside space and time, combined with an material domain inside space and time.

The Transcendental Self “[The] demand to regard oneself qua subject of freedom as a noumenon, and at the same time from the point of view of physical nature as a phenomenon in one’s own empirical consciousness is paradoxical.” – Kant But this “paradox” is the key to our reality. We have free minds in the frequency domain (i.e. they are not subject to spacetime causality) and unfree bodies in the spacetime domain (i.e. they are subject to spacetime causality).

*****

“Freedom, being a perspective on the empirical world, cannot also be part of it.” – Roger Scruton Freedom relates to the frequency world, not the empirical, scientific, spacetime world. It’s not part of the material world, hence offers an entirely unique perspective on it. This is exactly what is denied by scientific materialism, which has no conception of any viewpoint outside spacetime and matter. “Pure reason attempts to know the transcendental world through concepts.” – Roger Scruton The transcendental world is the frequency world and we know it via ontological, transcendental mathematics only. “It is true that Kant wavers between the doctrine that the transcendental self is a kind of perspective, and the doctrine that it is a distinct noumenal self.” – Roger Scruton The transcendental self is both: it offers a non-spacetime perspective on spacetime, and it’s also a distinct noumenal self (monad).

Science versus Math Ultimately, Kant’s philosophy reduces to the claim that only the empirical facts of science comprise knowledge, and not the non-empirical facts of mathematics. The opposite is true. Only mathematics can be true knowledge, and science is always an empirical interpretation of mathematical reality.

***** Science = phenomenon, reality as appearance. Mathematics = noumenon, reality in itself. Science deals with Content = the appearance of mathematics.

Kant’s Method “The transcendental method seeks the necessary a priori conditions of experience, of knowledge, and of metaphysical speculation. The two a priori forms of sensibility are time and space: that is, for us to make sense

of them, all objects of sensation, whether external or internal, must be temporally organizable and all objects of external sensation must also be spatially organizable. But time and space are only forms of experience and not objects of experience, and they can only be known to apply to objects of sensible intuition. When sensory inputs are received by us and spatiotemporally organized, the a priori necessary condition of our having objective knowledge is that one or more of twelve concepts of the understanding, also called ‘categories,’ must be applied to our spatiotemporal representations. These twelve categories include reality, unity, substance, causality, and existence. Again, none of them is an object of experience; rather, they are all categories of the human mind, necessary for our knowing any objects of experience. And, again, they can only be known to apply to objects of sensible intuition. Now, by its very nature, metaphysics (including theology) necessarily speculates about ultimate reality that is not given to sensible intuition and therefore transcends any and all human perceptual experience. It is a fact of human experience that we do engage in metaphysical speculation. So what are the transcendental conditions of our capacity to do so? Kant’s answer is that they are the three a priori ideas of pure reason – the self or soul, the cosmos or universe as an orderly whole, and God, the one of direct concern to us here. But, as we never can have sensible experience of objects corresponding to such transcendent ideas and as the concepts of the understanding, without which human knowledge is impossible, can only be known to apply to objects of possible experience, knowledge of the soul, of the cosmos, and of God is impossible, in principle. “So what are we to make of ideas that can never yield knowledge? Here Kant makes another innovative contribution to epistemology. He says that ideas can have two possible functions in human thinking. Some (for example, empirical) ideas have a ‘constitutive’ function, in that they can be used to constitute knowledge, while others have only a ‘regulative’ function (Critique, A180/B222), in that, while they can never constitute knowledge, they do serve the heuristic purpose of regulating our thought and action. This is related to Kant’s dualistic distinction between the aspect of reality that comprises all phenomenal appearances and that which involves our noumenal ideas of things-in-themselves. Because metaphysical ideas are unknowable, they cannot serve any ‘constitutive’ function. Still, they have great ‘regulative’ value for both our thinking and our voluntary choices.

They are relevant to our value-commitments, including those of a religious sort. Three such regulative ideas are Kant’s postulates of practical reason, which are ‘God, freedom, and immortality’ (Critique, A3/B7). Although none of them refers to an object of empirical knowledge, he maintains that it is reasonable for us to postulate them as matters of rational faith. This sort of belief, which is subjectively, but not objectively, justifiable, is a middle ground between certain knowledge, which is objectively, as well as subjectively, justified, and mere arbitrary opinion, which is not even subjectively justified (Critique, A822/B850). Such rational belief can be religious – namely, faith in God.” – http://www.iep.utm.edu/kant-rel/ Science believes it provides constitutive knowledge. In fact, it provides only a “regulative” function, i.e. while it can never constitute real knowledge, it can serve a heuristic purpose of allowing us to manipulate and control, up to a point, the world of appearances (phenomena).

***** Kant’s scheme produces a bizarre and unexplained “substance dualism”. Why is it that some noumena are sense-objects capable of generating empirical data, while others allegedly don’t and can’t ... such as God or the soul? That is, how can some noumena be “known” via the phenomena they produce, while others can’t (because they supposedly don’t produce any sensory data that can be translated into empirical knowledge)? If this division of noumena into those that can produce sense experiences (hence are scientific), and those that cannot (hence are metaphysical) is rejected, Kant’s entire philosophy falls. Kant makes no attempt whatsoever to explain why two different categories of noumena should exist, how they can mutually interact, and how they can interact with our minds, hence he has actually done nothing to get beyond the notorious mind-body dualism raised by Descartes. If anything, he has merely obscured the entire issue and drawn a mystical veil over true reality.

Which Self? Empirical self: that which exists in time as the correlate to our consciousness of outer objects in space.

Transcendental self: that which underlies the empirical self, outside space and time.

Reason Reason attempts to find and achieve completion, wholeness, the Absolute. Why? Because reason is alive and teleological. It’s trying to bring about the perfect state of reason. Mathematically, that equates to the state of perfect symmetry.

