Why Math Must Replace Science (The God Series Book 18)

Table of contents :
Why Math Must Replace Science
Quotations
Table of Contents
Introduction
Drone’s Eye View
The Truth About Science
The Scientific Nightmare
Meltdown
Group Insanity
The “Undead” Thought Experiment
Schrödinger’s Cat: Science’s Rejection of the Reality Principle
The Failure of Scientific Logic
The Gospel of Irrationalism
The Superposition Fallacy
Kant and Quantum Mechanics
The Gospel of Despair
Life and Death; Possible and Compossible
Either/Or versus And
Potentiality or Actuality Wave?
So, You Think You Understand Quantum Mechanics?
Logical Positivism: Shut Up!
Is Science Falsifiable?
Final Status
Dead Cats, Dead Rats
There Is No Such Thing As Nothing
The Singularity – the Answer to Everything
The “Model”
Time For A Mystery
Mathematics and the Scientific Method
In the Beginning
The Lies of Science
Personality Types and Mathematics
The Nobel Prize – Worthless
The Last Magicians
Non-Locality Versus Reality
Gödel, Wittgenstein and Tautology
The Science Fraud
The Red Pill
God and the Singularity
The Most Absurd Claim of All
The Free Lunch Universe
The Ontological Elves
Mathematical Vanishing Tricks
The Razor
Immaterial Waves and Material Waves
The Mathematical Magic Tricks
The Absurdity
Abstract Mathematics
It Works?
The Invention of Knowledge?
The Devil and Science
The Invisible College
The Importance of Jiggling
The Concealment
Metamorphosis
The Answer

Citation preview

Why Math Must Replace Science M P

H H

B

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

Quotations “But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” – Gödel “God does arithmetic.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss “The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.” – Wolfgang Pauli “Man know thyself; then thou shalt know the Universe and God.” – Pythagoras “I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss “Thus metaphysics and mathematics are, among all the sciences that belong to reason, those in which imagination has the greatest role.” – Jean d’Alembert “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.” – Pythagoras

Table of Contents Why Math Must Replace Science Quotations Table of Contents Introduction Drone’s Eye View The Truth About Science The Scientific Nightmare Meltdown Group Insanity The “Undead” Thought Experiment Schrödinger’s Cat: Science’s Rejection of the Reality Principle The Failure of Scientific Logic The Gospel of Irrationalism The Superposition Fallacy Kant and Quantum Mechanics The Gospel of Despair Life and Death; Possible and Compossible Either/Or versus And Potentiality or Actuality Wave? So, You Think You Understand Quantum Mechanics? Logical Positivism: Shut Up!

Is Science Falsifiable? Final Status Dead Cats, Dead Rats There Is No Such Thing As Nothing The Singularity – the Answer to Everything The “Model” Time For A Mystery Mathematics and the Scientific Method In the Beginning The Lies of Science Personality Types and Mathematics The Nobel Prize – Worthless The Last Magicians Non-Locality Versus Reality Gödel, Wittgenstein and Tautology The Science Fraud The Red Pill God and the Singularity The Most Absurd Claim of All The Free Lunch Universe The Ontological Elves Mathematical Vanishing Tricks

The Razor Immaterial Waves and Material Waves The Mathematical Magic Tricks The Absurdity Abstract Mathematics It Works? The Invention of Knowledge? The Devil and Science The Invisible College The Importance of Jiggling The Concealment Metamorphosis The Answer

Introduction Reason never errs, provided it is conducted mathematically. Mathematics is the true language of reason. Mathematics is the living, ontological expression of reason. It’s how reason actually exists in the world. If “God” never errs, only one conclusion is possible: God is mathematics. God is reason. God is perfect because mathematics is perfect. To say that God created everything is to say that everything is made of mathematics. God is all-powerful because mathematics is all-powerful. There is nothing external to mathematics. Mathematics is literally everything. Mathematics is the entire universe, all that was, all that is and all that can be. What is the mind made of? – mathematics. What are thoughts made of? – mathematics. What are feelings, sensations, intuitions, and desires made of? – mathematics. What is free will and will to power made of? – mathematics. What is life made of? – mathematics. Everything in the universe can be reduced to perfect, analytic, mathematical sinusoids – sine and cosine waves. A thought, in its most basic, “atomic” form is just a wave. To build up complex thoughts, we simply add different waves together. The material world, when you strip away all of its illusory, phenomenal aspects and see it as it is in itself (noumenal reality), is nothing but mathematical waves. What does that mean? It means that matter is nothing other than thinking; matter is made of thoughts (sinusoids); matter is mental. Matter is a very special type of thinking: it’s collective rather than individual thinking. When you, as an individual, engage in thinking, you are relying on a set of sinusoids located within your own mind. When all of the minds of the universe think together, they are relying on all the sinusoids located within their collective mind, which is simply the universe itself. These sinusoids come together to produce subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. All the “stuff” of the material world is nothing but a set of collective rather than individual thoughts. “Atoms” are how collective thoughts express themselves in their most stable form. The Periodic Table of Chemistry is actually a list of all the stable thoughts produced by all the minds of the universe. The Periodic Table is missing one member – the zeroth member, the most important of all. The zeroth element is pure mind

itself: the mathematical monad. From the zeroth element come all of the other elements. The zeroth element is dimensionless, and all the elements derived from it are dimensional. The Big Bang was a mental event, whereby a dimensionless, immaterial Singularity of pure frequency gave rise to a dimensional, material world of space and time. When you look at the world, you are not looking at “matter” per se. Rather, you are looking at the collective rather than individual thoughts of the universe. Collective thoughts, unlike individual thoughts, are objective, standardised, regimented, law-bound, predictable, “scientific”. All individual idiosyncrasies are stripped out. Individual thoughts are subjective, capricious unpredictable, idiosyncratic, “unscientific”. Yet all subjective thoughts, like all objective thoughts, are conveyed by perfect, objective sinusoids. Most people believe they have a body and a soul, which they conceive in Cartesian terms, i.e. they imagine a disembodied soul inside their body, which detaches itself from the body at death, and, hopefully, goes to heaven. This view is wholly wrong. Your body is as mental as your mind. The difference is that the body is an expression of the Collective Mind, not the individual mind. Your individual mind (soul) connects to a product (body) of the Collective Mind. Your mind does nothing but think, and the Collective Mind does nothing but think, but the mental output of the latter is “matter”, and everything that matter does in the universe is simply reflecting the laws of how the Collective Mind thinks. Those laws are exclusively mathematical and give rise to what we regard as the scientific universe (with science being phenomenal mathematics, and mathematics itself being unobservable = noumenal). Human beings – almost all of whom are mathematically illiterate – have no idea who and what they are, and what the universe is. The last thing they imagine themselves to be is pure math, in a universe of pure math. If you wished to conceal the truth, where would you wish to “hide” it, and indeed where could you hide it, in order to preserve the secret and mystery of existence? You’d put it in the last place anyone would ever look. That place is of course mathematics, the subject humanity hates and dreads more than any other. Not only do people not wish to contemplate mathematics, but mathematics is also purely intellectual, i.e. it cannot, in itself, be perceived, sensed, felt, tasted, touched, smelled, seen, heard or experienced. Only the effects (phenomena) of mathematics are available to

us to perceive. But mathematics itself is pure causation, pure noumenon, pure existence. It’s something akin to the Cheshire Cat. We see its grin (effect), but not the cat itself (the cause). We experience the world of mathematics, but we absolutely never see that world in itself: unshielded, revealed, made manifest. Only one thing can take us into the world of mathematics – reason – yet humanity is fundamentally irrational and estranged from reason, hence alienated from the mathematical truth of existence. Most people trust their feelings (Abrahamism), intuitions (Eastern religion) or senses (science) over reason (mathematics). The history of science has been the history of revulsion for the noumenal, the unobservable, the metaphysical, yet mathematics is all of those things. Science has denied the existence of everything not available to the scientific method, yet mathematics falls exactly into this category. By the greatest of all ironies, science is wholly reliant on mathematics – the one thing that even in principle cannot be an object of the scientific method – and without which science would be mere alchemy and fantasy. Humanity has always had the answer to existence right in front of it. In fact, it’s made of it! Yet it has looked everywhere else. It has turned to religion, philosophy and science. Science is the most successful of these precisely because it has the highest mathematical content. Religion is spectacularly unsuccessful at explaining anything because it has no mathematical content at all. It’s complete Mythos – an epic, emotional story. All religious ideas and beliefs, are, like everything else, made of mathematical sinusoids, but we only experience the idea or belief itself, not its underlying mathematical form. This is the entire problem. Although everything is made of sinusoids, we don’t perceive sinusoids. We experience the information carried by the sinusoids, not the sinusoids themselves. We experience the information as feelings, desires, will, intuitions, beliefs, hopes, fears, sensations, and so on, i.e. we do not experience mathematics mathematically! Music is nothing but sound waves (made of sinusoids), but we don’t experience music as that. We experience it emotionally, as the sound of feelings. In general, we experience the world of math as experience, not as math, as content, not form.

Following Descartes, philosophy created two rival schools: those of empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism was all about what we experience, and rationalism all about how the world must rationally be. Empiricism ended up denying that there was any rational underpinning to existence: experience was all that mattered, and if we couldn’t experience it, we couldn’t comment on it or know that it even existed. Empiricism soon evolved into science, and science is all about observations and measurements – evidence. Scientists do not accept the existence of anything that is not susceptible to the scientific method. Yet, at the heart of scientific theories is, as we have said, mathematics, and mathematics itself has nothing to do with the scientific method, and has no need of any experiences. It’s a priori (prior to experience) and analytic (true by definition, not by virtue of observing the world). Science contains a wholesale contradiction. It promotes the scientific method as the be-all-and-end-all, yet its engine is mathematics, which is pure rationalism and the opposite of the empiricist scientific method. Not a single scientist has ever addressed this fatal hole in the logic of science. Science is successful because it irrationally, and unwittingly, stumbled on the truth of the world: that everything is at root mathematical (rationalist), but is experienced non-mathematically (empirically). Science is therefore a hybrid of empiricism and rationalism. The scientific method handles the empiricist part, concerning observations and measurements on the empirical world, and the mathematical theories reflect the rationalist reality of existence. However, no scientist understands this. Scientists assign no ontological status to mathematics whatsoever. They have no idea what mathematics is, and they have no idea what it’s doing in an empiricist subject such as science. They use it for no other reason than that it works spectacularly well, i.e. they use it pragmatically and instrumentally, not because they assign it any logical and necessary place in their system. Science, as all scientists will tell you, is about the scientific method (empiricism). Not one will tell you that it’s all about mathematics (rationalism). Science is becoming more and more mathematical – Mtheory is more or less nothing but math – and yet scientists still refuse to confront the issue of what mathematics is and what it’s doing in science at all.

David Hume, the greatest empiricist philosopher of them all, would never have allowed empiricism to be based on mathematics for the blindingly obvious reason that mathematics, like causation, cannot be perceived, hence cannot be part of our experience, hence can play no part in empiricism. In fact, causation is mathematics and is indeed unobservable, hence non-empirical. Science had none of Hume’s logic and scruples. It did not object to referring to causation and mathematics, despite their non-empirical nature. All it cared about was success, and no one can deny that science has been remarkably successful. However, science is, logically, an incoherent mess. It’s inconsistent and incomplete because it does nothing to account for the presence of rationalist mathematics in its empiricist theories. This becomes of crucial importance in a specific area – things that are mathematically valid but outside the scientific method, i.e. they can’t be observed, measured or experienced. Zero, infinity, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers and ontological sinusoids are all examples of valid mathematical entities that cannot be accommodated by science. So, are these “real” or not? Science, as an empiricist subject, has simply dismissed these things. Science, although it relies on mathematics, only in fact accepts a tiny, inconsistent, incomplete part of mathematics as being relevant to science – that of real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity (with a few negative numbers thrown in to account for particles with a negative charge). In other words, science, although it cannot define the status of mathematics, is willing to make a huge call regarding mathematics – namely, that only “empirical” numbers (positive real numbers, i.e. numbers that can feature on measuring instruments) have ontological significance, and the rest of mathematics is “unreal”. What if scientists are wrong? What if their view is a fallacy, transforming consistent and complete mathematics into something inconsistent and incomplete? For example, the fundamental theorem of algebra states that the field of complex numbers is algebraically closed, whereas the same is not true of the field of real numbers, which is what science relies on. Is it valid for science to be based on a system that knowingly contradicts the fundamental theorem of algebra? What are the ontological consequences of this omission? No scientist ever gives a second thought to such questions.

Core assertions of ontological mathematics are that mathematics must be consistent, complete, defined on the algebraically closed field of complex numbers, and have a net outcome of zero (the ground state of existence). All of this is true if and only if existence is encapsulated by a single, allpowerful, all-defining mathematical formula = the “God Equation” (the generalised Euler Formula). The status of mathematics in science is nowhere more critical than in the interpretation of science’s most successful theory: quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on complex-number wavefunctions, but complex numbers are regarded as empirically unreal in science (no scientific instrument can record results in terms of imaginary numbers, hence complex numbers, which are combinations of real and imaginary numbers, are also verboten). Science then applies an utterly irrational and almost insane empiricist interpretation to quantum mechanics. It says that reality is produced only when unreal wavefunctions “collapse” for no reason (indeterministically), i.e. unreality somehow collapses into reality. What they ought to be saying, of course, is what ontological mathematicians say: the “unreal” wavefunction is not unreal at all, it’s ontologically rational and real, but empirically unobservable. It’s noumenal rather than phenomenal. It’s the thing in itself, not the appearance of the thing. In other words, noumenal existence produces phenomenal existence; rationalism underpins empiricism. If you reject ontological mathematical rationalism, you are automatically forced down the road of scientific empiricism, and you instantly turn the world from mathematically deterministic and intelligible into something indeterministic, unintelligible, and utterly mysterious, with no answer. Einstein denied that quantum mechanics was the real deal. He said, “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us closer to the secret of the ‘Old One.’ I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.” Einstein hoped that “hidden variables” would be found that would restore determinism to quantum science. In fact, quantum mechanics can be made deterministic at a single stroke – by accepting the ontological reality of complex numbers, by accepting the ontological reality of all of mathematics. Ontological mathematics, it turns out, is exactly the hidden

layer Einstein was seeking, but he himself was too much of an empiricist to see the obvious rational truth staring him in the face. If science becomes the phenomenal branch of mathematics, rather than mathematics being a weird, undefined abstraction used by scientists in an irrational way, everything automatically falls into place. Reality becomes rational rather than empirical, noumenal rather than phenomenal, intelligible rather than sensible, metaphysical rather than physical. It gets a complete, closed, analytic, eternal solution. What’s not to like? Science is math for dummies, for empiricists using mathematics in a perverse and illogical way. Consider how science operates. Richard Feynman summed it up perfectly when he said, “In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Don’t laugh, that’s the real truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess ... and then we compare the computation results to nature, or to experiment or experience ... or compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science.” This is indeed exactly what science is: guesses being matched to experimental results. Could any sane, rational person believe this “method” could ever lead to definitive Truth? It’s impossible. However, if analytic mathematics and the rationalist method associated with it, replaces the empiricist scientific method, all of this absurd guesswork is abolished, and proper answers, and precise, eternal proofs, can be provided. All that is required is to understand that science is phenomenal mathematics, the appearance of mathematics, mathematics as it is experienced. But mathematics is the thing in itself, reality itself that we don’t perceive or experience, but whose effects are all we ever encounter. Only reason, not our senses, can reveal mathematical truth, which is the truth of existence. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers”; “Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and daemons”; Number rules the universe”. It’s all in the math.

Drone’s Eye View

A drone flies over the land. A “pilot” somewhere far away is remotely controlling the drone and seeing through the drone’s “eyes” (its cameras). The drone’s “consciousness” is not in the drone itself: the pilot provides the consciousness. The drone’s consciousness is therefore remote, non-local. If the drone should be blown up, the connection to its consciousness is terminated, but the consciousness itself goes on. However, it now needs to find a new drone if it wishes to fly in the world again. It needs to “reincarnate” – put itself in a new drone, a new “body”. Now imagine the drone as a biological body with a head, torso, arms and legs: a human body. Consciousness is not located in this body but in the cosmic Singularity – Soul World. Each time our body fails, we get a new one via reincarnation. (There’s no such thing as “resurrection”.) Bodies die. Minds don’t. Minds are immaterial, eternal, indestructible, dimensionless singularities. Minds remotely control the material world via Fourier mathematics. The soul is independent of the body. It’s a self-contained frequency singularity. The body is its drone, not part of the soul itself. The destruction of the body has no implications for the survival of the soul. A pilot walks away from his drone every day. Similarly, every time we go to sleep, we leave our drone behind. That’s why people can have the most extraordinary dreams, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, intuitions, shamanistic adventures and extra sensory perception. All of these share a common root: the ability of the soul to separate itself from the body. If this weren’t true, we could never have such experiences under any circumstances. To put it another way, dreams are the proof that we have souls! Androids do not, as Philip K. Dick suggested, dream of electric sheep. Androids can’t and don’t dream at all. Only souls dream.

Childlike “One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” – Einstein No, ontological mathematics is the most precious thing we have, and it’s advanced and adult. Ontological mathematics is reality.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” – Einstein Of course the world is comprehensible – it’s pure math!

***** The greatest philosophers of ancient Greece all understood the one thing that modern scientists have signally failed to grasp: studying the phenomenal universe alone tells us nothing whatsoever about the Absolute. The Truth is hidden – in invisible math!

The Truth About Science “But it’s always seemed to me that the practice of physics is merely creating models which describe the observations that we can make on the world, and relate them together, and we have either good models or less good models, depending on how successful they are. The idea of the world ‘really existing’, and our theories somehow being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or being approximations to this reality, I think is not a very helpful one.” – P. C. W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom This is probably the best succinct description ever provided of what science actually is. Science is about models, not about ontology. Sadly, all too few scientists understand this and they believe that science is about realism rather than simulation. “One wants to be able to take a realistic view of the world, to talk about the world as if it is really there, even when it is not being observed. I certainly believe in a world that was here before me, and will be here after me, and I believe that you are part of it! And I believe that most physicists take this view when they are being pushed into a corner by philosophers. ... Well, I do find it helpful, the idea that there is a real world there, and that our business is to try and find out about it, and that the technique for doing that is indeed to make models and see how far we can go with them in accounting for the real world.” – John Bell, A Ghost in the Atom This is the typical view of most scientists. John Bell was, however, rather different from most scientists, being arguably the greatest scientific genius

of the 20th century, and the scientist most interested in ontology. Unlike most scientists, he was extremely suspicious of how quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity were interpreted by the scientific establishment, and was willing to consider radically different interpretations, ones much more amenable to rationalist ontology. Tellingly, he said, “... I believe there will be theories that are better than the ones we have, in that they describe more of the universe and connect more of it up. ... I’m quite convinced that quantum theory is only a temporary expedient. ... it does not really explain things ... the founding fathers of quantum mechanics rather prided themselves on giving up the idea of explanation. They were very proud that they dealt only with phenomena: they refused to look behind the phenomena, regarding that as the price one had to pay for coming to terms with nature. And it is a fact of history that the people who took that agnostic attitude towards the real world on the microphysical level were very successful. ... But I don’t believe it will be so indefinitely. ... It seems to me possible that the continuing anxiety about what quantum mechanics means will lead to still more and more tricky experiments which will eventually find some soft spot, some point where quantum mechanics is actually wrong. ... I think it is very probable that the solution to our problems will come through the back door; some person who is not addressing himself to these difficulties with which I am concerned will probably see the light ... those of us who are somewhat fixated on these questions will not be those who see the way through. ... When I look at quantum mechanics I see that it’s a dirty theory. The formulations of quantum mechanics that you find in the books involve dividing the world into an observer and an observed, and you are not told where the division comes ... you’re not told about this division between the observer and observed ... the ambiguity is at a level of precision far beyond human capability of testing. ... When you analyse this language that the physicists have fallen into, that physics is about the results of observations – you find that on analysis it evaporates, and nothing very clear is being said.” Why aren’t all physics students, and the general public, taught this skepticism towards the claims of physics? The way physics popularisers talk, you would imagine physics was just one enormous success story, explaining everything. Yet, when you drill down into it, it’s clear that science isn’t saying anything coherent at all. Not even the greatest scientists, such as Bell himself, can understand it, hence no scientists can.

That’s because it genuinely doesn’t make any sense. It’s a poorly thoughtout philosophy by people who are philosophically illiterate and, indeed, have contempt for philosophy. Science is just a hodgepodge of ad hoc ideas that have no connection with epistemology and ontology.

Contra Experience “This is contrary to all experience; and yet it is true.” – Euler Only simpletons and irrationalists believe that experience trumps reason. All scientists are irrationalists. Most of them are also simpletons. Seriously, have you ever met a scientist with good general knowledge?

Prejudice “Prejudices are what fools use for reason.” – Voltaire Scientists use their sensory prejudices. The religious use their emotional prejudices. The mystics use their intuitive prejudices. Only the mathematikoi use their reason.

The Copy Plato regarded the sensible world as an inferior copy of the intelligible world. Likewise, science is a simulation, a simulacrum, of the true world, which is a noumenal, intelligible world. Science can never reveal reality. It’s always stuck at the phenomenal level and never penetrates to the noumenal level. Scientists still insist there is no noumenal level. Why? Because it’s beyond the method that defines science, and scientists refuse to conceive of anything beyond their method. Science, as we know it, perishes without that method. It stops being Newtonian and becomes Leibnizian. It has to embrace metaphysics to explain physics, exactly as Leibniz insisted. Metaphysics is simply that which comes after physics, or, as we might say, that which physics is actually grounded in. Metaphysics isn’t philosophy, it’s ontological mathematics.

The Ghost in the Atom

Does an atom have a ghost, a mind, a soul? Contrary to what science says, every atom possesses an Aristotelian “Form”: the unobservable, metaphysical and mathematical director that controls the atom from the inside. Science posits a universe of external forces acting on atoms. It refuses to consider that atoms are subject to an internal, unobservable mathematical force.

The Scientific Nightmare “Of course Eugene Wigner has suggested that he can insert a very definite division between the observer and the observed, because he invokes the mind as a completely separate entity which is somehow coupled to the world, and he says it’s the entry into the mind of the observer that resolves the paradoxes which we’ve been discussing. So he’s bringing the idea of a non-material mind to play a prominent part in the physical world.” – P. C. W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom Don’t kid yourself. Everything in science is up for grabs. Science is nowhere near answering the big questions of existence. It can’t even define the questions. Independent, immaterial mind will definitely make an appearance in science in due course. This is 100% inevitable. It’s about time the great thinkers of the world started applying their time and effort to this task rather than worshipping the ineffectual scientific method (regarding the ultimate issues). This method is useful only in relation to simulations, simulacra and models of phenomena. It reveals nothing at all about noumena, and only noumena tell us about ultimate reality. There’s only one way of getting at noumena: ontological mathematics.

Science and Mathematics “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” – Eugene Wigner Indeed! Why has science never attempted to address this unreasonable effectiveness? The whole future of science depends on the answer to this issue.

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” – Eugene Wigner We do understand it. Physics is entirely derived from ontological mathematics. It’s the phenomenal expression of noumenal mathematics. There’s no miracle, just reason. “A possible explanation of the physicist’s use of mathematics to formulate his laws of nature is that he is a somewhat irresponsible person. As a result, when he finds a connection between two quantities which resembles a connection well-known from mathematics, he will jump at the conclusion that the connection is that discussed in mathematics simply because he does not know of any other similar connection.” – Eugene Wigner All quantities are mathematically connected. The real problem of scientists is that they so often flee from making the right and justified mathematical connections – such as acknowledging that quantum mechanics reflects a universe of complex numbers rather than real numbers. Mathematics alone is a truly connected subject. All other subjects have no necessary connections. “Physics is becoming so unbelievably complex that it is taking longer and longer to train a physicist. It is taking so long, in fact, to train a physicist to the place where he understands the nature of physical problems that he is already too old to solve them.” – Eugene Wigner If Wigner is right, physics is now too complex to make any further progress. It needs to be radically simplified or it will stall forever. The spectacular failure to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity shows how much trouble physics is now in. Another disaster is that physicists are so brainwashed – so indoctrinated by the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science – that, by the end of their education, they can’t think in any other way. They have become “religious”. “In science, it is not speed that is the most important. It is the dedication, the commitment, the interest and the will to know something and to understand it – these are the things that come first.” – Eugene Wigner True. The problem is that scientists only want to understand the problem in terms of their quasi-religious Meta Paradigm of empiricism and

materialism. They are dedicated to getting it wrong. “It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too.” – Eugene Wigner Well, study ontological mathematics!

Meltdown Science suffers from a systemic problem. It keeps looting mathematics for models, functions, approaches, methods, ideas, analogies, laws, axioms, techniques, and then it has to translate or reinterpret all of this mathematical material into “physical” stuff. At all times, it fails to address the elephant in the room, namely, why bother with this translation of the mathematical into the physical? Why not stick with the source rather than turn to the interpretation of the source (which inevitably introduces error, inconsistency and incompleteness)? What exactly is the physical and how does it relate to mathematics, given that it’s a translation of mathematics? Who needs the translation? The physical world is of course the sensory world, and the central, defining claim of science is that only mathematics that can be translated into sensory descriptions can be “real”, and all other mathematics is abstract and “unreal”. No explanation is ever given as to why some of mathematics should be regarded as real and all the rest as unreal. The reason for this irrational attitude towards mathematics is neither mathematical nor scientific, but philosophical. Scientists are true believers in the religion of sensory empiricism, and they reject as non-existent or “metaphysical” anything that’s not empirical. The scientific method is predicated on empiricism. If you admit nonempirical entities into science, you ipso facto overthrow the scientific method, which no scientist will accept since they are all people with religious faith in their method, no matter if it opposes reason. In this regard, they are the same as Abrahamists. Ontological mathematics is rationalist and rejects any empiricist desire to split mathematics into two radically different categories: “real” (empirical) and “unreal” (metaphysical, abstract or non-existent).

Ontological mathematics accepts as real the whole of mathematics, as defined by the God Equation, and considers any other mathematics extraneous to this as abstract. Ontological mathematics therefore stands between physics (empiricism) and “pure” mathematics (abstraction). Only mathematics defined by a single, fundamental equation can be consistent and complete. Science is inconsistent and incomplete, as is abstract mathematics. Only ontological mathematics is necessarily consistent and complete because it flows from a single, absolutely comprehensive formula. It’s a fundamental requirement of ontology that it be consistent and complete. Anything inconsistent and/or incomplete cannot be ontological. Science and abstract mathematics therefore both fail the ontological test. It’s impossible for science to address ultimate reality.

***** The idea that you can have an experimental science that picks and chooses when to use mathematics is laughable. You get experimental dinosaurs bemoaning the increasing mathematicisation of science, yet there would be no such thing as experimental science without mathematics. The trajectory of science points in only one direction: it will become wholly mathematical. Get with the programme.

Information Systems We receive information input from our senses and our intuitions. We process information. We output information via our thoughts, feelings, behaviour and physical actions. That’s all we are: information input, information processing and information output organisms. Everything else is mere detail. What is the essence of information? – mathematics.

Life and Mathematics KB: “Life isn’t compulsory. Mathematics, on the other hand, is.” Actually, ontological mathematics is life, hence life is compulsory too. The true basis of life and mind is simply the uniform flow of structured

information within autonomous units called monads. A dead, mindless universe would be one where there was no structured information, no uniform flow, no containers for that flow, capable of experiencing the flow.

Illuminism versus Science What is the central difference between Illuminism and science? Illuminism is defined by dimensionless existence, rational unobservables and the principle of sufficient reason, while science rejects dimensionless existence, rational unobservables and the principle of sufficient reason, preferring randomness, probability and a sensory world.

Group Insanity “Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” – Nietzsche Religions are examples of group insanity. Ditto conspiracy theories. Ditto extreme political parties such as the Tea Party. Ditto free-market capitalism. Science too is an example of mass insanity. There’s no scientist left who can qualify as a radical freethinker. They are all slavish, robotic followers of the crazy ideology of scientific empiricism and materialism, despite the fact that, in rational terms, these are provably false, even within their own parameters. Scientists ridicule religious believers for continuing to agree with disproven dogma, yet they are now in precisely the same untenable position.

Planck’s Constant Planck’s constant is said to set the scale of quantum theory. In fact, what it does is set the scale of causality. Causality involves the inexorable flow from one link to the next in a causal chain. This means that causality is dimensional. “Now” – the present instant – is never “being” but always “becoming”. Even as it arrives, it’s no longer “now” because it has already moved on. All causal processes in the universe happen at exactly the same net rate – corresponding to the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light). This is a rate

that transcends space and time and is built into the God Equation. Planck’s constant reflects “causal extension” (the minimum dimensionality over which causality occurs), and nothing can get smaller than this. If it could, it would be outside causality, which is impossible. Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” is no such thing, i.e. it’s nothing to do with any inherent ontological uncertainty. This principle actually tells us that it’s impossible to escape causality: nothing can happen faster than the cosmic speed limit and nothing can happen over shorter distances than those defined by Planck’s constant, or in shorter times than those reflecting Planck’s constant. This means that all talk of “virtual” particles, and of particles “borrowing” energy (from where?) in extremely short times and then paying it back, is nonsense. In Illuminism, energy ontologically flickers between dimensionless and dimensional existence. In science, there’s no dimensionless existence, so the concept of “virtual” existence had to be invented, but there is in fact no such thing. Either things exist or they don’t. They don’t “sort of exist”. They don’t exist potentially rather than actually. They don’t have “fuzzy” existence. Things don’t lurk in a murky, hazy, twilight zone where they are neither real nor unreal. “Virtual” existence is a violation of energy conservation, and is formally impossible. You can’t “borrow” energy from nowhere and then pay it back, as you will often hear scientists ludicrously claim in their irrational attempts to explain quantum physics, and, especially, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Believe it or not, but scientists effectively claim that energy can be borrowed from the future, although the “future” is undefined in science, as indeed time itself is. Science can’t say whether time is tensed or tenseless, or what time actually is. It appears in scientific equations instrumentally, not ontologically, and its meaning changes in different contexts (though physicists invariably fail to notice, or to think about it, or worry about it). “Time” is one of the great dirty secrets of science. Given that no scientist has any idea what time is ontologically, how can any scientist refer to energy being borrowed over a time period? This is an ontological assertion, but time isn’t defined ontologically in science, only instrumentally. Therefore, all attempted ontological assertions are incoherent.

The Ether

James Clerk Maxwell believed that electromagnetic waves were oscillations in an all-pervading elastic medium called the ether, and he even once claimed that the ether was the best-confirmed entity in the whole of physical theory. Of course, no physical ether was ever found and Einstein eventually dismissed it in his special theory of relativity. Yet the ether hasn’t gone anywhere. The key point about the ether is that it isn’t physical but mathematical. The difference between a mathematical and scientific conception of reality is that mathematics has no requirement for things to be observable, whereas the scientific method is predicated on observability. These are two different worldviews, with mathematics being based on rationalism and science on empiricism. If we live in a rationalist universe – and we certainly do – then science is grounded in a catastrophic fallacy. This fallacy causes all scientific interpretations of reality to become fatally irrational, as we see with Einsteinian relativity, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics and science’s inability to ontologically define something as basic as time. You must choose. Are you a rationalist (hence mathematician) or empiricist (hence scientist). Leibniz was the great champion of the rationalists, and Newton of the empiricists. In an earlier time, Pythagoras and Plato were the great rationalists, and Aristotle the empiricist (although he was much less empiricist, and far smarter, than modern scientists).

The “Undead” Thought Experiment “Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be both alive and dead, this state being tied to an earlier random event. Although the original ‘experiment’ was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement). ...

“Schrödinger’s cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.” – Wikipedia

Introverts and Extraverts Introverts are far more likely to be rationalists and idealists, and extraverts empiricists and materialists. Introverts can readily conceive of dimensionless, unobservable, noumenal existence. Extraverts find it more or less impossible to imagine existence in such terms. Extraverts always have to see, perceive, feel and experience things before they can believe in their reality. Doubting Thomas was satisfied when he saw and touched the “resurrected” body of Jesus Christ. No rationalist would ever have been satisfied with this, given that resurrection is an impossibility. If sensory evidence contradicts reason, so much the worse for sensory evidence. Sensory evidence has no connection with eternal necessity, hence is always “mere evidence”, and never proof of anything. Tragically, extraverted scientists can’t help believing that their fallible, deceptive senses are showing them true reality. Only reason can show us the Truth. That’s a fact. And reason is all about mathematics.

***** “As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.” – Disraeli The people with the most information about existence in its uttermost essence are ontological mathematicians.

The Measurement Problem

In quantum physics, it’s stated that wavefunction collapse requires a measurement or observation, implying that nothing would ever collapse without measurements or observations. This illustrates how ludicrous scientific “explanations” have become, how contrary they are to objective reality. In a causal system, the wavefunction is causally collapsing and causally reforming on a continuous basis. There’s no need for either measurements or observers. The doctrine of “wavefunction collapse” is an assault on causality itself. The paradox of Schrödinger’s cat has turned this into scientific dogma. Of course, there’s no paradox if you accept a reality principle and causality. The eponymous cat is always either alive or dead and never at any time in a superposition of living and dead states, awaiting a measurement or observation to make one state or the other concrete. Schrödinger actually designed the paradox to illustrate the lunacy of the prevailing quantum mechanical probabilistic interpretation. Instead, his opponents commandeered his paradox to illustrate the “truth” of their position. Sadly, Schrödinger was unable to refute them because, to do so, he would have been forced to leave scientific empiricism behind and turn instead to mathematical rationalism and causality. You can have either rationalist, mathematical causality or irrational, empiricist, scientific probability, but you can’t have both. So, what’s it to be? Can a cat be both dead and alive or is this an affront to objective reality and the reality principle? No scientist has ever explained how the Big Bang universe escaped from a superposition of states if there were no measurements or observations performed on it. It should still be in a superposition of states. In a mathematical universe of mathematical causality, this bizarre situation is impossible. The blunt fact is that mathematics is consistent with a reality principle and modern science is not. In a host of ways, science dismisses objective reality, hence is an irrational Mythos based on quasi-religious faith in empiricism.

Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment “Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment in quantum physics proposed by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978. The results Wheeler predicted have since been confirmed by actual experiment.

“Wheeler’s experiment is a variation on the famous double-slit experiment. In Wheeler’s version, the method of detection used in the experiment can be changed after a photon passes the double slit, so as to delay the choice of whether to detect the path of the particle, or detect its interference with itself. Since the measurement itself seems to determine how the particle passes through the double slits – and thus its state as a wave or particle – Wheeler’s experiment has been useful in trying to understand certain strange properties of quantum particles. Several implementations of the experiment showed that the act of observation ultimately determines whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave, verifying the unintuitive results of the thought experiment.” – Wikipedia In relation to this experiment, it never seems to be discussed that there’s something very odd about photons – they do not experience time at all! A hypothetical clock attached to a photon doesn’t tick. Photons are therefore, from their own perspective, atemporal. This makes it somewhat difficult to interpret Wheeler’s experiment. If photons are atemporal then what’s the significance, to a photon, of any temporal event? How would it affect the photon at all? Temporal events affect our perception, but not the photon’s viewpoint.

No Mass Photons have energy and momentum but no mass. Mass applies only to those particles that have a speed through space and through time. Photons are dimensionless and do not travel through space or time. It’s not photons that are flooding out of your light bulb, it’s the effects of photons. Photons have zero mass, are maximally contracted to dimensionless points, and do not exist in time, so how can they possibly be moving towards you when you switch on the light? What switching on a light bulb actually does is alter the Fourier energy profile of your environment, making it “glow”. This is what is interpreted as light coming out of a bulb. Remember, no matter what sensory interpretation you apply to anything whatsoever, it can always be reinterpreted in alternative terms. “Common sense” doesn’t tell you anything about reality.