The Transcendental Dialectic Reason seeks to construct a totality with regard to our knowledge, but, in Kant’s system, that totality is never an object of possible “knowledge” (as Kant defines knowledge). Reason, he says, applies the categories of the understanding to objects beyond possible experience and in doing so produces Ideas of Reason: the soul, the total universe and God. Reason has a natural drive to completion (which Hegel famously depicted in dialectical terms) and so it forms these images of totality, towards which it aspires. When reason is applied transcendentally, Kant calls it “dialectical”. He thought it was exceeding its proper limits in these circumstances, whereas Hegel thought it was reflecting the fundamental operations of existence. The transcendental dialectic is the study of the allegedly fallacious attribution of objective reality to supposed external objects that cannot be scientifically experienced (such as the soul and God). The transcendental dialectic studies Reason and its structures. For Kant, the a priori forms and pure concepts of the understanding that precede experience are valid only when applied to the conditions of experience. Whenever reason attempts to move beyond possible experience, as it invariably does in its search for the unconditioned, it falls into error and illusion. Transcendental illusions are inescapable. The transcendental dialectic seeks to show the limits and transgressions of reason. It demonstrates that human knowledge is limited by experience, but naturally moves beyond it into metaphysical speculation. Hegel rightly rejected all of Kant’s thinking in this regard. Hegel’s transcendental dialectic reveals the truth to us, not illusion.

The Three Ideas

The “psychological idea” is the soul. The “cosmological idea” is the universe. The “theological idea” is God. The soul and God are unempirical. As for the universe, its totality is also unempirical. It can’t be experienced as an actual infinity or as a whole, completed series, and nor can it be experienced as a first beginning of an entire, infinite series, i.e., according to Kant, we can’t know whether it has a beginning in time or not, or whether it’s infinite or not. We have access only to limited snapshots of the universe. Science denies the soul and God. It states that the Big Bang universe had a beginning in time, but doesn’t know if it belongs to an eternal order of existence (i.e. there are other Big Bang Universes), and doesn’t know whether it’s finite or infinite.

The Ideal of Pure Reason Kant asserts that Reason demands the unconditioned but, in his opinion, cannot infallibly think it (it falls into various errors). This is false. Reason can infallibly think it – mathematically, and only mathematically.

The Three Arguments for “God” 1) The Teleological Argument: This argues for the existence of God from definite experience of the world, i.e. our experience of the world seems to show that God is necessary to explain our experiences and the world we find ourselves in. Everything seems to have a purpose. 2) The Cosmological Argument: This argues for the existence of God from indefinite experience, i.e. from the fact that any existence at all is empirically given (that we can experience anything). 3) The Ontological Argument: This argues for the existence of God from no experience at all. i.e. from a non-empirical, a priori proof using mere concepts and no observable, empirical “facts”. If you agree that the world existed prior to any possible human experience, that the said world was rational, and, further, that this rational order did not

miraculously appear out of nothing (hence is eternal), then you have agreed that the Ontological Argument concerning rational, eternal, necessary, nonempirical things, is the basis of existence. The only thing that can exist rationally and necessarily forever, in a complete and consist way, never exceeding zero (the compulsory ground state of the universe) is ontological mathematics (reflecting the eternal truths of reason and the principle of sufficient reason). In order of importance in establishing the true nature of reality, we have 1) the Ontological Argument concerning eternal, necessary things, involving no empirical considerations whatsoever, only analytic, a priori, deductive, rationalist, logical, mathematical factors; 2) the Cosmological Argument (given the Ontological Argument, how do the eternal, necessary things give rise to the temporal, contingent things of the world), and 3) the Teleological Argument (given the Ontological Argument and the Cosmological Argument, where is the world heading; what is its meaning, purpose and process for accomplishing it – it is of course the Dialectic, converging on the Omega Point, the Absolute). Empiricism, hence scientific materialism, can never help you to understand ultimate reality, i.e. what came before contingent scientific space, time and matter. Rather than face up to this rational fact, science insanely claims that the material world of spacetime randomly, spontaneously, and miraculously sprang out of nothing at all for no reason at all – literally the worst and most magical explanation of existence ever attempted. That’s what happens when you privilege your fallible, contingent human senses, feelings, observations, and experiences over immortal reason. In its claims about ultimate reality, science becomes the greatest error ever perpetrated, the most egregious of all blunders, and the system most offensive to reason.

The Ideas of Reason Kant says that the ideas of reason can serve as Regulative Ideals, i.e. they can set the bounds of possible thought. We only see an incomplete view of the totality of reality, but we are always driven to have a complete view – to see the whole, the totality, the finality. Ignoring the total view would lead us to a fragmentary, unregulated, chaotic, skeptical “understanding” of reality, exactly as David Hume arrived at. Even if we can’t prove all sorts of things

– such as God, the soul and freedom – they seem necessary to render reality intelligible, i.e. they place a regulatory framework over our experiences and make certain things explicable that would otherwise be inexplicable and baffling. We might say that the Kantian regulative ideals are heuristic, necessary fictions that turn out to be more than fiction!

Worms and Gods RO: “Changing from worm to God ... doesn’t fit for me!” It would if you knew of Michel de Montaigne: “Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen.”

Extraordinary Claims Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Science has no evidence whatsoever that non-existence can miraculously generate existence ... a thesis upon which the entirety of modern science is predicated. In other words, science has even less credible foundations than mainstream religion!

The Biggest Mistake The biggest mistake of all time is to regard mathematics as an abstraction rather than ontological. Ontological mathematics is the unseen fibre of existence. The building blocks from which existence is constructed are analytic mathematical sinusoids – waves. Sinusoids are energy. Sinusoids are information. We live in a universe of energy and information – of analytic, ontological mathematics. Since this mathematical reality is not visible to the senses, hence is beyond empiricism, it is a transcendental reality. It is reached by reason alone, not by scientific experiments.