Schrödinger’s Cat: Science’s Rejection of the Reality Principle “Until we open the box to check on the state of the cat we cannot say that it is either dead or alive ... but must be in both states at once! Surely this is ridiculous. The cat must be dead or alive, and our opening of the box cannot influence the outcome. Isn’t it just a matter of our ignorance of what has already happened (or not happened yet)? Well, this was precisely Schrödinger’s point. ... “Bohr and Heisenberg did not claim that the cat was really both dead and alive at the same time. They insisted instead – and this has been accepted by the majority of physicists ever since – we cannot talk about the cat as even having an independent existence until we open the box to check up on it! Their reasoning was that all the time the box is closed we simply have nothing to say about the ‘real’ state of the cat. All we have to go by is the wavefunction, and this is just a set of numbers. Since we cannot describe reality in the absence of measurement then we don’t even try. ... “Until we look inside the box all we can do is assign probabilities to different outcomes. And because of the superposition of different cat states, we get a certain probability for finding the cat alive, another probability for finding it dead and, strangest of all, a probability for finding it both dead and alive at the same time [due to the so-called ‘interference term’]. ... The quantum postulates get round this dilemma by stating that the only allowed results of measurements are ‘sensible’ ones.” – Jim Al-Khalili, Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed So, here we have the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics in its bizarre nutshell. This interpretation denies that the rather crucial issue of the cat’s being alive or dead is meaningful until a measurement or observation is made. By the same logic, it denies that the moon’s existence is meaningful until a measurement or observation is made on it. In other words, it denies that there’s any objective reality in the absence of measurements or observations. Without measurements or observations, the universe would remain forever as a set of superposition states and the wavefunction would never “collapse” to any definite, real states. It thus becomes impossible to understand how the Big Bang gave rise to the

universe and did not remain forever in a superposition twilight zone since no measurements or observations were ever performed on it in order to collapse it. Moreover, life itself is consigned to a probability state and cannot be clearly distinguished from death since we are told that life and death can co-exist as superposition states. Are we, therefore, alive purely because we are being continuously observed? What about when we are asleep alone? Do we vanish into a superposition of life and death until our alarm goes off and brings us back to life? Does our alarm clock perform the role of Jesus Christ raising Lazarus from the “dead”? Science has simply abolished the real world that we all know exists whether or not anyone is there to observe or measure it. In which case, science is a bizarre form of metaphysics and does not acknowledge a formal, persistent physical reality. Scientists, being philosophically ignorant, never consider the absurdity of their ideas. They are preaching false doctrines to impressionable minds, just as Abrahamism does. Why doesn’t science explicitly announce that it denies that the world is there when no one’s looking at it? – which is none other than the ultraidealist stance adopted by Bishop Berkeley some three hundred years ago. With the most bizarre irony, scientific materialism has made itself indistinguishable from the extremest version of immaterial idealism, and apparently not even noticed! Even Bishop Berkeley believed in objective reality. His solution was to say that God was permanently observing the world, and this ensured that everything remained in existence. In atheistic science, there is no God to perform this function. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, reality, when it’s not being observed, slips into an unreal haze of probabilistic superposition states, reflecting all conceivable possibilities, but none of these possibilities can actually happen until a measurement or observation is performed, at which point “God plays dice” and randomly selects one option from all of its rivals, with some outcomes being more probable than others, but exceptionally improbable events being inevitable in a vast universe of countless things. The “superposition world” reflects everything that can happen, and wavefunction collapse is what causes specific things to happen: the superposition of states collapses to actual outcomes. However, if we combine the superposition world with Multiverse thinking then we get a system where everything that can happen does happen ... in different

parallel universes! That is, each superposition state gets actualised somewhere, and there is in fact no mysterious wavefunction collapse. All the Multiverse universes are, however, totally random! That would include ours (but plainly our universe is anything but random). Consider another take on the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, involving a human rather than a cat. Jim Al-Khalili writes in Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed, “But what if we place a human volunteer in the box instead – ok, maybe the poison is not fatal, but simply causes the volunteer to lose consciousness. Surely, once we have opened the box we cannot then convince the volunteer that he was in a state of being conscious and unconscious at the same time before we let him out. If he is conscious he would report that apart from feeling a little nervous he has been fine all along. And if we find him unconscious then he might, when revived, report how he heard the device go off ten minutes after the box was closed and immediately started to feel dizzy. The next thing he knew he was being revived with the smelling salts.” So, now we have the extraordinary claim that a conscious human being in a box, unlike a cat in a box, is never in any superposition state. This implies either that conscious human beings belong to an entirely different category of existence from cats, that human consciousness, but not cat sentience, wards off dissolution into unreality (but what about when we fall into deep sleep or become unconscious?!), or that the superposition described in this context is utter nonsense! Plainly, if a conscious human is never in any superposition state then neither is an unconscious cat. Typical of scientists, Jim Al-Khalili makes no attempt whatsoever to explain the new paradox that he himself has raised! Another horrendous problem with the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox is what it implies about the nature of time. If the cat is frozen in some sort of twilight superposition state until someone performs an observation then what we understand by the passage of time – one actual event happening after another in a continuous sequence – is no longer applicable. Instead, we have a superposition state that refuses to collapse into any particular state to which we could assign a position in a definite temporal sequence. Time, in other words, does not exist in the superposition world. Time involves actualisation – specific events happening – while the superposition world involves potential only and no actualisation (until an observation is made).

When we analyse the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox from several angles we see that it offers a spectacularly irrational account of “reality”. Here’s a list of its outrageous fallacies: 1) The world doesn’t exist unless it’s being observed (rendering it impossible to understand how the world came into existence in the first place since there were no observers). 2) Being alive and being dead do not belong to different categories of existence but are simply two different superposition states. This is the ultimate category error and shows that science is unable to offer a meaningful definition of life and define how it differs from death. 3) Time does not exist in the superposition world since nothing is ever actualised – unless a “wavefunction collapse” takes place – but there is nothing within the superposition paradigm that could ever allow anything external to it to collapse it. Everything in fact belongs to the superposition state, so nothing can ever collapse. 4) The superposition paradigm lends itself to the absurdities of Multiverse thinking. 5) Consciousness seems to be vital to wavefunction collapse. A conscious observation seems necessary to release the cat from its mysterious superposition state. Yet science is incapable of defining consciousness, and it’s unclear how science could ever explain consciousness within a paradigm based on lifeless, mindless, material atoms. 6) Where does this superposition of states actually exist? It seems to be in an unobservable, unreal mathematical space that has nothing to do with the physical world. Does a cat in a superposition state leave “reality” and enter a non-reality, and then return to “reality” when some conscious being performs an observation? Consciousness seems to be outside the superposition paradigm, and is the vital ingredient needed to bring about wavefunction collapse. This would imply that consciousness belongs to a different category of existence, something that is denied by science when it says that mind (and hence consciousness) are grounded in quantum mechanical atoms. 7) Causality itself is called into question by the superposition paradigm. Imagine a superposition world where no measurements or observations are

taking place. In such a world, there’s no causality. Things remain forever suspended in their superposition states – pure potential and no actualisation. Measurements or observations act as causal triggers by bringing about wavefunction collapse. However, without them, there’s no collapse, no actualisation and no causality! 8) Time, space, causality and objective reality are all junked by the superposition paradigm, while consciousness is accorded a highly improbable and unbelievable status, especially within the anti-mind doctrines of scientific materialism. It’s astounding that scientists have got away for so long with spouting gibberish about quantum mechanics. Philosophers have been too terrified to offer any criticisms. Science has simply bullied and intimidated the world into believing a deranged Mythos that has no conceivable connection with objective reality. In this regard, it’s no different from Abrahamism. If there’s an objective world then the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is 100% false. Such eminent figures as Einstein, Schrödinger and Bohm all held this position, but they were labelled as apostates, heretics and infidels by the scientific establishment, and mocked and marginalised. How did it come about that science strayed so far from rationalism? It happened because of the fanatical empiricism of Bohr Heisenberg and Born, the main authors of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Any rationalist would agree with Einstein that the moon exists when no one is looking at it. However, to an ultra empiricist, whereby experience is all that counts, we know of the moon’s existence only while we are experiencing it (observing it). When we are not experiencing it, we can have no knowledge of it, hence it’s supposedly pure supposition and speculation that it’s still there. So, Bohr and Heisenberg reached the incredible conclusion that reality exists only when it is being observed or measured and, otherwise, it’s meaningless to refer to “reality”. There is, however, a fatal problem with this view. The collection of superposition states, unlike the moon, is never observable, hence is always purely metaphysical and unempirical. An ultra empiricist has no right at all to refer to superposition states. Bohr and Heisenberg are hung by their own extreme dogmatism. The very thing they sought to defend – that Schrödinger’s cat is both dead and alive before anyone makes an observation – is ludicrous according to their own logic since the cat’s very

existence in the absence of an observation is pure speculation. In fact, it’s not the “cat” that is said to exist in the unobserved state but merely the “cat wavefunction”, but the cat wavefunction is unreal, hence how can it be referred to as an existent? How can it be referred to at all, except as a heuristic device? Using exactly this logic, the whole notion of materialism disintegrates since matter is not matter if, when no one’s observing it, it actually comprises unreal wavefunctions. Physicists such as Jim Al-Khalili attempt to argue that Bohr, Heisenberg and Born said it wasn’t a case of the cat being alive or dead, but of it being invalid to talk about the cat having an independent reality until we open the box. This is even more absurd! Why would we expect to open the box and find a cat at all if its independent reality – its continued existence according to a reality principle – had vanished inside the box? Why shouldn’t a rabbit pop out, or a bunch of flowers, or indeed anything at all? We have removed causality, time, objectivity and reality itself from the equation, so we can no longer have any expectation that a cat in any sense is still in the box. Such a notion would be an untenable conjecture. We have thus turned the box into a magician’s top hat from which anything, or nothing, could conceivably emerge. The great empiricist David Hume rejected causality and said that we can have no knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. We simply assume it will because it has done so in the past and we expect the future to resemble the past. However, an even more extreme empiricism would suggest that we should assume that anything at all, or nothing at all, could replace the sun tomorrow. After all, if objective reality and causality have been abolished, all that’s left is magic. Without formal causality and reality, we certainly can’t rationally refer to an unobservable, probabilistic superposition world from which, against all logic, an extremely causal world infallibly keeps appearing. You put a cat in a box and close the lid, the cat vanishes into an unreal superposition state, and then you open the box and the cat miraculously returns from unreality. Does that sound like science or mumbo jumbo? A rationalist would say that there’s no “unreality” going on inside the box. The cat – a causal being within objective reality – is always there and is never at any stage in any spooky superposition state. Quantum entanglement says that correlated quantum particles can communicate instantaneously with each other even if they’re on opposite

sides of the universe, thus seemingly contradicting Einstein’s claim that no information can physically be communicated faster than the speed of light. This is “explained” on the basis of both particles belonging to a single system – one unified wavefunction. The problem here is that the wavefunction is non-local and contains imaginary numbers, hence is not considered “real”. So, why are empiricists relying on unobservable, unreal metaphysical entities to explain their empiricist system? It’s irrational. These people are having their cake and eating it. They claim they care only about measurements and observations, and then, in the same breath, refer to unobservable, “unreal” entities. For shame! Science, tragically, is full of instrumentalists and careerists who have no intellectual integrity, and no regard for truth and reason. They are happy to pick and choose from conflicting, mutually exclusive, empiricist and rationalist systems. The biggest problem of science is that its “method” is experimental (empiricist) while its intellectual engine is mathematical (rationalist, with no need of any experiments). Scientists are blissfully ignorant of the blatant philosophical contradiction at the core of their discipline. In truth, scientists don’t think about the logic of science at all. The high priests of science have betrayed the truth. They have even savagely turned on their own – such as Einstein – and mocked them as outof-touch. It’s the scientific establishment that’s out of touch. It has a poisonous hatred of philosophy, ontology, mathematics and rationalism, meaning that all scientific results have to be processed through the distorting prism of empiricism and materialism. Endless bizarre interpretations and fallacies have been sold to the public in the last century to uphold science’s refusal to countenance the existence of rational unobservables and hidden variables, of which mathematics is full. Science has never questioned its own basis, its own methods, its own dogmas, its own assumptions. It took Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science, to expose how rotten to the core the scientific edifice is. When he characterised science as operating via “paradigms” – like mini-religions demanding slavish acceptance and devotion, with all heretics and infidels being cast out – he captured the true essence of science and its incredible similarity to Abrahamism. Just as the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for daring to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so the scientific establishment condemned Einstein for daring to say that God does not play

dice. The scientific establishment funds only those who agree with it, and everyone else is left to rot. An absurd Mythos is spread that scientists put an immense effort into disproving their own theories. In fact, all those who challenge established scientific theories in any serious way are expelled from science and ruthlessly marginalised. If science were serious about challenging its own theories, there would be science departments with a rationalist, idealist, mathematical, metaphysical, philosophical, or even a religious, bias. Instead, all science departments fanatically adhere to atheistic scientific materialism and empiricism. You are not allowed to practise science if you disagree with this paradigm. So much for science being open-minded. It’s about as closedminded as you can get, to its extreme detriment. Just as it’s impossible to imagine the Catholic Church funding a group whose task is to question every doctrine of Catholicism, so it’s impossible to imagine science funding a group whose task is to question every doctrine of scientific materialism and empiricism. Yet isn’t that exactly what science ought to be doing if it’s interested in the truth? Not to do so means that it has already reached a quasi-religious stance that materialism and empiricism are infallibly true. That puts it in exactly the same game as the Catholic Church, refusing to listen to any challenge to its authority and selfproclaimed infallibility.

Insanity “Bohr and Heisenberg did not claim that the cat was really both dead and alive at the same time. They insisted instead – and this has been accepted by the majority of physicists ever since – we cannot talk about the cat as even having an independent existence until we open the box to check up on it!” – Jim Al-Khalili Well, do you, like the majority of physicists, accept this? If you do, you’re as mad as they are. If the cat doesn’t have an independent existence until you open the box, why should you imagine there’s a cat in the box at all? Why not anything, or nothing? You are not dealing with any kind of science, but pure speculation. You are not dealing with objective reality, or any reality principle.

The cat wavefunction is unreal, hence there’s no cat wavefunction inside the box. It’s not an existent, so can’t be referred to at all. Nothing whatsoever can be said to be in the box when the inside of the box is not being observed. So, since there is nothing real inside the box, there is no reason to imagine that there will be any continuity regarding the contents of the box. You put a cat into the box, closed the box, and its unseen contents vanished into unreality. When you open the box, who knows what will come out, or if there’s anything in the box at all? Why should there be? To believe that a cat is in the box is to subscribe to a reality principle, but that’s exactly what the Copenhagen interpretation denies! Quantum mechanics is indeterministic and acausal, so, by its own logic, you are committing a category error if you imagine that the cat you put in the box is still in the box. That would be to conceive of a causal, deterministic, continuous order, but there’s no such thing in Copenhagen quantum mechanics. Physicists simultaneously deny causation while relying on it, and always assuming it. That’s how irrational they have become.

Pilot Wave Theory “In theoretical physics, the pilot wave theory was the first known example of a hidden variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in 1927. Its more modern version, the Bohm interpretation, remains a controversial attempt to interpret quantum mechanics as a deterministic theory, avoiding troublesome notions such as instantaneous wavefunction collapse and the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat. “The pilot wave theory is one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics. It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of quantum mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current experimental evidence to the same extent as the other interpretations. “The pilot wave theory is a hidden variable theory. Consequently: 1) the theory has realism (meaning that its concepts exist independently of the observer); 2) the theory has determinism. “The positions and momenta of the particles are considered to be the hidden variables. However, the observer not only doesn’t know the precise value of

these variables, but more importantly, cannot know them precisely because any measurement disturbs them – as stipulated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. “A collection of particles has an associated matter wave, which evolves according to the Schrödinger Equation. Each particle follows a deterministic trajectory, which is guided by the wave function; collectively, the density of the particles conforms to the magnitude of the wave function. The wave function is not influenced by the particle and can exist also as an empty wave function. “The theory brings to light nonlocality that is implicit in the nonrelativistic formulation of quantum mechanics and uses it to satisfy Bell’s theorem. Interestingly, these nonlocal effects are compatible with nocommunication theorem, which prevents us from using them for fasterthan-light communication. “The pilot wave theory shows that it is possible to have a realistic and deterministic hidden variable theory, which reproduces the experimental results of ordinary quantum mechanics. The price which has to be paid for this is manifest nonlocality. “According to pilot wave theory, the point particle and the matter wave are both real and distinct physical entities. (Unlike standard quantum mechanics, where particles and waves are considered to be the same entities, connected by wave-particle duality.) The pilot wave guides the motion of the point particles as described by the guidance equation. “Lucien Hardy and J. S. Bell have emphasized that in the de BroglieBohm picture of quantum mechanics there can exist empty waves, represented by wave functions propagating in space and time but not carrying energy or momentum, and not associated with a particle. The same concept was called ghost waves (or “Gespensterfelder”, ghost fields) by Albert Einstein. “The empty wave function notion has been discussed controversially. In contrast, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics does not call for empty wave functions. “In his 1926 paper, Max Born suggested that the wave function of Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the probability density of finding a particle. “From this idea, de Broglie developed the pilot wave theory, and worked out a function for the guiding wave. Initially, de Broglie proposed a double

solution approach, in which the quantum object consists of a physical wave (u-wave) in real space which has a spherical singular region that gives rise to particle-like behaviour; in this initial form of his theory he did not have to postulate the existence of a quantum particle. He later formulated it as a theory in which a particle is accompanied by a pilot wave. He presented the pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference. However, Wolfgang Pauli raised an objection to it at the conference, saying that it did not deal properly with the case of inelastic scattering. De Broglie was not able to find a response to this objection, and he and Born abandoned the pilot-wave approach. Unlike David Bohm, de Broglie did not complete his theory to encompass the many-particle case. “Later, in 1932, John von Neumann published a paper claiming to prove that all hidden variable theories were impossible. (A result found to be flawed by Grete Hermann three years later, though this went unnoticed by the physics community for over fifty years). However, in 1952, David Bohm, dissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, rediscovered de Broglie’s pilot wave theory. Bohm developed pilot wave theory into what is now called the De Broglie-Bohm theory. “The de Broglie-Bohm theory itself might have gone unnoticed by most physicists, if it had not been championed by John Bell, who also countered the objections to it. In 1987, John Bell rediscovered Grete Hermann’s work, and thus showed the physics community that Pauli’s and von Neumann’s objections really only showed that the pilot wave theory did not have locality. “The de Broglie-Bohm theory is now considered by some to be a valid challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy of the Copenhagen interpretation, but it remains controversial.” – Wikipedia The whole conception of physics would change if this pilot wave theory became the quantum mechanical orthodoxy rather than the Copenhagen interpretation. Where is the debate in the scientific community about this matter? There isn’t one! So much for science’s claims to be thoroughly selfcritical and self-correcting. Science, as an institution, does absolutely nothing to give counter theories a fair hearing. The scientific establishment, just like the Catholic Church, resolutely sticks to its orthodoxy and never entertains heretics, apostates, infidels and freethinkers. Remember, it’s for reasons of philosophy, not science, that science preaches the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The Failure of Scientific Logic In ancient times, many philosophers and scientists thought of reality in terms of little atoms whizzing around in a vacuum, constantly colliding with each other. Sometimes they stuck together and sometimes they broke apart. The ancient Greek Atomists said that atoms had extension, shape, solidity and weight (although the initial versions of Atomism seem more consistent with atoms being weightless). The atoms did not, however, have colour, smell, or taste, i.e. they had “primary” mathematical properties, but not “secondary” sensory properties. To this day, science cannot explain sensory experience. If atoms do not possess colour, smell and taste, and atoms are all there are, then where does our experience of colour, smell and taste come from? Of course, it’s easy to explain if we have minds that are independent of atoms and can respond to atomic properties in different sensory ways. However, if minds are themselves made of atoms, as science claims, the mystery simply deepens. The atoms of the ancient Greeks were considered to move in straight lines, with Epicurus suggesting that they could also randomly “swerve” (thus permitting free will and a non-deterministic universe). The only other type of motion the Greeks considered was circular motion (as applied to cosmology). There was certainly no idea of atoms moving with an inherent wave trajectory. Scientists of the late 19th century thought of: a) atoms moving in straight lines and b) non-atomic light waves moving in sinusoidal trajectories. Atoms, they believed, possessed concentrated energy while waves possessed diffuse energy, spread over the whole wave. The famous photoelectric effect was so revolutionary because it seemed to imply that light waves were actually composed of particles (photons), although waves and particles are wholly contradictory concepts. Philosophers would have been profoundly troubled by this contradiction and sought to resolve it. Scientists, however, simply announced the concept of wave-particle duality and said that things could sometimes behave as waves and sometimes as particles, despite the logical absurdity of this position. Yet again, science saw fit to attack the reality principle and make “reality” dependent on subjects (even though science rejects the whole concept of subjects). If subjects (scientists!) performed certain experiments,

they would get wavelike results, and if they performed those same experiments in a slightly different way, they would get particle-like results, thus suggesting that subjects decide the way that reality manifests itself, and meaning that there’s no objective reality that unfolds regardless of what subjects are doing. Ironically, subjects are not even defined in science since to be a subject you must have an immaterial mind, and science denies the existence of immaterial minds! Yet again, science simply doesn’t care about these problems of logic. So, how can wave-particle duality be properly explained? Classical science said: 1) You can have atoms (modelled as point particles) moving in straight lines. Or 2) You can have extended waves moving sinusoidally. Quantum mechanics said that things are both particles and waves, hence behave in extremely bizarre ways based on a probabilistic wavefunction. The resolution of this problem is actually simple. You replace point particles with one-dimensional particles (“flowing points”). These are the true “particles” of existence. A flowing point is a point in mathematical motion and such a point has extension by virtue of never being at a static point (in which case it would have no extension) but always being in the process of moving to the next location mandated by the mathematical formula it obeys. M-theory is based on one-dimensional strings as the basic particles of existence. In Illuminism, one-dimensional flowing points replace these strings. M-theory conceives of particles as tiny vibrating energy strings and thus thinks it has reconciled particles and waves (the strings vibrate in wavelike fashion). However, the coherence of this idea collapses if you simply scale it up. A vast “string” would in fact be a wave with its energy distributed all along it. Shrinking it down to tiny, particle-like proportions simply disguises the fact that it’s still just a wave. It’s a scientific sleight of hand. In Illuminism, the flowing point is a particle and, if you scaled it up, would remain a particle. Its wave aspect is provided by how it moves: it

doesn’t move in a straight line but in a wave trajectory. Obviously, the wave nature of the motion would only be apparent under enormous magnification. Viewed from very far away, a particle moving along a typically low-amplitude wave trajectory would look as if it were moving in a straight line, and a straight line would be an ideal approximation in many circumstances. In fact, any low amplitude waves – and all electromagnetic waves have a low amplitude in terms of our macroscopic world – will seem to move in straight lines in many typical situations, i.e. it would be easy to be deluded that their motion is linear rather than sinusoidal. The problem with physicists is that, being sensory types, they always try to produce a “common sense” physical picture of a process. So, particles seem like things that move in straight lines rather than in sinusoidal trajectories. A straight line seems nice, simple and physical and not in need of further explanation (although, of course, everything is in need of a sufficient reason and sufficient explanation). An atom moving sinusoidally would immediately seem bizarre to a scientist since it raises profound and problematic questions about the nature of simple motion. Yet on what basis should a straight line be privileged over a sinusoidal trajectory? The answer can lie only in the universe’s controlling mathematical formula and that must be one that is consistent with the universe remaining in a permanent ground state of zero. The generalised Euler Formula uniquely provides a complete and consistent ontological mathematical solution, and this formula is all about sine and cosine waves. There is no linear system that can maintain a permanently zero-point universe. To an Illuminist (a rationalist), a model of visualizable, sensory, “common sense”, “physical” particles is no kind of priority, and in fact is often best avoided since common sense and the senses are so deceptive. Instead, a rationalist ponders analytic, precisely defined, mathematical objects that may in fact be entirely unobservable. Scientific wave-particle duality stems from a sensory conflict regarding energy being spread out (wave) or concentrated (particle). Unable to think of any sensory way out, scientists simply bolted together the two contradictory concepts and then told us – absurdly – that the wave-particle hybrids sometimes act as particles and sometimes as waves. (Next thing, we’ll be told that they have free will and can choose the manner in which to express themselves.)

To a rationalist, this dilemma doesn’t exist. There are only particles (flowing points), but these move in a wave trajectory, reflecting their inner mathematical programming. There’s no duality between “linear” particles and sinusoidal waves. Rather, there are only sinusoidal particles, i.e. particles that follow wave trajectories. Particles are always particles and never waves. However, particles always follow wave trajectories, hence wave interference patterns are to be fully expected. Particles are of course mathematical, not “physical” (since there’s no such thing as true matter, wholly independent of mind). When a single particle approaches the slits in the famous twin-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, it’s not approaching the slits linearly (implying that it ought to go through one slit or the other in strictly linear fashion, like macroscopic bullets). Rather, its inherent wave trajectory ensures that it passes through the two slits as any wave would, thus generating a wave interference pattern. (And note that the twin slits themselves are ultimately made of sine and cosine waves.) Never forget that particles are not “physical” things – they are mathematical, and that’s something very different. They behave mathematically at the twin slits, not physically. It’s as if they have a pilot wave in front of them (such as Louis de Broglie and David Bohm proposed), guiding their way, but in fact there is no physical pilot wave, just their own internal mathematical programming associated with a wave trajectory. The twin-slit paradox is a “common sense”, sensory paradox created by science’s Meta Paradigm, which involves “linear” particles. The paradox is removed as soon as you conceive of particles as mathematical objects following wave trajectories, in accordance with the generalised Euler Formula. To reiterate, things such as electrons and photons aren’t particles and waves (meaning that their energy is sometimes concentrated and sometimes spread out depending on context – a logical impossibility). They are exclusively particles (with concentrated energy only), which follow wave paths, meaning that they have an internal, mathematical, Aristotelian form that directs their behaviour. This form is unobservable to the senses (hence “unscientific”), but is rationally and mathematically compulsory.

The Choice

What is the implied ontology of Copenhagen quantum mechanics? Max Born said that reality comprises an unreal probability wave that randomly collapses to produce real, observable events. This is almost comically ridiculous. Where Descartes had a mind-body problem that he found impossible to explain (how could two mutually incompatible substances interact?), science has an equally insurmountable problem of how unreal, unobservable probability waves interact with and generate real, observable outcomes. Where the philosophy community set its finest minds to resolve the Cartesian problem and examined it in every way, and is still trying to solve it even today (the answer, as we have explained throughout the God Series, is actually ontological Fourier mathematics; mind and body are not two incompatible substances, but the two different sides of the Fourier Transform), the scientific community, with only a handful of noble exceptions, simply accepted the Copenhagen interpretation as a pragmatic, instrumental way forward (“Shut up and calculate!”), and promptly stopped thinking about it. They used this tool without giving a single thought to how absurd it really is. If we trace Max Born’s probabilistic system all the way back to the beginning – to the Big Bang – what he effectively says is that every single possibility that could ever happen in the universe was prefigured in the cosmic probability wavefunction as an infinite set of superposition states, and we have been randomly collapsing the wavefunction ever since, producing this event rather than that. The idea that real events are grounded in unreal, probability waves destroys the reality principle. In the Born interpretation, the ground of “reality” isn’t itself real, which makes it impossible for it to be the source of reality. Where is this unreal entity from which reality allegedly springs? To say that reality originates in unreality is equivalent to claiming that something can come from absolute nothingness, that existence can come from non-existence. It’s a category error. Here’s an even bigger challenge for the Born probabilistic interpretation: what was the cosmic wavefunction prior to the Big Bang – eternally prior to it. Was the Big Bang a random collapse of an eternal cosmic wavefunction containing all possibilities? It’s easy to see how readily this way of thinking gives rise to the Multiverse: the wavefunction collapses in every possible way and generates every possible universe. But every such

universe is random and must, by the same token, contain nothing but further random collapses. Take a look around you. Do we inhabit a random universe? Yes or no? If “no”, science is ipso facto disproved. Here’s the ontological truth. We inhabit an eternal, real entity – an immaterial mathematical Singularity outside space and time, a Singularity of pure frequency, comprising infinite autonomous singularities (monads), each a self-contained frequency domain. From these come, via Fourier mathematics, the spacetime world we observe. Reality, not unreality, underpins reality, exactly as you would expect. Reality outside space and time underpins reality inside space and time (thanks to Fourier mathematics, spacetime being a mathematical transform or projection of frequency). There is no other rational way to have a universe. Here are your four choices: 1) Science: unreal, eternal probability waves underlie reality, and reality randomly collapses from these probability wavefunctions. 2) Abrahamism: a real, eternal, conscious “God” underlies reality and he creates a universe out of nothing. 3) Eastern Religion: a real, eternal cosmic force (the Oneness), which may or may not be conscious, underlies reality and creates the universe out of itself. 4) Ontological Mathematics: a real, eternal Singularity, composed of countless, unconscious, living mathematical minds (monads) underlies reality and creates the universe out of itself via Fourier mathematics, and the monads evolve consciousness within this collective universe. Well, which will you choose? Incredibly, the least plausible option is the one offered by science: it’s the only one that claims that reality comes from something that is not itself real. It claims that reality is grounded in a meaningless, purposeless mathematical abstraction that collapses into specific, “real” outcomes for absolutely no reason, and via no conceivable ontological mechanism (there is no route via which something unreal can “collapse” into something real, and in fact there is no conceivable way in which an unreal mathematical abstraction can exist in the first place).

Even more incredibly, people such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox assert that it’s the height of rationality to accept this illogical nonsense. As we have said many times, modern science is driven by a deranged hatred of mind, purpose, meaning, reason, causality, and determinism. Scientists have preferred insanity to “God” or “mind”. Dawkins would far rather be an atheist believing in an accidental universe born from an unreal probability fantasy than a rational person accepting a meaningful universe full of eternal mathematical monadic minds. What a sad man. What an irrationalist. What a fool! Anyone who is opposed to the principle of sufficient reason might as well find a place for themselves in the madhouse. That goes for all Abrahamists, all advocates of Eastern Religion and all scientists.

***** “Had there been a lunatic asylum in the suburbs of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ would infallibly have been shut up in it at the outset of his public career. That interview with Satan on a pinnacle of the Temple would alone have damned him, and everything that happened after could have confirmed the diagnosis. The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.” – Havelock Ellis Ditto Moses and Mohammed. And the Copenhagen interpretation belongs in this same lunatic asylum.

Interference “The brightness of a patch of light is measured in terms of intensity, which is equal to the square of the amplitude of the wave at that point; in the interference pattern, for two waves whose amplitudes are represented by H and J, the intensity at any point is not given by (H2 + J2), but by (H + J)2, which works out as (H2 + J2 + 2HJ). It is the extra term, 2HJ, which is the contribution due to interference from the two waves, and, making allowance for the fact that the Hs and Js can be negative or positive, it precisely explains the highs and lows in the interference pattern. If both waves have the same amplitude, as they have in the classic Young’s slit experiment, the brightest patch of light in the interference pattern is four times brighter than either wave would produce alone (because H = J, and

HJ = H2 = J2), and at the other extreme the term −2HJ (which is equal to −2H2 or to −2J2) exactly cancels out the other two terms to leave utter blackness. It all works beautifully as long as we are dealing with waves.” – John Gribbin, Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics

***** “In 1926, while calculating the scattering of electron waves, Max Born discovered an interpretation of the electron wave that we still use today. In Born’s picture, the electron is actually a particle, but it is the electron wave that governs the behaviour of the particle. The electron wave is a probability wave governing the probability of where you will find the electron. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the explanation for this was given as follows: the electron can go through only one of the two slits, but not through both the slits at a time. Since no other electron is available for superposition, there should not be a wave interference pattern. This riddle can be solved by using a probabilistic interpretation of the results developed by Max Born as follows: ‘There is a certain probability that an electron could go through one slit, and an equivalent probability that it may go through the other. It is the probability wave that goes through both slits and causes the build up of the interference pattern and somehow directs the electrons to the areas of higher probability’.” http://ictwiki.iitk.ernet.in/wiki/index.php/Double_Slit_Experiments Of course, the double-slit experiment can be easily explained by concluding that quantum particles follow wave trajectories, not classical linear trajectories, hence even one electron going through the double slits will naturally exhibit a wave-interference effect. You have three basic choices when it comes to interpreting the doubleslit experiment: 1) Real particles follow real pilot waves through the slits (the de Broglie-Bohm theory). 2) Unreal probability waves pass through the real slits and cause a potential particle to actualise as a real particle and provide observable measurements in a wave interference pattern (the Copenhagen theory).

3) Real particles follow real wave trajectories (since particles are entirely the result of sine and cosine basis waves: the ontological mathematical theory). The particle is the active “point” (flowing point) of a sine-cosine wavefunction. The particle’s wavefunction is six-dimensional and complex (it inhabits a space with three real dimensions and three imaginary dimensions: real space and imaginary space).

The Heuristic Approach The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is a heuristic means for scientists who have no understanding of philosophy, ontology or epistemology to interpret the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with ontology and epistemology.

The Link Max Born won a Nobel Prize for suggesting that the square of the absolute magnitude of ψ (that is, |ψ|2 or ψψ*) provides the link between wavefunctions and experimental observables. Thus, quantum mechanical probabilities do not arise from our ignorance of the microscopic domain. Rather, they are fundamental. Particles simply do not have well-defined trajectories through space or time, or even possess well-defined physical properties such as position and momentum. Of course, this means that they cannot actually be called “particles” at all. They have nothing to do with objective reality, but are simply plucked out of potentiality waves via inexplicable wavefunction collapse. Max Born said, “The motion of particles follows probability laws but the probability itself propagates according to the law of causality.” So, Born switches causality away from real, observable particles to an unreal, unobservable wavefunction. How can something unreal be causal and something real acausal? This is the absurdity to which scientific “logic” has led the world. It defies Descartes’ principle that an effect can never have more reality than its cause. Of course, it can be immediately rectified by making the wavefunction ontologically real, but in a universe of complex numbers rather than the real numbers of science. In effect, all that Born did was make an implausible philosophical statement about the ontological nature of mathematics. He acknowledged

that real numbers are underpinned by complex numbers but claimed that the latter are ontologically unreal and the former ontologically real. Astoundingly, he then asserted that the unreal wavefunction was the causal part of the system, and the real part acausal, randomly collapsing from the wavefunction with certain probabilities. This is the logic of the madhouse – philosophically offensive in every way – yet it won Born the Nobel Prize. It reveals all too tellingly the lack of rationality of the scientific community, and their fanatical, faith-based commitment to empiricism and materialism. According to Born interpretation’s interpretation of the double-slit experiment, the unreal, complex wavefunction is what goes through the twin slits as a wave and causes the interference pattern. But how can something unreal pass through something real? It’s ridiculous, a blatant contradiction of the reality principle. How can unreal causality interact with real acausality? This is what science is claiming. This is blatant Cartesian substance dualism of the worst and most irrational kind. Born says that a complex wave (a quantum probability amplitude) passes through the double slits, but since this (in his opinion), is an unreal unobservable wave, it must be converted into something “real”, hence his trick of taking the absolute square. Yet no attempt whatsoever is made to explain how something unreal can pass through real equipment. Moreover this unreal, unobservable wave is immaterial and non-empirical, hence wholly outside the province of science. Born has made a metaphysical entity interact with a physical system – through no conceivable mechanism – and then simply forced a real outcome on this impossible process through a blatant mathematical trick. For this absurd stratagem, Born got his Nobel Prize and was followed in his ideological claims by the entire scientific establishment.

***** “Our present quantum mechanical formalism is a peculiar mixture describing in part laws of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature – all scrambled up together by Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we think the unscrambling is a prerequisite for any further advance in basic physical theory…” – E.T. Jaynes

The omelette of Bohr, Born and Heisenberg must be unscrambled if objective reality is to be restored. This can be done only by replacing real numbers with complex numbers.

***** Einstein did not regard quantum mechanics as consistent and complete. Yet he too was a slavish advocate of empiricism, materialism, positivism and real numbers, hence he had no means to rationally provide an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation gives a special role to measurement processes, measurement apparatus, observers and their observations, yet does not define them, and especially not within the framework of quantum mechanics. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg wrote, “The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe…” It has never been explained how an undefined measurement process converts unreal probability functions into non-probabilistic, concrete measurements. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment reveals the absurdity of quantum mechanical thinking and yet, astoundingly, has been reinterpreted as some sort of rational proof of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The Gospel of Irrationalism “[W]hile we consider...a quantum mechanical treatment of the electromagnetic field...as not yet finished, we consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose fundamental physical and mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification... On the question of the ‘validity of the law of causality’ we have this opinion: as long as one takes into account only experiments that lie in the domain of our currently acquired physical and quantum mechanical experience, the assumption of indeterminism in principle, here taken as fundamental, agrees with experience.” – Max Born and Werner Heisenberg

***** In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is a probability amplitude that has no physical meaning. How can a theory of materialism be predicated on something unreal, with no material significance? Have we entered the world of magic? This interpretation says that, before observation, a system is in a superposition state, and, at observation, the system loses its superposition and we obtain a single value for our observable. Just like magic! “I laugh only at the naiveté [of the proponents of quantum theory]. Who knows who will be laughing in the coming years.” – Einstein “The Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy – or religion? – is so delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from which he cannot very easily be aroused. So let him lie there. But this religion has so damned little effect on me.” – Einstein in a letter to Schrödinger Isn’t it remarkable that three of the greatest figures in the development of quantum mechanics – Einstein, Schrödinger and de Broglie – all rejected the way it was eventually interpreted? Why doesn’t this debate continue to rage? It’s not as if these Nobel Prize winners were ever actually refuted. Their view simply became unpopular, just as alternative theories to Einstein’s special theory of relativity became unpopular, hence ignored. Is science just X-Factor or Pop Idol for geeks, nerds, dorks and autistics? – nothing but a popularity contest, with no regard for talent or truth.

The Superposition Fallacy The doctrine of a wavefunction collapse occurring via a random measurement or observation – whereby an abrupt, discontinuous transition takes place – fundamentally contradicts Leibniz’s principle of continuity. The alternative scenario, one fully consistent with Leibniz’s principle, is that the cosmic wavefunction is continuously collapsing everywhere and then reforming again, collapsing again, reforming again and so on forever. The cosmic wavefunction is never waiting for any measurements,

observations or consciousnesses to intervene. It collapses and reforms automatically, and this, in fact, is what constitutes the passage of time. Consider our own minds: they are full of possible courses of action, but only one can be actualised at any one time. When it is, we are immediately presented with new possible courses of actions, which are reflective of the new state produced by our previous choice of action. We “collapse” all of our possible courses of action to one, and, as soon as we do so, a new set of possible courses of actions is generated. We are continuously collapsing our individual wavefunction, then reforming it, and the universe is doing exactly the same. There are no such things as superposition states in atemporal suspended animation, awaiting an event that will trigger wavefunction collapse. It would be impossible for time to pass coherently in such a system. Absolute continuity, as Leibniz saw, is a prerequisite for any system to be intelligible. Nature does not make leaps! There are no gaps in reality.

***** For two things to be different, to be individuated, they must have different properties. Leibniz’s identity of indiscernibles says that if entity x has every property that entity y has, and y has every property x has, then x and y are identical. The doctrine of superposition of states radically contradicts this principle. Schrödinger’s cat has the properties of all of its superposition states. In its box, Schrödinger’s unobserved cat considered alive has exactly the same superposition states as Schrödinger’s unobserved cat considered dead, meaning that the living and dead cat are identical. This, of course, is impossible because being alive and being dead are mutually exclusive states. Therefore, the Schrödinger’s cat paradox is false, exactly as Schrödinger himself intended it to be. If the unobserved cat is considered neither dead nor alive but with living, dead and living-dead mixed states available to it, it means that life and death are being treated as compatible rather than incompatible states: an impossibility. The cat wavefunction would in fact have to be split into two mutually exclusive wavefunctions: one for a living cat and one for a dead cat. When the box is opened, it is not a single cat wavefunction that collapses, but,

rather, one cat wavefunction that is selected and the other cat wavefunction rejected. Looking at it another way, if the unobserved cat wavefunction does not have all of the same properties as the observed cat (and it doesn’t!) then they cannot be the same entity! There can be no continuity of existence if the Copenhagen interpretation is taken seriously. Objective reality is totally annihilated. Nothing persists. Every wavefunction “collapse” produces a brand new object.

The Twin-Slit Experiment The quintessential experiment to demonstrate the mystery of quantum mechanics is the twin-slit experiment. If a quantum particle behaves like a classical particle, it should go through one slit or the other, just as a bullet would. However, it was discovered that quantum particles go through the twin slits in such a way as to produce an interference pattern – exactly the pattern that a wave produces as it goes through double slits. How is this conundrum to be explained? The standard Copenhagen interpretation says that an unreal, unobservable, non-local, probabilistic wavefunction is what passes through the twin slits (God knows how given that this speculative wavefunction is not physical or ontological!), and generates the interference pattern. The “particle”, such as it is, manifests itself with a probability dictated by the wavefunction. There’s almost no realism in this interpretation. The experimental measurements of where the particles strike the detector screen are the only authentic reality. The rest is just a vague conjecture to support the observed results. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, which obeys exactly the same mathematics as the standard interpretation, the real part of the Schrödinger equation becomes a real entity called the quantum potential, and particles themselves are real rather than probabilistic. The real component of the Schrödinger equation describes the behaviour of the particle (it acts as a pilot wave for the particle), while the imaginary component describes the behaviour of the quantum potential. Wikipedia says, “In the framework of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the quantum potential is a term within the Schrödinger equation which acts to guide the

movement of quantum particles. The quantum potential approach introduced by Bohm provides a formally more complete exposition of the idea presented by Louis de Broglie: de Broglie had postulated in 1926 that the wave function represents a pilot wave which guides a quantum particle, but had subsequently abandoned his approach due to objections raised by Wolfgang Pauli. The seminal articles of Bohm in 1952 introduced the quantum potential and included answers to the objections which had been raised against the pilot wave theory.” In this view, a particle’s quantum potential is a real but non-local pilot wave that precedes the particle. Any disturbance to the quantum potential instantly modifies the pilot wave everywhere. So, the wave interference pattern that characterises the twin-slit experiment is provided, in this interpretation, by the real, non-local pilot wave rather than the unreal, nonlocal wavefunction of the Copenhagen interpretation. A real particle follows the real pilot wave and goes through one slit or the other. It’s the pilot wave that generates the wave effects, not the particle. In the standard interpretation, the wavefunction is unreal and the particle is unreal too, but, nevertheless, produces real, measurable effects (in a probabilistic manner). This interpretation contradicts objective reality, the reality principle, causation and Descartes’ principle that causes can never have less reality than their effects. It’s astounding that it was ever taken seriously, and even more astounding that the far more plausible and coherent de Broglie-Bohm interpretation was treated with so much contempt. What both interpretations tell us is that the classical view of reality is untenable and something radical has to give. The Copenhagen school chose to abandon objective reality itself (!), while the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation abandoned localism and accepted a deterministic, hiddenvariables reality, thus calling the scientific method into question by challenging its domain of applicability. Science preferred to stick with the scientific method: reality was of less importance to scientists than their method of investigating reality (!). Although the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is unquestionably superior to the Copenhagen interpretation, it still hasn’t gone far enough. What is required is the total denial that reality is physical (scientific). Reality is in fact mathematical. Noumenal, ontological mathematics is the ground of

reality, and the “physical” world is simply its phenomenal, sensory projection. In order to preserve the sanctity of the scientific method (empiricism), the Copenhagen school rejected objective reality (rationalism). In Illuminism, objective reality (rationalism) is what must be defended at all costs, and this means that reality must be defined mathematically rather than scientifically, with the scientific method being relegated to a mere tool that provides us with information about phenomena but tells us nothing whatsoever about noumena. Science says that reality is what you perceive. Illuminism says that reality is what you don’t perceive, but, rather, what your mathematical reason reveals to you. Science is all about your senses and Illuminism is all about your reason. Science is about sensory “evidence” and Illuminism about mathematical, eternal, immutable proof. What do you find more reliable and more convincing as the basis of Absolute Knowledge – your fallible, contingent, evolutionary senses (empiricism), or the eternal, infallible truths of reason (rationalism)? Your choice!

***** In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, the quantum potential (pilot wave) is real, but, crucially, non-local, while the particle is real and local. Rather than accept deterministic non-locality, the science establishment chose indeterministic localism. In Illuminism, the entire Schrödinger wavefunction is ontologically real (including the “imaginary” part), and non-local, and the particle (the flowing point) is also ontologically real and non-local (since it can be anywhere where the wavefunction allows it to be, and disturbing the wavefunction in one location instantly changes it throughout the whole of spacetime), but must continuously localise somewhere, i.e. it does not need to follow any classical trajectory but must be somewhere at all times rather than vanishing into and popping out of some unreal, probabilistic cloud. In the de Broglie-Bohm system, a non-local pilot wave guides a local particle, while, in Illuminism, the “pilot wave” is actually programmed into the particle, hence if the wave is non-local, so is the particle. In Aristotelian terms, the pilot wave is the “form” of the particle.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave is non-local and unreal and the particle is non-local and unreal, until wavefunction collapse occurs, at which point the particle becomes temporarily local and real, before vanishing back into unreality when observation ceases. A particle, in this view, has no deterministic, continuous trajectory, even in principle. Everything is probabilistic. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, a particle has a deterministic, continuous trajectory, but this precise trajectory can never be experimentally observed. Likewise in Illuminism. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that any adequate theory must account for both the wave and particle aspects of matter, these being regarded as mutually exclusive, i.e. the same object cannot be both a particle and a wave simultaneously. Accordingly, this interpretation concludes that wave and particle concepts must be employed in a complementary manner, depending on the experimental situation. The claim, then, is that things can sometimes be particles, and sometimes waves, but it is never ontologically explained how this can be so. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation says that wave-particle duality does not manifest itself via a Complementarity principle. Rather, every particle is always accompanied by a pilot wave and this relationship is what accounts for wave-particle duality. So, the Copenhagen interpretation says that things are neither particles nor waves but somehow both, with the circumstances dictating whether the wave or particle aspect is manifested. The de BroglieBohm interpretation insists that particles are always particles and waves always waves, but every particle is necessarily accompanied by a wave. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts that one entity cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation agrees, but denies that there is only one entity. Rather, there are two entities: a particle and its pilot wave. So, the particle and wave descriptions can apply simultaneously, but to two different, yet coupled, entities. Illuminism holds an intermediate position. It agrees with the Copenhagen interpretation that the particle and wave are a single thing, but denies the Complementarity principle. It agrees with the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation that every particle is associated with a wave, but denies that they are separate things. Rather, Illuminism says that ultimate reality comprises wavefunctions made of sinusoidal waves, but each wavefunction is not “active” everywhere, i.e. simultaneously across the entire

wavefunction (as in a water wave). Instead, an ontological, sinusoidal wavefunction is active at the so-called “flowing point”. Imagine a point flowing along a sinusoidal wave. The point is always at one location at any instant, hence is absent from all other locations on the wave trajectory at that instant. The full wave trajectory is not active, only the active point. This active point is what manifests itself as a “particle”. In other words, the fundamental waves of existence are not to be regarded as physical waves like water waves, whereby the whole wave is active. Rather, they are analytic, mathematical waves, and their energy is always concentrated at the active point (the flowing point). Energy is not spread across the whole wave; it’s always focused at the dynamic point of the wave, and it’s this flowing point that is experienced as a particle. Physicists have always thought in terms of particles being concentrated and waves diffuse (spread out). They have never thought of the notion of a wave being active only at a specific location (the flowing point), where all of its energy resides, i.e. concentrated like a particle. It is this idea – which simply never occurred to scientists – that accounts for so-called waveparticle duality. An ontological wave is always a wave, yet it is always concentrated at a point (just like a particle). The particle therefore does not follow a linear trajectory, but a trajectory dictated by its wavefunction. In this sense, Illuminism is functionally like the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, i.e. we can treat the flowing point as the de Broglie-Bohm “particle” and the flowing point’s wavefunction as its de Broglie-Bohm “pilot wave”, preceding it and determining where it will go. Both Illuminism and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation are “realistic”, rational, objective and deterministic, and obey a reality principle. The Copenhagen interpretation is not and does not. It is a bizarre, probabilistic, indeterministic interpretation based on an unreal wavefunction/particle that sometimes, incomprehensibly and inexplicably, behaves like a wave, and sometimes like a particle. The Copenhagen interpretation concentrates on experimental outcomes and is little concerned about what goes on beforehand, i.e. it’s willing to regard all unseen things as unreal and abstract, with no persistent, objective reality. It is therefore “unrealistic” except at the point of measurement or observation, which it regards as the only conceivable meaningful “reality” (an ultra empiricist stance). In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction and the particle are both probabilistic. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, the quantum

potential (pilot wave) is real and so is the particle. In Illuminism, the wavefunction itself is real and so are the particles (as flowing points). The wavefunction can be said to be mathematically built into the flowing point rather than preceding it as a separate pilot wave, and yet, functionally, it’s as if the flowing point is preceded by a wave: remember, the flowing point is simply where the wavefunction is active at this instant. In other words, the flowing point has a mathematical mind, so to speak, which is continually calculating where it will go next, in a wavelike manner. As a flowing point reaches the twin slits, it does so in a wavelike way, not a particle way, and an interference pattern is the result. In the Copenhagen interpretation, probability is at the root of the system. In Illuminism, Leibnizian compossibility is at the root, i.e. things happen with respect to everything else and the most compossible outcome is the one that actually happens. Individual events, no matter how probable in terms of their own wavefunction, are impossible if they are not compossible with the wavefunctions of everything else.

Departure and Arrival Quantum particles are said to travel as waves but depart and arrive as particles. In fact, quantum particles depart and arrive as flowing points (particles) and, in-between, they travel as flowing points following a wave trajectory (pilot wave). They are never anything other than flowing points following a wave path. There is no “mystery”.

The Interference Term For a twin-slit system, the difference between classical and quantum physics can be summed up in the difference, in terms of probability, between “the sum of squares” and “the square of the sum”: 1) Classical physics (probability based on sum of squares): A2 + B2. 2) Quantum physics (probability based on square of sum): (A + B)2 = A2 + 2AB + B2. Comparing the two, the quantum option has an extra term (2AB), and this is the “interference term”.

Concerning the double slits, in classical physics a classical particle can go through only slit A or slit B. In quantum physics, a quantum particle can seem to go through slit A, slit B, or slits A and B simultaneously. When it comes to Schrödinger’s cat, the idea is that the cat can be dead or alive or dead and alive (in mixed states). However, there’s a radical difference between the twin slits and Schrödinger’s cat. The slits A and B have exactly the same properties (other than position), hence can be legitimately treated equally. Schrödinger’s cat (alive) and Schrödinger’s cat (dead), though, have contradictory properties, hence cannot be treated on a par. It’s deranged to say that there’s an interference term corresponding to a cat being both dead and alive at the same time. That’s impossible. It shows how detached from reality science has become that science textbooks continually promote the notion that this is a serious idea with a real bearing on reality. It has no connection to any reality whatsoever. It’s a category error to put life and death on an equal footing, as if they were equivalent to two slits. Imagine a different version of the twin slits experiment whereby one slit leads to death and the other to life. When we fire Schrödinger’s cats at these slits, do the cats “interfere” with each other? Do we get cats going through both slits at once, thus being simultaneously alive and dead? WTF! Scientists, being machinelike thinkers on the autistic spectrum, cannot distinguish between two slits and life and death. They believe the same binary rules apply! Science’s catastrophic failure to understand life (which is grounded in eternal mathematical monads) is at the root of its equally catastrophic failure to understand the true meaning of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is all about life because it’s all about monads, which are autonomous, immaterial Fourier frequency domains outside space and time. These exist eternally and never vanish into any indeterministic unreality or unreal superposition state. In Illuminism, there’s no such thing as a suspended superposition state awaiting an act of observation to collapse the wavefunction. In Illuminism, the wavefunction is continuously collapsing everywhere and reforming everywhere, this being the basis of the continuous passage of time. Jim Al-Khalili says that quantum mechanics ensures that only “sensible” results are produced when we perform measurements or observations, meaning that when we open the cat’s box, we see only a living or dead cat and nothing in-between. Yet, we know this logic is false from the twin slits

experiment. If Al-Khalili were right that only sensible outcomes are possible then that would equate to a quantum particle going through one slit or the other (corresponding to a dead cat or living cat) and never through both slits at once (corresponding to a simultaneously living and dead cat). Yet the whole point of the twin slits experiment – and of quantum mechanics itself – is that the interference effects are real. Therefore, for quantum mechanics to truly apply to Schrödinger’s cat, we should see evidence of an interference effect having occurred – e.g. when we open the box we should perhaps find a living cat perilously close to death, showing that death and life have “interfered” with each other, producing a “near-death” cat where living and dead states have become mixed. To see only a living or dead cat is, in twin-slit terms, to see a particle going through only one slit or the other – exactly as in classical physics, hence there’s no need for quantum mechanics. Recall that even one particle at a time going through the twin slits always produces an interference effect, so we should expect the Schrödinger’s cat experiment to always produce an interference effect. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment does not acknowledge a reality principle where the poison is definitely released or not, and caters for both possibilities. As Jim Al-Khalili says, “Until we look inside the box all we can do is assign probabilities to different outcomes. And because of the superposition of the different cat states, we get a certain probability for finding the cat alive, another probability for finding it dead and, strangest of all, a probability for finding it both dead and alive at the same time. This is due to the technical definition of quantum probability. [Since the wavefunction is made up of two pieces then the square of their sum is not the same as the sum of their squares but is always larger by an amount known as the interference term. To see this, note that, for instance, (2 + 3)2 = 25 but 22 + 32 = 13.] But the quantum rules do not allow for this. They state, quite correctly thankfully, that we will only find a live or dead cat and never a cat in a ghostly in-between state.” So, simply by arbitrary decree, the quantum “rules” forbid “ghostly” cats. How convenient! By exactly the same logic, why don’t they also forbid particles going through both slits at once to produce an interference effect? Hence there would be no quantum effects at all! Well, scientists say, the twin-slit experiment is about microscopic reality while the cat experiment is about macroscopic reality. So, there’s no as above, so below

principle here. The microscopic is totally different from the macroscopic, which immediately begs the question of how these totally different categories can co-exist, how they can possibly interact, and how one (the macroscopic) can be derived from the other (the microscopic). As ever, science just adds lots of ad hoc concepts and woolly “explanations” (more like “explaining aways”) to pretend there isn’t a devastating logical problem. If you clear away all of the double-talk and obfuscation, what quantum physicists are saying is that they get classical outcomes (living or dead cat only) when it suits them, and probabilistic interference effects when it suits them (as in the twin-slit experiment). This is no explanation whatsoever. Probabilistic interference effects must always apply or never apply. You can’t have probabilistic interference happening some times, and not at other times. If we are made of trillions of quantum particles, why aren’t weird quantum effects happening to us all the time at the microscopic level, which would then impact on us at the macroscopic level? It’s all “averaged out”, scientists self-servingly say. But look at human behaviour. On average, human beings operate in predictable ways. Yet individual humans can do the most extraordinary and bizarre things, which now and again have dramatic consequences for local communities and even the whole world (via assassinations, terrorism, the formation of new religions, political parties, economic systems, the ideas of geniuses, the inventions of capitalist entrepreneurs, and so on). Where is the equivalent in terms of our bodies, or in terms of planets, stars and galaxies? Why aren’t individual events changing everything, as when the First World War was provoked by one assassination, which then, in due course, led to the Second World War, the Cold War, and so on. Human history has been shaped by the acts of individuals. According to science, individual quantum events never affect the macrocosm, which is like saying that individual humans never affect the collection of seven billion humans. Yet we know for a fact that individual humans can change everything! Scientists might like to claim that humans aren’t comparable to quantum particles, but, of course, they are since science insists that humans are nothing but enormous collections of quantum particles, and nothing besides. Regarding the cat in the box, here’s the rational reality. If the poison is never released in the cat’s box, there’s never any chance of a dead cat. If the

poison is released, there’s no chance of a living cat. This is the situation dictated by the reality principle, and is exactly what is observed, i.e. you only ever find a living or dead cat and nothing in-between: no signs of any interference effects. Scientists deny that there’s any objective reality within the box: everything vanishes, they say, into a probabilistic unreality. Are you buying it? Does the room you were just in vanish into a probability cloud as soon as you close the door behind you? That, in effect, is what science claims. It’s total madness. As Jim Al-Khalili says, “Until we look inside the box all we can do is assign probabilities to different outcomes.” This is true of everything, according to scientists. When you’re not observing something, it’s just a vague, unreal, probability cloud, not an actual thing, not an objective, real entity. The moon isn’t there when no one is looking at it. It is mysteriously converted into an unreal moon wavefunction. “Reality” is thus reduced to a bizarre phenomenon that occurs only when observations and measurements are made, and, otherwise, is unreal. This is what happens when rationalism is pushed out of the way by fanatical empiricism. According to rationalism, the objective world obeying the reality principle never vanishes anywhere when you’re not observing it. It’s as real and solid as it always was. Your observations make not one jot of difference to its reality, and have no bearing on anything at all other than your personal information about the world. The cat in the box remains a cat in a box. Whether or not the poison is released is determined by precise mathematical causes, and is in no way indeterministic (occurring for no sufficient reason). God, as Einstein said, does not throw dice to decide what to do. God as Dice Man is a conclusion that flows not from science but from extremist empiricist philosophy. A world that vanishes when no one is looking at it is also a conclusion of empiricist philosophy, not of science. Empiricist conclusions are more or less insane, and have no connection whatsoever with objective reality. All of this nonsense can be swept away via the simple rational conclusion that the phenomenal world is underpinned by a noumenal, ontological mathematical world that exists as a real thing forever, but is not observable. Empiricism says that the unobservable does not exist. Rationalism says that the unobservable can, does and must exist – precisely to prevent the preposterous claim that reality becomes unreality when unobserved, as science ludicrously insists.

Moreover, this “unreality” isn’t true unreality (non-existence) but an unobservable mathematical abstraction, which itself is wholly incompatible with empiricist ideology, and to which no empiricist has any right to refer! David Hume, the great empiricist philosopher, would be bent double laughing at the claims of Copenhagen quantum mechanics. Consider what a classical physicist would predict in relation to the Schrödinger’s cat experiment. He would say that when you opened the box, you would observe either a living cat or a dead cat. That’s also what a rationalist would say. And it’s also what an empiricist quantum physicist would say. So, in terms of any conceivable observable outcome, there’s no difference at all between the prediction of various groups that have opposite understandings of what is going on inside the box. Therefore, how can this thought experiment shed any light at all on quantum physics? It’s useless since all parties agree on what the outcome will be. If anyone has a problem, it’s the empiricists since their model is predicated on inevitable probabilistic interference effects, but no such effects are actually observed when the box is opened. In other words, not one shred of evidence is actually generated by this thought experiment to defend the empiricist interpretation of quantum mechanics. This must be the worst thought experiment ever devised since it does nothing to advance the cause of those who deploy it. If anything, it seems to fully vindicate Schrödinger who introduced the paradox in the first place to illustrate the absurdity of the empiricist interpretation. It beggars belief that the paradox has been turned on its head and used to defend empiricism even though it actually reveals no weird quantum effects at all and is fully consistent with classical physics and rationalism. In the classical and rationalist views, definite, deterministic processes happen within the box and there’s no unresolved superposition of possible states. In the conventional quantum view, a probabilistic cloud appears in the box, and this is then “collapsed” by an actual observation, and leads to a definite outcome of living or dead cat, and no sign of anything in-between. Within its own parameters, there’s not one scintilla of evidence that this standard Copenhagen view is correct and even worthy of any attention. It is, ironically, nothing but bad metaphysical speculation, hence nothing to do with “science”! The standard view is supposed to be empiricist and yet wholly contradicts empiricism. The quantum wavefunction upon which the whole

standard interpretation is predicated is technically unreal and unobservable within the materialist and empiricist paradigm, hence is purely metaphysical or speculative. A fanatical supporter of measurement and observation has no rational right to invoke unobservable processes. A classical physicist or rationalist operates on the basis that a reality principle and principle of sufficient reason apply, hence the moon is there even when no one is looking at it. An ultra empiricist denies that the moon is there when no one is observing it, or regards the existence of the moon as an unwarranted speculation. By exactly the same logic, the unreal, unobservable wavefunction cannot be there since there’s no conceivable evidence that it is. It’s an inference that the wavefunction exists, but empiricists don’t accept inferences based on unobservables, hence they have no right to their prized wavefunction. They are refuted by their own dogmatism. It’s amazing how often scientists arrive at a puzzling position and then simply announce that it’s pointless to try to understand it any further. It’s a “mystery”, they say (just as Abrahamists say that God works in mysterious ways, and finite minds cannot understand the infinite mind of God). This is nowhere truer than with quantum mechanics itself, of course. Not one scientist has ever said he understood quantum mechanics, which is science’s crown jewel, the most successful scientific theory of all time. So, here we see the truth of science. Science is pure instrumentalism and pragmatism. Being able to use quantum mechanics in all sorts of valuable ways is what matters to science, not actually understanding quantum mechanics and knowing what it tells us about ontology. To put it bluntly, science is not concerned with truth, reason, understanding or knowledge, but with practical success. If you investigate the history of science, you will see that it’s extremely closely linked with business, capitalism and the military, i.e. with the military-industrial complex. Is that complex commonly associated with truth and reason? As Nietzsche said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” Science is the greatest liar in human history. It has been ever since the intelligentsia preferred Newton to Leibniz. Leibniz, unlike Newton, was obsessed with truth, reason, understanding and knowledge and sought to explain everything with his principle of sufficient reason, regardless of whether something was observable or not. Newton, on the other hand, said that he did not “feign hypotheses”. That’s

because he had a highly successful theory of gravity that made no rational sense at all. He knew as well as Leibniz that his theory of gravity was inexplicable since it involved huge celestial bodies being mathematically reduced to point masses, it involved instantaneous communication between celestial bodies across potentially infinite distances, it involved celestial bodies being “aware” of each other gravitationally even though they were separated by totally empty space (hence how could they even “know” the other bodies were there?), and it involved bodies being able to influence each other through a “spooky action at a distance” force, without any contact. There’s something that exactly shares the main features of Newton’s theory of gravity – voodoo! Newton’s theory of gravity proved incredibly successful, but it had nothing to do with science since, in scientific terms, it involved absolutely inexplicable mechanisms. It was actually a theory of abstract mathematics. Mathematics alone was its saving grace, and the same is true of quantum mechanics.

Reality? The “logic” of Copenhagen quantum mechanics reduces to an extraordinary position. According to this view, fundamental reality is actually unreal. Things fundamentally exist (or, rather, don’t exist since they are unreal) as unreal wavefunctions describing all possible unactualised states. So-called real “reality” occurs only while observations or measurements are being made, and otherwise everything vanishes again into unreality. “Reality” is purely that which is currently being experienced (empiricism) and when it’s not currently being experienced, it’s deemed unreal (yet not non-existent; rather, it becomes, for some unexplained reason, a mathematical abstraction that sort of exists but really doesn’t – science in fact simply ignores the ontology of the wavefunction). Science’s message is this: reality exists at the point of experience and otherwise does not exist. This is an extremist empiricist position, yet without the extremist empiricist logic of the greatest empiricist thinker David Hume. Hume would never have tolerated any reference to unempirical, unreal, mathematical, abstract wavefunctions. He would have denied that we could have any knowledge whatsoever of anything that could not be perceived and experienced. This is the stance science ought to

take, but refuses to do so because, if it did, it would become as empty as Hume’s skeptical and almost nihilistic philosophy. It has its cake and eats it by retaining an unobservable mathematical layer, which in fact provides all of the power of science. Science says that true reality is exactly that which is experienced (an empiricist, phenomenological approach), and everything else is unreal. Ontological mathematics says the exact opposite: true reality is that which is never experienced because it’s entirely noumenal and rational. Reason alone can access it, not the senses, not faith, not mysticism, and not feelings. Given that we spend far more time not observing and measuring things than we do observing and measuring them, science is claiming that unreality is the primary mode of “reality” (!). WTF! The fundamental entities of science are not cats, people, atoms, and so on, but abstract, unreal mathematical wavefunctions. These are what can be referred to when no one is looking (when no one is having an experience of them). Science really says that we inhabit a giant mathematical unreality that, when the mathematical wavefunction inexplicably collapses for no reason, produces so-called reality. Science is just irrationalist empiricism that worships experience and observation. It makes no sense at all. It’s anything but consistent given that it says that empirical reality is grounded in unempirical unreality (!). Remember, there are no cats in science, only cat wavefunctions that “collapse” into actual cats when observations are made on them. Are you buying it? You yourself are not a real thing but an unreal mathematical abstraction (wavefunction) that seems real only because it’s being continuously observed (by others or by itself!). Isn’t it the maddest thing you’ve ever heard, even madder than Abrahamism, which at least subscribes to a reality principle and determinism. All of this lunacy vanishes if you accept the ontology of imaginary and complex numbers, meaning that the wavefunction is now real rather than unreal, and doesn’t have to be subjected to any process to banish imaginary and complex numbers (thus rendering the wavefunction’s effects indeterministic rather than deterministic). The wavefunction in itself is deterministic but based on complex numbers. When it’s turned into something else by squaring it and taking its absolute value, it becomes an indeterministic entity based on real numbers.

Max Born’s interpretation of the wavefunction wiped out causation, determinism and reality, replacing these with acausation, indeterminism and unreality. What Born did was mathematically illegitimate. His interpretation is pure philosophy, not science. His interpretation is what you are driven to if you regard empiricism as true and rationalism as false. If you adopt the opposite view, you get rid of his probabilistic wavefunction, and you then have a deterministic mathematical reality, but one predicated on rationalist complex numbers rather than empiricist real numbers. In the end, the whole issue reduces to whether the universe is defined by complex numbers (rationalism) or real numbers (empiricism). The former view leads us to a noumenal mathematical and metaphysical reality, the latter to a phenomenal scientific and physical reality.

Kant and Quantum Mechanics Kant said that reality comprises unknowable but real noumena, and the real, knowable phenomena derived from them. Classical science said that reality comprises real, deterministic atoms in motion. Quantum mechanics says “reality” comprises unreal, deterministic, abstract mathematical wavefunctions (noumena), and the real, observable, measurable phenomena derived from them. Illuminism says that reality comprises ontologically real mathematical noumena (Fourier frequency domains), and the real mathematical phenomena (Fourier spacetime entities) derived from them. Well, which version are you buying?

The Quantum Standoff Quantum mechanics is the latest battlefield in the long war between Leibniz and Newton (rationalism versus empiricism). Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were the high priests of quantum empiricism while Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie and Bohm defended various versions of realism and rationalism rather than indeterminacy and probability. The “hidden variables” theory, most associated with Bohm, is every bit a match for the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics and yet if you were to read any physics textbook you would be presented with unadulterated propaganda on

behalf of the ultra empiricist view. This isn’t science but philosophy or even metaphysics. What you are being exposed to is a paradigmatic way of thinking that asserts, with no legitimate grounds, that empiricism is true and rationalism false. Here’s how the standard Copenhagen interpretation works, and it’s not pretty: 1) Measurement, observation and experience (all associated with empiricism) are regarded as the only reliable foundation for any scientific theory or “knowledge”. These constitute the “facts”. So, in the twin-slit experiment, particles are fired at the double slits and then recorded on a detection screen behind the slits. The detection pattern is all we actually “know”. 2) We cannot measure, observe or experience anything at all between the particle source and particle detector. If we seek to insert detectors into the set-up to discover which slit a particle went through, we change the nature of the experiment, hence this is an invalid procedure. 3) We can imagine an observationally impenetrable curtain being drawn across the experiment between the source and detector. Now, if a consistent skeptic and empiricist such as David Hume were to ponder this experiment, he would say that there are only two facts: the emission of particles and the detection of particles in a certain pattern. However, he would point out that we do not observe the trajectory of the particles and we do not observe any “causality”, so we can’t even say that the particles cause the pattern. We have a pattern that we can associate with the particles but can’t say it was caused by the particles, no matter how often we perform the experiment, because the next time we perform the experiment it’s perfectly possible that we won’t get that pattern since we have at no stage observed any causal connection, but merely inferred it. No matter how many white swans we have observed, it doesn’t prevent the next one from being black. The twinslit interference pattern, within the standard interpretation, is contingent, not necessary. No logical contradiction would be produced if it didn’t generate an interference pattern since the pattern is probabilistic, not causal. Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were not entitled to go any further, and Hume would have ridiculed them when they did.

4) Having established observation (measurement) as the critical element in science, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born then catastrophically contradicted themselves by positing an unreal, unobservable, probabilistic wavefunction as the basis of quantum mechanics. If something as solid as the moon doesn’t exist when no one is looking at it (as Born said to Einstein) then why should anyone accept the existence of a wavefunction that is not defined as real? How can reality be grounded in something unreal? It’s absurd. 5) Heisenberg said it was absolutely wrong to try to picture what was going on in the quantum world and yet what is the wavefunction if not an attempt to depict what is happening behind the quantum curtain? It can’t be observed, so how does anyone know it’s there? Isn’t it just a fiction, a Mythos, a construct, an interpretation? Indeed, aren’t observations themselves just sensory interpretations? (“There are no facts, only interpretations.” – Nietzsche) 6) With the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, we are told that a wavefunction inevitably forms in which we have a superposition of living cat, dead cat and mixed dead-alive cat states. Yet where is there one shred of evidence for this assertion? How can it even make any sense to speak of mixed deadalive cat states? Again, there’s no evidence at all that such states are anything other than fantastical fictions with no conceivable ontological reality. Scientists like to say that anything not forbidden is compulsory, but if a mixed dead-alive states are not forbidden, why isn’t the world infested with ghosts, zombies, vampires and the undead? Once you say that alivedead states are possible, you have effectively denied that anything is forbidden. You might as well believe in magic. Or God! 7) The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is ludicrous and embarrassing in almost every way and yet this junk has been taught as serious physics for almost a century, with barely a critical voice raised. Any such dissenters are mocked and ridiculed just as Martin Luther ridiculed Copernicus for saying that the earth orbited the sun! 8) The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is exactly that – an interpretation. It’s not fact, truth, knowledge, reality, objectivity or anything else. It’s simply an ideological outlook driven by an inconsistent and

untenable devotion to empiricism (yet a true empiricist such as Hume would have repudiated it entirely). 9) The hidden variables theory of de Broglie and Bohm involving a real pilot wave guiding real particles is every bit as consistent with the mathematics and experimental results of quantum mechanics as the standard interpretation, so why is it only ever mentioned, if at all, in any physics text as a minor footnote, normally with some snarky but unjustified criticism? Don’t forget Weinberg’s Principle: “An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.” The Copenhagen interpretation is a gargantuan fallacy perpetrated by Nobel Prize winning “experts”. The standard interpretation is not “science” but pure ideology. To use Kuhn’s term, it’s a paradigm. If science were fair, it would place all interpretations of quantum mechanics, consistent with the mathematics and experimental results, on an equal footing. Instead, it ruthlessly promotes the standard Copenhagen interpretation and turns its nose up at the others. 10) It can’t be stressed enough that the Copenhagen interpretation isn’t “science” but philosophy, and specifically an expression of empiricist ideology. Scientifically, the Copenhagen interpretation stands opposed to objective reality, to causality, to the continuous passage of time, to rationalism and determinism. It supports randomness, probability, and indeterminacy. It denies that things are really there when they are not being observed. It has no credible explanation for why wavefunction collapse takes place. It more or less states that conscious observers are required (then strenuously denies this while not actually proposing any credible alternative). It claims that alive and dead states can co-exist. Above all, it places absolute reliance on an unreal, unobservable, probabilistic, indeterministic wavefunction as the basis of what we in fact observe as the direct opposite: an extremely deterministic reality. It offers no explanation at all as to how a deterministic, real, classical world can emerge from an indeterministic, unreal, mathematical probability function that seems unable to collapse within its own parameters (thus requiring something external to it to perform this role, but nothing can be outside the wavefunction since it covers everything, and therefore, logically, nothing can collapse it if it does not have an internal collapse mechanism).

11) Why are scientists so supportive of something so crazy as the Copenhagen interpretation? The answer lies in the traditional scientific hatred of religion and philosophy. Scientists want to avoid any wiggle room for religious unobservables, rational unobservables, metaphysical speculations – anything that’s outside the experimental method. Well, ironically they have settled for an unobservable, uncollapseable (in its own terms), unreal wavefunction as the basis of reality – which is as metaphysical as it gets. So, why have they done this? It’s because atheist scientists always prefer randomness and probability to any suggestion of “design” (which they always interpret as code for “God”). Scientists are very comfortable with randomness and probability, and very uncomfortable with rationalism, design and any suggestion that intelligent minds exist independently of matter and, even worse, as the true basis of matter. The Copenhagen interpretation is accepted for what it is not rather than what it is. It is not idealist. It is not rationalist. The scientific establishment comprises sensing, empiricist, materialist types who reject God, mind, design, rationalism, metaphysics and sufficient reason. They offer randomness as the answer to everything. So, the Big Bang was some inexplicable random fluctuation in a wholly undefined environment (“nothingness”), Darwinian evolution proceeds by inexplicable random mutations, and the wavefunction involves inexplicable random events occurring with certain probabilities. Any event could randomly happen, but those random events with a higher probability are more likely. When we toss a coin, it will randomly fall as a head or a tail, with a 50-50 chance of either outcome. When the wavefunction is caused to collapse by an observation or measurement, one possibility will be randomly selected, with some outcomes more likely than others, yet any possible outcome can be actualised. 12) In truth, scientists neither like nor understand the Copenhagen interpretation but regard it as the least bad alternative. The other choices they find horrific. You often hear scientists rubbishing “woo woo”, but what could be more woo woo than the Copenhagen interpretation itself? To a rationalist, the Copenhagen interpretation is indistinguishable from insanity, or religious faith. 13) The scientific establishment (the high priests of the empiricist, materialist, probabilistic Meta Paradigm) wage a relentless propaganda

campaign on behalf of the Copenhagen interpretation. For decades, they have been brainwashing generations of physics students to take this irrational idiocy seriously. Richard Feynman infamously said, “Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” Is that what you really want to sign up to? Any rationalist can and will ask, “But how can it be like that?” and, moreover, they will find an answer. Indeed, they already have – it’s ontological mathematics, the gospel of hyperrationalism and eternal, indisputable truth. 14) The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum will eventually fall. Why? Because both it and Einsteinian relativity (which is another irrational, empiricist, materialist scientific system that attacks the reality principle) are the two greatest obstacles to a final theory of everything. Scientists have spent decades futilely trying to reconcile these two theories. It’s impossible because both are irrational, and, moreover, irrational in different and directly contradictory ways. Both of these theories must be repudiated before science can progress any further. Jim Al-Khalili wrote, “...there are other physicists who believe that neither [quantum mechanics nor general relativity] will survive fully intact and that both will need major surgery before they can be grafted together into quantum gravity. A yet smaller minority of deep thinkers even proposes that the correct route is to ditch both quantum mechanics and general relativity and start from scratch.” Amen to that last conclusion. Mathematics will save science, not relativity theory or quantum mechanics. 15) In fact, what must be abandoned is empiricism, materialism and “probabilism” (the obsession with appealing to randomness and probability rather than design). We already have the final theory of everything. It’s none other than ontological mathematics, an entirely rationalist and metaphysical subject, inherently incorporating “design”. Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel all saw that mathematics was the indisputable answer to existence. Who in their right mind would stand opposed to these five towering geniuses? There’s no need to invoke “God” to explain a designed universe. Mathematics does the job by itself.

***** Make no mistake, science is a religion. For sure, it has no God, but it has a Church, popes, gurus, priests and prophets. It is obsessed with “authority”, i.e. the higher your reputation in science, the more you will be listened to by the fact alone (not because you are necessarily saying anything worthy of being heard). Science is staggeringly influenced by reputation, despite claiming the opposite (that it’s influenced by facts alone). No ordinary scientist would want to take up a maverick position against the “authorities” in the field. Groupthink and careerism are endemic in science. Science has its beliefs and dogmas, and ferociously defends them, while rubbishing any counter positions. Science even claims that anything that is not scientific should not be given parity of treatment in the media. Yet science itself isn’t science; it’s philosophy. Science absolutely refuses to acknowledge this fact. It denies that it’s all about the interpretation of facts rather than facts themselves. There are no innocent, neutral facts other than those of mathematics. All scientific “facts” are “value-laden”, i.e. they presuppose the acceptance of a particular set of values. Science is entirely predicated on empiricism, materialism and atheism, and it simply ignores any alternative positions, no matter how rational. That’s the behaviour of a religion, not of a science seeking the truth.

The Debate Jim Holt, in a New York Times article, provides an excellent summary of the “debate” between physics and philosophy: “A KERFUFFLE has broken out between philosophy and physics. It began earlier this spring when a philosopher (David Albert) gave a sharply negative review in this paper to a book by a physicist (Lawrence Krauss) that purported to solve, by purely scientific means, the mystery of the universe’s existence. The physicist responded to the review by calling the philosopher who wrote it ‘moronic’ and arguing that philosophy, unlike physics, makes no progress and is rather boring, if not totally useless. And then the kerfuffle was joined on both sides. “This is hardly the first occasion on which physicists have made disobliging comments about philosophy. Last year at a Google ‘Zeitgeist

conference’ in England, Stephen Hawking declared that philosophy was ‘dead.’ Another great physicist, the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, has written that he finds philosophy ‘murky and inconsequential’ and of no value to him as a working scientist. And Richard Feynman, in his famous lectures on physics, complained that ‘philosophers are always with us, struggling in the periphery to try to tell us something, but they never really understand the subtleties and depths of the problem.’ “Why do physicists have to be so churlish toward philosophy? Philosophers, on the whole, have been much nicer about science. ‘Philosophy consists in stopping when the torch of science fails us,’ Voltaire wrote back in the 18th century. And in the last few decades, philosophers have come to see their enterprise as continuous with that of science. It is noteworthy that the ‘moronic’ philosopher who kicked up the recent shindy by dismissing the physicist’s book himself holds a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. “Physicists say they do not need any help from philosophers. But sometimes physicists are, whether they realize it or not, actually engaging in philosophy themselves. And some of them do it quite well. Mr. Weinberg, for instance, has written brilliantly on the limits of scientific explanation – which is, after all, a philosophical issue. It is also an issue about which contemporary philosophers have interesting things to say. “Mr. Weinberg has attacked philosophical doctrines like ‘positivism’ (which says that science should concern itself only with things that can actually be observed). But positivism happens to be a mantle in which Mr. Hawking proudly wraps himself; he has declared that he is ‘a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality.’ Is Mr. Hawking’s positivism the same positivism that Mr. Weinberg decries? That, one supposes, would be an issue for philosophical discussion. “The physicist Sir Roger Penrose is certainly not a positivist. He is a self-avowed ‘Platonist,’ since he believes (like Plato) that mathematical ideas have an objective existence. The disagreement between Mr. Hawking the positivist and Mr. Penrose the Platonist – a philosophical one! – has hard scientific consequences: because of it, they take radically opposed views of what is going on when a quantum measurement is made. Is one of them guilty of philosophical naïveté? Are they both?