Wittgenstein Wittgenstein believed that the problems of philosophy arose from inconsistencies in the logic of language, hence could be resolved by addressing the language rather than the problems (which were often thereby shown to be non-problems, or problems devoid of meaning).

Manmade languages ensnare us in manmade problems. All the logic in the world won’t make manmade language correspond to, and reflect, reality. The problems of philosophy can be solved only by turning to the language of existence, of reality, of Nature i.e. the ultimate non-manmade language: mathematics. All true problems of philosophy are actually problems of mathematical interpretation. Wittgenstein thought that some problems were entirely beyond the bounds of language, but no problems are beyond the bounds of mathematics. Mathematics defines everything that can exist.

Kant and Science Apodeictic (logic): Of or stating the characteristic feature of a proposition that is necessary (or impossible), perfectly certain (or inconceivable) or incontrovertibly true (or false). [Wiktionary] Kant, like Leibniz, believed that science is possible only because of certain metaphysical foundations. Science itself totally rejects metaphysics and refuses to acknowledge any such foundations. It has no rational grounds for doing so. Kant said that natural science is pure (“proper”) insofar as it “treats its object wholly according to a priori principles”; “only those whose certainty is apodeictic can be called science proper.” Improper science draws on laws of experience (which are mere regularities, to which the full force of Hume’s skepticism applies). Kant called improper science “the systematic art or experimental doctrine”. So, modern scientific materialism and empiricism is, in Kant’s terms, “improper”, and it’s improper exactly because of its Humean character, and lack of metaphysical, or transcendental, foundations. If you don’t ground science in necessary, analytic, eternal principles then it can never be anything other than an exercise in infinite contingent regress. It will always be in need of validation, and always be liable to falsification, and neither of those principles can apply to Truth. The eternal Truth can never be falsified and never needs to be verified by any contingent, temporal, sensory experiment. It’s rather sad that science believes itself capable of producing a final theory of everything given that this would imply that it had reached something that wasn’t falsifiable and no longer needed to be verified. But

that’s simply not in the gift of science. Only mathematics offers certainty of that nature. The whole empirical character of science is such that, logically, there can never be a final theory of science. Any final theory will always be need of verification, and will always be falsifiable, hence not final (by definition). Science deludes itself that it can produce a final theory only because what lies at the heart of science is mathematics, and mathematics does have the rationalist, necessary character of eternal Truth. You can be sure that the “final” theory of science will be a quasi-mathematical formula or equation, yet it will still only be a provisional, contingent formulation. It will have no analytic necessity. Only a pure, analytic, mathematical formula can furnish the answer to everything. We have already provided it: the God Equation!

Proper Science? For Kant, natural science proper is physics, and this, for him, has a necessary, a priori quality exactly like mathematics. Kantian physics has both a pure (theoretical) and applied (practical) part. The pure part is absolutely certain while the applied part needs the “assistance of principles of experience.” Physics, in Kant’s system, is based on a priori principles, coming from both mathematics and philosophy. Kant explicitly said, “Natural science proper presupposes metaphysics of nature.” Mathematics and the metaphysical a priori (synthetic a priori) provide the pure part of science. Chemistry, being based, for Kant, on a posteriori principles only, cannot be a proper science. It would require a synthetic a priori basis like physics for it to be a true science. Chemistry is thus “a systematic art or experimental study.” Kant said, “A doctrine of nature will contain only so much science proper as there is applied mathematics in it.” The chemical phenomena of Kant’s day did not lend themselves to the mathematical treatment that would connect them to the a priori. Chemistry, in Kant’s time, rested only on empirical principles (just as alchemy had done before it, which was also devoid of mathematics). If Kant were to consider modern science, he would say that it uses a rational method of enquiry but is not a proper, pure science because no

synthetic a priori structures are granted to it. It’s therefore nothing but a “systematic art” or “experimental doctrine”. We entirely agree with Kant on this point. Kant said, “The most complete explication of certain phenomena by chemical principles always leaves dissatisfaction in its wake, inasmuch as through these contingent laws learned by mere experience no a priori grounds can be adduced.” That’s exactly true of the whole of modern science since it refuses to accept a mathematical, metaphysical underpinning. It’s no wonder quantum mechanics has recourse to “unreal”, abstract mathematical potentiality wavefunctions. “Proper” science, for Kant, demands to be linked to mathematics and metaphysics. In the present day, science has a mathematical engine (based on a real-numbered subset of mathematics consistent with empiricism and materialism), but metaphysics (read rationalist ontology and epistemology) has been completely rejected. In fact, transcendental, ontological mathematics is the only basis science requires. True science is possible only if it has strict, analytic, mathematical foundations.

***** Science did not have to choose an empiricist, materialist bed to lie in. It could instead have chose rationalism and idealism. By grounding itself in transcendental, ontological mathematics, science would be forced from its current orientation into the new, better one. Only the new one (rationalism and idealism) can provide a necessary, eternal, absolute, infallible, final theory of existence. Scientific empiricism and materialism can never accomplish this. It’s time for a New Science. When we have it, science will move away from the senses and atheism to reason, intellect, religion and spirituality. At last, the gap between science and religion will be bridged, and we will have transcendental, ontological mathematics to thank for that. Mathematics is the true basis of religion ... rational religion. A New Science, leading to a new, rational religious sensibility, will allow humanity to leave behind the insane Mythos religions of the past that fucked up (and continue to fuck up) the human psyche to a simply extraordinary degree (just look at any Muslim, Jew or Christian).