“Finally, consider the anti-philosophical strictures of Richard Feynman. ‘Cocktail party philosophers,’ he said in a lecture, think they can discover things about the world ‘by brainwork’ rather than by experiment (‘the test of all knowledge’). But in another lecture, he announced that the most pregnant hypothesis in all of science is that ‘all things are made of atoms.’ Who first came up with this hypothesis? The ancient philosophers Leucippus and Democritus. And they didn’t come up with it by doing experiments. “Today the world of physics is in many ways conceptually unsettled. Will physicists ever find an interpretation of quantum mechanics that makes sense? Is ‘quantum entanglement’ logically consistent with special relativity? Is string theory empirically meaningful? How are time and entropy related? Can the constants of physics be explained by appeal to an unobservable ‘multiverse’? Philosophers have in recent decades produced sophisticated and illuminating work on all these questions. It would be a pity if physicists were to ignore it. “And what about the oft-heard claim that philosophy, unlike science, makes no progress? As Bertrand Russell (himself no slouch at physics and mathematics) observed, philosophy aims at knowledge, and as soon as it obtains definite knowledge in a specific area, that area ceases to be called ‘philosophy.’ And scientific progress gives philosophers more and more to do. Allow me to quote Nietzsche (although I know that will be considered by some to be in bad taste): ‘As the circle of science grows larger, it touches paradox at more places.’ Physicists expand the circle, and philosophers help clear up the paradoxes. May both camps flourish.” Illuminism asserts that the philosophers and physicists are both wrong! Only ontological mathematics is eternally right, and philosophers and physicists are right only when they make statements consistent with ontological mathematics. But philosophers are much more interestingly wrong than scientists, who are usually tediously, autistically wrong. There’s no one as insufferable as a pompous scientist such as Richard Dawkins, who is as incapable of challenging his own prejudices as any Abrahamist.

Theory “The word ‘theory’ derives from the Greek ‘theorein’, which means ‘to look at’. According to some sources, it was used frequently in terms of

‘looking at’ a theatre stage, which may explain why sometimes the word ‘theory’ is used as something provisional or not completely resembling real. The term ‘theoria’ (a noun) was already used by the scholars of ancient Greece. Theorein is built upon ‘to theion’ (the divine) or ‘to theia’ (divine things) ‘orao’ (I see), i.e. ‘contemplate the divine’. ‘Divine’ was understood as harmony and order (or logos) permeating the real world surrounding us.” – Wikipedia Theory is the “divine view” or the “view of the divine”. Only ontological mathematics qualifies as a view of the divine, of the perfect. The war between rationalism and empiricism is over, and rationalism has won decisively. It’s impossible to conceive of a single scientific experiment “proving” what the fundamental nature of existence is. Science simply can’t reach that level. It’s also impossible to conceive of a scientific theory that isn’t absolutely saturated to the nth degree with mathematics, and is basically just mathematics expressed with scientific symbols. The answer to existence is ontological mathematics, and that’s pure, unadulterated rationalism, requiring no recourse to the scientific method at all. If we live in a rational universe, and plainly we do, we can calculate its deepest secrets using reason alone. We don’t need the senses or feelings, which aren’t inherently rational, and are usually profoundly irrational. We can work out everything about the universe simply by thinking hard enough. When we do, when we relentlessly apply the principle of sufficient reason, we are left with nothing but the eternal Platonic perfection of ontological mathematics.

***** It has been said that more mathematics will not fix physics. In fact, not only will more and better mathematics improve physics, physics should be wholly replaced with ontological mathematics. It has been said that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that there are limits to mathematics. They show no such thing. What they demonstrate is that there are limits to axiomatic approaches to math, and that’s something entirely different. Mathematics is not grounded in axioms. Mathematics, ontologically, is grounded in a single all-powerful, alldefining formula: the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula).

Wrong “Much of modern theoretical physics assumes that the true nature of reality is mathematics. This is a great mistake. The assumption underlies most of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, and has no empirical justification. Accepting that the assumption is wrong will allow physics and mathematics to progress as distinct disciplines.” – Roger Schlafly This is totally wrong-headed. The problem with theoretical physics is precisely that it is so mathematical without acknowledging that the true nature of reality is indeed purely mathematical. If theoretical physicists were as Schlafly describes them, they would all be Pythagoreans, Platonists, Cartesians, Leibnizians and Gödelians, and they simply aren’t. Mathematics and physics must not be treated as separate disciplines. They should in fact be united in a single subject: ontological mathematics. “Mathematics dominates theoretical physics, and underlies the deepest realities of nature. It is ‘unreasonably effective’ in the words of E. Wigner. It is widely believed that the most fundamental objects of physics will be perfectly describable by mathematical structures. The structures might be variants of quantum field theory, or string theory, or supergravity, or some other unified field theory, but they will be given precisely by mathematical constants, formulas, equations, and other structures. I believe that this is a profound mistake. – Roger Schlafly Reality has already been mathematically precisely defined – by the God Equation, which is the noumenal, ontological root of the whole of physics. Mathematics is, as Gauss said, the Queen of the sciences. “Nature has no faithful mathematical representation: Concepts of physics like mass, electricity, gravity, and electrons can be represented by mathematical structures. That is what the formulas in physics books are all about. A representation is faithful if it perfectly characterizes the physics. In particular, it must allow calculations that predict physical outcomes to as many decimal places as desired. A faithful representation of the elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and bosons) is the holy grail of theoretical physics. I believe that there is no such thing, and that it is foolish to look for one.” – Roger Schlafly

It’s foolish not to look for one. If existence doesn’t have one then existence has no answer and is irrational. Nature has an entirely faithful mathematical representation since Nature is nothing but math. “The mathematical reality assumption: Theoretical physicists commonly assume a faithful mathematical representation of nature, even if they do not admit it. They use the term ‘reality’ to mean not just a physical reality, but also a linked mathematical reality that perfectly matches the physics.” – Roger Schlafly This is 100% false. Physics is radically positivist and empiricist and absolutely rejects the concept that there is a real, noumenal, ontological mathematical reality underpinning physics. What Schlafly should be complaining about is that physicists remain relentlessly empiricist and positivist while hypocritically being totally reliant on mathematics, which is the opposite of positivism and empiricism. Schlafly believes that physicists secretly worship mathematics, but that’s exactly what they don’t do. They use it while having as much contempt for it as they do for philosophy. They reject the ontology of mathematics and explicitly frame their theories so as to exclude all non-positivist, non-empiricist aspects of mathematics (the vast bulk of mathematics). Quantum mechanics is full of fallacies and paradoxes not because it’s mathematical but because it’s not mathematical enough. It does not obey 100% consistent and complete mathematics involving complex numbers. It’s people such as Schlafly who are holding back physics by always trying to downgrade mathematics and upsell the scientific method (which can tell you nothing at all about ultimate, noumenal reality). Schlafly is reported to be a Christian with libertarian leanings, which rather tells its own story.

The Gospel of Despair “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.” – Niels Bohr It’s exactly the task of physics to find out how nature is. Otherwise, what’s the point of it? Bohr’s comments expose his fanatical positivism and

empiricism, and his deep hatred of rationalism. “What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists.” – Einstein The synthesis is not a theory of physics. The synthesis is ontological mathematics. “For an academic career puts a young man into a kind of embarrassing position by requiring him to produce scientific publications in impressive quantity – a seduction into superficiality which only strong characters are able to withstand. Most practical occupations, however, are of such a nature that a man of normal ability is able to accomplish what is expected of him. His day-to-day existence does not depend on any special illuminations. If he has deeper scientific interests he may plunge into his favourite problems in addition to doing his required work. He need not be oppressed by the fear that his efforts may lead to no results. I owed it to Marcel Grossman that I was in such a fortunate position.” – Einstein One of the great tragedies of science is that it’s so corporate and careerist, and so hostile to freethinkers, radicals, heretics, apostates and infidels. “I have become an obstinate heretic in the eyes of my colleagues.” – Einstein And so they stopped listening to him and mocked him. “I am generally regarded as a sort of petrified object, rendered blind and deaf by the years. I find this role not too distasteful, as it corresponds very well with my temperament.” – Einstein Even Einstein came to be regarded as a fool by science. He was insufficiently worshipful of the insane paradigm of scientific indeterminism. “Success carries more power of conviction for most people than reflections on principle.” – Einstein “Success” is one of the greatest problems of the human race. As Nietzsche said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” People are overwhelmed by the power of success, but power is not truth. The most successful things

are almost invariably false. The most successful people are almost invariably psychopathic liars.

Consciousness “I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.” – Roger Penrose Roger Penrose argues that the known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Indeed they are. Only ontological mathematics is fit for purpose. Consciousness is possible only because dimensionless monads – mathematical subjective minds ruled by objective mathematical laws – exist. They are eternal, self-solving, selfoptimizing minds, and they become more powerful and better able to fulfil their purpose the more conscious (rational) they are.

Measuring What? “And if you feel like siding with Schrödinger on this then I should ask where are we going wrong? Why isn’t the cat – or the complicated collection of quantum particles as I wish to refer to it – also forced into a superposition through its entanglement with the superposed state of the radioactive nucleus?” – Jim Al-Khalili Well, here’s the answer to your question, Jim. If the radioactive nucleus is in a superposed state, and so is the cat, then so is the observer of the cat and the observer of the observer of the cat, and all the way back in an infinite regress from which there is no escape. If your statement is true then the whole universe is in an entangled, superposed state and there’s nothing to bring about any observation or measurement, hence your statement and the whole concept of superposition, as defined within the Copenhagen interpretation, is false. So, Jim, do you seriously believe in the superposition of life and death, of the existence of mixed, alive-dead cat states? Is that what you define as “rational”? Why was it absurd for the Catholic Church to believe that the Earth was stationary if there’s nothing

silly about believing that a cat can be simultaneously dead and alive? If that’s possible, what isn’t? Al-Khalili refers to a cat as a “complicated collection of quantum particles”. He would say exactly the same of you. Well, is that all you are? Are you just a collection of quantum particles that vanishes into a mathematical abstraction when no one is observing you? Scientists relentlessly downgrade the significance of human beings. At all times, they wish to reduce them to nothing but blobs of matter that accidentally came into being in an accidental, meaningless universe. This, it must be repeated, is an autistic’s way of understanding reality. Science is just glorified autism.

***** “But the very usefulness of quantum physics masked a disturbing dissonance at its core. There are mysteries – summed up neatly in Werner Heisenberg’s famous adage ‘atoms are not things’ – lurking at the heart of quantum physics suggesting that our everyday assumptions about reality are no more than illusions. “Take the ‘principle of superposition,’ which holds that things at the subatomic level can be literally two places at once. Worse, it means they can be two things at once. This superposition animates the famous parable of Schrödinger’s cat, whereby a wee kitty is left both living and dead at the same time because its fate depends on a superposed quantum particle. “For decades such mysteries were debated but never pushed toward resolution, in part because no resolution seemed possible and, in part, because useful work could go on without resolving them (an attitude sometimes called ‘shut up and calculate’). Scientists could attract money and press with ever larger supercolliders while ignoring such pesky questions. “But as this year’s Nobel recognizes, that’s starting to change. Increasingly clever experiments are exploiting advances in cheap, highprecision lasers and atomic-scale transistors. Quantum information studies often require nothing more than some equipment on a table and a few graduate students. In this way, quantum information’s progress has come not by bludgeoning nature into submission but by subtly tricking it to step into the light.

“Take the superposition debate. One camp claims that a deeper level of reality lies hidden beneath all the quantum weirdness. Once the so-called hidden variables controlling reality are exposed, they say, the strangeness of superposition will evaporate. “Another camp claims that superposition shows us that potential realities matter just as much as the single, fully manifested one we experience. But what collapses the potential electrons in their two locations into the one electron we actually see? According to this interpretation, it is the very act of looking; the measurement process collapses an ethereal world of potentials into the one real world we experience. “And a third major camp argues that particles can be two places at once only because the universe itself splits into parallel realities at the moment of measurement, one universe for each particle location — and thus an infinite number of ever splitting parallel versions of the universe (and us) are all evolving alongside one another. ...” – Adam Frank, The New York Times There is simply no question that a “hidden variables” version of quantum mechanics – based on rational mathematical unobservables – will eventually replace the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics and its weird version of the superposition principle. The new quantum paradigm will be based on the generalised Euler Formula, Fourier mathematics and holography. It will accept the existence of a dimensionless frequency domain outside space and time, related to spacetime by Fourier mathematics. It will be 100% mathematical and have causality inbuilt. Everything will have a sufficient reason. There will, however, be rational unobservables throughout the system. Wikipedia says of quantum superposition, “Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system – such as an electron – exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations.” This probabilistic paradigm will be abolished. Reality is grounded in mathematical rationalism and causality not in randomness and probability. As Einstein so rightly said, “God does not play dice.” It’s mad to suggest that reality has foundations built on mere chance. The truth of reality is that everything revolves around a dimensionless Singularity composed of countless monads: unconscious mathematical

minds that can evolve consciousness and become fully-fledged souls. Through mathematical operations, this Singularity can take on the appearance of a vast spacetime universe. At the core of all this mathematical activity is the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics, hence wave mechanics. The whole system is holographic. The “whole” – the Singularity itself – is in every part. This means that everything is interconnected. The system produces a vast, cosmic wave interference pattern that always reflects the most compossible outcome, i.e. the outcome where everything is compatible with everything else and there are no random, contradictory events, incompatible with surrounding events. That’s why the universe proceeds so regularly, rather than as a dice game. The universe isn’t a pinball machine. And there are no living-dead cats! Depressingly, the defenders of the Copenhagen paradigm refuse to abandon their stance. As Max Planck said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Few scientists are ever convinced by any facts, evidence or rational arguments. Instead, scientists subscribe to paradigms, and remain wedded to them until they die. They build their careers around their chosen paradigm. The only scientists who adopt new paradigms are those who can see career opportunities, or a name for themselves, down that route. Quantum mechanics itself was a new paradigm that perfectly suited the small number of players who became its leading lights. Their success was such that everyone else had to get on board. The only problem was that no one had the vaguest idea of what quantum mechanics meant. And they still don’t. Bohr, Heisenberg and Born invented an interpretation that, though ontologically ridiculous, proved sufficiently productive to become widely accepted (“Shut up and calculate!”). However, its success story has now run out. It’s blocking scientific progress rather than helping it. A paradigm shift is required. This shift will be the most revolutionary of all. It will see science replaced by ontological mathematics, which includes mathematical unobservables such as imaginary numbers, thus overthrowing the scientific method.

*****

There’s nothing in the Schrödinger wave equation that implies instantaneous, indeterministic and discontinuous wavefunction collapse (in fact the reverse is the case: the equation produces an entirely deterministic wavefunction). This is an artificial condition heuristically imposed on the theory from outside. If you accept the Schrödinger equation for what it is, you must assign its wavefunction an ontological reality in its own right (including its imaginary number aspect). This is an ontologically real wavefunction that evolves continuously, forever collapsing and reforming, this process reflecting the continuous passage of time. Time (or actually motion, to be precise) is the agent of wavefunction collapse (and reformation), and this is built into the wavefunction rather than being something external to it. There can be nothing external to the cosmic, holographic wavefunction. “Consider a wavefunction that describes an electron with a particular energy. If the electron is slowed down so that it has half its original energy then its wavefunction will of course be altered. However, because of the possibility of superposition of these two different wavefunctions that describe an electron with different energies, it is also possible for the electron to exist in a state that is described by a third wavefunction. This new wavefunction is, or rather has a value at each point in space that is, the sum of the first two wavefunctions: one describing a fast moving electron and another describing a slow moving electron. This means that a single electron in such a state is both fast moving and slow moving at the same time. And I don’t mean that it has some average speed in between but that it has two quite different states of motion, energies, at once!” – Jim Al-Khalili The bottom line is this. If you accept the Copenhagen interpretation, you do not accept objective reality. The Copenhagen interpretation contradicts the reality principle, hence is false. You can’t have cats that are alive and dead at the same time. You can’t have electrons that have two energies or speeds at once. You can’t have electrons that are in multiple places at once. What you can have are electrons that are potentially in infinite places at once, but in fact are only ever in one of these places at once. One option gets actualized and the rest don’t. One is compossible with everything else that is going on in the universe, and the rest are not.

*****

Quantum mechanics says each particle is represented by a wavefunction. This means that a collection of particles is also represented by a wavefunction. This means that you, as a collection of particles, are a wavefunction. Since wavefunctions are regarded as unreal in the Copenhagen interpretation and produce reality only when they “collapse” then you yourself are unreal and become real only at the point of collapse. Well, are you buying it? Is that all you are – an unreal thing that collapses into reality?

The Heart of Quantum Mechanics Richard Feynman said that the twin-slit experiment lay at “the heart of quantum mechanics”. To explain the results of this experiment, the Copenhagen interpretation posits an unreal wavefunction and an unreal particle that actualizes (becomes real and has tangible effects) at the point of measurement or observation (and then dissolves into probabilistic unreality once more, until the next measurement or observation). The Hidden Variables theory (of de Broglie and Bohm) says that there is real wave and a real particle being guided by it. At the point of measurement or observation, the pilot wave collapses and the particle manifests its effects, and then the pilot wave reforms, and the process begins again. Jim Al-Khalili says, “...while this interpretation assumes that each particle follows a real, definite trajectory, it is impossible for us to prove this.” Well, it’s unobservable, for sure, but that does not mean it’s not happening, and it preserves the reality principle while the Copenhagen interpretation most certainly doesn’t. Al-Khalili, like all establishment physicists, omits to stress that the Copenhagen interpretation is no more observable or provable than the Hidden Variables theory, while suffering the catastrophic problem of being inconsistent with objective reality. Given two theories that are experimentally equivalent, with one preserving the reality principle and one not, isn’t it baffling that have scientists have chosen the latter, and thus rejected the real world in favour of a probabilistic cloud that is formally unreal by their own account? To reiterate a vital point, Al-Khalili sees fit to say that it’s impossible to use the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation to prove that each particle follows a real, definite trajectory. He doesn’t say that it’s impossible to prove the contrary (that each particle does not follow a real, definite trajectory), and

he does not clarify that the Copenhagen interpretation is no more provable or observable than the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Therefore, his remarks, and those of others just like him, simply betray their prejudices against the realistic and rationalistic approach of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. In Illuminism, particles (flowing points) are real and they have an inbuilt wave trajectory. In the absence of any interference, we would be able to state exactly where the particle would be next (the next part of the wave trajectory). In this sense, the particle might be said to have a pilot wave guiding it, and thus the Illuminist view is similar to the Hidden Variables view, except it does not formally posit a real wave preceding the particle. The wave trajectory is instead mathematically programmed into the particle, and continuously adjusts to reflect interaction with the environment. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts wave-particle duality on the basis of unreal particles coupled to unreal wavefunctions that can inexplicably “collapse” and produce real effects. The Hidden Variables interpretation asserts wave-particle duality on the basis of real particles coupled to real (but non-local) pilot waves. The pilot wave can momentarily collapse to allow a particle effect to be exhibited. In Illuminism, there are only particles (flowing points) as ontological realities, but they follow wave trajectories that are mathematically programmed into them. In Illuminism, all actual processes, causes and effects are occurring at the flowing point level, but this is an incredibly complicated level since countless flowing points are interacting according to their respective internal wave programming, leading to all of the extraordinary phenomena of quantum mechanics. In Illuminism, it must be emphasised, reality is mathematical and not physical, meaning, in short, that it’s based on complex numbers rather than real numbers, hence has an enormously different repertoire of behaviours, some of which are inexplicable from the real-number perspective of mainstream science. The Copenhagen interpretation is so crazy because it’s attempting the impossible: to interpret a universe of complex numbers using only their real number component and ignoring their equally critical imaginary number component. The mad claims of the Copenhagen interpretation flow directly from this mathematical mayhem. The “real number” mindset of scientists is fatally attracted to solid, physical lumps

moving in straight lines. The “complex number” paradigm of Illuminism is based on the generalised Euler Formula and thus inherently involves sine and cosine waves. The wave effects of the twin-slit experiment are thus no surprise at all. They are inevitable. Scientists, with their bias for linear motion, can’t help imagining particles being fired in straight lines at the twin slits. Clearly, this raises certain expectations of what pattern should be found on the detection screen. Illuminism replaces particles moving in linear trajectories with particles moving in sinusoidal trajectories, which generates a very different expectation of what will be seen on the detection screen. The Copenhagen interpretation arose from the inability of mainstream scientists to give any more than a cursory thought to how particles might move in sinusoidal rather than linear trajectories. They thought about the problem from the perspective of familiar physical waves (such as ocean waves) and did not consider analytic, mathematical wave trajectories programmed into particles. Having rejected the idea of particles moving as waves, scientists ran out of road for sensible answers to the twin-slit experiment and thus invented the lunacy of the Copenhagen interpretation with its implicit extrapolation that the moon doesn’t exist when you’re not looking at. Even today, almost a century later, no one understands the “reality” proposed by the Copenhagen interpretation. That’s because there’s no reality principle at all in this interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation isn’t science but philosophy. Science – true science – relies on a reality principle and experiments performed on objective reality. The Copenhagen interpretation posits an unreality principle and experiments performed on an unreal wavefunction. It deals in probabilities rather than certainties. It formally denies causality itself at the ultimate level of existence. Are you buying it? You’d have to be mad to sign up to this ludicrous Mythos.

The Planck Scale To study the Planck scale, where space and time themselves are said to be “grainy”, we would need to use extremely high-energy particles, which have the tiny wavelengths required to probe the world of the incredibly

small. However, at these scales, particles of high enough energy (and enormous mass equivalence according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity), would actually collapse into black holes (!) and, of course, we can’t recover information from black holes. Hence it seems technically impossible to study the Planck scale and anything hypothetically smaller. Or, to look at it another way, there is an ontological level below the Planck scale, but it’s that of black hole singularities. When we arrive at the Planck scale, the next level down is not “nothing” as many scientists would say, but countless black holes – a whole cosmic black hole background of dimensionless existence. Contrary to Einsteinian theory, black holes do not have any mass. Being singularities, all of their positive mass (both real and imaginary) is cancelled by negative mass (both real and imaginary) meaning that they do not exert any mass net effect. It’s the extreme geometry distortion of spacetime caused by singularities that causes the effects of black holes, not their net “mass” (which is zero!).

Superposition “The idea of superposition is not unique to quantum mechanics but is a general property of all waves [that are solutions of linear equations]. ... The process of adding different waves together is known as superposition.” – Jim Al-Khalili Illuminism, being based on the generalised Euler Formula (which generates perfect, analytic waves) is a vast, cosmic system of superposition.

The Twin-Slit Fallacy “Since the cat is also composed of atoms it should also be described by a wavefunction – a very complex one of course, but a wavefunction nonetheless. And since the fate of the cat is now strongly correlated with that of the radioactive nucleus, we must describe the two by an entangled state. Therefore the cat’s wavefunction will also unavoidably split into a superposition of two states, one describing a live cat, and the other a dead cat! “Let me again remind you of the two-slit trick. Unless we look to see where the atom is it does go through one slit or the other, but must be

regarded as having gone through both at once. This is not just mathematical trickery, but is the only way to explain the very real interference pattern we see. We have the same problem with Schrödinger’s cat. Until we open the box to check on the state of the cat we cannot say that it is either dead or alive (that is equivalent to saying that the atom goes through one slit or the other) but must be in both states at once! Surely this is ridiculous. The cat must be dead or alive, and our opening of the box cannot influence the outcome. Isn’t it just a matter of our ignorance of what has already happened (or not happened yet)? Well, this is precisely Schrödinger’s point.” – Jim Al-Khalili Have you spotted the fallacy with the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox? Jim Al-Khalili says it’s just like the two-slit experiment, but in fact it’s the complete opposite. In the two-slit experience, finding that the particle has gone through one slit or the other is deemed to be the exact equivalent of finding the cat dead or alive. But the whole point of the two-slit experiment is that it reveals a seemingly baffling physical interference effect that’s “right in our face”. The cat experiment, on the other, always provides either a dead cat or living cat: exactly what we would expect if no one had ever mentioned quantum mechanics. So, where is the baffling quantum effect? If the Schrödinger’s cat paradox were anything like the twin-slit experiment, then, if we opened a thousand identically configured boxes, we would find some living cats, some dead cats and many “interference” cats (cats in very odd existential states, maybe best described in terms of “ghosts”), building up a pattern akin to the interference pattern of the twin-slit experiment. Of course, we find no such thing. Far from clarifying the Copenhagen interpretation, the Schrödinger’s cat paradox refutes it! No quantum weirdness is observed at all, ever. In terms of the two-slit experiment, it would be equivalent to seeing all particles going through one slit or the other, exactly as expected classically. Observationally, the two-slit experiment produces a pattern science can’t explain classically. Observationally, the Schrödinger’s cat experiment produces exactly what science would expect classically – so how on earth can it clarify quantum effects? The two-slit experiment goes to the heart of quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger’s cat experiment doesn’t tell us anything about quantum mechanics. All the “scientific analysis” produced regarding it is pure interpretation, philosophy, speculation, conjecture and Mythos. Observationally, we only ever see classical outcomes, hence

Occam’s Razor says that this is best regarded as a classical experiment, with no bearing on quantum effects. The fact that Schrödinger’s cat is used to illustrate quantum weirdness is incredible given that, unlike the twin-slit experiment, it’s incapable of observationally producing any trace of quantum weirdness. Empiricists, even more than rationalists, ought to be horrified that this thought experiment is cited at all. It can clarify nothing in quantum terms, and only cause pointless speculation and conjecture. In the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, our minds serve the same function as the detector screens in the twin-slit experiment, but whereas those screens register the build up of wave-like interference effects, our minds register only particle-like living or dead cats, and no interference effects of any description.

***** “For waves whose amplitudes are represented by H and J, say, the intensity is not H2 + J2, but is given by the expression I = (H + J)2 which works out as I = H2 + J2 + 2HJ. The extra term is the contribution from the two waves, and, making allowance for the fact that the H’s and J’s can be negative or positive, it precisely explains the peaks and troughs in the interference pattern.” – John Gribbin, In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat

The Question A rationalist asks what something must be in order to cause the effects it does. An empiricist inspects the effects and then wonders what the cause might be, while automatically disregarding any references to hidden variables or rational unobservables. These are two wholly different ways of thinking about reality, and how to properly approach the problem. It’s a profound philosophical difference. To this extent, philosophy is the most important subject. If you get your philosophy wrong, the way you think is catastrophically compromised, as it is with scientific materialists. There’s only one truth – the truth of eternal reason. And there’s only one way of getting to it – through the philosophy of rationalism. That leads to just one place – ontological mathematics. Anything else is folly and irrationalism. You’re either on the side of the truth or you’re not. There’s no superposition state!

Life and Death; Possible and Compossible It’s not enough for something to be possible, it must also be compossible. The fact that something can be written down mathematically does not make it possible. For example, what does it mean, ontologically, to write down an expression that combines in a single wavefunction the result of two mutually contradictory events (poison being released and poison not being released, and two mutually contradictory states of cat: dead and alive). A valid mathematical expression can contain no contradictions. The Schrödinger’s cat formulation contains nothing but contradictions, hence is not a valid mathematical statement. Nothing in it is possible. When it comes to superposition, countless such superpositions are possible, from which we derive the optimal compossible outcome. However, what certainly isn’t possible or compossible is any pseudomathematical expression based on contradictions, incoherence, invalid assumptions, interpretations, conjectures and bad philosophies.

Potentia “...according to Heisenberg’s duplex vision, the unmeasured world actually is what quantum theory represents it to be: a superposition of mere possibilities (Heisenberg called them potentia), unrealized tendencies for action, awaiting the magic moment of measurement that will grant one of these tendencies a more concrete style of being which we humans experience as actuality. ... [it is] a mistake to imagine Heisenberg’s world of potentia as consisting of definite pre-existing possibilities for certain courses of actions. Superposition is not like that. The possibilities latent in a particular proxy wave emerge only in a definite measurement context. ... Heisenberg’s world of potentia is not only empty of actualities, even its possibilities are not as well defined, in the absence of a measurement situation as, say, classical dice possibilities. “Heisenberg’s potentia represents a novel kind of physical existence standing ‘halfway between the idea of the event and the actual event itself.’ Until it’s actually observed, a quantum entity must be considered ‘less real’ than the same entity observed. On the other hand, an unobserved quantum entity possesses ‘more reality’ than that available to ordinary objects

because it can entertain in potentia a multitude of contradictory attributes which would be impossible for any fully actualized entity. ... “Heisenberg was one of the few quantum physicists who tried to imagine what unmeasured quantum reality might look like. According to Heisenberg, the world sans M devices is not fully real but consists of a superposition – a particularly intimate quantum style of coexistence – of half-real ‘tendencies for being’ which he called potentia. The advantages of such an attenuated style of being is that many contradictory tendencies can coexist, an option not open to solid facts; the price of non-contradiction is that none of these tendencies is completely ‘real.’ Upon measurement, but not before, one of these tendencies is selected, apparently at random, from the flock, and promoted to full reality status. The essence of measurement, in Heisenberg’s duplex world, is the sudden transformation of potentia into actuality. “Bell’s theorem requires that this measurement-induced transition from soft possibility to hard actuality cannot be local but must depend on other measurements going on at locations arbitrarily distant. “Heisenberg’s model is an unusually explicit version of observer-created reality. Unlike other proponents of observer-created reality, he tries to imagine what reality is like before observation. Heisenberg declares the raw material of the universe to be potentia, tendency, possibility – a world, in a word, founded on a wave of opportunity. Bell’s theorem applied to Heisenberg’s picture requires that these oscillating opportunities be linked together faster than light.” – Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality For Heisenberg, a measurement made a possibility actual. In Illuminism, measurements are neither here nor there: the world is being actualized instant by instant, continuously. That’s what the passage of time signifies. That’s what’s necessary for there to be an objective reality and reality principle. Potential is always being converted into actuality. It’s not a case of isolated actualizations being plucked from myriad possibility clouds, but of a universe of continuous optimal compossibility being actualized. Where Heisenberg posits an observer-created reality, Illuminism posits an objective reality that requires no measurements or observations and is continually self-actualizing. Heisenberg requires something external to the wavefunction to collapse it – an unwarranted, irrational and magical deus ex machina. Illuminism has no external features. It’s a fully causal, selfactualizing, self-optimizing mathematical system. The solution to existence

must be self-propelling, and reflect perpetual motion. It must be fully selfcontained. Heisenberg sees the world as being based on potential, probability, chance, randomness and unreality, and being in need of something inexplicable – external to his theory – to bring about actualization. Illuminism sees the world as being based on reason, causality and the continuous conversion of potential into actualization via mathematical processes that are essentially mental, alive and teleological. The universe is full of design because it reflects its fundamental nature, that of unconscious mathematical minds seeking to become conscious. So, what’s it to be? – Heisenberg or Illuminism, chance or reason, physics or mathematics, contingency or necessity, indeterminacy or mathematical determinism (which, as discussed throughout the God Series, allows free will to exist when applied to uncreated, uncaused, monadic mathematical minds). Superposition is vital to the operations of reality, but it’s a radically different type from the baloney proposed by Heisenberg and Bohr.

***** “One of the drawbacks of the Copenhagen view is that it assigns a privileged role to measuring devices, describing them in terms of definite actualities, while every other entity is represented by superpositions of possibilities. Surely the world itself is not so divided but consists of a single reality. Another conceptual weakness of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it regards both the M device and the measurement act as ultimately unanalyzable. Thus, in the Copenhagen view quantum theory can explain with great exactitude the behaviour of atoms, but is powerless to cope with the attributes of cats and apples in their roles as unscrutinized parts of ‘the entire experimental situation’. ... Quantum theory according to the Copenhagen interpretation represents the world in two different ways: the observer’s experience is expressed in the classical language of actualities, while the unmeasured quantum realm is represented as a wavewise superposition of possibilities. Heisenberg suggests that we take these representations literally as a model for the way things really are.” – Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality

The Heisenberg view is absurd. It destroys the objective reality principle and replaces it with the subjective observer principle, and this lunacy has been accepted by the entire scientific establishment. It claims that observers extract reality from a probability cloud. Moreover, it cannot explain, within its own parameters, the role of the observer. This is not a full theory at all. It relies on external agencies to breathe causality into it. Illuminism has sufficient reason and causality at its core and fully reflects the reality principle. The theory is consistent and complete. It relies on no external parameters. Where Heisenberg deified potential and forgot about actualization – except through measurements and observers – Illuminism ensures that actualization is the key to the system. Potential is being continuously actualized, mathematically. No observers are necessary, and measurement plays no role. The system is wholly rational and obeys mathematical causation, which replaces observer-created reality. So, which do you prefer? Which is more rational?

***** Heisenberg says that an unreal world of potentiality underlies a real world of actuality. An unreality cloud of possibilities sits beneath reality, waiting for specific outcomes to be snatched from it. This is ridiculous. The “unreality” cloud must be real in order to be referred to at all, and in order to provide the basis of observed reality. Existence can’t be based on nonexistence. Reality can’t be based on non-reality. As Descartes said, causes must have at least as much reality as their effects. You can’t have unreal things causing real things.

***** “Because quantum theory in a certain sense regards the world as made out of waves rather than out of things, quantum entities and their attributes combine according to the rules of wave addition rather than the rules of ordinary arithmetic. The superposition principle, which governs how waves add, is as important for the quantum world as arithmetic is for everyday life.” – Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality

Illuminism says that the universe obeys the God Equation, which generates perfect sine and cosine waves, expressed through the motion of flowing points, the basic units of energy. Illuminism places quantum mechanics on a wholly analytic basis and gets rid of all its observer-created, randomist, acausal, magical woo woo.

***** Don’t let scientists fool you. They’re faking it. They’re bullshitting. They’re conning you and conning themselves. They’ve constructed an enormous Mythos, so bewildering and complicated it has bamboozled millions into accepting it. In the end, all you need to know is that there’s a reality principle. The world’s there even when you’re not looking at it. Observers and measurements aren’t needed. The world continues relentlessly. It never goes into a twilight zone of probability, possibility and potential, waiting for something to get it started. The actualization of potential is the most fundamental process of reality and, in the absence of observers and measurements, the only way to explain this is that it’s built in. Mathematics alone accomplishes this outcome. Mathematics is a causality machine, a never-ending process of converting potential into actualization. At the end of every cyclical Age, mathematics achieves complete optimization – the God Universe. Mathematics is the God factory and makes Gods of us all. Heisenberg – and the scientific establishment – rejected causality, sufficient reason, continuous actualization, continuous optimization, and teleology. They rejected objective reality itself. They claimed, and continue to claim, that reality is grounded in chance, randomness, probability, potential and, in fact, in unreality. They see reality as emerging from some hazy, fuzzy, imprecise, irrational, incomprehensible, inexplicable, undefined Limbo of possibilities. True reality is the opposite. It’s grounded in eternal, immutable, analytic, mathematical precision and perfection. Mathematics is the rational antidote to physics. Physics is simply mathematics for dummies, for irrationalists, for people who prefer a sensory empiricist version of reality to the intellectual, rationalist truth.

Mathematics is the subject for those who accept an intelligible universe, and physics for those who believe in a sensible universe. Abrahamism is for those who believe in a universe of feelings and stories. Eastern religion is for mystics. You will never know the truth if you subscribe to the wrong way of looking at reality. On Earth, perhaps no more than a million people out of seven billion are anywhere near comprehending reality. The Illuminati, the Enlightened Ones, are the standard-bearers of rationalism and ontological mathematics. Illuminism is the religion of mathematical light, illuminating the darkness of sensory, mystical and emotional gobbledegook. Unconditional love won’t save anyone, only absolute reason will. Read Hegel and you will see how to get from nothing to the Absolute via the mathematical dialectic. Hegel’s philosophy is all about how unconscious reason achieves consciousness and is able to understand itself as reason, and thus understand the whole universe of reason, of which it is a mirror. As above, so below!

Either/Or versus And The Copenhagen interpretation involves a catastrophic failure to grasp the meaning of “either/or” versus “and”. In the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment, two events, A and B, that are mutually exclusive (i.e. either A happens or B happens) are included in a single wavefunction (i.e. as if both A and B have happened or will happen). So, instead of there being an ontological firewall between poison being released and not being released, or between a living cat and a dead cat, standard quantum mechanics just goes right ahead and combines them. There are two Aristotelian situations: 1) Poison released, cat dies. 2) Poison not released, cat does not die. Standard quantum mechanics says we must combine 1) and 2) as a superposition, but this is exactly where the logic of this type of superposition collapses.

In the two-slit experiment, a wave goes through two slits and splits into two waves, which then interfere. There are no logical contradictions here. This is where the superposition principle genuinely applies. Yet standard quantum mechanics provides a different interpretation. It says that the two slits provide mutually exclusive logical states, i.e. a particle goes through either slit A or slit B. The next step is to assert that mutually exclusive situations must then be combined to provide a full description of the system, so it’s concluded that a particle goes through A and B rather than A or B. This, so the Copenhagen school claims, explains the interference effect. Exactly the same “logic” is then applied to Schrödinger’s cat. The disastrous problem here is that the Copenhagen advocates have forgotten that there’s only a single wavefunction for a particle approaching the twin slits. It’s the wave that splits into two at the slits, with the two parts then interfering, as expected. The particle – which is not a formally real thing in Heisenberg’s view – ends up where the wavefunction says it can go, which is anywhere in an interference pattern. So, at no stage has anything contradictory happened in the twin-slit experiment. The particle most certainly hasn’t gone through two slits simultaneously. There is a contradiction only if you think of a physical particle moving in a straight line, but the whole point of quantum mechanics is to abolish this classical picture that goes right back to the ancient Greek Atomists. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment makes the extraordinary claim that a blatant logical contradiction – a cat being dad and a cat being alive (and even a cat in hybrid living-dead states) – ought to be mixed into a single wavefunction until someone performs an observation on the cat. The twin-slit experiment and the Schrödinger’s cat paradox are treated as if they reflect the same logic, but in fact the logic is the opposite. The wavefunction in the twin-slit experiment is not presented with any logical contradictions. The wavefunction, like any wave form, will split in two when it goes through two slits, and the two parts will then interfere. In the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, however, a wavefunction is split in two to accommodate two events that are necessarily mutually exclusive ontologically (cat alive/cat dead) and then the two fallacious, impossible waves are made to interfere, producing mixed states of living and dead cats. This is patently silly and shows how prone scientists are to adopting philosophically ridiculous positions.