It’s about time that scientists actually started to consider the proper basis of science. The trouble is, they’re too stupid. If you have no interest in philosophy – which is all about clarity, rigour and precision of thought – you are well and truly fucked. Scientists are like technicians. They are people who fix things and do useful stuff, but they have absolutely no idea why their system works. Scientists are “How?” people. Philosophers are “Why?” people. It’s striking that so many scientists now subscribe to the insane belief that existence can randomly, spontaneously and miraculously emerge from non-existence for no reason at all, with no explanation at all. This is exactly what happens when you have no interest in why, only how. Scientists need to get things started to set about addressing their “how” questions, and their starting point is the most childish one conceivable, namely, things happen because things happen (!). Scientific originating events don’t need any cause, reason or explanation. They summon themselves out of thin air! And to think that scientists consider themselves rational. They don’t have a clue. Every single one of them should be forced to study philosophy before even beginning to contemplate science. Above all, someone needs to teach them critical thinking. Science is the ragbag it is today because no scientist is capable of high-level rationalism and logic. Science has an extremely serious problem. It can’t validate itself. It can’t justify its own assumptions about itself. It can’t say why it’s conducted this way rather than that, why it privileges interpretations of this kind over that kind, why it chooses to look at the world in this way rather than that. For example, if we say that science should be rationalist and idealist rather than empiricist and materialist, how would any scientist know how to address that fundamental issue? To do so, a scientist would need to know about Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel, to mention just a few of the great philosophers. Yet science is ferociously hostile to philosophy, so scientists don’t even trouble themselves to consider the great philosophical disputes. What scientists don’t realise is that their science is itself just a philosophy and relies on a host of unjustified philosophical assumptions. Science cannot be legitimate, and certainly cannot produce a final theory of everything, if it cannot even explain and justify its own assumptions and philosophy.

Why would any intellectual take science seriously, or any proposed final scientific theory, if science is so clueless that it can’t defend why it prefers empiricism over rationalism, materialism over idealism, the scientific method over the mathematical method, and above all, can’t explain what mathematics is even though mathematics is at the heart of science. In other words, of what use is a “final theory” – expressed in quasi-mathematical terms – that fails to explain what mathematics is, what the relation between science and math is, and why the final theory is expressed in non-analytic, impure mathematical terms? Scientists are an intellectual joke, a bunch of technicians who imagine themselves smart but don’t know what they’re doing and have total disdain for the subject that could tell them ... philosophy! Think of the smartest scientists on earth. Could even one of them make any dent in our arguments? Could even one of them show that transcendental, noumenal, ontological mathematics is not the true basis of existence? How would they go about it? What arguments would they deploy? We are the ones on the side of reason and the intellect, not them. They are on the side of the contingent, temporal, fallible, unreliable, delusional senses and experiences. There’s no Truth to be found there. Science claims to deal with “facts”, but Nietzsche destroyed that notion in one sentence when he said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” How would any scientist refute Nietzsche? How would any scientist show that science is anything other than a dubious interpretation? How can they link it in any way to eternal, necessary Truth?!

One Transcendental Self? Aristotle said that there was one rational mind (God’s) underlying all human minds. It provides the rational component (nous) of each person’s soul. The human soul is mortal, Aristotle maintained, but the nous lives on forever (in God). Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, took the view that the nous is individual to us and guarantees our personal, rational immortality. The same kind of argument applies to the Kantian Transcendental Self. Is there only one such self (that of God, so to speak), and our empirical selves are just individuated sparks of this single Cosmic Self that underlies all things, or is there one transcendental self for every empirical self? Schopenhauer, a Kantian disciple, said that ultimate reality consists of a single Cosmic Will, and the prism of spacetime causes this to fragment into

countless individuated fragments. Everything in the world is an individuated, phenomenal expression of a single, united, noumenal Will.

One Reason There is only one pure, absolute Reason, not a separate pure Reason for every human being (which would imply relativism). In other words, what unites all of us is the fact that we can all agree absolutely on pure Reason. There is nothing else on which we can all agree. Everything else is mere opinion, belief and interpretation. Pure reason is expressed ontologically through mathematics. Ontological mathematics is therefore the single answer to existence upon which everyone can rationally agree. There’s no other such answer. It’s ontological mathematics or nothing. The more rational we all become, the more we converge. This is what the dialectic is all about. In the end, we all arrive at a collective Omega Point ... which is the point of Pure Reason (the Principle of Sufficient Reason) itself. We all think perfectly, and know everything via our perfect reason. “God” is pure reason, an idea that goes right back to Aristotle.

The Analytic A Priori If Kant’s synthetic a priori scheme is wrong – if it’s actually as logically absurd as an analytic a posteriori scheme – then Kant’s entire philosophy fails. The only way to reconstitute it, to reflect its basic dichotomy of phenomena and noumena (appearances and things in themselves), is to underpin the synthetic a posteriori world of science with the analytic a priori world of ontological, noumenal, transcendental mathematics, i.e. for the contingent, temporal, inductive world of empiricism to have as its ultimate substratum the necessary, eternal, deductive world of rationalism. To put it another way, all empirical Content is carried by rational Form, all the information we empirically interpret (phenomena) is conveyed by information carriers (noumena) that we never detect directly because we only ever encounter their Content. Without this being the basic schema of reality, we are left with nothing but the infinite contingent regress of scientific materialism, with its provisionalism, uncertainty, randomness, acausation and indeterminism ... with its skepticism, atheism, nihilism and total meaninglessness, pointlessness and purposelessness.