Another way to compare and contrast the two experiments is to note that the twin-slit experiment involves no future contingency (such as poison being released or not). The twin-slit experiment involves the present situation only. The Schrödinger’s cat paradox involves a prospective future event (the release of poison or not) that acts as an ontologically guaranteed either/or condition. That is, only one or other event will actually happen. The poison will be released or it will not be. If it is, the cat will die. If it is not, the cat will not die. Here we have a perfect means to exemplify the Leibnizian concept of compossibility. Each event is equally possible, but the two events are not compossible. If one event happens then the other is automatically ruled out. The Copenhagen school have wholly ignored compossibility and combined mutually exclusive possibilities in a single wavefunction. This is a 100% logically invalid procedure and goes to the heart of the woo woo nonsense that many scientists spout regarding quantum mechanics and Multiverses. The Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox formally excludes time. The superposition state does not evolve in time. The paradox involves a static wavefunction that is only actualised by the act of opening the cat’s box. It’s this observation that introduces time into the wavefunction and makes something actually happen – a recordable event in time. Without observations and measurements – which are external to the Copenhagen interpretation – time and concrete events wouldn’t occur at all. The universe would remain in suspended animation – a permanent uncollapsed superposition state – forever. The cat in the box would never become real again if no one opened the box! In Illuminism, time is always passing, and wavefunction collapse and reformation are happening continuously, ensuring a permanently real world and no twilight zone of potentiality without actualization. Illuminism reflects a reality and actualization principle (of objective events happening continuously) while the Copenhagen interpretation reflects a potentiality principle (of things remaining in a state of potentiality forever unless something external happens to make one of the potential things actual). It’s breathtaking that science has chosen to adopt a metaphysical doctrine so far removed from the classical scientific view of solid reality where actual events are objectively happening all the time, and the moon is really there even when no one is looking at it. According to the Copenhagen

school, the moon dissolves into potentiality and loses its actuality – until someone looks at it. This is none other than the philosophy of Bishop Berkeley who proclaimed, “Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived. To assert that reality exists only at the point of observation or measurement is to become a Berkeleyan, and that’s the opposite of traditional scientific materialism. Berkeley was an idealist who rejected the existence of matter! He too thought of the universe in terms of potential waiting to be actualized by some deus ex machina. However, in his case, he went right ahead and invoked God himself to be the agent that permanently ensured that potential became actual. God, by continuously observing the universe, ensured its objective reality. The Copenhagen interpretation is simply an atheistic version of Berkeley’s idealistic philosophy where there is nothing (no God) to guarantee actualization. According to the thinking of the Copenhagen school, you might as well say that we are all currently being interfered with by every conceivable future event that could possibly happen to us. We are all in a spooky superposition state – just like Schrödinger’s cat. Except, plainly, we’re not, so the Copenhagen interpretation of the paradox is self-evidently refuted.

Potentiality or Actuality Wave? The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is predicated on a probability wave. It expresses tendencies and potentialities, but has no mechanism for arriving at real outcomes except through a miraculous external measurement or observation. This interpretation asserts that the real world has utterly mysterious, inexplicable, probabilistic roots. Reality is not grounded in anything definite and certain. Reality is in fact an illusion since it’s underpinned by unreality, by mere potentiality rather than actuality. Illuminated is predicated on an actuality wave, continuously actualizing potentialities, and doing so via the principle of optimal compossibility. Potential is never left in suspended animation, awaiting a trigger to become actual. Potential and actualization work in perfect conjunction. The best example of what happens is provided by human beings! At all times, we have a superposition of possibilities in our minds as to what we might do next, and yet at every instant something actually happens. No

matter how many things we are juggling in our minds, we are always actualizing something at each instant. Actualization is what produces the objective reality we experience. The Copenhagen interpretation makes potential more important than actualization. Illuminism does the opposite. Reality is about what happens, not about what might happen. Mathematical causality continuously collapses the wavefunction (and also reforms it). The real world has absolutely definite, certain, immutable, eternal, mathematical roots. There’s no vague cloud of chance and contingency underlying reality. Mathematics provides the adamantine, unshakeable foundations of reality. The Copenhagen interpretation inserts, between the “idea” of a possible event (potential) and the actual event (actuality), a strange probability cloud. Max Born placed this probability wave in a many-dimensional configuration space, making it an abstract mathematical quantity. Illuminism also asserts that reality is grounded in a mathematical configuration space, but this one is ontological, not abstract, and it constitutes true reality. We inhabit a mathematical universe, not a physical universe. It’s a universe of mathematical causality not of mathematical probability. The cosmic wavefunction is continuously collapsing (to provide objective reality) and reforming (to provide the next superposition that will in its turn be collapsed). Superposition is essential to the scheme because the whole system is grounded in the Fourier mathematics of waves. There’s vast potential and possibility in this superposition, but the whole system must operate according to optimal compossibility, i.e. the most consistent and compatible outcome must be generated. “Outliers” do not shape reality. The normal distribution curve rules. A causal mathematical compossibility system resembles the most averaged mathematical system you can get. You could never get the cosmic wavefunction collapsing into a wholly abnormal outlier configuration, incompatible with maximum compossibility. Leibniz, in his published Monadology (which reflected a God with perfect knowledge), said that all actualization was fully programmed into all monads, i.e. everything that would happen to each monad, or that each monad would ever do, was known from the outset. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the Leibnizian actualization stored inside each monad is replaced by an infinite superposition of potentiality,

which is never actualized except through the deus ex machina of a measurement or observation, which instantly and inexplicably (no sufficient reason is ever advanced) causes the total collapse of the infinite wavefunction to a particular outcome, with all the rest being discarded (in this universe, but not in the Multiverse!). No mechanism is proposed for this. It’s simply random, statistical and probabilistic. At all times, the Copenhagen school rejects sufficient reason and causality as the ground level of existence. Consider the Big Bang singularity. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the whole universe – all conceivable states, everything that could possibly happen, all possible futures – are together in one vast superposition state of pure potential. Absolutely nothing can be actualized – can actually happen – until a measurement or observation takes place. But that of course presupposes something external to the superposition state – something actual! – that is capable of collapsing the wavefunction. The Copenhagen school might as well invoke Bishop Berkeley’s God! The Copenhagen interpretation is manifestly false and absurd. It’s magic thinking. It’s an irrational, quasi-religious faith that doesn’t make any sense even within its own parameters, and has to invoke magical external factors and agents inconsistent with the central paradigm. Whatever else they were, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were no philosophers and it’s scandalous that their half-baked, amateur-hour philosophy has been adopted by the scientific establishment. That, of course, is because scientists in general are philosophically ignorant and illiterate. Leibniz was a true philosopher and had he been around today, he would have dissected every single statement of the Copenhagen interpretation and shown it to be the junk and nonsense it assuredly is. Why will there never be a final scientific theory of everything? Because scientists are incapable of thinking rationally. Relativity theory and quantum theory – science’s two greatest triumphs – have both been interpreted in deranged ways by mad scientists who imagine themselves smart and rational. They don’t have a clue. They should stick to experiments and leave thinking to the professionals. They’re so dumb, they don’t even realize they are engaging in philosophy every time they open their mouths. The whole of science reflects an empiricist mindset. Empiricism is a philosophy, and is expressly opposed to rationalism. Were

scientists to adopt a rationalist outlook, everything they say would change. The question that all scientists must address is why they prefer empiricism to rationalism, given that mathematics is the supreme rationalist subject and is what confers on science all of its intellectual power. Mathematics can live without science. Science cannot live without mathematics. Remember, when you read about Schrödinger’s cat in a science textbook, you are not encountering an expert scientific opinion but a dubious and controversial philosophical opinion by someone who is not a philosopher and has never studied philosophy. Science has stumbled right into the middle of philosophy without knowing it, or understanding it, and started spouting philosophically illiterate junk as scientific “truth”. Science must become Leibnizian. Leibniz united science, mathematics, metaphysics and religion. These are not separate subjects. They become one when they are all reduced to ontological mathematics: the study of monads and their properties and interactions.

Decoherence Physicists have sought to resolve the “measurement problem” (the issue of what causes wavefunction collapse) with a concept called “decoherence”. Unfortunately, it’s no answer at all, even though physicists such as Jim AlKhalili are keen on it. The basic notion is that a quantum system in a superposition becomes entangled with a macroscopic system. As Jim AlKhalili writes, “It turns out that the superposition of different states forced upon such a complex system involving a trillion trillion atoms cannot be maintained and very quickly disappears, or decoheres. One way to think about it is to say that the delicate superposition gets irretrievably lost amongst the stupendously large number of other possible superpositions due to the different possible combinations of interactions between all the atoms in the macroscopic system.” However, Al-Khalili is then forced to admit, “Other physicists do not feel that decoherence adds much to the measurement debate at all, even at the level of getting rid of the superpositions. They argue that all that happens is that superpositions become buried in the complexity of the entangled wavefunction of quantum system plus macroscopic measuring

device but are, in principle, still there. We are simply unable to recover them. And this is why we never see such quantum weirdness in action.” Decoherence is science’s version of sweeping a problem under the carpet and praying no one can see it! The whole point is that it’s invalid, in a quantum theory that purports to address everything (insofar as the world is said to be made purely of quantum particles and nothing else), to refer to quantum systems on the one hand and “macroscopic” (classical) systems on the other. All macroscopic systems are derived from quantum systems, so you cannot refer to macroscopic systems as a means of resolving quantum problems since you have trapped yourself in circular logic. You are using one of the things that has to be explained – a macroscopic object made of quantum particles – to explain how a quantum system decoheres. But you can’t use a macroscopic object since you haven’t explained how that decohered in the first place given that it was made of quantum particles in a superposition. You’re simply begging the question. Science, sadly, has a bad habit of doing this. It doesn’t care about a real answer but rather the appearance of an answer, one that allows careerists to write papers and publish books, and to pretend they know what they’re talking about when they manifestly don’t. The doctrine of decoherence is something akin to explaining the existence of God by saying he was created by a Higher God. You haven’t solved the problem, simply moved it back one stage. The central problem of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it has no way – within its own terms – to get from a quantum superposition of potentialities to anything actually happening. It invokes an external element of observation or measurement without making any attempt to explain how such things ever escaped from the quantum superposition in the first place, and how they are capable of collapsing the quantum superposition to one outcome and excluding the multitude of other options. Decoherence is a fatuous idea that adds nothing to the basic problem. Decoherence should of course apply to the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, which would therefore never arise in the first place since the cat, the box and the system for releasing the poison are all macroscopic objects ... so why does this so-called paradox continue to be taught?

So, You Think You Understand Quantum Mechanics? Does an unreal wave and associated unreal particle go through the twin slits, with “reality” only kicking in at the point of detection of the particle? The unreal wavefunction collapses and the unreal particle becomes real (before immediately becoming unreal again when the observation is concluded). Amazingly, this is the standard Copenhagen interpretation! Note that it invokes anti-empirical, anti-materialist, metaphysical considerations, even though its central aim is to uphold empiricism, materialism and physics, and to avoid any non-empirical “hidden variables”. Yet the whole theory trades in “unreal” variables. How is this “progress”? Or is there a real particle and a real, non-local, pilot wave, as the de Broglie-Bohm theory asserts? The real wave passes through the twin slits and interferes with itself, and the trailing particle then strikes the detector screen in accordance with the interference pattern established by the pilot wave. Or is there a real particle with an inbuilt mathematical wave trajectory that responds instantly to its environment, so wave behaviour is unavoidable? This is the ontological mathematical view and it can be considered functionally equivalent to the de Broglie-Bohm theory (although it’s ontologically different: in the de Broglie-Bohm case, the particle and its pilot wave are separate, and in the ontological mathematical case the particle is the active point of the pilot wave, i.e. they are one and the same system). Why should the Copenhagen interpretation – which invokes unreality and indeterminism – be the preferred interpretation? This interpretation is more or less bonkers. It’s what you get when empiricists concentrate on observable outcomes and refuse to think through the process of how the outcomes were rationally generated. The unseen and unseeable rational (noumenal) process is dismissed as metaphysics. Yet the Copenhagen wavefunction is itself unseen and unseeable, hence entirely metaphysical!

Logical Positivism

“Logical positivism or logical empiricism are variants of neopositivism that embraced verificationism, a theory of knowledge combining strong empiricism – basing all knowledge on sensory experience – with mathematical logic and linguistics so that scientific statements could be conclusively proved false or true. Verificationism was inextricably tied with the covering law model of scientific explanation. As variants of analytic philosophy, verificationism dominated Anglo-American philosophy from the 1930s into the 1960s. ... “In the positivistic tradition promulgated in the 1830s by Auguste Comte, all epistemic – that is, all knowledge, which is justified belief – was scientific, and all sciences would be unified by a common content and method. Yet logical positivism was mostly influenced by Ernst Mach’s phenomenalism – which accorded the mind virtually no power to attain knowledge beyond that delivered by direct sensory experience – and by the putative operationalism of Percy Bridgman, as well as by an interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language. The verifiability principle demarcated the scientific as the verifiable and thus meaningful, whereas the unverifiable was unscientific and meaningless – metaphysic, emotive, or such – not candidate to further review by philosophers, tasked to organize knowledge, not develop new knowledge. “Logical positivism became famed for vigorous scientific antirealism – restricting science to observable aspects of nature – although that motivation and aspect has been exaggerated. Still, scientific theory’s content would be direct observations, and its form would be mathematics modelling only patterns of sensory experience. Talk of unobservable aspects of nature, including causality, mechanism, and principles, was at best metaphorical – talk of observables in the abstract – or at worst emotional or metaphysical. By rational reconstruction, statements and concepts expressed in ordinary language would be replaced with more precise, standardized equivalents, and translated into a logical syntax reducible to symbolic logic. A scientific theory would be stated with its own method of verification, whereby a calculus in mathematical logic could be operated to verify the theory’s falsity or truth. “During the late 1920s, ‘30s, and ‘40s, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s formalism was developed by a group of philosophers in Vienna and Berlin, who formed the Vienna Circle and Berlin Circle, into a doctrine known as logical positivism (or logical empiricism). Logical

positivism used formal logic to underpin an empiricist account of our knowledge of the world. Philosophers such as Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, along with other members of the Vienna Circle, claimed that the truths of logic and mathematics were tautologies, and those of science were verifiable empirical claims. These two constituted the entire universe of meaningful judgements; anything else was nonsense. The claims of ethics and aesthetics were subjective preferences. Theology and other metaphysics were pseudo-statements, neither true nor false, simply meaningless nonsense. “Logical positivists typically considered philosophy as having a very limited function. For them, philosophy is concerned with the organization of thoughts, rather than having distinct topics of its own. The positivists adopted the principle of verificationism, according to which every meaningful statement is either analytic or is capable of being verified by experience. This caused the logical positivists to reject many traditional problems of philosophy, especially those of metaphysics or ontology, as meaningless.” – Wikipedia Science has continued the practice of regarding ontology as meaningless, which is why science provides no ontological definitions whatsoever. Science doesn’t ontologically define energy, mass, space, time or anything else. It’s precisely because science totally fails to produce analytic ontological definitions that it has no way of comparing and contrasting the rival claims of general relativity and quantum mechanics, and thus can’t construct a theory of quantum gravity. “No proposition, other than a tautology, can possibly be anything more than a probable hypothesis.” – Logical Positivist A. J. Ayer Ayer is absolutely correct. The only unarguable truths are those of tautology. All such truths are analytic. Anything else is mere hypothesis, conjecture, interpretation, belief, speculation or opinion. The whole of science is simply a set of arbitrary hypotheses with no logical necessity. Darwinism can never be anything other than a belief and interpretation. It’s certainly not “factual”, as Richard Dawkins claims. Only one subject is true because only one subject is all about tautology – ontological mathematics. Fortunately, and inevitably, existence itself is mathematical, hence its fundamental structure is that of tautology. The universe does not speculate or believe or hold opinions. It’s defined by

infallible analytic statements of mathematics – the eternal Platonic truths of reason. These truths reside in a dimensionless domain outside space and time (an eternal frequency Singularity) where they are perfect, immutable, indestructible, incorruptible and immortal. They are carried by the ultimate ontological units – monads – in which all of the laws of ontological mathematics are permanently encoded. These monads are mathematical minds. More evocatively, they are the immortal souls of religion. They have nothing to do with any Creator God or any silly stories contained in “holy” texts. They are about pure math and how math operates ontologically. A book on Fourier mathematics contains infinitely more true knowledge than of all the religious texts of the world put together. “Logical positivists divided knowledge into analytic and synthetic categories. Analytic knowledge, such as mathematical theorems, is tautological (it is entirely deducible from its presuppositions) and thus can be validated a priori. Synthetic knowledge, such as assertions about the real world, must be verified a posteriori by observation. Logical positivists rejected the existence of any synthetic a priori knowledge. (For example, the scientific progress of general relativity demonstrates that philosophers are wrong to pronounce a priori that space should have a Euclidean nature.) The analytic-synthetic distinction was attacked by Quine’s 1951 paper ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’. Logical positivists also distinguished observational and theoretical terms. This distinction was criticised by Popper, who emphasised even basic observations as being ‘theory-laden’.” – Wikipedia In Illuminism, analytic knowledge alone is true. All synthetic knowledge (including the whole of science) is mere interpretation. Not a single statement of science is analytically and eternally true. Science is pure contingency and unverifiable induction. Science is a giant description, not an explanation. It’s full of circular definitions and achieves success simply by forcing its hypotheses to match experimental data. It’s not driven by analysis and first principles, but simply by trial and error until something is produced that matches the experiments. What’s so clever about that? “According to Hilary Putnam, a former student of Hans Reichenbach and Rudolf Carnap, making an observational/theoretical distinction is meaningless. The ‘received view’ operates on the correspondence rule that

states ‘The observational terms are taken as referring to specified phenomena or phenomenal properties, and the only interpretation given to the theoretical terms is their explicit definition provided by the correspondence rules.’ Putnam argues that introducing this dichotomy of observational terms and theoretical terms is the problem from which to start. Putnam demonstrates this with four objections: “1. Something is referred to as ‘observational’ if it is observable directly with our senses. Then an observation term cannot be applied to something unobservable. If this is the case, there are no observation terms. “2. With Carnap’s classification, some unobservable terms are not even theoretical and belong to neither observation terms nor theoretical terms. Some theoretical terms refer primarily to observation terms. “3. Reports of observation terms frequently contain theoretical terms. “4. A scientific theory may not contain any theoretical terms (an example of this is Darwin’s original theory of evolution).” – Wikipedia “Subsequent philosophy of science tends to use certain aspects of both of these approaches. In his famous essay ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, Willard Van Orman Quine criticized two central tenets of logical positivism: Kant’s distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, and the view that every meaningful statement was reducible to empirical observations. Thomas Kuhn has claimed that it is not possible to provide truth conditions for science independent of its historical paradigm. But even this criticism was not unknown to the logical positivists: Otto Neurath compared science to a boat which we must rebuild on the open sea.” – Wikipedia And the boat is permanently sinking! “I suppose the most important [defect]... was that nearly all of it [Logical Positivism] was false.” – A. J. Ayer The trouble is that even though logical positivism is known to be false, it’s nevertheless part of the tacit Meta Paradigm invoked by science to this day. Science has no other paradigmatic basis because it has ruled out mathematics, rationalism, idealism and metaphysics.

In Illuminism, only objective, ontological mathematics is absolutely true. However, monads are not only objective mathematical entities (when considered from the outside), but also subjective mathematical entities (when considered from the inside). A mathematical monadic subject does not deal with analytic mathematics, but with the interpretation of mathematical information. It’s this subjective interpretation that ultimately leads to all of the idiotic beliefs that people hold – because the interpretation is not itself conducted mathematically but in terms of all the things to which mathematics subjectively gives rise: feelings, will, intuitions, sensations, desires, beliefs, languages. These interpretations are, however, finally resolved by the Hegelian dialectic, which culminates with the Absolute Knowledge and self-awareness that we are mathematical beings inhabiting a mathematical universe, and that all other speculations are false and fallacious interpretations of mathematical information. We are all subject to Maya – illusion and delusion – and we escape only by aligning ourselves more and more with objective mathematics, which is the rational opposite of illusion and delusion. Most people have bizarre ideas about what they truly are. Well, what do you think you are? Are you an accidental, meaningless blip in nothingness, as science says? Are you the puppet creation of some superbeing, as the Abrahamists claim? Did he create your soul? If so, what is your soul made of? How does it function? By magic? By divine will? Or are you some sort of living process with no core, as the Buddhists claim, or a living process with a core as the Hindus claim, or just a living process in general as the Taoists claims? What are these living processes? How are they defined? How do they function? When you think deeply enough about all of these things, you realise that you must be made of something and that this something must operate in a very specific way in order to explain what you are and how you function. In order to be eternal and indestructible, and a permanent causal agent with free will, you must be made of something perfect. Only one thing is perfect – mathematics. Your only salvation is through mathematics. If you’re not on Team Math, you’re nowhere. Absolutely nothing could be more glorious than being an immortal, self-solving, self-optimising mathematical organism. And that’s exactly what we all are. All such organisms are potential Gods –

divinity being the condition they attain when they solve – perfect – themselves. What could be better than that? We are all solving the problem of existence, and the answer is selfperfection, the fully optimised Self = apotheosis. Only a living mathematical organism can literally solve itself.

Logical Positivism II “Logical positivism was strongly influenced by the empirical tradition, and especially the work of Hume; its distinctive feature was its attempt to develop and systematize empiricism with the aid of the conceptual equipment furnished by modern research on logical and mathematical theory, in particular the early works of Russell and Wittgenstein. “According to its famous verifiability principle, the meaning of a proposition consists in the method of its verification, that is in whatever observations or experiences show, whether or not it is true. Mathematics and logic, which are consistent with all observations, are admitted as meaningful at the price of being tautological. ... But any non-tautological proposition, that is in principle unverifiable by any observation, is ipso facto devoid of meaning. The verifiability principle is the basis of logical positivism’s attack on theology and metaphysics; its characteristic propositions (about the creation of the world, the nature of reality as a whole, etc.) being thus unverifiable, are neither true nor false, but simply meaningless. Therefore, all arguments either for or against them are equally pointless. ... “The status of the verifiability principle itself, however, was suspect. (Is it either tautological or empirically verifiable?) And there were serious problems about how to formulate it in order to exclude metaphysics without also excluding such things as historical propositions or scientific generalizations. (Neither of these can be conclusively verified by observation.)” – A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan Reference All Mythos statements of religion are indeed meaningless. However, science itself is exposed as a sensory Mythos. Science invokes a verifiability principle that cannot be verified and a falsifiability principle that cannot be falsified. It’s happy to use mathematical tautologies without making any attempt to explain what mathematics actually is, where it

comes from, how it’s possible at all, and how an ultra rationalist discipline is at the core of empiricist science. How can the validity of sensory data and experimental data be definitively verified or falsified? In the movie The Matrix, all sensory and experimental data was valid and yet said nothing about true reality. It addressed a simulated, fake reality of interpretation rather than truth. How can the senses ever prove that what they detect is real? They can do so no more than faith can demonstrate the truth of its propositions. Only mathematics is true. It’s true because it’s analytic, hence true by definition. It cannot be contradicted under any circumstances. It has nothing to do with conjecture, opinion, belief, hypothesis, interpretation or speculation. Ontological mathematics is eternally true and necessary. In Illuminism, there’s no need of either verification or falsification. Things are either provably mathematically true or provably mathematically false. Where subjective interpretation is involved, the interpretation will be truer the closer it is to mathematical tautology. Interpretations can never be absolutely true, but some interpretations are truer than others, and they are truer the more they accord with the eternal truths of mathematics.

***** In The Matrix, all sensory information is false since what is being revealed to the senses is a computer simulation. However, truth is not impossible for the inhabitants of the simulation, regardless of whether or not they have taken the red pill. The truths of ontological mathematics are equally true in our world, the Matrix world and any possible world. No matter what contingent sensory “reality” is constructed, the truths of ontological mathematics remain exactly the same, immutable and perfect. Science is the fallacy that studying the world of the senses reveals the truth, but it never can because infinite contingent sensory worlds are possible, all with their own different sensory “truths”. To get to the truth, it’s essential to get beyond the contingent senses to what is necessary and quintessential. No matter what sensory world you inhabit, it will always be grounded in ontological mathematics, and that’s the level you must reach to encounter the Truth. The senses won’t take you there, but reason will. True reality is intelligible, not sensible, just as Plato said so long ago. Any number of scientific worlds are possible, but there is only one ontological

mathematical world. That is the only true world. It’s the Platonic world, the sine qua non for everything else.

***** Illuminism agrees up to a point with logical positivism that “any nontautological proposition, that is in principle unverifiable by any observation, is ipso facto devoid of meaning.” Certainly, the whole of Abrahamism, which is pure Mythos, is devoid of any formal meaning and truth content. However, a clear distinction must be drawn between tautology (rationalism) and observational verification (empiricism). Only mathematical tautology can belong to a system of Absolute Knowledge. “Scientific” knowledge can never be part of such a system: it will always be contingent and provisional. Science has committed the catastrophic error of believing that scientific knowledge is “real” knowledge of the real world, while tautological knowledge is idealized knowledge that has no bearing on the real world. In fact, only mathematical tautology is “real” knowledge of the real world. Science is illusory, “Matrix” knowledge that cannot be relied upon. It is not true knowledge, but only the deceptive knowledge of appearances (phenomena). It’s not about noumena, where authentic truth resides.

Logical Positivism: Shut Up! The logical positivist school of philosophy is summed up by Wittgenstein’s dictum, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.” The Copenhagen interpretation, with its emphasis on measurement and observation, was heavily influenced by logical positivism. Why refer to the moon as an existent when it’s not being observed? How do you know it’s there? Prove it. To prove it, you will seek to furnish evidence of it via measurement or observation. Yet the unreal, unobservable, probabilistic wavefunction of the Copenhagen interpretation is surely as metaphysical as it gets. Why didn’t Bohr, Heisenberg and Born remain silent about it – given that nothing other than speculation and conjecture can be offered regarding it?

The Superposition Principle

The superposition principle was described by Paul Dirac as follows: “The general principle of superposition of quantum mechanics applies to the states [that are theoretically possible without mutual interference or contradiction] ... of any one dynamical system. It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states. The original state must be regarded as the result of a kind of superposition of the two or more new states, in a way that cannot be conceived on classical ideas. Any state may be considered as the result of a superposition of two or more other states, and indeed in an infinite number of ways. Conversely any two or more states may be superposed to give a new state... “The non-classical nature of the superposition process is brought out clearly if we consider the superposition of two states, A and B, such that there exists an observation which, when made on the system in state A, is certain to lead to one particular result, a say, and when made on the system in state B is certain to lead to some different result, b say. What will be the result of the observation when made on the system in the superposed state? The answer is that the result will be sometimes a and sometimes b, according to a probability law depending on the relative weights of A and B in the superposition process. It will never be different from both a and b [i.e., either a or b]. The intermediate character of the state formed by superposition thus expresses itself through the probability of a particular result for an observation being intermediate between the corresponding probabilities for the original states, not through the result itself being intermediate between the corresponding results for the original states.” Anton Zeilinger said, “[T]he superposition of amplitudes ... is only valid if there is no way to know, even in principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical possibility to be recovered, but in principle still ‘out there.’ The absence of any such information is the essential criterion for quantum interference to appear.” Everything clear now? When you read the thoughts of scientists, don’t you experience a tremendous feeling that they’re making it up as they go along,

and that they’re definitely not describing any kind of objective reality? Science has dispensed with the reality principle and just created a Grand Fiction. Science is, in truth, just science fiction!

The Paradox The paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat can under no circumstances be empirically observed, so what’s the point of this paradox? Is the paradox that it’s called a paradox even though it’s not? A classical physicist and quantum physicist would both agree 100% that, if the deadly poison in the box has a 50/50 chance of being released, then, if you open the box, you will have a 50/50 chance of finding a living cat. How can this be used to teach quantum mechanics when, unlike the twin-slit experiment, it shows absolutely no quantum effects? The question of what happens inside the box is purely metaphysical, so it’s bizarre that scientists who claim to loathe metaphysics have made this a central part of their attempt to explain quantum mechanical principles. However, there is one truly fascinating feature of this “paradox”. What, exactly, is it that science says has departed if the cat dies? That is, are physicists saying that the quantum wavefunction defines life? Are they saying that life emerges from an unreal, unobservable, probabilistic wavefunction? What’s the difference between the wavefunction describing the living cat and the wavefunction describing the dead cat? Is that difference – whatever it is (and science certainly doesn’t say) – the quantum definition of life? It’s impossible to comprehend how an unreal, unobservable, probabilistic wavefunction could say anything at all about life, or indeed about anything that actually exists.

***** Here’s a challenge for all scientists. Explain how life is injected into a quantum wavefunction. If quantum wavefunctions are at the root of all things, they must also be at the root of life! While you’re at it, explain how mind is injected into the quantum wavefunction. And then explain how the quantum wavefunction generates consciousness. How does it produce free will, or the “illusion” thereof? If you can’t do any of these things (and you can’t), what makes you believe you have the vaguest idea of what you’re talking about?! You are spouting unverifiable, unprovable mystical

nonsense, that’s all. Life, mind, consciousness and free will are properties and potentialities of monads; they are not properties and potentialities of unreal, abstract wavefunctions that “exist” in an unreal limbo.

Non-Locality John Bell said he would rather give up Einstein’s special theory of relativity than the notion of objective reality, commenting, “One wants to be able to take a realistic view of the world, to talk about the world as if it is really there, even when it is not being observed. I certainly believe in a world that was here before me, and will be here after me, and I believe that you are part of it! And I believe that most physicists take this point of view when they are pushed into a corner by philosophers.” The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is even further removed from objective reality than special relativity, and yet is the one endorsed and used by the vast majority of practising scientists. If Bell is right and physicists want to talk about an objective reality, they’d remove the scientific method from its pedestal and embrace instead ontological mathematics. With respect to non-locality, Bell showed that if you want a real world, you must accept non-locality. If you believe Einstein’s claim that nothing can exceed light speed, you cannot not have a real world, independent of the observer. Non-locality formally disproves Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Much more radically, non-locality refutes materialism and empiricism. Non-locality can be understood only in relation to an ontological, dimensionless, immaterial, mathematical, mental domain (Singularity) outside space and time where everything is interconnected and so non-Einsteinian instantaneous communication can take place. (Curiously enough, everything in the Singularity moves at the mathematical equivalent of light speed, but since no spatial or temporal distances have to be traversed, light speed, or indeed any speed, equates to infinite speed. In the Singularity, it never takes any time to get where you’re going, and you’re already where you need to be!) What Bell really showed was that you can have objective reality only if you supplement locality with non-locality, matter with mind, a spacetime domain with a frequency domain – exactly what’s required by ontological Fourier mathematics!

Non-locality is not subject to the experimental method. You can detect the effects of non-locality, but, self-evidently, you can’t directly observe instantaneous communication. Non-locality thus has a great deal in common with causation. We cannot perceive it with our senses, but we certainly perceive its effects. The answers to reality are staring scientists in the face and yet their quasi-religious faith in materialism and empiricism prevents them from accepting the truth. They must embrace mind, non-locality, hidden variables, rational unobservables, metaphysics, rationalism and ontological mathematics if they want to take science to the next level. Are they capable of rejecting their “religion”? The answer, it seems, is a resounding NO, especially when you hear the drivel of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox. Cox is always banging on about anti-scientific “woo woo”, yet science itself is the most absurd woo woo you can get – even worse than mainstream religion – when it comes to addressing ultimate reality. Science ludicrously reduces reality to meaningless randomness, and has absolutely no reason for doing so!

***** How many scientists understand that the quantum wavefunction is itself non-local since it’s defined over the entire universe? When it collapses, it localises at one point in the universe, and the rest of the wavefunction instantly vanishes, meaning that instant communication (repudiating Einstein’s special theory of relativity) has taken place: the collapse process notifies the rest of the wavefunction to negate itself, and it automatically does so. This is 100% incompatible with Einstein’s theories and yet science simply ignores this catastrophe, or explains it away in ludicrously irrational and self-serving terms. How many scientists grasp that you can’t validly merge quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity since one is the direct refutation of the other?! Copenhagen quantum mechanics rubbishes de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics on that basis that the non-locality of the latter is too “in your face”. Yet this is just a matter of opinion. The non-locality of Copenhagen quantum mechanics is not one jot less in your face. Scientists just lie to

themselves that it isn’t! Pretending that something isn’t so, even though it blatantly is, seems to form a central element of the scientific mindset.

Is Science Falsifiable? “Almost everyone thinks that this discovery of evidence for inflation will probably get a Nobel Prize in physics for whoever discovers it. So, if you’re first then that will certainly give you a good claim to that Nobel Prize, it would seem. The thing is the Big Bang theory needs inflation badly to solve several problems. ... [Scientists have constantly moved the goalposts, the age of the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, and, now, inflation.] They can tweak and perturb that until they get it to fit as best they can and then they call this confirmation. Now, if you’re allowed to infinitely change the model to fit the data then you shouldn’t be surprised that you can always fit that data. ... I have to question if the Big Bang theory is actually falsifiable. Can you ever come up with an experimental result or observational result that would disprove the Big Bang? I don’t think you can.” – Dr. Danny R. Faulkner We don’t normally quote Creationists such as Dr. Faulkner, but he certainly has a point in this case. “Preferred theories” in science never seem to refuted. The general attitude in science seems to be, “Ah, the theory obviously isn’t right yet, but it will be in due course. Give it time.” In which case, what does “falsification” mean? Surely a theory is either falsified by the experimental data or not. You can’t say, “Yes, the data falsifies the theory, but we’re sure we’ll think up a way to save the theory in due course, so we’re not going to say it has been falsified after all.” If you’re going to take that attitude, you might as well be an Abrahamist. They say, “Yes, science totally falsifies our religion, but we’re sure that God will produce something to save the God theory in due course, so we’re not going to say it has been falsified after all.” The standard model of physics fails to account for 95% of the “stuff” of the universe (dark energy and dark matter). Isn’t that a monumentally failed theory (a 95% failure!) – a totally falsified theory? Well, apparently not because Peter Higgs has just been awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on the Higgs boson, a vital part of the standard model. So, apparently, Nobel Prizes are awarded for work on theories that are 95% failures. What, then,

would ever cause a scientific theory to be falsified if 95% wrong doesn’t cut it? Moreover, there are theories such as the Lorentz theory of the ether that have never been falsified at all, and yet are totally ignored by the scientific community (since they prefer Einstein’s theory of relativity). It seems that nothing can falsify science’s preferred theories, while the tastes and biases of scientists can cause non-falsified theories to be treated as if they were falsified. Very few people are aware that Einstein’s special theory of relativity has never been proved and its rivals never disproved. Rather, Einstein’s special theory of relativity has just been preferred. But that’s not “science”, that’s prejudice. Some people have even said that Einstein’s theory was preferred because it was more “elegant” – an aesthetic criterion! What does that have to do with science?! Even though Einstein’s theory hasn’t been proved, it’s treated as if it has been and become part of scientific dogmatism and groupthink. Woe to any working scientist who dares to challenge it, and so none do. They might as well belong to a religious cult! Science, in practice, is nothing but bias, preference, ideology, and dogmatism. Scientific theories are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. Scientific theories are memes that take part in a popularity contest amongst scientists and colonize their minds. “Truth” doesn’t come into it. Science, on close inspection, resembles Abrahamism. Scientists believe whatever they want to believe, and whatever’s good for their careers, salaries and promotion prospects. That’s the reality of science as opposed to its self-serving propaganda. Like Abrahamism, science pretends to be about truth, and, like Abrahamism, it will be destroyed by the very truth it claims to promote! The truth cannot abide science. The truth is solely mathematical, and is neither falsifiable nor verifiable, only provable.

Final Status Science has run out of road. It’s no longer a coherent system of thought. The fanatical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics destroyed it. In its attempts to make sense of quantum mechanics in terms of materialism and materialism, it embraced wholesale irrationalism, indeterminism and unreality.

Science must now be completely redefined, and that means it must accept things it previously rejected. Here’s a list of the changes that must take place within the scientific paradigm to make it fit for purpose: 1) Non-localism must be accepted as primary and localism as secondary. 2) The frequency domain must be accepted as primary and the spacetime domain as secondary. 3) Idealism must be accepted as primary and materialism as secondary. 4) Rationalism must be accepted as primary and empiricism as secondary. 5) Objective reality must be accepted over observer-constructed “reality” (Copenhagen subjective reality). 6) Causality must be accepted over acausal randomness. 7) The rationalist mathematical method must be accepted over the empiricist scientific method. 8) Mind must be deemed primary and matter secondary. 9) Noumena must be deemed primary and phenomena secondary. 10)

Ontological mathematics must replace physics.

11) The mathematical Singularity must be seen as the primary reality, and the spacetime universe as its mathematical construct. The plain fact is that science has almost always been on the wrong side of the truth. Ever since the titanic struggle between Newton and Leibniz, science has invariably chosen instrumentalism and pragmatism over truth. The scientific method has proved superb at allowing successful control over the world of appearances, and absolutely useless at saying anything at all about the intelligible world of noumena, where the truth actually resides. Science has proved itself the master of the sensible world, but a dunce in the intelligible world. It can’t explain life, mind, free will, consciousness, causality, time, the Big Bang, singularities, the principle of sufficient

reason, the soul, reincarnation, or the afterlife i.e. it can’t explain any of the ultimate truths. It’s time for the Scientific Revolution. It’s time for the ultimate paradigm shift. Old science has failed. A new science is needed if there’s to be a final theory of everything. The grand unified theory of everything will be grounded in ontological mathematics (hence in monadic minds). The problem is that science, despite all of its protestations, is a religion, and religious fanatics, as we know, refuse to abandon their faith. Reason counts for nothing in science. Scientists will never accept that there’s a rationally compulsory noumenal domain, regarding which the scientific method is useless and redundant. Scientists are, sadly, fundamentally irrational. Like Abrahamists, you just can’t reason with them.