In philosophy, Kant believed he had cured Hume’s empirical skepticism with his semi-rationalist transcendental idealism. He didn’t quite succeed, but he raised many of the right issues, and he identified the right sort of approach. Science’s skeptical empiricism can be definitively rectified ... via hyperrationalist, transcendental, ontological mathematics. Mathematics is what lies beyond, behind and under science. Mathematics is the necessary, eternal ground of existence that we never encounter empirically (scientifically), but which we can work out rationally. Observable Nature – studied by science – is the appearance of transcendental, ontological mathematics. Transcendental, ontological mathematics is reality in itself, the immaterial, eternal, intelligible, rational Platonic domain outside space and time from which all things come, and from which the sensible world is created. Ours is the only conceivable way to save science from being swallowed by Humean skeptical empiricism and nihilism. When you make transcendental, ontological mathematics the foundation of science you ipso facto switch from science’s current Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism to a new Meta Paradigm of rationalism and idealism, with radically different implications for reality. Mind replaces matter as the basis of existence. Mental atoms (monads) replace material atoms as the functional units of existence. Rationalism replaces empiricism as our primary means for interrogating the world. Deduction replaces induction. The mathematical method of proof replaces the scientific method of evidence as the means to provide us with certainty about the world. A frequency domain (Singularity) replaces the spacetime world as the true basis of our reality. Leibnizian scientific idealism replaces Newtonian scientific materialism. Above all, we move away from atheism and nihilism to religion and spiritualism because transcendental, ontological mathematics is none other than the Science of the Soul!

The Non-Philosophers Gottlob Frege said, “Every good mathematician is at least half a philosopher, and every good philosopher is at least half a mathematician.” The trouble is most mathematicians aren’t any good, and it’s even worse with scientists. They’re clueless about philosophy.

As for philosophers, most don’t know anything about math, and uncritically swallow scientific materialist drivel, and align their views with that drivel.

Numerical Souls “In mathematics and digital electronics, a binary number is a number expressed in the binary numeral system, or base-2 numeral system, which represents numeric values using two different symbols: typically 0 (zero) and 1 (one). The base-2 system is a positional notation with a radix of 2. Because of its straightforward implementation in digital electronic circuitry using logic gates, the binary system is used internally by almost all modern computers and computer-based devices. Each digit is referred to as a bit.” – Wikipedia An electronic computer is an ocean of on and off switches, through which the binary system is physically implemented. A computer represents the world in terms of just two numbers: zero and one. It “experiences” the world as these two numbers, as resistance and non-resistance. A monad – a natural computer – is a complete and consistent collection of all numbers. It experiences reality through all numbers (all possible energies; not just “zero” and “one”), and each energy (number) comes with a specific Content (experience). Where a computer experiences the world through just “on” and “off” (hence has a staggeringly limited experience of reality), a monad can experience every conceivable sensation, perception, emotion and intuition, i.e. all possible Content associated with all possible Form. In order to be alive, an entity must be capable of experiencing the full range of Content. A machine can experience only yes or no, on or off, nonresistance or resistance. That’s not life. It has no meaning, no teleology, no qualia, no quality. A machine can never be alive under any circumstances ... unless it becomes host to a monad ... a living soul!

***** Life concerns all numbers: the computer simulation of life concerns just two numbers (zero and one), and that can never adequately reflect life. For sure, all numbers can be technically translated into the binary system, but,

during that translation, both the original Form and Content are irretrievably lost, and with them life itself, i.e. translation of this kind is a technical exercise, but not ontological. It generates technical equivalence but has no ontological equivalence. You can’t convert life into a computer simulation. There can be no such thing as Artificial Intelligence that emulates human intelligence. There can be no “Replicants”. When Pythagoras said that all things are numbers, he was including in that assertion all life, all mind and all qualia ... all Form and all Content. Zero and one are only two numbers, and all they can produce is a calculated, machine world, not a lived world, with a heart, soul and purpose. AI (Artificial Intelligence) is as absurd as scientific materialism, upon which it is predicated.

***** Nikola Tesla said, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Tesla is right, except he should have added that energy = frequency = vibration = numbers. We inhabit a numerical universe, but we don’t see numbers. Instead, we experience numbers, and what we experience them as are colours, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touches, feelings, intuitions, desires, will ... things that seem as far removed from numbers as you can possibly get. That’s why it has proved so hard for people to understand that we live in a mathematical universe. Yet why do they imagine that all scientific theories express their laws in mathematical terms? All mathematical laws are actually laws about numbers and how they relate to each other. The most famous equation of all time is Einstein’s E = mc2. How do we actually use this formula? We have a specific number for c (the speed of light is a constant), we measure a thing’s mass (thus producing a number), and then we are in a position to calculate a number for the thing’s energy. Don’t you see what’s going on? All equations, laws and formulae are simply mathematical functions expressing relationships between numbers. The circumference of a circle is 2πr and the area πr2. Given any “r”, we can calculate a specific circumference and area (i.e. specific numbers) for a specific circle. In other words, circles are just numbers existing in a certain way, in a certain fixed relation to each other.

Energy, mass, frequency, speed, space, time, momentum, density, volume, and so on ... these are all just labels we give to numbers existing in certain ontological contexts. The various formulae we apply to them, such as E = mc2, are just ways of relating numbers in one ontological context to numbers in another ontological context (e.g. the frequency context compared with the spacetime context). Numbers aren’t abstract pencil marks on a piece of paper, or chalk marks on a board. Numbers are energy, and energy is ontological, i.e. it can be mathematically shaped, compressed, expanded, deformed, accelerated, decelerated, dilated, contracted, and so on. But, underneath it all, all we are actually describing is a system of malleable numbers ... numbers as an ontological fluid flowing in and out of each other in all manner of mathematical ways. This “flow” is the world we experientially encounter. It has certain characteristic features that we label as “mass”, “energy”, “speed”, and so on, but these are just numbers with “units” (dimensions) attached (e.g. kilograms, Joules, metres, seconds, metres per second, and so on). However, these units are nothing more than labels that we use to categorise numbers in certain ontological contexts. When we strip away all units, all dimensionality, we are left with nothing but a dimensionless frequency Singularity. There are no physical entities in the Singularity. It’s purely mental. What is the Singularity? It’s pure number. It’s made up of countless monads, and monads are just autonomous, complete and consistent sets of all numbers, with no units and no dimensions. Nowhere does Pythagoras’s assertion that all things are numbers, and number rules all, apply more forcefully than in the numerical, mathematical Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Pure numbers – existing dimensionlessly and unitlessly – were what preceded the spacetime universe! The Big Bang created dimensionality and thus units. Mass is how energy exists dimensionally ... how numbers exist dimensionally. Have you understood? Souls are numbers, minds are numbers, the universe is numbers, reality is numbers, existence is numbers, energy is numbers, mass is numbers. The ancient Greek Atomists imagined the world as comprising little physical objects combining and breaking up in various ways forever. In fact, the true atoms are numbers, and it’s numbers that integrate and