Dead Cats, Dead Rats If “cats” aren’t real things in their own right but are only collapsed “cat wavefunctions”, what, exactly, is it that distinguishes a living cat wavefunction from a dead cat wavefunction? There are two ways of looking at this problem. If a living cat wavefunction is ontologically different from a dead cat wavefunction then they cannot be combined as if they were the same wavefunction (i.e. the Schrödinger’s cat paradox has been treated illegitimately). If a living cat wavefunction is said to be ontologically the same as a dead cat wavefunction then it’s being implied that life and death (and mind, consciousness, free will, etc.) are simply states of the wavefunction (like energy states, position states, momentum states, etc.). By the logic of the Copenhagen interpretation, this means that, regardless of any poison capsule in the box of Schrödinger’s cat, the cat wavefunction must be capable of collapsing randomly to a living or dead state, mind or non-mind state, conscious or non-conscious state, free will or non-free will state, just as it can randomly collapse to any specific, permissible energy or position state. Science can’t have it both ways. If life and death are just wavefunction states that can be produced by random collapse, we should observe a continual flickering between life and death – sometimes the cat wavefunction will collapse to produce life and, just as often, to produce

death. Of course, we see no such thing, so this interpretation , the one used by the Copenhagen school, must be false. However, the alternative is just as bad for the Copenhagen school. If wavefunctions are distinct for living and dead cats (so that living cat wavefunctions always collapse to produce living cats, and dead cat wavefunctions always collapse to produce dead cats) then we cannot combine these wavefunctions since they possess mutually exclusive properties, i.e. a living cat wavefunction is ipso facto not a dead cat wavefunction, and vice versa. It would be as crazy as mixing apple and orange wavefunctions, good and evil wavefunctions, God and Satan wavefunctions, or light and dark wavefunctions. If we say that any wavefunction can be mixed with any other wavefunction regardless of their mutually exclusive properties then how can we refer to separate wavefunctions at all? Surely they all comprise just one enormous cosmic wavefunction that can never be broken down into meaningful, separate parts. Ultimately, if nothing exists but entangled quantum particles then we should indeed only ever refer to one wavefunction for everything. In which case, how can it ever interfere with itself to produce quantum effects, and how can it ever bring about its own collapse? Quite simply, the Copenhagen interpretation is 100% incoherent and irrational. It’s total junk.

***** If a living cat wavefunction is genuinely different from a dead cat wavefunction then this raises the vexed issue of what distinguishes the two wavefunctions. Surely we don’t have to turn to some vitalist explanation. Surely we don’t have to refer or élan vital, or, God, or the soul! Science, as ever, is absolutely silent. The more you drill down into the standard interpretation of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, the more you realise it’s pure nonsense from beginning to end. Why is it so bad? Because scientists are simply incapable of the sophistication and complexity of thought that philosophers can bring to bear on a problem. Scientists simply can’t think clearly. They are in a permanent muddle between mathematical rationalism and scientific empiricism. They always turn to a heuristic analysis of a problem rather than a well-defined, ontological, epistemological analysis, such as the best philosophers apply.

Scientists have contempt for philosophers, yet philosophical rigour is precisely what science is lacking. Almost every statement made by modern scientists concerning ultimate reality is embarrassingly and ludicrously wrong.

There Is No Such Thing As Nothing In Illuminism, there’s no such thing as “nothing”. “Nothing” is just a label associated with dimensionless existence, which is absolutely mathematically full – to the maximum. What about Copenhagen quantum mechanics? Again, in this view, there’s no such thing as nothing, but nor are there are actual things (!). There’s simply an unreal wavefunction of possibilities and their associated probabilities. It’s not specified where this wavefunction is in relation to spacetime, or indeed how it exists at all since it’s not an actual, ontological thing. Scientists have no idea where the quantum wavefunction resides and how it interacts with macroscopic observers and measuring devices in spacetime. Absolutely nothing is explained by the Copenhagen interpretation about how the unreal wavefunction gives rise to spacetime, how it interacts with spacetime, and how it collapses to produce specific actualisations of possibilities. It’s more or less a pseudo-mathematical con trick which looks good and sounds good to people of a certain sensory mindset, but which has no rational content at all. The Copenhagen interpretation isn’t any kind of science. Instead, it’s a way of thinking – a heuristic mathematical tool, a philosophy, a belief system – that offers a profoundly unsatisfactory way to ponder quantum mechanical weirdness. Like Newton’s theory of gravity – which was highly successful but had zero scientific truth content since its equations made no physical sense – quantum mechanics provides a successful mathematical abstraction, with no physical, or noumenal, truth content. Scientists refuse to tell the truth about their smoke and mirrors. They don’t know anything about philosophy and regularly sneer at it, without understanding that they themselves are engaging in philosophy rather than science. The many different interpretations of quantum mechanics represent many different philosophies and ontologies, but these are not recognized as

part of a gargantuan philosophical debate about what science and mathematics actually mean. Science pretends it has nothing to do with philosophy when in fact it is nothing but philosophy. It’s continuously choosing some philosophies over others, for ideological rather than scientific reasons. There’s absolutely no scientific reason why the scientific establishment has chosen the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That’s a philosophical choice, in which case the scientific establishment should have offered philosophical papers explaining its decisions and why it rejected the alternatives, so that philosophers could then challenge these decisions. Of course, no scientist would ever dare to write a technical philosophy paper, and that’s the whole problem. Scientists are all times perpetuating biased philosophical positions – paradigms – while pretending that what they do has nothing to do with philosophy. Science has become deeply dishonest and irrational. Throughout the God Series, we have relentlessly exposed the true, disreputable workings of science and how it’s steeped in philosophy even as it denies it. Scientists write papers where they specify various assumptions they have employed. What they never do is specify what philosophical assumptions they have used, what Meta Paradigms they are tacitly invoking, and they never engage in philosophical debate. The Einstein, de Broglie and Schrödinger versus Bohr, Heisenberg and Born quantum mechanical debate was not conducted as a proper philosophical dispute, but as a series of scientific “thought experiments”, the scientific details of which were usually so complex as to disguise the underlying philosophical issues. No philosophers were invited to participate in the debate. Science tells the great lie about itself that it obeys falsification and verification principles. In fact, it does neither. Science makes no attempt at all to have its philosophical assumptions challenged or falsified, and no attempt at all to have them verified. Science is a philosophy that refuses to call itself philosophy. That makes it effectively a religion. Islam, just like science, offers no platform whatsoever to debate its “philosophy”. What’s the difference? Both are fanatical ideologies, dogmatically committed to certain stances and refusing to have those stances subjected to any intellectual scrutiny. What do they have to hide? If science is rational, as it claims, why doesn’t it invite

rational challenges to the philosophy that’s present in everything it does but is never acknowledged? Science has pulled off a staggering con job. It has furiously denied that it’s a philosophy and yet that’s all it is. The Myth of science being something other than philosophy must be ended. Science ought to merge with philosophy and mathematics – exactly as happens in Illuminism!

Mathematics The biggest problem of all facing science is to explain what mathematics is. What’s the point of referring to an unreal, unobservable mathematical wavefunction if you haven’t bothered to define the ontological status of mathematics itself and explain why it’s at the core of science (and without which science would be useless)? Illuminism asserts that mathematics is reality itself (noumenal reality), and physics is just an application of mathematics in relation to the phenomenal spacetime domain. The Big Bang singularity is a total mystery in science, and is formally outside the known laws of physics. In Illuminism, there’s nothing mysterious about it. It’s simply the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, the home of countless mathematical monadic minds, each an independent frequency domain. Any rational person studying the rival claims of science and Illuminism should have no difficulty in seeing that Illuminism beats science hands down. Illuminism can’t lose. After all, it’s on the side of mathematics, and nothing can beat math. That’s a fact!

The Science Con While science remains wedded to its unsustainable assumptions, it will never produce a quantum theory of gravity. Science must reconstruct itself and its method before it can address the ultimate issues. Quantum gravity isn’t insoluble, but it is within the current paradigm, philosophy, and religion of scientism.

The Singularity – the Answer to Everything The whole history of human thought can be rationalized on the basis of an ontology comprising a singularity outside space and time, and a “multilarity” inside space and time: The singularity = noumenon, the multilarity = phenomenon. The singularity = mind, the multilarity = matter. The singularity = idealism, the multilarity = materialism. The singularity = rationalism, the multilarity = empiricism. The singularity = unextended, the multilarity = extended. The singularity = dimensionless, the multilarity = dimensional. The singularity = frequency, the multilarity = spacetime. The singularity = mathematics, the multilarity = physics. The singularity = the true basis of religion, the multilarity = “science”. The singularity = spirituality, the multilarity = materialism. The singularity = sacred, the multilarity = profane. The singularity = metaphysics, the multilarity = physics. The singularity = the Collective Unconscious, the multilarity = individual consciousness. The singularity = intelligible (rationalist), the multilarity = sensible (empiricist). The singularity = “paranormal”, the multilarity = “normal”. The singularity = non-local, the multilarity = local. The singularity = “nothing”, the multilarity = “something”. The singularity = the transcendent, the multilarity = the secular. The singularity = immanent, the multilarity = the individuated. The singularity = the within, the multilarity = without.

The singularity = inside, the multilarity = outside. The singularity = the source of subjectivity, the multilarity = nonsubjectivity. The singularity = quality, the multilarity = quantity. The singularity = rational, the multilarity = sensory. The singularity = Logos, the multilarity = Mythos. The singularity and multilarity are linked by Fourier mathematics. The singularity is the immortal, indestructible source of mind, soul, objective truth and subjective experience. It’s the religious domain, the Platonic domain, the Neoplatonic “One”, the Pythagorean “Monad”, the source of all things. Science is false because it denies the existence of the Singularity (even while referring to the Big Bang singularity, black hole singularities and white hole singularities). It refuses to accept the reality of dimensionless existence beyond the reach of the scientific method. It seeks to construct a “final” scientific theory in which singularities do not appear (since the laws of physics are said to break down at singularities). The singularity is protected from the multilarity by the event horizon, the “membrane” that separates mind and matter; the horos (the limit, the boundary) as it was called by the ancient Gnostics. Just as the scientific method is powerless to probe beyond the event horizon, it’s powerless to probe the singularity. Only reason can break through to the Singularity. Science accepts the existence of an event horizon shielding an unempirical singularity, but wants to deny the existence of the ontological Singularity itself because it’s “unempirical”. WTF! Science, materialism, empiricism and atheism all deny the reality of the Singularity. Agnosticism says it doesn’t know. Gnosticism says it does know. It’s the Pleroma, the domain of Light and Truth. Descartes’ mind-body dualism is a singularity/multilarity theory. Spinoza tried to combine the singularity and multilarity into a single pantheistic system. Leibniz’s Monadology is a singularity theory, from which the multilarity is derived. Kant’s noumenal domain is a singularity and his phenomenal domain a multilarity. Schopenhauer’s cosmic Will is a singularity that generates a phenomenal multilarity. Hegel’s rational, dialectical Geist is a singularity theory, involving the alienation of Geist in

the multilarity world, before returning to itself at a higher level. Hartmann’s Unconscious is predicated on a singularity. Jung’s Collective Unconscious is similarly predicated on a singularity. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s noosphere is about an evolving collective mind converging on a singularity (the Omega Point). Hinduism is all about a veil of Maya being thrown over the singularity (Brahman) to create an illusory world of individual atmans, but, finally, atman = Brahman. Buddhism is all about nirvana – nothingness – where everything comes together in a Cosmic Oneness (singularity). Taoism is about a yin and yang interaction of singularity and multilarity. In Freudian thinking, the singularity is the origin of his notion of an “oceanic feeling”. Wikipedia says, “Freud [identifies] a possible source of religious feeling ... the oceanic feeling of wholeness, limitlessness, and eternity. Freud himself cannot experience this feeling of dissolution, but notes that there do indeed exist different pathological and healthy states (e.g. love) where the boundary between ego and object is lost, blurred, or distorted. Freud categorizes the oceanic feeling as being a regression into an earlier state of consciousness before the ego had differentiated itself from the world of objects. Freud sticks to his earlier conviction that the need that the religious feeling arises out of is ‘the infant’s helplessness and the longing for the father’, and ‘imagine[s] that the oceanic feeling became connected with religion later on’, that is, that it is not a genuine religious experience, though certainly people experiencing it have felt that way.” The Singularity is a mathematical, self-optimizing, collective mental object, comprising countless individual minds. The Singularity is where mind exists, and the multilarity is where bodies exist. Absolutely everything can be interpreted with regard to the singularity and the multilarity. All human ideas and systems of thought are interpretations (or usually misinterpretations) of this dual-aspect ontology, linked via Fourier mathematics. The human mind has always struggled with “void”, “nothing”, dimensionless existence, and unobservables. The empirical (rather than transcendent) mind is locked into sensory experience, and the Singularity is outside such experience. Thus the Singularity has typically been approached via mysticism and faith. In fact, it’s purely a mathematical object, a frequency domain defined by the God Equation. There’s nothing mystical or mysterious about it at all.

Human beings are mostly hopeless at objective mathematics, and fear and loathe it. Average human beings much prefer stories of gods, and “holy books” of alleged divine revelation. Most humans are storytellers, story believers and story interpreters. Mythos is Logos for Dummies, the type of thinking practised by people alienated from mathematics, science, philosophy, technology and engineering. Is anyone surprised that none (!) of the world’s holy texts mention mathematics, science, philosophy, technology or engineering? No holy book could make a single contribution to landing men on the moon. Not one world would be of any use! Isn’t that incredible? It reveals how pointless holy books are. “God” likes to hide behind Mythos and never dares to present any Logos arguments. He never explains himself! Sadly, scientists are also wholly alienated from the mathematical Singularity since it’s not a subject of experimental study, hence is dismissed as non-existent. The Higgs field (the source of Higgs bosons) is what confers mass on spacetime particles. All immaterial entities – such as photons – are massless and unaffected by the Higgs field. All massless entities belong to the frequency domain (Singularity) and all entities with mass to the spacetime domain (Multilarity). The Higgs field is the necessary field required to link the Singularity and Multilarity. The Singularity is the true, rational basis of religion and the soul. There’s no need at all for faith, mysticism and Mythos. It’s not “Jesus” who offers you salvation, it’s mathematics! That’s the true “good news”.

***** The empirical mind = the spacetime, local mind = consciousness. The transcendent mind = the frequency, non-local mind = the unconscious, but capable of giving birth to “God consciousness”. At gnosis – enlightenment – the transcendent mind can attain God consciousness.

The “Model”

To understand reality, it’s essential to have a viable model that can help you to visualize or conceptualize what’s going on. Relativity theory and Copenhagen quantum physics are false because they do not reflect a reality principle. They are mathematical abstractions that have become decoupled from any possible ontology. It’s impossible to reconcile them because they are not based in objective reality but in a ridiculous empiricist materialist misinterpretation of reality. The generalised Euler Formula is the simplest ontological hypothesis possible, and it gives rise to the maximum number of phenomena. It’s everything for which Leibniz was searching when he demanded a solution to existence simplest in hypothesis and richest in phenomena. That’s why it’s the God Equation. Isn’t it time for the ultimate scientific paradigm shift? It’s time for ontological mathematics – derived exclusively from the God Equation – to replace scientific materialism wholesale. Then everyone has a precise, universally agreed model from which to work. But this is no model. This is reality itself. The God Equation does what science signally doesn’t do – it incorporates life and mind. It’s the true grand unified theory of everything. Science has never been anything but a materialist and empiricist misinterpretation of ontological mathematics. It has stumbled upon various features of ontological mathematics and become successful for that reason. However, it has never accomplished a complete, consistent, coherent, integrated vision. Its attempts to produce a single theory have all failed. That’s because it refuses to embrace ontological mathematics, based on a single, all-powerful equation.

The Rules 1) The universe is uniform and can be expressed simply. 2) Simple laws apply. In fact, ultimately, only one law can apply since nothing can be simpler, more rational, more complete, consistent and integrated than a single, all-defining law. 3) Anything mathematically too complicated – such as M-theory – cannot be right. Illuminism is extremely conceptually challenging but it’s almost as simple mathematically as you can possibly get.

4) Anything with blatant contradictions – such as a scientific method that produces two hugely successful but incompatible theories (quantum mechanics and relativity theory) – must be false. 5) The ultimate law of the universe must be as simple as possible and as fertile as possible. This is exactly the case with the generalised Euler Formula.

Newton versus Leibniz Why is Newton treated with the reverence that ought to be accorded to Leibniz? It’s because Leibniz was intent on explaining how everything in the world rationally works. He was dealing with the intelligible world. That’s a world of the mind, intellect and reason, and how well you follow Leibniz depends on your own mind, intellect and reason – which vary massively between different human beings. Leibniz used rational proofs and arguments to justify his position, but not sensory facts and “evidence”. Newton produced a famous mathematical formula to describe “gravity”, and, critically, he made sure he matched it to astronomical data, i.e. he had sensory facts and evidence to support his formula. Newton had produced something that worked in the sensible world. We can’t see intelligible noumena but we can certainly see sensible phenomena. Simply by linking his mathematics to the sensible world rather than the intelligible world, Newton was hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time, while Leibniz, the genuinely smartest person in human history, is almost unknown today outside rarefied intellectual circles. However, as Leibniz pointed out, Newton’s mathematical formula for gravity was physically incomprehensible and made no sense at all. It operated using the same mechanism as voodoo! The gravitational “force” was communicated instantaneously across any distance, no matter how vast, through entirely empty space. Newton, well aware of his inability to explain gravity rationally, simply declared, “I do not feign hypotheses”, meaning that he had a formula that worked but had no idea how it worked and didn’t dare to make any suggestions. This has been the attitude of science ever since. The pressure is to find things that work, not things that are true or rational. Quantum mechanics is fantastically successful while not being understood by a single scientist on earth! Like Newton’s gravity, it’s a

mathematical formulation that accords extremely with observations while making no physical sense at all. Physical sense has never actually mattered to scientists. What they have invariably been interested in is having successful mathematical equations into which they can plug experimental measurements and get out an endresult that proves useful in the visible world. How it actually works is neither here nor there. Scientists do not feign hypotheses! The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is exactly what would be produced by people trying their hardest to avoid any rational explanations. As the Copenhagen group realised, true explanations always involve “hidden variables”, rational unobservables, and unseen and unseeable rationalist processes, all of which stand outside the scientific method. They therefore produced the minimalist interpretation (based on the primacy of observations and measurements), the one most compatible with Newton’s refusal to feign hypotheses. This is the approach most acceptable to average scientists, determined to avoid rationalism and metaphysics. Of course, the central problem is that the Copenhagen interpretation is a hypothesis and a metaphysical philosophy, but makes no rational sense whatsoever. Leibniz would have had a field day trashing Copenhagen quantum mechanics – yet another version of scientific voodoo with an unreal, unobservable wavefunction that exists God-knows-where, mysteriously and inexplicably collapsing because of mysterious and inexplicable observations by undefined observers whose relationship with the wavefunction is never explained. Science, frankly, is mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, woo woo, voodoo and the occult. It doesn’t explain anything. What it does is describe (badly!). As Nietzsche said so tellingly, “It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics too is only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to our own requirements, if I may say so!) and not an explanation of the world: but in so far as it is founded on belief in the senses it passes for more than that...” Science is just a philosophy and interpretation that, with its scientific method, has taken care to concentrate on the observable world. It can provide sensory evidence while other approaches can’t. If you’re a entirely sensory person (as all scientists are), science seems immensely persuasive and all other approaches speculative and dubious.

Abrahamism is “faith (feelings) philosophy”, Eastern religion is “mystical (intuition) philosophy”, science is “sensory philosophy” and Illuminism is “thinking, rationalist philosophy”. Science is regarded as the most successful because it can match its philosophy to the world we observe rather than the world we don’t and can’t observe. But all intelligent people have always understood that what you see is not what you get, that appearances can be deceiving, that there’s a truer, more rational world underlying this one, an intelligible world underpinning the sensible world, without which the sensible world would be impossible. Leibniz was the great philosopher and mathematician of the intelligible world, but was rejected in favour of Newton, the man who could apply mathematics to the sensible world (without explaining how it worked). The scientific method lends itself perfectly to the minimalist process since it does not feign metaphysical, rationalist hypotheses. It produces success, not truth. The scientific method supports empiricist, materialist and sensory philosophy. It’s the method of those who believe that the sensible, phenomenal world is the only world and there’s no intelligible, noumenal world at all. All scientists are Doubting Thomases. Unless they can see and touch things, they disregard them. The whole of science is predicated on the nonexistence of unobservables. This means that science 100% rejects dimensionless, mental, mathematical, frequency existence! And that’s exactly why science is, ultimately, 100% false. It denies the rational basis of existence, and that’s why it can offer only “hows” and never “whys”. It’s a system of interlocked descriptions, not a system of explanations. No thinking person would ever find it acceptable. It’s strictly for sensory irrationalists, for second-class intellectuals: “plebeian” rather “patrician” thinkers, as Nietzsche put it.

Power Science is so highly esteemed because it gives power and control over the observable world. It’s therefore extremely useful to the powers that be. It works spectacularly well with business and capitalism. It has always been a fundamentally mercenary subject, disdainful of ultimate truth (which is inherently unobservable). It’s a subject for Philistines and carpetbaggers.

Equivalence Science is a collection of essentially ad hoc, arbitrary ideas, which have no logical necessity and no inherent connections. That’s the price you pay when you invoke the scientific method based on empiricism rather than scientific mathematics based on rationalism. The perfect illustration of the fundamental flaw at the heart of science is that its two most successful and trumpeted theories – quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity – are incompatible, and many decades of intensive work by vast numbers of the most knowledgeable scientists in human history have failed to reconcile them. This ought to send the most profound shiver through the whole of science because it proves that the scientific method does not produce rational, consistent, complete and coherent outcomes. It also proves that many scientific concepts, definitions and principles are bogus and fallacious. What is energy? Well, consider the famous equation E = mc2. Energy is mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Got it? What about the equation E = hf (or an alternative formulation of E = hc/λ)? Now energy is Planck’s constant multiplied by frequency (or, in the alternative formulation, multiplied by light speed and divided by wavelength). Oops, where did mass go? Photons don’t have mass. Er, so is energy something to do with mass or something that has nothing to do with mass? Momentum is mass times speed but then we are told that massless photons have momentum (E = pc, where p is momentum and c is the speed of light). You see, nothing is ever clear in science. Definitions are operational, instrumental, ad hoc and arbitrary. No one ever stops to say, “Well, what is energy really?” Indeed, what is mass? Thomas Kuhn pointed out that Newtonian absolute mass is radically different from relativistic Einsteinian mass. So, the same label is being used for something that has totally changed its essence. This means that scientific meaning is unstable, although this inherent instability is never discussed or highlighted by scientists. If the deconstructionist philosopher Jacques Derrida had turned his full attention to science, he would have shown that scientific texts and concepts have an intrinsically unstable meaning and privilege certain positions over other. All scientific theories are “political”, not objective. They contain all manner of hidden biases and assumptions.

There’s no such thing as an innocent, straightforward scientific text. All such texts have to be interpreted, deciphered and deconstructed. Hermeneutics is an appropriate word. Wikipedia says, “Hermeneutics is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. The terms hermeneutics and exegesis are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline that includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Exegesis focuses primarily upon texts.” It must always be understood that everything you read in a scientific text by almost any scientist will privilege materialism and empiricism and tacitly ridicule idealism and rationalism. Scientists simply can’t help themselves, just as popes can’t help interpreting the world from the perspective of Catholicism, and marginalising all other perspectives. Science is fraudulent because it claims to be objective while actually being fanatically partial to its chosen philosophical stance (which is nevertheless never openly discussed or highlighted). Outrageous propositions – such as those concerning Schrödinger’s cat – are presented as objective scientific fact rather than irrational philosophy. Millions of people have been led to believe that reality operates as the Copenhagen school says it does when in fact this is nothing but metaphysical speculation of a wholly untenable kind. This is dangerous deception and brainwashing, of a distinctly religious nature.

Planck’s Constant Returning to the equation E = hf, f (frequency) is measured in Hertz (cycles per second) and h, Planck’s constant, in units of Joule seconds. Wikipedia says, “The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck’s constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. The Planck constant was first described as the proportionality constant between the energy (E) of a photon and the frequency (ν) of its associated electromagnetic wave. ... The Planck constant is named after Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, who discovered it in 1900, and who coined the term ‘Quantum’. Classical statistical mechanics requires the existence of h (but does not define its value). Planck discovered that physical action could not take on any indiscriminate value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the ‘quantum of

action’ and now called Planck’s constant). This inherent granularity is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to ‘make things a little bit hotter’ or ‘move things a little bit faster’. This is because the quanta of action are very, very small in comparison to everyday macroscopic human experience. Hence, the granularity of nature appears smooth to us.” “In physics, the wavelength of a sinusoidal wave is the spatial period of the wave – the distance over which the wave’s shape repeats. It is usually determined by considering the distance between consecutive corresponding points of the same phase, such as crests, troughs, or zero crossings, and is a characteristic of both travelling waves and standing waves, as well as other spatial wave patterns.”

Time For A Mystery There are numerous conceptual catastrophes in physics, many of them involving time, which is not ontologically defined in science. Consider the Einsteinian notion that photons do not experience the passage of time. Then consider that photons are said to have a frequency, which is the number of cycles per second. If time doesn’t exist for photons, how can frequency exist? Have you ever heard any physicist or physics book discussing this? All such considerations are relentlessly glossed over. Time and space are what define the dimensional universe. They are irrelevant to the dimensionless domain outside space and time. Therefore, it has to be understood that in the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, frequency, wavelength, and speed are purely mathematical quantities that cannot be considered in conventional dimensional terms. We might perhaps refer to “pseudo” time and space, “virtual” time and space, or “precursor” time and space. Another possibility would be to consider all numbers in the dimensionless domain to be without formal units, to be “pure” numbers. We would say that a wave had a wavelength of, for example, 10 rather than 10 mm, or a frequency of 5, rather than 5 Hz. All references to dimensional units have to be removed, leaving just pure mathematical relations. These dimensionless mathematical relations are the precursors of the dimensional mathematical relations that appear when space, time, mass and energy are added to dimensionless existence. Photons, for example, are

dimensionless entities that reside in the frequency domain. They have no mass, do not experience time, and their size is contracted to zero – to a point. Not being in space and time, a point sees the whole of dimensional reality at once, and sees it continuously changing.

Einstein’s Nobel Prize “The Nobel committee awarded [Einstein] the prize for his work on the photo-electric effect, rather than relativity, both because of a bias against purely theoretical physics not grounded in discovery or experiment, and dissent amongst its members as to the actual proof that relativity was real.” – Wikipedia The Nobel Prize is a disgrace. It’s an irrationalist prize that rubbishes theory, philosophy and metaphysics in order to promote the fallacious empiricist materialist ideology. The Nobel Prize sets the tone for the whole of science, and is fully endorsed by the scientific establishment. It’s essential for a new Prize to be inaugurated for rationalist scientific theories that have no connection at all with experiments.

The Science Mythos What is science’s greatest lie? – that it is not a philosophy and deals only with facts and evidence. Science is actually just a badly thought out, inconsistent, incomplete, irrational and evasive philosophy. It uses the scientific method to conceal its myriad flaws. It’s so fanatically committed to this method that it steps over the line from philosophy to religion. It has a blind faith in its method and refuses to challenge it, exactly as in a religion.

The Wavefunction In Illuminism, the cosmic wavefunction is real, causal, deterministic and continuously evolving, and reflects a core teleology to maximize power. This wavefunction is what defines objective reality. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the cosmic wavefunction is unreal, indeterministic, statistical rather than causal, and is not evolving but is waiting on observations and measurements to make things actual.

The Illuminist wavefunction is rationalist and the Copenhagen wavefunction is empiricist. Everything always comes down to this contest between reality being based on reason and reality being based on experience. Empiricism, by opposing rationalism, is ipso facto fundamentally irrationalist, which is why science makes so many bizarre statements such as cats being simultaneously dead and alive. Rationally, this is impossible. Empirically, the cat’s condition can be established only as a matter of experience (via observation), and until then any description can be applied to it, no matter how absurd, and so empiricists are willing to entertain the most ridiculous claims about the status of the cat. The Schrödinger’s cat paradox has nothing to do with science or quantum mechanics. It’s a thought experiment about whether there’s a reality principle, whether there’s an objective reality. It’s a thought experiment about rationalism versus empiricism. The “explanation” of the paradox that you encounter in physics’ books is no such thing: it’s purely an expression of irrationalist, empiricist ideology. To say that a cat is both alive and dead, and also in in-between states, is rationally preposterous, and impossible if there’s an objective reality, but it’s fully consistent with an extremist empiricist philosophy where reality happens only when things are experienced: to be is to be perceived, as the empiricist idealist Bishop Berkeley put it. When things are not being experienced or perceived, you can say anything you like about them since, according to empiricists, they are pure hypotheticals with no ontological reality. It really is outrageous that speculative philosophy is taught as factual science, and none of its philosophical pedigree brought to the attention of students. Modern science is simply a materialist version of Berkeleyan empiricist idealism ... but Berkeley’s position is much more logical because there’s no empirical evidence whatsoever that matter exists. The only things we ever actually experience are ideas in our minds. Therefore, matter is a mental idea, not a physical thing. Empiricists deny innate ideas. Rationalists say that innate ideas form the only secure basis of objective, absolute knowledge. All true knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction. Rationalism reflects a reality principle and objective reality. Empiricism reflects an “observer” principle: reality exists only at the point of experience, measurement or observation and otherwise cannot be said to exist.

The unreal quantum mechanical wavefunction – a possibility cloud rather than an objectively real thing – is exactly what an ultra empiricist would come up to explain what “reality” is doing when no one’s looking at it. In fact, it’s not doing anything other than keeping track of all possibilities (no matter how non-compossible they might be), any one of which can be randomly chosen when a measurement is made. A rationalist says that reality does not care about observations, measurements, experiments, experiences or conscious observers, hence a rationalist wavefunction must be true, objective and real at all times. An empiricist says that reality exists only at the point of observation, measurement, experiment, or experience and otherwise is non-ontological, unreal and simply a probability matrix of what it’s possible to measure. To be a Copenhagen scientist – the position of the scientific establishment – is to deny objective reality. John Bell was the last great rationalist scientist who fiercely defended objective reality. However, he wrongly claimed that most scientists believe in objective reality. In fact, most deny it, via their subscription to the Copenhagen school of empiricist philosophy, although they are so philosophically illiterate that they may not realise this. The scientific method, it turns out, is the supreme enemy of rationalism and is what turns empiricism into a religion. Empiricists deny that anything not susceptible to the scientific method exists, so all rational unobservables, including the existence of objective reality itself when no one is looking, is formally denied by all of the worshippers of the scientific method. The scientific method is useful but it’s certainly not truthful. You can gain no certain, absolute knowledge from it since it’s simply contingent, irrationalist empiricism turned into a method.

Kant Empiricists claim that knowledge is based on synthetic a posteriori statements, while rationalists say it’s based on analytic a priori statements. Kant is one of the most revered figures in philosophy since he seemed to offer a synthesis of these two radically opposed approaches. He proposed that synthetic a priori statements are possible. So, you could work out “new” things in advance (things that weren’t true purely by definition). Mathematics, science and morality were, for Kant, all synthetic a priori.

When Wittgenstein said that mathematics was nothing but empty tautology, he was thereby denying Kant’s claim that mathematics is synthetic a priori. Wittgenstein was certainly right that mathematics is tautological (analytic rather than synthetic) but wrong that it’s “empty”. It’s as full as possible. Mathematical truths of reason are eternally true precisely because they are analytic. They form the flawless, infallible background to reality; the adamantine, perfect framework in which reality unfolds. Kant’s synthetic a priori category simply doesn’t exist. The true division isn’t between rationalism and empiricism but between objective mathematics and subjective mathematics. Truths of reason belong to objective mathematics and truths of fact to subjective mathematics. Objective mathematics is analytic, a priori, necessary, deductive and rationalist. Subjective mathematics is synthetic, a posteriori, contingent, inductive and empiricist. Objective mathematics is that which we rationally work out using our logic and intelligence. We don’t observe it; it’s noumenal and intelligible. Subjective mathematics concerns what we experience, what we measure and observe; it’s phenomenal and sensible. Subjective mathematics is what gives rise to the scientific materialist empiricist mentality. Things are real only to the extent to which we have subjective knowledge of them. When we don’t have subjective knowledge of them then, scientists say, they do not formally exist, but become mere possibilities that we might observe next time we look. Scientists are those who believe that subjective mathematics is actually objective (by virtue of being about objective measurements and observations) and who regard proper objective mathematics as abstract and unreal. Rationalists are those who accept the eternal reality of objective mathematics: it’s innate and ontological. We ourselves are mathematical subjects inhabiting a universe of objective mathematics. Objective mathematics provides the “house” that we live in. Rationalism and empiricism do indeed need to be combined, just as Kant said. However, they are not united by inventing a spurious category of synthetic a priori, but by recognising that they are both aspects of mathematics. Rationalism and empiricism cannot be equal partners. Rationalism must dominate, and empiricism must be its subordinate. A monad is a basic unit of ontological mathematics. It’s objective when viewed from outside itself, but it is subjective when it looks out from itself. We subjectively look out at the world and don’t see ourselves in the

objective way others see us. Yet the same is true of all other monads also. We are subjects as far we are concerned and objects as far as others are concerned. The question then becomes: is our subjective experience of reality true, or is the view of us as objects (viewed by other subjects) more real? They are two very different perspectives. If a subject closes his eyes, his subjective visual experience immediately ends. Does that mean that the world has ceased to exist too? That, in effect, is the solipsistic position of empiricism. However, if others are continuing to see us even if we have our eyes closed then the world has plainly not ceased: objective reality is unchanged. This is what rationalism asserts. Subjective observations and experiences are wholly irrelevant to objective reality. Not only does the unobserved world continue to exist but so do all things that always existed but were not observable in the first place (i.e. rational unobservables, such as the soul). All absolute, objective knowledge is analytic a priori (rationalist, mathematical). All subjective knowledge is synthetic a posteriori (empiricist, scientific). We are all both subject and object. We can use our reason to work out objective reality (Plato’s intelligible, noumenal world). We can use our senses to depict our subjective reality (Plato’s sensible, phenomenal world). What we can’t do is mix up the sensible and intelligible, the phenomenal and noumenal. Most importantly, we can’t say that our senses rule out the non-sensory, intelligible world. That’s a category error and it lies at the bottom of the scientific fallacy that science provides the only valid account of reality. The reason why we can predict in advance how things will behave is not because of Kant’s fabricated synthetic a priori category but because we live in a 100% mathematical universe where mathematical causality is built in. This is a 100% rationalist universe and such a universe infallibly obeys the reality principle. The moon is most assuredly still there when no one is looking because it’s a mathematical object obeying mathematical causality. The great empiricist and skeptic David Hume (whom Kant was intent on refuting) denied that any reliable, objective, absolute knowledge was possible at all. All we can ever “know” is a stream of impressions (“ideas of sensation”) coming from our senses, upon which we reflect, forming “ideas of reason” (images of impressions). It automatically follows, in this view, that we can have no valid ideas of reason regarding anything of which we have received no sensory impression, so innate ideas, rational

unobservables and hidden variables are all ruled out by Hume. Above all, causality, being something that we don’t actually observe (we have no sensory impressions of it and instead invent scientific hypotheses – frequently false – to “explain” what is happening and why things behave as they do) cannot, in empiricist terms, be demonstrated to be anything other than speculation. What has not been perceived cannot be known, Hume insisted, so, causality, as something unperceived, cannot be known. It’s not true knowledge, just conjecture. This is a fanatically anti-rationalist agenda and is more or less what Copenhagen science subscribes to. The Copenhagen school could have made the quantum wavefunction real and causal but unobservable (the rationalist approach), but instead they made it unreal, unobservable and acausal. Yet Hume would have found this wavefunction ridiculous: if we can have no impressions of it, we can have no knowledge of it, hence it’s purely speculative and unempirical. On the other hand, he would have approved of its resolutely anti-rationalist stance. Hume wouldn’t have referred to a wavefunction at all, while Kant would have classed it as synthetic a priori. Leibniz would have made it strictly rationalist and deterministic. Hegel would have made it part of the rational dialectic. Christians would have called it the Holy Spirit, Hindus Brahman, and Taoists the Tao. Neoplatonists would have made it the One, the Nous and Psyche combined. Spinoza would have made it his pantheist God. Schopenhauer would have made it the Will, outside space and time, which gives rise to space and time. For Nietzsche, it would be the Will to Power. Jung would have made it the Collective Unconscious. All of these are better options than what science made of it!

Mathematics and the Scientific Method The supreme debate is whether mathematics or the scientific method defines science. This is another way of asking whether science is rationalist or empiricist. Typically, scientists swear by the scientific method and do not discuss the status of mathematics at all. What mathematics actually is is simply ignored. Many scientists and even mathematicians find Pythagoras’s statement that all things are numbers ridiculous. Pythagoras was the first ontological

mathematician, but, even now, almost no one addresses the issue of the ontological significance of mathematics. Mathematics, it seems, is the ultimate mystery. What’s the point of having a scientific final theory of everything – based on the most complex mathematics conceivable – if the theory can’t even explain mathematics, hence can’t explain itself? Already, the theory fails and is rendered absurd. Scientists, being instrumentalists and pragmatists, couldn’t care less about the truth, but they ought to if they go around trumpeting the concept of a “final theory”. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the quantum wavefunction is treated as ontologically unreal. In this interpretation, the only thing that’s real is whatever is measured or observed, hence experienced. This is obviously an anti-rationalist, pro-empiricist stance. The scientific method – with its experiments, measurements and observations – is dogmatically deemed to be what science is all about, while mathematics is relegated to a mysterious abstraction. No attempt is made by the Copenhagen school to explain the source of mathematics, to describe what it is, or to account for how it describes the underlying “matrix” that contains all possible measurements and observations that can possibly be made. The Copenhagen wavefunction is pure potential, and the experimental method is what actualises certain of those possibilities, causing the others to mysteriously vanish. Illuminism takes the opposite approach. Mathematics (rationalism) now becomes what science is all about, with the scientific method (empiricism) relegated to a useful tool for shedding light on mathematical reality. The quantum wavefunction now becomes ontologically real rather than an abstraction. The wavefunction contains the total potential of the universe at that instant and what it does is actualize the most compossible outcome – the mathematically most stable solution for the whole universe. It does so continuously and causally. There is no question of the wavefunction being in any kind of state of suspended animation, awaiting an observation or measurement before anything happens. Frankly, it’s absurd to make the wavefunction dependent on measurements rather than the other way around. Empiricism requires the measurement, not the wavefunction, to be the most important part of this system; rationalism requires the wavefunction, not the measurement, to be most important.

Everything you are commonly told about the wavefunction in physics texts is nothing to do with science and is all about the promotion of empiricist philosophy. If you are told that the scientific method, rather than mathematics, is the most important thing in science then you are being brainwashed to prefer empiricism to rationalism. This is not a scientific stance, but a philosophical one, yet it’s always claimed to be scientific and not philosophical at all. Scientists pride themselves on being objective, but, philosophically, they’re nothing of the kind. It’s rationalism that’s all about objectivity and is based on a reality principle. The wavefunction collapses without the need for any observers and observations. Science, with its empiricist ideology, is all about subjectivity and is based on the “observer principle”. The wavefunction requires an observer and an observation in order to collapse. No attempt is made by scientists to explain how the cosmic wavefunction seems to be broken up into countless partial wavefunctions based on individual observers, each of whom can collapse their part of the cosmic wavefunction, without affecting the rest. No mechanism is provided for wavefunction collapse in general and for how an observer can collapse his part of the wavefunction without affecting the rest. Empiricism is irrational. Science is irrational. It doesn’t have to be. If it takes the side of mathematics over the scientific method then it can be rationalist, just like Illuminism.

Knowledge A priori knowledge comes from reasoning and is independent of experience. It relates to the rational, intelligible, necessary world. A posteriori knowledge comes from experience. It relates to the empiricist, sensible, contingent world. According to empiricists, there’s no a priori knowledge. This implies that reality is not grounded in any rational principles or eternal truths but is instead all about whatever is capable of being experienced at any particular instant. No explanation is given of how subjects came into existence in the first place in order to have experiences, and no account is given of what an experience actually is and what it’s grounded in. In fact, it’s impossible to have an a posteriori world without first having an a priori world. The latter provides the eternal framework that makes the

former possible. Subjects can’t magic themselves into existence. They must be part of a rational, eternal system. Empiricism is unable to establish the logical necessity of its laws. Science is signally unable to show why science should be the answer to the way the universe is configured. Science can’t explain why it’s this science rather than that science, i.e. infinitely different sciences are hypothetically possible, so why do we have this particular science? One “answer” science gives to this is to claim that there are infinite different universes (in the Multiverse), each with its own unique version of science. Cosmologist Max Tegmark goes even further and claims that there are infinite different versions of mathematics too, underpinning all of the different versions of science. So, whenever science is confronted with explaining why “a” happens rather than “b”, “c”, “d”, etc., it simply denies the need for any explanation at all and asserts that “a”, “b”, “c”, d”, etc. all happen, but in different universes in the Multiverse, and we just randomly happen to be in the universe where “a” happens. This, of course, is a total non-explanation. To say, as science does, that things happen merely because they are possible (no matter how improbable) is to claim that existence is a predicate, i.e. existence is a necessary property of anything that’s possible. Kant, in refuting the medieval ontological argument for the existence of God, famously argued that existence is not a predicate, i.e. things don’t exist merely because they are possible. If we think of a perfect being, it does not follow that this being must exist; the possibility of a perfect being is not automatically translated into the actuality of the being. Infinite things are possible and thinkable that will never exist in the real world. The concept of a unicorn isn’t altered one jot by whether it exists or not. The difference between an existent unicorn and a non-existent unicorn is that the former is instantiated in the real world, and the latter isn’t. The concept of unicorn hasn’t altered at all between the two cases. Multiverse science claims that existence is a necessary property of any possible thing, i.e. if it’s possible, it must exist (if it’s not forbidden, it’s compulsory). It might not exist in this world, but it will certainly exist in at least one world in the Multiverse. By this logic, if “God” is possible, he must exist somewhere. But the unique properties assigned to God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present) mean that if he’s possible somewhere then he’s possible everywhere, and if he exists in one universe in the Multiverse then he exists in them all, hence

Multiverse thinking seems to “prove” (unless God is formally forbidden) the existence of God! Which is, of course, the precise opposite of what the atheistic Multiverse theory sought to demonstrate! In Multiverse thinking, if we know that something is possible we automatically know that it exists, because, in this view, existence is a predicate, i.e. it’s a necessary property of all possible things. Science in our world is good at dealing with how but useless when it comes to why, and in fact science claims that existence is totally devoid of meaning, hence “why” becomes irrelevant. In a random, accidental universe, with no meaning, no purpose, where there’s no principle of sufficient reason, where nothing is caused, where indeterminacy rules, then what does “why” even mean? Science says that the universe is meaningless and ipso facto that the question of “why” is meaningless. How can there be a “why” in a random universe where everything happens, at the ultimate level, for no reason at all? The universe itself, according to science, randomly jumps out of nonexistence. What’s the point of asking why? In randomist science there is no why. (And, by exactly the same logic, there is no “how” either. After all, how can there be a “how” in a universe without “why”? “How” implies causal processes, but there are no such processes in a fundamentally indeterministic universe where things happen for no reason. So, technically, science is about neither how nor why – which makes it a meaningless universe of pure magic!) Rationalism is often accused of being unable to link its logically necessary laws to reality, but that’s true only if you deny that reality is mathematical. If the universe is nothing but mathematics, it must have analytic, logically necessary, a priori laws. What do you prefer? – the mathematical universe of sufficient reason (of how and why), or the scientific universe of no reason (and no how and no why, but of things simply happening randomly)? Your choice!

Niels Bohr “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do.” – Niels Bohr And you shouldn’t either, Niels!

*****

“I don’t understand quantum mechanics.” – A student “No one does. We just get used to it.” – Niels Bohr You don’t understand it because it doesn’t make any sense. Your interpretation is irrational. You “get used to it” because you are not a truth seeker and rationalist but an instrumentalist who cares only about how useful something is. “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” – Niels Bohr Anyone who is shocked by it has not understood it! It’s shocking only to an empiricist, not to a rationalist. “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.” – Niels Bohr So, science is all about craziness! But only empiricist craziness. All other craziness is regarded as just, well, crazy. “Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.” – Niels Bohr The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is crazy enough to be totally false! “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr Copenhagen quantum mechanics refutes objective reality! It doesn’t accept the existence of real cats, but of unreal cat wavefunctions. “An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.” – Niels Bohr Bohr himself made every conceivable mistake in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.” – Niels Bohr It is absolutely the task of any true science to find out how nature is. To make science only about what humans can say about Nature is to render it

wholly subjective, and nothing but opinion, interpretation and belief. “Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.” – Niels Bohr Eh?! Bohr clearly wasn’t able to think clearly. “There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.” – Niels Bohr Eh?! In your irrational dreams, Niels! “No, no, you’re not thinking; you’re just being logical.” – Niels Bohr Eh?! There we have it: thinking is not logical according to science! Well, no wonder scientific theories are so illogical.

***** “At the beginning of this debate Stephen [Hawking] said that he thinks that he is a positivist, whereas I am a Platonist. I am happy with him being a positivist, but I think that the crucial point here is, rather, that I am a realist. Also, if one compares this debate with the famous debate of Bohr and Einstein, some seventy years ago, I should think that Stephen plays the role of Bohr, whereas I play Einstein’s role! For Einstein argued that there should exist something like a real world, not necessarily represented by a wave function, whereas Bohr stressed that the wave function doesn’t describe a ‘real’ microworld but only ‘knowledge’ that is useful for making predictions.” – Roger Penrose Penrose is the only scientist alive today who still has an inkling of what Truth is.

Experimentalists Versus Theoreticians Experimentalists are plebeian thinkers while Theoreticians are patrician thinkers, yet science is defined by the plebs. It’s time for mathematics, the supreme patrician subject.

The Higgs Field and Higgs Boson

We are told that the Higgs field confers mass on particles. Well, in fact, it’s Fourier mathematics that allows particles with mass to exist. As soon as you create a Fourier spacetime domain from a Fourier frequency domain, you create the necessary condition for mass. Mass cannot exist otherwise. There is no mass in the frequency domain. Why don’t photons and gluons (and gravitons) have mass? Why don’t they interact with the Higgs field? It’s because they belong exclusively to the frequency domain. They’re not in spacetime at all and never can be. People imagine that when they switch on a light they release photons into spacetime. That’s not what happens at all. Photons don’t travel anywhere since they are already everywhere at once. What happens is that spacetime moves, so to speak, through a photonic frequency field, not the other way around (photons moving through spacetime). The frequency domain has no dimensional movement. Our eyes have evolved to “see” material interactions with photons of visible light. Of course, we do not see infrared and ultra-violet photons (even though they are there) because our eyes have not evolved that capability. At all times, our world involves the interaction of the frequency and spacetime domains. Photons, gluons and gravitons are from the mental domain, not the physical. Matter particles belong to spacetime, and “force” particles belong to the frequency domain, bosons to the frequency domain and fermions to the spacetime domain, bar the W and Z bosons of the weak force. These latter bosons are extraordinary “particles” (associated with symmetry breaking) because they transmit force but have mass and belong to spacetime. In essence, “force” (frequency) glues matter particles together. In exactly the same way, the soul (a frequency “particle”) binds together a living, material body. When this binding fails, the body dies and decomposes into its “dead” constituents (“dust”).

***** Why does the Nobel Prize Committee keep awarding prizes for scientific interpretation, opinion, conjecture, and hypothesis rather than eternal, necessary explanations (which are always exclusively mathematical since mathematics alone deals with eternal truths of reason)?

Experimental scientists delude themselves that they have “detected” photons. But they haven’t. Photons aren’t in spacetime. You can’t hear, touch, smell or taste a photon. You can’t see it if it’s effects are travelling across your vision field rather than into your eyes (or your eyes into it, as we should properly say!). Photons aren’t detected by a piece of apparatus in spacetime. Rather, the piece of apparatus in spacetime is detected by photons, and that is interpreted in the opposite sense by experimentalists who don’t understand the mathematics of the situation. They can’t get to grips with Fourier mathematics. We detect the soul all the time via the interaction of our mind with our body, yet scientists deny that mind/soul is there at all! In The End of Time, physicist Julian Barbour says, “We shall be considering how the wave function Ψ changes. In quantum mechanics, this is all that does change. Forget any ideas about the particles themselves moving.” This is absolutely right, so why do so many people, especially scientists, think and talk about physical particles moving? What’s for sure is that no Large Hadron Collider can detect the immaterial soul, yet the soul, via the operations of mind, is as embedded in our world as visible light is. The Nobel Committee will remain forever clueless about the true nature of reality if they think the Higgs boson is a big deal.

In the Beginning The standard model of physics says that all fundamental particles should naturally be massless (i.e., they should all be photons travelling at light speed), but plainly they’re not and this then raises the question of where mass comes from. Enter the Higgs field and the Higgs boson, another classic example of outrageous circular logic in scientific materialism. If the Higgs boson confers mass on all particles with mass, what confers mass on the Higgs boson? Er, itself! Mass, according to science, is caused by a mass-producing field!!! This belongs to exactly the same class of absurdity as Newton’s theory of gravity, which asserts that gravity is caused by a “gravity-producing force”. It seems that scientists haven’t moved on at all. In ontological mathematics, all of this nonsense vanishes. There’s a dimensionless domain of pure, massless frequencies (sines and cosines),

and, via Fourier mathematics, they create a spacetime domain, in which mass automatically appears. It’s spacetime itself – dimensionality – that generates mass. Any energy in spacetime is automatically dimensional and that means having mass. Any energy outside spacetime is dimensionless and that means having no mass. What could be simpler? Science is horrendously complicated because it’s based on innumerable fallacies, errors, inconsistencies and contradictions. All of these problems vanish when mathematical rationalism and necessity replace scientific empiricism and contingency.

Failure The much-vaunted standard model of physics accounts for only 5% of the stuff of the universe. The nature of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%) is entirely unknown within the prevailing theory. That’s a 95% failure rate! With quantum mechanics, 100% of scientists don’t know what it means. They have ideologically concluded that the wavefunction isn’t real, thus turning reality into a ludicrous probability function reflecting fundamental indeterminacy. In ontological mathematics, the wavefunction is ontologically real and deterministic. It involves motion through real and imaginary space. Of course, according to scientists, imaginary numbers do not exist (because they can’t be detected in the view of empiricist dogmatism), hence nor does the quantum mechanical wavefunction. Scientists are simply “natural philosophers” – philosophers who study nature rather than metaphysics. Stupid philosophers, in other words.

***** “They are ill discovers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.” – Francis Bacon Likewise, you’re a poor thinker if you think there’s no intelligible universe (the land) because you can perceive nothing but a sensible universe (the sea).

Physics

Physics is sensory mathematics, approximate mathematics, mathematics for mathematicians who are no good at logic, rationalism and analysis and need to “see to believe.” Physicists are in thrall to their senses and place much more emphasis on them than on their intellect and reason.

Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd) One of the methods for refuting an argument is to take it to its logical conclusion that’s patently ridiculous; equally, the negative of the proposition can be taken and driven to its absurd conclusion. Reductio ad impossibile involves destroying an argument by exposing the impossibility of its conclusion. Interestingly, although the definition of the Abrahamic God as morally perfect can be reduced to the absurd or impossible merely by considering his conduct in ordering Abraham to kill his son, Abrahamists themselves couldn’t care less. That’s because they’re illogical, irrational and believe in crazy, impossible things. That’s the primary requirement of “faith”! The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics can also be shown to be logically absurd and impossible, and, again, the science community simply ignores this because they too form a quasi-religious faith. In relation to the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, the Copenhagen interpretation superposes future conditional states (cat dead if poison gas released in box; cat alive if poison not released in box) and then asserts that the condition of the cat can only be ascertained when the box is opened and an observation performed (which “collapses” the wavefunction). However, by exactly the same logic, the wavefunction describing the cat must include all future conditionals so that when you open the box, you do not collapse the total wavefunction, but only that part dealing with the branch where the poison is released or not. All of the rest of the wavefunction remains intact (including countless future conditionals in which the cat lives and meets its death by other means, and countless future conditionals involving all of the futures of the atoms of the dead cat if the poison is released), and so there is never any definitive collapse (all the other superposition states remain intact, no matter the outcome of the experiment), so observation has a dubious relationship with wavefunction collapse (at best, it can only collapse part of a wavefunction, but not the

whole wavefunction), thus calling into question the entire conventional basis in which quantum mechanics is understood. If only part of the wavefunction has collapsed and the rest is intact, how can you say it has collapsed at all? You are still confronted by an uncollapsed wavefunction even as you perform the observation. It does not take any kind of genius to arrive at this conclusion. It’s selfevident – yet apparently not to legions of Nobel Prize winning physicists. This shows just how brainwashed and irrational they are; how they have a religious faith in empiricism, observation and experimentation. The Copenhagen school made observation all-important in quantum mechanics. In actual fact, it has zero relevance to quantum mechanics, exactly as it has zero relevance to mathematics. Indeed, quantum mechanics, when properly defined, simply is ontological mathematics!

The Lies of Science “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken’, and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” – Carl Sagan This is the Mythos that science fondly likes to tell itself. Contrast that with: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck That’s the real truth of scientific “progress”!

***** “Faith begins where logic ends.” – a Rabbi Randomness begins where reason ends. As for faith, it’s the abandonment of logic.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” – Richard Feynman In actual fact, science worships its “experts”. It takes a staggering effort to bring about a paradigm shift because all of the superstars of science first have to be pushed off their pedestals. And they cling on like drowning men.

Space and Time No account of reality can be coherent until it explains what space and time are. Physics says that space is what you measure with a ruler and time with a clock. Sadly, this helps not one jot to explain what space and time actually are. This is the whole problem with physics. It tells you how to measure things without telling you what those things actually are. It’s nothing but a circular set of instrumental definitions, observations and measurements that spectacularly fails to address ontology: the fundamental study of existence. No ontologist will be satisfied with a measurement of time if he’s clueless what time is. How does he even know that he’s measuring time, and not something else wrongly labelled as “time”? All knowledge is ultimately futile without analytic definitions. Mathematics provides such definitions while physics simply provides ways of measuring undefined quantities. Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg all had radically different concepts of what matter is. So, what is it? How do we know? How do we compare? What will prevent some new idea from coming along? How can we rely on any scientific paradigm? Well, we can’t, of course. So the real mystery is why science is taken so seriously. For sure, it’s highly useful, but what’s equally for sure is that it tells us nothing about true reality.

Decoherence and Incoherence “In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behaviour. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit

emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the total scene’s wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. “Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modelled as a heat bath), since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system’s dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion). Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment. These have the effect of sharing quantum information with – or transferring it to – the surroundings. “Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observance of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system ‘leaks’ into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the ‘realization’ of precisely one state in the ‘ensemble’. “Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since such machines are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put, they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation. ... “The discontinuous ‘wave function collapse’ postulated in the Copenhagen interpretation to enable the theory to be related to the results of laboratory measurements now can be understood as an aspect of the normal dynamics of quantum mechanics via the decoherence process.

Consequently, decoherence is an important part of the modern alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, based on consistent histories. Decoherence shows how a macroscopic system interacting with a lot of microscopic systems (e.g. collisions with air molecules or photons) moves from being in a pure quantum state – which in general will be a coherent superposition (see Schrödinger’s cat) – to being in an incoherent mixture of these states. The weighting of each outcome in the mixture in case of measurement is exactly that which gives the probabilities of the different results of such a measurement. “However, decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the manyworlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required. ... “Before an understanding of decoherence was developed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treated wavefunction collapse as a fundamental, a priori process. Decoherence provides an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse and was first developed by David Bohm in 1952 who applied it to Louis de Broglie’s pilot wave theory, producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. Decoherence was then used by Hugh Everett in 1957 to form the core of his many-worlds interpretation. However decoherence was largely ignored for many years, and not until the 1980s did decoherent-based explanations of the appearance of wavefunction collapse become popular, with the greater acceptance of the use of reduced density matrices. The range of decoherent interpretations have subsequently been extended around the idea, such as consistent histories. Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation have been rebranded to include decoherence. “Decoherence does not claim to provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it puts forth a reasonable mechanism for the

appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply ‘leaked’ into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists – at least for all practical purposes – beyond the realm of measurement. Of course by definition the claim that a merged but unmeasurable wavefunction still exists cannot be proven experimentally.” – Wikipedia The concept of decoherence is incoherent (!). In essence, it argues that macroscopic states cause “weird” microscopic states to lose their weirdness and produce the sensible outcomes of classical physics. Yet how did the weird microscopic states collapse into macroscopic states in the first place, to allow the macroscopic states to collapse the microscopic states? As ever with science, we are trapped in circular logic. With the twin-slit experience, we don’t see any decoherence even though the particles are interacting with the macroscopic world. Why not? Why is there a cut-off limit where interference vanishes and decoherence takes over? Where is the explanation for this limit? As ever, there isn’t one. There is no such thing as quantum decoherence. Rather, the quantum mechanical wavefunction is ontologically real, not unreal, and deterministic, not indeterministic. The wave aspect is built into particles; it’s not external to them. All particles ultimately follow a wave-trajectory.

The Truth Hurts “I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question ‘why?’ Why this theory, rather than some other theory.” – Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg Exactly so. It’s not in the gift of science to provide an ultimate theory and ultimate answer, so why do people pretend it is?

Before You Begin Before you analyze any thought system, any interpretation of facts, the first thing you must do is identify the Meta Paradigm to which the system or interpretation belongs. You can reject it immediately on that basis alone, without further ado. Only the rationalist idealist Meta paradigm is correct.

Science and Justice Science is currently recognized as humanity’s best way of collecting, evaluating and organizing knowledge. In reality, mathematics is best at all of those things, but the world hates mathematics. Science has mathematics at its core, but experiments, observations and measurements are what drive science forward, i.e. the collection of “evidence”. Many people think science is about truth, but it actually has nothing to do with truth. Science resembles the judicial system. The judicial system claims to be about truth and justice, yet there have been countless miscarriages of justice. The judicial system, like science, says it’s about facts and evidence, but facts and evidence obviously count for nothing if innocent people are convicted of crimes they never committed. Like science, the judicial system is about the interpretation of facts and evidence, and the formulation of hypotheses to account for them. Just as countless innocents have been found guilty by the “justice” system, thus proving that the relevant judicial hypotheses were false, so countless scientific theories have wrongly interpreted the facts and evidence and been proved false. Justice and science are equally incapable of furnishing unarguable truth. Einstein said, “Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions by sense experiences.” This is the key to the scientific fallacy. Science, as currently practised, must be verified through the senses, but that amounts to a claim that anything outside or beyond the human senses does not exist or is unscientific, hence absurdly speculative. Thus, the whole of metaphysics is dumped by science. In particular, rationalism is rejected by science since it’s a priori, deductive, necessary and analytic – everything that science isn’t! Science fundamentally dismisses reason in favour of the senses. Reason is used only to support sensory interpretations. It’s never used to transcend the senses and reach purely rational conclusions, unsupported by sense experience. The ultimate battle between science and rationalism concerns nothing other than the soul itself. The soul is a rational, transcendent object,

not an empirical object. No experiments can ever be performed on a dimensionless point! Mathematics itself is the quintessential rational subject since it doesn’t rely in any way on the human senses, observations or experiments. So, we reach the supreme irony and fatal blow to the “logic” of science: it has at its core the most rationalist engine of all – mathematics – while utterly denying rationalism. No scientist has ever addressed this, and none ever will. They are far too philosophically ignorant, illiterate and irrational. Science is an intellectual joke, for people who maintain that “seeing is believing”. All scientists ought to go and watch an illusionist’s show where they will learn that nothing can be more easily fooled than the human senses. Mathematics is the cosmic illusionist, and science is the gullible dupe for the magic show mathematics puts on. Only the rationalists can see through the illusion to the true reality of mathematics underneath. Science relies on repeatable experiments. Mathematics relies on definitive proofs. No valid proof can ever be contradicted. However, any experiment, no matter how often it’s repeated, can be superseded, and its interpretation shown to be false. Thus, countless experiments vindicated Newtonian physics and yet Newtonian physics has been scientifically refuted in every regard. It’s still taught in schools because it’s simple and provides an excellent approximation to the right experimental answer in most commonly encountered situations. In fact, it’s almost mad to teach this Newtonian junk since it promotes a false ontology that wholly distorts the impressionable minds of physics students and makes it more or less impossible for them to grasp quantum mechanics. Science has never come to terms with quantum mechanics, which is why so many Nobel Prizewinning physicists have been quoted as saying how incomprehensible it is. It is indeed incomprehensible from the perspective of Newtonian, empiricist, materialist, classical physics. Yet it’s entirely what you would expect from Leibnizian ontological mathematics based on monads. Ontological Fourier mathematics should be taught as the bedrock of science, not the Newtonian laws of motion. Science originally followed a “verification” principle (i.e. experiments verify hypotheses). However, Karl Popper rightly pointed out, in the manner of David Hume, that no amount of observations can ever definitely verify anything, just as no amount of induction is ever conclusive (no

matter how many white swans you see, it never proves that the next swan won’t be black). Popper noted that a single observation inconsistent with a hypothesis refutes it, thus he arrived at a falsification principle as the core of science. For any statement to be considered scientific, he said, it must be capable of being disproved; it must be falsifiable. Of course 1 + 1 = 2 is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific, yet there would be no such thing as science if 1 + 1 did not equal 2. Plainly, the falsifiability principle is as unreliable in getting at ultimate truth as the verification principle. The verification principle itself is unverifiable, hence unscientific, and the falsification principle itself is unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. Which means that science has no logical, rational basis at all! Can you observe the ultimate answer to existence? Can you verify it through experiments? Is it capable of being falsified? Absolutely nothing in ontological mathematics can be falsified, or is in any need of verification. Mathematical statements belong to a wholly different category from scientific statements. Mathematical statements are truths of reason and scientific statements are interpretations of fact. Mathematics is about truth; science is about interpretation. Science can’t deliver truth. It’s inductive where truth must be deductive. Science is all about testability; mathematics is all about provability. No amount of tests prove anything; they simply provide confidence. Confidence isn’t proof and isn’t truth. Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, brilliantly exposed science for the interpretative Mythos it actually is. He asserted that all scientific “explanations” belong to paradigms – models. So, there was a Newtonian paradigm that was then replaced by, on the one hand, an Einsteinian paradigm, and, on the other, a quantum mechanical paradigm. Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics belong to radically different paradigms, which is why they can’t be reconciled. Science’s great desire is to find a paradigm that unites these two highly successful theories. (It never seems to worry scientists that the experimental success of both Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics – despite being totally incompatible theories – shows without question that experimental success doesn’t tell us anything about truth.) Scientists aren’t questers after the truth. They are instrumentalist modellers. Their paradigms are interpretational frameworks. Paradigms

come and go, depending on their instrumental value, not their truth content. Science cannot disprove, verify or falsify God or the soul. It’s simply not equipped to do so. However, reason can certainly disprove false Gods and false theories of the soul. Rationalism is far more powerful than scientific empiricism. The New Age of HyperHumanity will be where Hyperrationalism comes to the fore. When ontological mathematics replaces science, humanity will at long last be on the final path to absolute, infallible truth. Science promotes the false message that observation leads to truth. It doesn’t. It leads to evidence, and evidence isn’t truth. Evidence is that which is subject to interpretation. Truth is that which can be definitively proved.

Personality Types and Mathematics It’s incredibly easy to ascertain what personality type people have. You simply need to make a provocative statement and see how they react. So, the statement, “Existence is 100% mathematical” is as extreme as it gets (and totally true!). A feeling type will reply with some comment such as, “This is absurd. What about love?” Well, indeed, what about love? Do people love randomly (in which case their love is meaningless), or for specific reasons? Reasons are information and mathematics is the science of information. Love is simply the internal experience of a certain type of information, just as love of music is in fact love of a certain type of way that sound waves have been assembled and then interacted with the emotions (which are themselves mathematically defined). Music is just mathematical information and yet our response to it is not what people would regard in any way as mathematical. Nevertheless, that’s all it is. Our favourite music elicits a subjective mathematical response to objective mathematical information. Love is no different. Feeling types are too stupid to realize that their much-vaunted feelings – that they find so overwhelming and sublime – are just subjective mathematics in action. Feeling types don’t like explanations. They don’t like to use thinking and reason. They prefer to wallow in their emotions as though these were

somehow supernatural and devoid of rational foundations. Sorry, feelings are grounded in mathematics, just like everything else. Sensing types say, “Where’s your empirical evidence?” Well, er, haven’t you been studying philosophy? Rationalism is the opposite of empiricism, and mathematics is nothing but rationalism. What experience will establish that 1 + 1 = 2 for all eternity? Thinking types will say, “Ah, interesting ... I wonder if that position can be rationally defended,” and will give it serious thought. Intuitives will have some sort of wondrous vision of cosmic vibrations and harmonies. Sadly, most people are feeling and sensing types, so will spout endless nonsense.

Einstein Schmeinstein “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Einstein And what does “as simple as possible” mean, Albert? Is your relativity theory as simple as possible, but not simpler? How can you tell? “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” – Albert Einstein Is it? There’s plenty of imagination in all of the Mythos gibberish to which humanity has been subjected ... and no knowledge. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” – Einstein Don’t you know what you’re doing, Albert? Research is what you undertake when you think you do know what you’re doing. “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.” – Einstein So, why were you a materialist empiricist then? “People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” – Einstein Yes, you believe in physics. You have adopted a faith position that tensed time and change do not exist.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” – Einstein And how is your theory of relativity not intelligent foolery? After all, it contradicts both quantum mechanics and the reality principle. “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” – Einstein So, Einstein asserts that time, space, gravitation and matter are different aspects or manifestations of the same thing! Do you agree? “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Einstein In fact, the laws of physics are uncertain and do not refer to reality. Reality is ontological mathematics. “I don’t believe in mathematics.” – Einstein We don’t believe in physics. “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.” – Einstein Scientists, traditionally, have never been in the ranks of the super rich. That said, they have always slavishly helped the super rich. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” – Einstein Well, Albert, you certainly didn’t help to make it comprehensible. You destroyed objective reality with your relativity principle. “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.” – Einstein Tell it to Dawkins! “God does not play dice with the universe.” – Einstein No, he plays poker.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Einstein Science without math is a joke. “I want to know God’s thoughts ... the rest are details.” – Einstein Then you should have become an Illuminist! “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science [by quantum mechanical indeterminacy]. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.” – Albert Einstein The idea of Allah, Jehovah or Jesus Christ being “God” is laughable. “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” – Einstein The God of the Jews is certainly malicious. Einstein was a Zionist and never repudiated Judaism. “The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving.” – Einstein Tell that to Wall Street and the privileged elite. “Try not to be a person of success, but rather a person of virtue.” – Albert Einstein Tell that to all CEOs and bankers. “Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value.” – Einstein Tell that to the super rich. “Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.” – Einstein Avoid bad habits. They corrupt your character.

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” – Einstein Tell that to the Abrahamists. “Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age.” – Einstein Data is increasing. Understanding is decreasing. “Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.” – Einstein Ho, ho, ho. It’s the way he tells them. As everyone knows, electromagnetism is responsible. “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” – Einstein Cui bono? “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Einstein Who are the dumbest? – the Abrahamists! Who invented Abrahamism? The Jews! Einstein was a Jew who never repudiated Judaism. “Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.” – Einstein Well, that clears everything up, doesn’t it? “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Einstein Does it? “With fame, I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.” – Einstein Yup, most famous people are incredibly stupid. What does that say about their fans and admirers, and how they became famous? “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” – Einstein

And most people have nothing remaining once school has become a distant memory. “Teaching should be such that what is offered is perceived as a valuable gift and not as a hard duty.” – Einstein Exactly right. “We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know.” – Einstein Speak for yourself. “You teach me baseball and I’ll teach you relativity ... No we must not. You will learn about relativity faster than I learn baseball.” – Einstein WTF! “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” – Einstein Error is indeed often the path to truth, science being the biggest error thus far, the one that prevents humanity from adopting the analytic truths of ontological mathematics. The road to truth is paved with untruth. That’s how we dialectically learn what truth is. “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” – Einstein Only if you believe in science in general and relativity in particular! “Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.” – Einstein This is the gospel of meritocracy. “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.” – Einstein A gift from whom? It’s the rational mind that makes intuitions valuable. “The monotony and solitude of a quiet life stimulates the creative mind.” – Einstein

And capitalism, with its mass consumerism and distractions, is determined to make sure there’s never any solitude or monotony, thus destroying creativity. Turn off your “smart” phone. Throw away your iPod. “Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labour in freedom.” – Einstein Capitalism refuses to pay for the creative geniuses. It wants everyone to labour in capitalist drudgery. “We have to do the best we can. This is our sacred human responsibility.” – Einstein Indeed it is. “Where there is love there is no question.” – Einstein So love is stupid? “I think and think for months and years, ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.” – Einstein Were you? How do you know? “The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” – Einstein That’s science for you. They don’t believe in truth, only in results and “evidence”. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” – Einstein And common sense is also that which renders people stupid from eighteen onwards. “Isn’t it strange that I who have written only unpopular books should be such a popular fellow?” – Einstein That’s the power of the Mythos world. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein Such as participating in democratic elections. Or believing in scientific materialism.

“I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple.” – Einstein That’s right. It’s the generalised Euler Formula: the God Equation. “Truth is what stands the test of experience.” – Einstein There speaks an empiricist scientist. No, truth is what stands the test of reason. “I love to travel, but hate to arrive.” – Einstein The scientific method leads nowhere. It can never reach a destination. “If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.” – Einstein The truth is elegant ... because reason and math are elegant. They are elegant because they are exactly as they need to be, without a single adornment. They are what they should be: no more and no less. “Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.” – Albert Einstein Geniuses are the ones who define the problems, then solve them. Morons can’t define a problem, can’t solve it, and get in the way of those who can. “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.” – Einstein No, those are pain and lust. “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” – Einstein A transcendent function is required: intuition, which then delivers its prizes to reason for hard analysis. “It is high time that the ideal of success should be replaced by the ideal of service.” – Einstein That’s the basis of meritocracy, and the opposite of free-market capitalism. “There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Einstein And the latter is far superior as far as believers are concerned.

“As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.” – Einstein Such is life. “I admit that thoughts influence the body.” – Einstein How? Are you admitting that mind is independent of matter? “The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.” – Einstein For most people, it dies very early on.

The Nobel Prize – Worthless “Max Born won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics for his ‘fundamental research in Quantum Mechanics, especially in the statistical interpretation of the wave function’.” – Wikipedia Max Born was awarded a Nobel Prize for producing a wholly fallacious interpretation of the quantum mechanical wavefunction. Rather than accept the obvious answer – that it’s ontologically real – Born squared the wavefunction (to remove imaginary numbers) and took its absolute (positive) value (to remove negative numbers). At no stage did Born provide any sufficient reason for what he did. His motivation was to produce an outcome compatible with the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of the scientific establishment. In other words, he was given a Nobel Prize for philosophy (for supporting the established scientific paradigm), not for science. The “statistical interpretation” is the absurdity you are forced to resort to if you reject the ontology of imaginary, negative and complex numbers. There is, in truth, no statistical component to quantum mechanics. Randomness and probability have no validity. Everything has a sufficient reason. Everything is caused. There are no random, uncaused events. Anyone who thinks there are (all scientific materialists!) cannot be considered true scientists at all. They are utterly irrational.

***** Foolish wisdom = science.

Wise Folly = science. We all have to choose between our reason and our senses. Our senses give us a wholly different notion of reality from our reason. We can imagine ourselves with radically different senses, and these would lead us to perceive reality radically differently. However, reason’s a different matter. The universe, from eternal reason’s perspective, never changes. Reason transcends the senses. Countless different sensory interpretations of reality – countless different sciences – are possible, but reason offers only one version of reality, the ontological mathematical version.

The Real World At the heart of all false accounts of reality is some fatal assumption that is deemed self-evident but is wholly false. The greatest misunderstanding of all is that the universe is not grounded in analytic, a priori, necessary truths of reason. These are traditionally understood as “abstractions” that don’t pertain to the “real world”. It is openly said about them that they cannot be “falsified”, as if this were a bad thing! Be very clear about one thing – if the ultimate truths of reality are falsifiable then they are not the ultimate truths! That’s exactly why science, based on a falsification principle, can never yield any final truth. An indisputable truth is one that by definition contains no falsehood. Only truths of reason qualify. Why shouldn’t the “real world” be analytic? Why should it be synthetic? An analytic world is a true world, a synthetic world is a world of subjective interpretation, opinions, beliefs and conjectures. An analytic world means that existence has a definitive answer, a synthetic world means that it does not.

The Last Magicians Isaac Newton was described as the “last magician”. In fact, all scientists are the last magicians. They believe that things can happen randomly – for no reason – just like magic! When will they become enlightened and enter the Age of Reason where everything has a sufficient reason? When will they leave behind scientific

superstition and faith and embrace mathematical rationalism?

The Question One of the primary tasks of philosophy is to ask, “What do you mean by that?” Philosophy is terrified of science and so refuses to ask the most basic questions. For example, it’s all very well for scientists to say that time is what you measure with a clock, but in fact that reveals neither what time is nor what a clock is. Well, what is a clock? It’s an instrument for measuring time. What is time? It’s a quantity measured by a clock. Do you see the complete circularity of these definitions? We do not discover what time is at all. An undefined entity is labelled time and then we are given an instrumental means of measuring this undefined entity. We are no further forward in knowing what time is, but, crucially, we have a means of attaching a number, a measurement, a quantity to this undefined thing called time. We can now use it as if it were a defined quantity because we have a definite number that we can substitute into any equation involving time. So, we generate a whole set of useful but circular instrumental definitions that tell us nothing about reality but are in perfect accordance with experimentation, which is all about measurement (and nothing to do with explanation). Science does not and cannot ontologically define space, time, mass, energy, speed or anything else. It’s a system of interlocking, reasonably self-consistent instrumental definitions that do not intersect with ontological explanations at any time. Philosophy ought to turn its full attention towards scientific materialism and blow it to smithereens, exposing it for what it is: a system of useful measurements that tells us nothing about the true nature of reality. In terms of quantum mechanics, the cosmic wavefunction is the source of all motion in the world and, in truth, it’s mental, not physical. The socalled material world is simply the output, the instant-by-instant crystallisation, of the mental wavefunction. All the minds of the universe – all monads – constitute individual nodes of this cosmic mental wavefunction. They are what power the cosmic wavefunction. Materialism has nothing to do with it. Matter is always passive and always devoid of true motion. It’s simply a mental phenomenon, a projection of mind.

Non-Locality Versus Reality “The result of the Aspect experiment shows that the Universe is not ‘local and real’, whatever kind of scientific description you might dream up to describe how it works. If you want to believe there is a real world out there, you cannot do without non-locality; if you want to believe that no form of communication takes place faster than the speed of light, you cannot have a real world, independent of the observer.” – John Gribbin, Schrödinger’s Kittens How many times have you heard scientists discussing this astounding choice – a real world and non-locality versus an unreal world and locality? Well, almost never! Why not? Because it absolutely subverts the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Never forget, non-locality is all about mind while localism is all about matter. You are therefore being told that you can have either a real, mental world or an unreal, material world! Shouldn’t everyone be far more aware of this? It’s staggering in its implications. Reality, it asserts, must be mental. And that means the end of scientific materialism. Moreover, if it’s possible for communication to take place faster than the speed of light then Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been falsified, hence formally refuted. Why is this theory still part of science if it has been experimentally disproven (by the Aspect experiment)? It seems that the falsification principle is somewhat selective! If you want, you can ignore it, which makes it pointless. Scientists engage in selective philosophical interpretation when they attempt to claim that non-locality does not refute special relativity. The prima facie fact is that it has been refuted, and now science is trying to explain away non-locality. Why, instead, isn’t it confronting the revolutionary ontological implications of non-locality? In essence, non-locality destroys materialism. If scientists were honest, they would admit this. But they are just as dishonest as Abrahamists and refuse to accept it when their most cherished theories are disproven. That’s why science progresses funeral by funeral. You have to wait for all the dinosaurs to die. Scientists are quick to dismiss anything they don’t like, and slow to dismiss anything they do like. Science seems to be a matter of taste,

preference and ideology rather than facts and evidence. Science has all the characteristics of a religious cult.