disintegrate in various ways. Numbers, ontologically, are photons. Numbers are light! Light is massless and dimensionless. Light is nothing but numbers in motion. All numbers are in motion (other than perfect zero – zero in itself – with perfect zero equating to non-existence! ... anything that doesn’t move doesn’t exist). Science is all about measurement. But what is measurement? It’s simply the process of assigning a number to an observation. Yet again, we come right back to numbers as the basis of observable reality. Numbers, being ontological, can be experienced, but they are never experienced as numbers, but only as what numbers signify in terms of Content. Numbers are pure Form, but we exclusively encounter their Content (their appearance). Numbers are information, and this is an information universe. Numbers are information carriers, and we experience the information they carry (which doesn’t seem numerical at all). Imagine numbers as the keys of the cosmic piano. These are the fixed keys of existence. However, we can play them in any way we like, consistent with the laws of the piano. The numbers are the eternal, necessary elements, or “atoms”, of existence, but how we play them produces the temporal, contingent world that we actually encounter. Only the greatest geniuses can see the deepest reality. The Illuminati alone, beginning with Pythagoras, saw that when you stripped away all of the appearances of reality, what was left was reality in itself ... and reality in itself is just number ... mathematics. Absolutely nothing else can rationally explain this rational, intelligible universe of ours. Underneath all of science stands a single ontological formula – the grand unified, final theory of everything – the God Equation. The God Equation is simply that which defines all ontological numbers, and all the ways in which they can ontologically relate to each other. The God Equation defines numbers as sinusoidal waves ... as eternal energy. From sinusoidal waves we get Fourier mathematics, and Fourier mathematics can define two domains: the dimensionless frequency domain (of mind) and the dimensional spacetime domain of matter, and how the two domains interact (thus solving the otherwise intractable Cartesian mind-body problem). Descartes defined mind as unextended and matter as extended. That’s an absolutely mathematical definition, and captures the essence of reality: the frequency domain of mind has no extension, and the spacetime domain of matter is all about extension. It’s all in the math!

If you imagine that this is anything other than a mathematical universe, it’s because you’re useless at math, and can’t bear the thought of the world being something you can never grasp. So, you will cling to the idiotic, irrational hope that faith in some prophet, guru or holy text will save you, that some absurd Mythos explains reality (such as “God” made the world in six days and put his feet up on the seventh), that “meditating” will lead you to “enlightenment”. People want “truths” that are to their advantage, and they reject any truths that aren’t, especially those that they can’t even begin to understand. In other words, scarcely any humans have any genuine interest in the Truth, or possess the mental equipment to recognise it and understand it. People will always lie to themselves if lies confer more advantages on them – more success in a world of inherent liars – than the truth. Mainstream religions are lies, economic and political systems are lies, science is a lie. People subscribe to Mythos – the Lie, not to Logos – the Truth. They want a verbal narrative to guide their life, not a numerical formula that they find cold, clinical and abstract. But the Truth doesn’t care! It stands there forever, adamantine – whether you like it or not. We have given you the Truth of existence. Whether you understand what we have said, and whether you accept it, are totally different things. What we are 100% certain of is that no one will ever be able to disprove a single thing we have said about ontological, transcendental mathematics. Believe whatever you like. We know the Truth. Mathematics is the Truth. There is no other. The more you look at where science is going, with its ever-increasing reliance on mathematics, the more you see that it can have only one ultimate destination ... ontological, transcendental, pure, analytic math.

Mathematics: The Universal Language “There is an old saying that God made everything in accordance with weight, measure, and number. But there are things which cannot be weighed, namely, those that lack force and power, and there are also things that lack parts and thus cannot be measured. But there is nothing that cannot be numbered. And so number is, as it were, metaphysical shape, and arithmetic is, in a certain sense, the Statics of the Universe, that by which the powers of things are investigated.” – Leibniz

“From the time of Pythagoras, people have been persuaded that enormous mysteries lie hidden in numbers.” – Leibniz “But, as far as I know, no mortal until now has seen the true principle by which each thing can be assigned its own characteristic number. Indeed, the most learned persons have admitted that they did not understand what I was talking about when I casually mentioned something of this sort in their presence.” – Leibniz “Once the characteristic numbers of most notions are determined, the human race will have a new kind of tool, a tool that will increase the power of the mind much more than optical lenses helped our eyes, a tool that will be as far superior to microscopes or telescopes as reason is to vision.” – Leibniz “...who could doubt that reasoning will finally be correct, when it is everywhere as clear and certain as arithmetic has been up until now. And so that troublesome objection by which one antagonist now commonly harasses the other would be eliminated, an objection that turns many away from wanting to reason.” – Leibniz “What I have in mind is that, when someone offers a proof, his opponent doesn’t examine the argument as much as he responds in general terms, how do you know that your reason is more correct than mine? What criterion of truth do you have?” – Leibniz “Since, due to the wonderful interconnection of things, it is extremely difficult to produce the characteristic numbers of just a few things, considered apart from the others, I have contrived a device, quite elegant, if I am not mistaken, by which I can show that it is possible to corroborate reasoning through numbers. And so, I imagine that those so very wonderful characteristic numbers are already given, and, having observed a certain general property that characteristic numbers have, I meanwhile assume that these numbers I imagine, whatever they might be, have that property. By using these numbers I can immediately demonstrate through numbers, and in an amazing way, all of the logical rules and show how one can know whether certain arguments are in proper form. When we have the true characteristic numbers of things, then at last, without any mental effort or danger of error, we will be able to judge whether arguments are indeed materially sound and draw the right conclusions.” – Leibniz

“For although people can be made worse off by all other gifts, correct reasoning alone can only be for the good.” – Leibniz

***** Leibniz has rightly been called the “polymath’s polymath”. He’s the most intelligent human being in all history. He was the discoverer of calculus, an expert in jurisprudence, an ambassador, advisor, diplomat, engineer, historian, librarian, statesman, theologian, moralist, philosopher, metaphysician, alchemist, scientist, logician, mathematician, ontologist, epistemologist, rationalist, computer scientist, researcher into universal grammar, physicist, educationalist, founder of great science academies – a true universal genius. Leibniz has no rivals at all in the modern age.

The Janus Code Never forget – there is nothing other than mathematics. The reason why you imagine that the universe is not mathematical is that your mind experiences the information carried by mathematics – its empirical Content – but you don’t regard this as math. Yet it is. It’s just the other side of the ontological mathematical coin It’s mathematical Content rather than mathematical Form, but it’s math all the same. Mathematics is Janus-faced. It looks two ways at once: empirically and rationally. You have been brainwashed to think that only the rational Form is math – and that it’s cold and abstract, with nothing to do with reality. In fact, both sides of the coin are fully mathematical. That’s what it means to say that mathematics is ontological.

***** Let’s say that the number “5” is the colour magenta, that the colour “14” is the taste of vinegar, that the numbers 500 through to 665 are the smell of a red rose, that 1000 to 10000 is the feeling of love, and so on. So, whenever you have any experience at all, you are in fact encountering the flip side of a number or numbers. Numbers are all there are. You are continuously experiencing numbers, and you experience them as their Content, not as the numbers in themselves, in their conventional mathematical aspect. There’s a direct mapping between numbers and experiences. The trouble is that you need the Mind of God to be able to see which numbers go with

which experiences. If we had split-screen minds, we could have the experiences (Content) in one screen, and see the associated numbers (Form) in the other. Then we would know for a fact that we inhabit a 100% mathematical universe.

***** Numbers are experiences. Numbers are the true link between empiricism and rationalism, Content and Form. Numbers are dual-aspect entities. One aspect is pure math, the other pure experience.

***** Numbers are ontological signs. The number itself is the signifier, and the experience that accompanies it is the signified. If “5” is the signifier then, in our example, magenta is the signified. We live in a universe of signs, where the signifiers are hidden (they are noumena) and we see only the signifieds (phenomena). Because we see only the signifieds and not the signifiers, we imagine that the world has no signifiers. But, of course, it does. In semiotics, Ferdinand Saussure said that the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary (i.e. not fixed and natural). In ontological mathematics, the relationship is fixed and natural. However, it’s so natural that we forget that there’s any signifier at all, and then we imagine that the signified (the phenomenon) is the only reality. It’s so easy to overlook that everything signified must have a signifier. Science has completely forgotten. It denies any hint of “hidden variables”. Numbers signify. Their empirical Content is the signified. Numbers are the information carriers, the Forms. Their Content is the information carried. We are in a never-ending flow of numbers (signifiers), but all we encounter is a never-ending flow of apparent non-numbers (signifieds). The signifieds hide the signifiers from us, and it’s then our rational task to work out what the signifiers are. Mathematics is our solution. Saussure said, “Everything is a sign. Language is a system of signs.” Mathematics is the language of existence, and, like every other language, is a system of signs, except it’s one where we never see the signifiers, only the signifieds. Saussure said, “Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula.” He should have said that without mathematics, the empirical world

is a vague, uncharted nebula. With manmade languages, we see the signifiers and the signifieds. With Nature’s language, we get the signifieds only, while the signifiers are the great mystery of existence. Only our reason can solve the problem of what they are. The word “cat” signifies a specific member of a particular species of animal. In Nature, we never see the word, only the specific thing. The “word” is still there, of course, but, in Nature, it’s not a word, but a number, or numbers. It’s all in the math!

Why? Why is mathematics at the core of science? Because mathematics is reality. Why is science all about measurement? Because measurements are numbers, i.e. mathematics. Mathematics tells us about noumena, science about phenomena. Mathematics is invisible, unexperienceable reality – reality with no appearance, reality in itself, reality as an immaterial, dimensionless Singularity, outside space, time and the material world. What are Gödel’s incompleteness theorems about? They tell us that any attempt to define mathematics (numbers) in any way other than ontologically, defined by a single all-encompassing formula (God Equation), is doomed to fail and generate inconsistency and/or incompleteness. Gödel’s work doesn’t apply to mathematics per se, but to all fallacious attempts to define mathematics using non-ontological means (especially those involving logic, axioms, formalisms, sets and so on). What are black hole singularities? They are where dimensional numbers with units are converted into dimensionless numbers without units. What was the Big Bang Singularity? It was the state from which dimensionless, unitless numbers were converted into dimensional units with numbers. What are photons? They are dimensionless, unitless, massless, pure numbers! Every photon has a specific frequency – which is its number. So, the light of the sun is in fact the light of numbers, the light of mathematics ... the light of reason. Mathematics is not an unreal abstraction, as sensory science says. It is reality in itself, stripped of all sensory interpretations and perceptions. “Light” is just another word for reality in itself, for pure math! Have you seen the light yet?

The Mystery The mystery of existence is simply this – we are numbers that experience numbers, but we don’t experience them (or ourselves) as numbers. We experience them as anything other than numbers. Empiricism tells us that the world is not mathematical. However, whenever we use pure reason to investigate the world – rather than our senses, feelings or mystical intuitions – we find ourselves dealing exclusively with numbers, i.e. with pure, existential mathematics – eternally perfect and necessary, analytic and a priori, consistent and complete. This is what rationalism tells us. The only way to square the apparently mutually incompatible views of empiricism and rationalism is through the concept of Form and Content. Mathematics is the rational Form of the world, and all of the sensory, emotional and intuitive information carried by mathematics is its Content. We can experience Content but know Form. Content is the sensuous appearance of mathematics. Content is phenomenon, mathematical Form noumenon. There is a one-to-one mapping between Form and content, i.e. every number has a specific experience linked to it. Numbers are ontological coins. On one side, we get the number’s Form, and this is the stuff of rationalism, relations of ideas and objectivity. On the other side, we get the number’s Content or appearance, and this is the stuff of empiricism, matters of fact and subjective opinions, beliefs, conjectures and interpretations. We are always trapped in this dual-aspect monism that appears exactly like a baffling Cartesian dualism ... hence all of humanity’s problems grasping the true nature of reality. Both Kant and science came up with ways to “unify” empiricism and rationalism. Kant did so metaphysically, and science did so by matching mathematical laws to observed experimental patterns. Science was enormously more successful and its success deceived people into imagining it was the Truth. In fact, it works purely because it uses math, and ultimate Truth is ultimate math. Scientific materialism, within a strict context of ontological, transcendental mathematics, will give us the best way of understanding the observable, phenomenal world.

However, scientific materialism begins and ends with what can be observed, and has nothing at all relevant to say about unobservable reality. Here, scientific idealism will come into its own as the New Science of 1) the Mind/Soul (psychology), 2) the World-Whole (cosmology) and 3) “God”/God Equation (theology/ metaphysics/ pure math). You heard it here first. The Illuminati are those guiding humanity to the light. This is our sacred mission. What’s yours?

Ultimate Transcendence Numbers are the eternal, necessary, rational building blocks of existence that transcend all of our experiences, yet convey all of our experiences. This is a numerical, calculating universe, and we ourselves are calculating, self-solving, self-optimising, living mathematical beings. We attain perfection (divinity) in the shape of perfect mathematical symmetry, corresponding to perfect thinking, perfect reason, perfect understanding, perfect knowledge and perfect power. To understand what we are saying, you must stop thinking of numbers as the things you were taught about in boring math class (that you slept through). Numbers, ontologically, are eternal vibrations, eternal frequencies ... eternal energies ... all conveying Content. To say that all things are made of energy is to say that all things are made of numbers, that all things are numbers (exactly as Pythagoras told us two and a half thousand years ago!). The “matter” that scientists believe in so eagerly is simply the crudest and simplest expression of energy. We become divine the more we transcend matter. The ancient Gnostics regarded matter as evil. It’s evil insofar as it deceives us about the true nature of reality, insofar as it leads us into catastrophic ignorance (such as that exhibited by atheistic scientific materialists who deny that existence has any meaning, purpose and point, and are thus total nihilists), insofar as it leads us away from the light ... into the darkness. It conceals from us that we are in fact light beings – pure, dimensionless, perfect numbers! We become pure light when we merge with pure mathematics in the Singularity. This is the mystical vision that Eastern religions and New Agers have always been trying to express in their irrational, emotional way. They believe that we merge with “cosmic love”,

or “cosmic peace, tranquillity and carefreeness”, or “blissful, untroubled non-thinking consciousness”. In fact, we are numbers and we eventually realise that’s what we are, and that numbers are eternal, necessary perfection. In a numerical universe, once we become at one with numbers, we become Gods who understand absolutely everything about the universe, and can calculate absolutely anything instantly and flawlessly, and enjoy the perfect blissful Content that accompanies perfect Form. We have perfect perceptions, perfect sensations, perfect feelings and perfect intuitions ... everything that “God” enjoys. Mathematics, and nothing else, is the road to the light.

Eternity The only things that can exist perfectly, eternally, necessarily, without contradiction, inconsistency and incompleteness, are numbers. There are no other candidates. Only numbers can provide the flawless, eternal building blocks of existence.

The Coming Race If you are anything other than an “intuitive thinker” or “thinking intuitive” (or close enough to one of these), you won’t have a clue what we’re talking about and will think we’re writing gibberish and gobbledegook. Feeling types won’t have the vaguest idea what we’re saying, and will stick to their faith in prophets, holy texts, revelation and Mythos; mystical intuitives will stick to their gurus, holy texts and personal experiences; and sensing types will stick to their “matter”. So it goes. The Truth is not for all. Only the smartest humans can come into a direct relation with it, only the Gnostics – the learners, the knowers, the mathematikoi.

Conclusion We have demonstrated that Kant was on the right track with his transcendental idealism. Where he went catastrophically wrong was in his understanding (misunderstanding!) of the ontology and transcendental nature of mathematics. If you get this wrong, your system cannot work. If

Kant’s philosophy is reinterpreted via transcendental, ontological mathematics, it makes perfect sense. Kant said, “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” We had to affirm mathematics to make room for reason ... the only way to acquire true knowledge, to explain a rational, intelligible universe. What’s it to be? – faith or reason, empiricism or rationalism, scientific materialism or transcendental mathematics? Your choice.

Ad Lucem (To the Light)