Peer Review What is “peer review”? It’s the scientific process of enforcing groupthink and conformism. Only scientific papers which agree with the prevailing paradigm of the scientific establishment are ever passed by this procedure. It’s somewhat akin to getting Catholic cardinals to review all religious papers sent to them. Well, we all know which religious papers they will pass and which they will reject, don’t we? It’s extraordinary that anyone can argue that peer review is an intrinsic positive. Louis de Broglie’s seminal doctoral thesis on the wave properties of particles caused consternation for his examining committee since it was contrary to the prevailing scientific paradigm. Einstein’s opinion was sought and he affirmed the importance of the thesis. What if someone else had been consulted and declared the thesis absurd? De Broglie would have been failed and never heard from again. In other words, science is all about opinions, and it may well be the case that many brilliant ideas in science have been killed at birth, precisely because of “peer review”. No genius waits for his “peers” to review his work. In fact, a genius by definition doesn’t even have any peers. A genius doesn’t wait to be told by others what he can think and what he can’t. Peer review is akin to a bunch of mates who share the same core views reviewing each other’s work and patting each other on the back. Scientific peer review never involves philosophers, “heretical” scientists or mathematicians. Peer review is reminiscent of corporate directors sitting on each other’s remuneration committees, and – surprise, surprise – reaching the conclusion that they are all doing wonderful work and should all be paid vastly more. That’s as much an expression of peer review as scientific peer review and yet no one regards it as objective or even sane (well, apart from the directors themselves!).

***** So, who peer reviews geniuses? Geniuses have no peers. Who gives geniuses permission to think new thoughts? No one! Who gives geniuses

permission to read or write a paper? No one! Whom do geniuses ask for help? No one! Geniuses are superhuman, almost divine. They are those who create themselves.

Tautology As soon as you see the “equals” sign in an equation, you are looking at a tautology since the expression on the right of the expression is the same as the expression on the left, simply expressed in different terms. Wittgenstein condemned mathematics for being a system of “empty” tautologies, but science (with its own equals sign) is a set of tautologies too, so what’s the difference? In ontological mathematics, the tautologies are analytic, a priori, necessary, eternal and deductive. In science, the tautologies are synthetic, a posteriori, contingent, temporal and inductive. Mathematical tautologies are immutable: they never change. Scientific tautologies are always changing. The tautologies of Newtonian physics are radically different from those of Einsteinian physics. So, which scientific theory are you to believe? Science says that you should believe the theory most consistent with the experimental data, but this is a permanently moving target. Newtonian physics was once extremely well verified experimentally and no one doubted it. Then anomalies appeared and people began to doubt. Experiments can never tell you what theory is correct and true, only what current theory is best matched to the current data. That’s not a system of infallible, absolute truth but of contingent matching of hypotheses and experimental data, with no inherent necessity in the system. E = mc2 is the world’s most famous scientific tautology and yet it’s just a circular relation. It defines energy in terms of mass and the speed of light; it defines mass in terms of energy and the speed of light; and it defines the speed of light in terms of energy and mass. In other words, it defines each symbol in terms of the other two symbols and at no stage does it tell you what any of the symbols actually represents, i.e. it provides no ontological definitions. It’s rather baffling why people such as Wittgenstein find these circular scientific relational tautologies so persuasive, and so much better than the eternal, infallible tautologies of mathematics. Ultimately, it’s because these

scientific tautologies can be continuously adjusted to reflect the experimental “facts”, so seem grounded in observed reality. Yet this process can never end. There can be no final experiment, nor any final, unchallengeable theory. All you end up with is, as Nietzsche observed, a better and better description of “reality”, but certainly no explanation of reality. Science will never provide any ontological and epistemological definitions of any scientific entities. All it will ever do is provide arbitrary, ad hoc, provisional, contingent, relational definitions based on nonontological hypotheses. Science is incapable of providing absolute truth. That’s a fact. People such as Wittgenstein are happy to have no final answer to existence. Other thinkers – such as Leibniz – are certain that existence has a definitive answer, and will accept no half-baked scientific hypotheses. Everything comes down to whether the scientific tautologies are mere appearance (i.e., they are phenomenal tautologies) and are thus ultimately underpinned by noumenal tautologies, i.e. those of ontological mathematics. Are all phenomena grounded in hidden noumena? Are all scientific statements grounded in mathematical statements? Are all synthetic statements grounded in analytic statements? Are all inductive statements grounded in deductive statements? Are all a posteriori statements grounded in a priori statements? Are all contingent statements grounded in necessary statements? Are all temporal statements grounded in eternal statements? Are all sensible statements grounded in intelligible statements? Are all materialist statements grounded in idealist statements? Are all empiricist statements grounded in rationalist statements? Either the universe of mathematical tautology has no connection with the real world, as Wittgenstein believed, and only scientific tautology can tell us about the world (but, by its very nature, only imperfectly and uncertainly). Or ontological mathematical tautology is the noumenal basis of reality, and scientific tautologies are their phenomenal expression. If this is the case, existence has a definitive, rational answer. Ontological mathematics asserts that there’s a rational, mathematical, noumenal underpinning to observed reality (the phenomenal world). Science says that mathematics is empty, that there’s no hidden noumenal

reality, that what you see is what you get (appearance = reality) and that reality does not have any analytic, rational answer but is ultimately grounded in pure randomness, where things happen without cause, for no reason, as if by magic. A rational universe contains an ultimate answer to “life, the universe and everything”, and furnishes total meaning to the universe. A random universe contains no answer to “life, the universe and everything”, and renders the universe meaningless (exactly as scientists say!) A random universe is irrational and causeless. So, which is it? Do we inhabit a rational, ordered, noumenal, ontological mathematical universe imbued with meaning? Or an irrational, disordered, chaotic, random scientific universe that rejects causality, determinism and the principle of sufficient reason? Ultimate reality is non-empirical. Absolutely no one can perceive with their senses either the rational, noumenal underpinning of reality or the irrational, random underpinning of reality. Whether you prefer a rational, meaningful, noumenal reality or an irrational, meaningless, random reality is an intellectual, not a sensory, choice you make. Of course, this choice is effectively the same as asking whether you are rational or irrational. Only an irrationalist would prefer an irrational theory of existence. Sad to say, science is the irrationalist, randomist worldview to which most of the world’s “intellectuals” subscribe. Ontological mathematics is its rationalist antidote. To be a rationalist, you must accept that there’s an unobservable, noumenal reality that’s wholly defined by ontological mathematics, the subject which encapsulates rationalism and the principle of sufficient reason. To be a “scientist”, you must accept that there’s no rational noumenal reality, just a meaningless, random, irrational well that miraculously gives rise, from non-existence (!), to life, mind, consciousness and the ordered universe we see all around us. Existence, science says, can come from non-existence. This is the falsest statement it’s possible to make, as the ancient Greeks understood so well. You can never get existence from non-existence. Whatever exists has, in its irreducible noumenal form, existed forever. Only its appearance changes, not its essence. In ontological mathematics, the Singularity of mathematical monads has existed forever, and provides a 100% rational, mathematical ground of existence. In science, existence can randomly leap out of non-

existence, hence there is no rational, eternal order. Science, in essence, posits a magic universe where rabbits inexplicably pop out of top hats. Indeed, whole universes can spring from scientific top hats (which are of course non-existent top hats!). Well, what’s it to be? Are you rational (mathematical) or irrational (scientific)? Remember, no experiment, no observation and no sensory experience can ever solve this problem for you. You have to work it out with your intelligence (such as it is). There will never be any “evidence”, only rational proof. Proof will never be empirical, only intellectual, rational and mathematical. Are you willing to accept rationalism over empiricism, intellectual proof over sensory evidence? Your choice!

***** Wittgenstein and his fellow travellers have never explained why mathematics should be regarded as empty tautology with no connection with the real world. This claim is all the more incredible given that science, which Wittgenstein and his followers all revered, is absolutely useless without mathematics (“empty tautology”). Why is it that no one (other than us) ever explains the presence of mathematics in science, and never attempts to explain the ontology of mathematics? Mathematics is commonly treated as nothing but a weird, mysterious, highly useful tool, but without any relevance to ontology. If science is real then it’s absolutely incomprehensible and impossible that its mathematical core should not be real too. Otherwise, it’s being claimed that reality is defined by unreality. Sadly, this is indeed the stance science takes, with its insistence that unreal mathematical wavefunctions randomly collapse to produce scientific “reality”. Science is now pure irrationalism, and all because it has failed to address the ontology of mathematics. It has used mathematics without knowing what mathematics is, and that’s an extraordinary omission that no rationalist would ever commit.

Gödel, Wittgenstein and Tautology Wittgenstein rejected Gödel’s work because it seemed to say that mathematics was inconsistent and incomplete, something inconceivable to

Wittgenstein who believed that mathematics was just tautology, which, by definition, cannot be inconsistent and incomplete. So, who was right? In fact, both were! What Gödel said was not related to mathematics per se, but to the different axiomatic and formalist approaches to mathematics used by various philosophers and mathematicians. True mathematics, exactly as Wittgenstein said, is complete, consistent and tautological. True mathematics is ontological. It’s not axiomatic, or formalist, or born of set theory, or logic, or “games”. Ontological mathematics must be defined by a single law or formula, which is necessarily consistent and compete (because a single law or formula cannot be inconsistent or incomplete with regard to itself). All true mathematical tautologies must flow from that single law or formula. The law in question is the generalised Euler Formula: the God Equation.

***** The above considerations have radical consequences for abstract (rather than ontological) mathematics. Abstract mathematics, which is defined in terms of axioms, formalism, set theory, logic or “games”, will always fall foul of Gödelian incompleteness or inconsistency. Abstract mathematics is not perfectly tautological (unlike ontological mathematics). The technical difference between ontological and abstract mathematics is that the former is necessarily Gödelian consistent and complete, and the latter isn’t. Consequently, abstract mathematics cannot be relied upon for making true, provable statements. All sorts of things can be defined in abstract mathematics that have no bearing on ontology.

The Difference Between Evidence, Proof and Truth Evidence, which is what science is based on, is that which tends to prove or disprove something; it provides ground for a certain interpretation over others. It does not prove. It lends plausibility to an interpretation, which is emphatically different from actual proof. Evidence is much weaker than proof. Evidence is highly interpretative; proof is not interpretative at all. Proof, which is what ontological mathematics is based on, is an argument sufficient to establish a thing as definitively true. It is that which

establishes the absolute truth of something, a sequence of steps, statements or demonstrations that leads to a valid, infallible, immutable conclusion. Truth is “the actual state of affairs”. It’s conformity with reality, a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, conclusion, argument, or the like. It’s the state or character of being unarguably true. It’s actuality or actual existence, the genuine ontological state of things. In relation to abstract mathematics, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems apply, meaning that there are “truths” that cannot be proved within the system. This is not the case in ontological mathematics: all truths must be provable or cannot be considered true. This is because ontological mathematics, being based on only one formula, is necessarily consistent and complete, so all truths that flow from it can be proved.

The Science Fraud Modern science is quintessentially an incoherent subject. It’s based on its experimental method of observations and measurements, but fails wholesale in terms of epistemology and ontology. Science never clarifies its concepts. For example, most people think of science in terms of material atoms, determinism and causality. Yet the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has destroyed any coherent account of materialism, determinism and causality. Science makes no attempt to explain what “matter” is, how classical determinism arises from quantum indeterminacy, how fundamental quantum randomness can produce classical causality, how unobservable randomness and an unobservable quantum wavefunction can be consistent with empiricism, how mindless “matter” can produce mind and consciousness, how lifeless matter can produce life, how a material world can come randomly from nothing, and so on. All of this is simply ignored. Science hides behind its “method” and refuses to state a scientific philosophy, an epistemology and an ontology. Science is a philosophy that refuses to engage with philosophy. It’s bad (and sad!) philosophy. All it wants to do is measure, observe and produce working hypotheses that match those measurements and observations. What it certainly won’t do is stray from measurements and observations and attempt to explain what anything actually is, and how all of its instrumental,

pragmatic concepts and definitions actually hold together as an intellectual, coherent, consistent system of epistemology. Scientists resolutely avoid all of that. They play a double game. On the one hand, they stick to experimental “facts” and “evidence”, but, on the other, they espouse bizarre, non-empirical cosmological hypotheses that they claim are valid inferences from the experimental data. The trouble is they’re not. Hypotheses are philosophical speculations. There are many ways to explain experimental data, as the vast graveyard of scientific theories demonstrates. Today’s valid “explanation” of the data is tomorrow’s failed theory. Newtonian physics was wonderfully consistent with the experimental data ... until it wasn’t! And that’s the trouble with science. Every theory is just one experimental result away from being falsified. Therein lies another immense problem for science. When each theory is falsified, why doesn’t the whole thing fall? Why are some parts retained? How can you have a coherent, consistent scientific epistemology if you are continually picking at the bones of dead theories and assembling new theories from them like Frankenstein monsters? Do the concepts of failed theories remain valid in new theories? As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, the concept of mass in Newton’s theories is completely different from the concept of mass in Einstein’s theories, so why is the same name and symbol used in each theory? The problem, as ever, is that science refuses to, or rather is incapable of, providing an ontological definition of mass. “Mass” in science is just a label attached to a symbol that features in relevant equations. At no stage is it ever explained what mass actually is. What does mass mean, ontologically, in terms of relativity theory and quantum mechanics? Who knows?! It’s precisely because it’s not at all clear what anything is in science – whether mass, energy, time, space, speed, gravity, or anything else – that it has proved impossible to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity theory. You can only merge theories that have the same ontological implications, and no scientist has the vaguest idea of the ontological implications of any scientific theory since scientists always ignore ontology, seeing it as “philosophy”. Scientists are hoist with their own petard, and too philosophically illiterate to realise it. Science will never furnish the answer to anything. Science is just a modelling system that, within narrow parameters, can make useful

predictions. Outside those parameters, science is 100% useless. Science cannot explain what existence is, what life is, what mind is, what consciousness is, how free will is possible, what happens to you after death, how the universe originated and what the meaning of life, the universe and everything is. Science is a giant intellectual fraud. Its successes (solely within the arena of that which is susceptible to scientific experimentation) have made people imagine it’s much more comprehensive than it actually is. Science denies that anything exists that’s not amenable to the experimental method, and yet the randomness that science invokes, and the quantum mechanical wavefunction that science says dictates reality, are themselves completely outside the experimental method, as are all singularities (of which science is full, from the Big Bang singularity, to black hole singularities, to photonic singularities). Even within its own ideology, science fatally contradicts itself. Yet no scientists care. They are intellectual barbarians, devoid of reason and integrity. They simply aren’t concerned about the vast holes in science. That would require a philosophical mindset, and scientists are those who loathe philosophy. It’s exactly for that reason that science will never produce a final theory of everything, and will never address any of the most significant issues of our existence. It will be always be a subject for dreary drones, for geeks, nerds and dorks devoid of imagination and intuition, for machinelike autistics who are perfectly happy to conclude (entirely erroneously) that life is meaningless. Science promotes a view that atoms are objectively real and not just phenomena (even though the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics makes it formally impossible to understand what an atom actually is in material terms and how it has any connection with “matter” at all). Science claims that “objective” atoms produce objective minds linked to objective senses that objectively record objective reality. It has to say this because otherwise it would have to engage with subjective minds, with subjective interpretations, with subjective perceptions, with appearances, phenomena, impressions, mental constructs, and everything else that would inevitably lead us to conclude that we are not encountering reality itself, but an illusion, an appearance of reality concealing the true reality of unobservable noumena.

As soon as science acknowledges a hidden, noumenal reality, it’s finished as a subject that claims to tell us the truth about reality. Instantly, physics is replaced by metaphysics, and science is relegated below mathematics and philosophy. The dishonest, greedy scientific careerists who comprise the scientific establishment are having none of that. They will go on believing in convenient lies until the day they die. Progress is made despite these people, not because of them. Progress is made over their dead bodies. These people have zero intellectual integrity, and zero regard for the truth.

The Atoms of Reality All intelligent systems of thought ultimately reduce to just two rival stances: 1) Materialism: reality comprises material atoms. These are extended and dimensional. Material atoms can be arranged into brains, and brains give rise to minds. Matter is the basis of mind and without matter there would be no mind. This is the basic view of science, although this view suffers from two catastrophic problems: 1) material atoms apparently came from “nothing” (via the Big Bang), hence are not fundamental to the universe, are not eternal, are not necessary, and are not analytic, and 2) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Einsteinian Relativity Principle all make it impossible to conceive of atoms in anything like classical materialist terms: it’s no longer possible to provide a clear, consistent definition of what “matter” is supposed to be. In effect, materialism has died, but science has refused to “call it”. What’s left is just a bizarre zombie which is treated as materialist without being materialist. If the moon isn’t there when no one’s looking at it, and if God does nothing but play dice, what exactly is matter supposed to be? The materialists refuse to say, while maintaining their total hostility towards mind being the primary reality. The whole concept of “matter” is now incoherent and indefensible, yet the scientific community blindly goes on being materialist and, like a religion, will not abandon its rationally refuted position.

Materialism is dead. That’s a fact. A paradigm shift is required that takes us away from “matter” once and for all. 2) Idealism: reality comprises mental atoms. Mental atoms are unextended and dimensionless. Mental atoms, via collective mathematical operations, produce the mathematical illusion of matter. Mind is the basis of matter and without mind there would be no matter. There is no contradiction with “mental matter” coming from “nothing” in the Big Bang since mind is immaterial, dimensionless and occupies zero physical space (hence is indeed materially “nothing”). Mental atoms are noumenal, rational and mathematical. They are monads. They cannot be perceived by the senses, no experiments can be performed on them, and they are totally outside the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. If idealism is true, materialism is false, and science, in its current materialist form, must be abandoned and replaced with a new science that mixes physics and metaphysics, or, to put it another way, phenomenal and noumenal mathematics. Leibniz always thought of science in this way (and was totally right), but science preferred the Newtonian materialist conception of science (now known to be totally ontologically false). The materialist view of Atomism denies that there are noumena and phenomena. Atoms are conceived as “reality”. They are not deemed to be “appearances” of something else, something more fundamental. They are not deemed to be representations but, rather, direct presentations of fundamental reality. What you see is what’s really there. The idealist view of Atomism is the opposite. True reality comprises noumenal atoms. All “material” atoms are phenomena: representations, appearances. They are not real things in their own right. This view readily chimes with so-called quantum “weirdness”. The weirdness is exactly what you would expect from things that are mental constructs rather than actual, objective things with their own independent, autonomous existence. Quantum weirdness is inexplicable in relation to entities considered to be physically, objectively real. Why hasn’t science faced the facts? Why hasn’t it accepted rational reality? The answer lies in the scientific method itself. Just as Muslims wouldn’t dream of rejecting the Koran (the core of their religion), so

scientists wouldn’t dream of rejecting the scientific method, the core of their religion! Science is distinguished from philosophy by virtue of the scientific method (which philosophy doesn’t have). If scientists admitted that the scientific method deals only with phenomena and representations, not with reality itself, they would be acknowledging that science does not, and never can, address true, noumenal reality. Science would be relegated to what it in fact is: a means of modelling the way the world appears, while telling us nothing at all about what lies beneath the representational layer. Science is all about the Matrix. Science studies how the Matrix appears to us while being clueless that the Matrix conceals a hidden, true reality. Science is superficial, a shallow intellectual construct that never gets to the heart of things. It can never provide ultimate answers, which is why it’s stupid to believe, as people such as Richard Dawkins do, that science is a comprehensive explanatory system of reality. Science doesn’t say a single thing about true, noumenal reality. And it never can while it accepts the Dawkins’ worldview. Science must become Leibnizian to have anything to say about the true nature of existence, and it will have to abandon the scientific method as the be-all-and-end-all since this method is all about appearance and representation and nothing to do with what is being represented, with what underlies the appearances (“hidden variables”; rational unobservables).

***** Quantum mechanics, in order to be rational, had to accept the existence of hidden variables, but, via the Copenhagen school, it absolutely refused to do so. It preferred that “God” should play dice rather than that he should be completely hidden from us and not play dice at all. (Note that causation is also entirely hidden from us and is a strictly noumenal aspect of existence: no one has ever perceived a cause; all causes are inferred intellectually, never perceived with the senses. Do you or do you not accept the reality of causation? Science does not!) Science is, bizarrely, a philosophy that rejects philosophy. It cites its method as its defining element, and, since this cannot address anything that is non-representational, anything noumenal, it ipso facto rejects metaphysics (ontological mathematics). To put it another way, the scientific method addresses phenomena alone and then, rather than admit that there

are also hidden noumena, it denies the existence of anything not amenable to experimentation. Everything then has to be explained in term of appearances and representation, and, since this is rationally impossible, science ends up denying that the moon exists when no one’s looking at it (since it has no unobserved appearance; it is noumenon, but the existence of noumena is denied). It asserts that Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously dead, alive, and mixtures of dead and alive (!), that’s there no such things as causality and the principle of sufficient reason, that reality is grounded in randomness, indeterminacy and the mysteriously, inexplicably collapsing quantum wavefunction, and that the universe comes from a random fluctuation in nothing. These are all the absurd and 100% false conclusions that flow when noumenal, rational reality is rejected. Imagine trying to understand the world of The Matrix without understanding its true nature. Imagine trying to explain reality on the basis of how The Matrix appears rather than what it actually is (which you can’t perceive at all). It’s impossible for anyone to understand reality purely from its illusory appearance (Maya), and yet this is exactly what science seeks to do, and that’s why is has degenerated into irrational gibberish when it tries to address ultimate reality, which is noumenal not phenomenal, intelligible not sensible, metaphysical not physical, rationalist not experimentalist (empiricist). Modern science is an intellectual joke. No thinking person could take it seriously. Nothing illustrates its incoherence more than its failure to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics despite the most widespread, expensive and intensive effort in intellectual history. Why has science failed and why will it go on failing? It’s because science has no ability to analyse any problem from first principles. Science has no first principles. It has no ontology and no epistemology. It can’t define what anything is. Science proceeds by trial and error, by guesswork, by taking ad hoc, arbitrary hypotheses and trying to match them to experimental data. Science is heuristic. Newtonian physics, despite being 100% ontologically false, was spectacularly successful experimentally, which simply proves how useless science is for learning anything about ultimate reality. Scientific success actually lies in successfully modelling reality, but bad models (with no ontological truth) can be highly successful within a narrow range. Within this range, the scientific model approximates the true ontological laws of reality, hence why it works. Outside the limits, the

model falls apart, just as Newtonian physics did when it had to address entities moving at very high speeds rather than low speeds (in relation to the speed of light). The domain of applicability of the Newtonian model collapsed at high speeds. Scientists, since they know nothing about epistemology and ontology, have no idea what the domain of applicability of any scientific model is, and have to wait for experiments to refute the model, at which point they look for some other ad hoc, arbitrary hypothesis, which is exactly why general relativity and quantum mechanics have zero in common. They came from wholly different starting points and assumptions. Illuminism is a precise, analytic system of mathematical epistemology and ontology, hence there’s no ambiguity about it. Nothing is ad hoc and arbitrary about it. No one needs to wait for any experiments to be performed. The whole system is a priori. Mathematics is the only rational way forward. Science has collapsed under its own contradictions and modus operandi. It can’t reason its way through any problems since it does not acknowledge the principle of sufficient reason. Science proceeds purely by guessing. All over the world, at this very instant, the world’s leading scientists are literally guessing at how they might reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. They’re not using reason, or first principles, or analysis, or deduction. They’re saying, “Hmmm, what happens if I try this arbitrary idea? Does it look promising? Will my colleagues laugh at me? Will I get a promotion? Will I be famous?” That’s what passes for “science” these days. It’s 100% certain that no scientist will ever reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics since these two theories blatantly contradict each other. Both theories are ontologically false. The final scientific theory of everything will be a theory of pure ontological mathematics. It will be all about the generalised Euler Formula and Fourier mathematics. That’s a fact. You read it here first. The final scientific theory will be a Fourier theory of phenomena (spacetime entities). Ontological mathematics itself is the Fourier theory of noumena (frequency domains: monads). The two together produce the theory of everything, noumenal and phenomenal, mental and physical, dimensionless and dimensional. Illuminism tells you all you need to know about epistemology and ontology. What’s required is to map ontological mathematics to the things

of the world: space, time, mass, atoms, speed, gravity, and so on. Illuminism tells you exactly what noumenal reality is, but it does not tell you exactly what “gravity” is. Gravity is a phenomenon, not a noumenon (there’s no such thing as gravity in the immaterial, dimensionless domain of monadic minds). The final theory of science will explain dimensional (phenomenal) existence, but will be completely based on and derived from dimensionless, mental, noumenal, metaphysical existence, exactly as Leibniz said over three hundred years ago! Never forget, physics is not a standalone subject (as physicists believe). Physics is underpinned by metaphysics, and metaphysics is nothing other than ontological mathematics. Why is science pervaded by mathematics even though science is 100% experimentally unobservable (hence outside the scientific method)? It’s precisely because physics is just the phenomenal expression of noumenal (ontological) mathematics. Science has gone as far as it can as a grotesquely philosophically ignorant and illiterate system. The scientific method has failed. It can deal only with empirical phenomena, not with non-empirical, rationalist noumena. Getting science to admit it’s wrong is of course no different from getting Muslims to admit that the Koran is wrong, i.e. an impossible task. Science is a belief system, a quasi religion. It will never listen to reason. Richard Dawkins could no more admit he is wrong than the Pope could. Science will not be changed from within. It will be changed by an external group – ontological mathematicians. Are you one of the new breed of world geniuses: the mathematikoi? Are you a hyperrationalist, a member of HyperHumanity, an Illuminist? Are you one of those who will pave the way for humanity to reach its divine destiny and establish a Community of Gods, and paradise on Earth? The Age of Science is over. Now it’s time for the Age of Ontological Mathematics. Now it’s time for the ultimate Enlightenment: the Age of Illumination.

The Red Pill The mathematikoi are those who have taken the red pill and thus escaped the Matrix. The scientists are those who chose the blue pill and thus

remained stuck inside the Matrix, unable to see the truth of the Matrix.

***** “It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.” – Goethe Science is all about surface error, and nothing to do with deep truth. Science has been fantastically successful at mapping ad hoc, quasi-mathematical hypotheses (such as Newton’s theory of gravity) to experimental observations and measurements. It has been fantastically unsuccessful in accounting for mind, life, free will, consciousness, the soul, the afterlife, dimensionlessness, causation, i.e. everything that cannot be observed or measured: all the truly important stuff that defines our fundamental selves and the meaning of life (and, of course, science denies that life has any meaning). Abrahamism proved spectacularly unsuccessful at accounting for the observable world. Science has proved every bit as spectacularly unsuccessful at accounting for the unobservable world. Only sensory people obsessed with sensory perception take science seriously when it comes to ultimate reality. Since ultimate reality is noumenal, not phenomenal (sensory), science and the scientific method are useless at explaining ultimate existence. That’s a fact. Never forget that causation itself, which was once what science was all about, is now dismissed by science, and has been replaced with acausality, indeterminism, randomness, probability and statistics. Why has science killed causation? Because causation is unobservable. What, ultimately, is causation? It’s simply ontological mathematics! What science keeps rejecting is none other than unobservable, noumenal, causative, ontological mathematics. And that makes science totally irrational and anti-mathematical.

The Central Fallacy Scientists believe that the only alternative to the scientific method is religious faith and mysticism, i.e. the “religious method”. They have simply never considered that there’s a much more powerful alternative: the

mathematical method. Ontological mathematics calls for the scientific method to be relegated beneath the mathematical method. It’s not observation (the scientific method) versus the religious method (faith and revelation), it’s observation (the scientific method) versus reason, logic and deduction (the mathematical method). Reason, logic and deduction are not about the senses, they are about intellect. The intelligentsia always prefer reason to observations, their reason to their senses. Science, like religion, is an enemy of reason. Where religion defends feelings, science defends the senses. Ontological mathematics defends thinking (reason), and anyone opposed to it is irrational. That’s a fact.

The Theoretical Fallacy “It is often said that Einstein’s equations of motion approximate very closely Newton’s equations when velocities are small compared with the speed of light, so Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are compatible: the former is simply a special case of the latter. Kuhn argues, on the contrary, that ‘Einstein’s theory can be accepted only with the recognition that Newton’s was wrong,’ though he acknowledged that ‘[t]oday this remains a minority view.’ – Martin Packer, The Science of Qualitative Research Einstein’s theory is not a refinement of Newton’s theory. It’s an entirely different theory, with completely different ontological implications. If Einstein is right, Newton is wrong. Einstein doesn’t amend Newton, he refutes him. Science has never understood this. By the same token, if quantum mechanics is right, relativity is wrong, and vice versa. Therefore, it’s simply impossible to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity theory. A final theory of everything will refute either quantum mechanics, relativity theory, or, indeed, both. That’s a fact. Scientists are irrationally wasting their time by trying to unite quantum mechanics and relativity theory. At least one of these theories is absolutely wrong, and scientists ought to be intent on proving which one is false. However, not a single scientist on earth is engaged in this project, and any scientist who proclaimed a priori that either quantum mechanics or relativity theory must be provably false would be drummed out of science. Science is not a rational undertaking. It’s a quasi religion for believers. They just can’t think straight.

Quantum mechanics and relativity theory, despite their great experimental “success”, are as compatible as Newton and Einstein’s theories, i.e. they are not compatible at all. At least one must be wrong. Science’s catastrophic problem is that it has no means to establish the falsehood of either quantum mechanics or relativity theory. Reason can do the trick, but reason is rejected by science in favour of experiments, and, thus far, experiments have seemed to corroborate both theories, although both can’t be right since they are fundamentally incompatible. This shows exactly why the scientific method is useless in establishing truth. It can’t tell us which theory is definitely true and which definitely false. In the end, quantum mechanics and relativity theory will both be replaced: by ontological mathematics!

Incommensurability “Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable – that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm.” – Wikipedia “In the transition from one theory to the next words change their meanings or conditions of applicability in subtle ways. Though most of the same signs are used before and after a revolution – e.g., force, mass, element, compound, cell – the ways in which some of them attach to nature has somehow changed. Successive theories are thus, we say, incommensurable.” – Thomas Kuhn “The practice of normal science depends on the ability, acquired from exemplars, to group objects and situations into similarity sets which are primitive in the sense that the grouping is done without an answer to the question, ‘Similar with respect to what?’ One central aspect of any revolution is, then, that some of the similarity relations change. Objects that were grouped in the same set before are grouped in different ones afterward and vice versa. Think of the sun, moon, Mars, and earth before and after Copernicus; of free fall, pendular, and planetary motion before and after Galileo; or of salts, alloys, and a sulphur-iron filing mix before and after Dalton. Since most objects within even the altered sets continue to be grouped together, the names of the sets are usually preserved. Nevertheless,

the transfer of a subset is ordinarily part of a critical change in the network of interrelations among them.” – Thomas Kuhn “Commensurability is a concept, in philosophy of science, whereby scientific theories are commensurable if scientists can discuss them in terms permitting direct comparison of theories to determine which theory is truer. On the other hand, theories are incommensurable if they are embedded in starkly contrasting conceptual frameworks whose languages lack sufficiently overlapping meanings to permit scientists to directly compare the theories or to cite empirical evidence favouring one theory over the other. Discussed by Ludwik Fleck in the 1930s, and popularized by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s, the problem of incommensurability results in scientists talking past each other, as it were, while comparison of theories is muddled by confusions about terms’ contexts and consequences.” “In 1962, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend both independently introduced the idea of incommensurability to the philosophy of science. ... “The term commensurability was coined because of a series of problems that both authors found when trying to interpret successive scientific theories. Without doubt its implementation is better understood thanks to the critiques that both Kuhn and Feyerabend have made in response to certain theses proposed by followers of the received view of theories. These include the famous thesis on the accumulation of scientific knowledge, which states that the body of scientific knowledge has been increasing with the passage of time. Both Kuhn and Feyerabend reject this thesis. “Another equally important thesis proposes the existence of a neutral language of comparison which can be used to formulate the empirical consequences of two competing theories. This would allow one to choose the theory with the greatest empirically verified contents – or the greatest content that is not falsified if the formulation is Popperian. “The idea at the root of this second thesis does not just relate to the existence of said language but also implies at least two further postulates. Firstly, this choice between theories presupposes that they can be intertranslated, for example between Theory T and its successor T’ – and in the case of Popper that T’ can be deduced from T. Secondly, it is assumed that the choice is always carried out under the same standards of rationality. “In both cases the concept of incommensurability makes the viability of the thesis impossible. In the first, by showing that certain empirical

consequences are lost between successive theories. In the second case, by confirming that it is possible to make a rational choice between theories even when they cannot be translated into a neutral language.” – Wikipedia Paradigms are “incommensurate”: they have no common measure. Science, philosophy, politics, economics and religion are all full of incommensurate models and hypotheses. In science, all the different interpretations of quantum mechanics are incommensurate, as are quantum mechanics and relativity theory, and all the other speculative scientific theories. Economics is full of incommensurate versions of capitalism, and of socialism. Politics is full of incommensurate ideologies and parties. In religion, Catholicism and Protestantism are incommensurate, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are incommensurate, Western and Eastern religion are incommensurate. In philosophy, the debate regarding free will is full of incommensurate positions. Idealism and materialism are incommensurate. Rationalism and empiricism are incommensurate. Science and religion are incommensurate. Science and philosophy are incommensurate. Democratic politics and freemarket capitalist economics are incommensurate, and so on. Incommensurability infects everything, yet people imagining they are talking about the same things in the same terms. They’re not. They’re all talking past each other, using their own paradigms and schemas. Markedly different personality types are incommensurate. Introverted thinking intuitives view reality wholly differently from extraverted feeling sensing types. Only one thing can get beyond the relativism of incommensurability: the eternal, immutable truths of ontological mathematics. Everything in ontological mathematics is commensurable because it’s consistent, complete and tautological. Science is full of incommensurate ideas and hypotheses because it’s grounded in contingency and empiricism rather than necessity and rationalism.

Lost in Translation Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis amounts to a claim that different theories, when properly analyzed, have no common language, rules or concepts, hence no means to translate one into the other (hence allowing for a proper comparison). How, for example, could you translate a Chinese

literary text into a chemistry text? They are incommensurate. Likewise, is Newtonian physics truly translatable into Einsteinian physics? Donald Davidson argued against Kuhn by claiming that if we can translate a language into our own, it follows that there must be an overlap in the conceptual schemas associated with both languages (hence if we can consider Newtonian physics from an Einsteinian stance, they must be translatable, or we could never undertake the comparison in the first place). However, Davidson’s position contains a fundamental error. We may imagine that we have translated another language into our own, but be entirely wrong. For example, two people using the same language can read exactly the same sentence in entirely different ways, meaning that not only are there immense difficulties in translating one language into another, but even understanding the same language in the same terms is fraught with difficulties. Autistic people, lacking any metaphorical capabilities, read sentences extremely literally and fail to recognise any metaphorical allusions or nuances. Their understanding of the same material is incommensurate with that of non-autistics. Can you ever explain metaphor to someone who doesn’t understand, and never can understand, metaphor? There is a wholesale failure to “translate”. Extraverts and introverts understand language differently, so do sensing and intuitive types, and feeling and thinking types. Their brains are wired differently for processing the same information. They apply completely different schemas. We simply delude ourselves that we are singing from the same hymn sheet, that we are on the same page, that we have understood the same material equally. We carry out a pretence of translation, not an actual translation. We use empathy to try to see things from another person’s viewpoint, but we can only genuinely empathise with someone rather like us. Star Trek’s hyper-logical Mr Spock could never empathise with a Pentecostal believer speaking in tongues and having an emotional fit. Translation is one of the most difficult things there is. No two people ever translate anything identically, and often they do so radically differently. The best you can hope for is a strong overlap, and that happens only with people like yourself, people “on the same wavelength”.

Oops “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” – Lord Kelvin (address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1900) This is one of the most hubristic statements of all time. Physics hasn’t even discovered itself yet. It doesn’t know that it’s entirely derived from ontological mathematics, which is noumenal, unobservable, causal, a priori and nothing to do with the scientific method, the senses and experience. It’s entirely rationalist. Note the emphasis Kelvin places on measurement (quantity). There is no reference whatsoever to qualia (quality). There is no reference whatsoever to meaning and purpose. Such is the autistic mind of the machinelike physicist.

***** “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” – Einstein Physicists, like autistics, cannot prioritize. (And that goes for Einstein too!) They can’t see the wood for the trees. They are prisoners of their senses. They don’t even want to be free since they deny the reality of free will.

The Question Go on then, scientists, explain how something comes from nothing via randomness! Go on, explain what “nothing” is. Go on, explain what randomness is. Go on, explain why existence is random. Go on, explain the origin of randomness, where it exists, how it exists, its ontology. Go on, explain how randomness creates order, organisation, pattern, matter, mind, life, consciousness, and free will. Go on, explain how the unreal, unobservable quantum wavefunction is produced by “randomness”. Go on, explain how randomness produces a sensory universe. Go on, explain how mathematics comes from randomness. Go on, explain how randomness creates classical determinism and causality. Go on, explain how randomness produces Newton’s laws and Einsteinian relativity. Go on, explain how randomness produces energy, time, space, mass, speed, and the laws of science. Go on, explain what a law of science is. Go on, explain what

energy is. Go on, explain what time is. Go on, explain what space is. Go on, explain what light is. Go on, explain why the speed of light is fixed and how it’s produced by randomness. Go on, explain where the universe came from. Go on, explain what it’s expanding into. Go on, explain what dark energy and dark matter are, and how they are generated by randomness. Go on, explain the relationship between randomness and “nothing”. Go on, explain what preceded the Big Bang. Go on, explain any fucking thing at all!

***** Science – the most elaborate non-explanation in history! Science – the proof that you can fool all of the people all of the time! Science – an intellectual disgrace. Just how dumb do you have to be to find science persuasive? Why not turn instead to ontological mathematics, the rational explanation of everything, the ontological expression of the principle of sufficient reason? Well, what it to be? Rationalist mathematics, or randomist science?

The First Three Minutes Some scientists have claimed to be able to explain the first three minutes of the Big Bang (despite the fact that scientists now say that 95% of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter, which scientists can’t define in the slightest). These bold scientists establish a causal chain: A cause B causes C causes D, and so on (despite the fact that quantum mechanics is fundamentally grounded in indeterminism and acausality). The problem with this is that it begs the question of what starts the causal chain, i.e. what is the first cause? There are four options: 1) We are dealing with an infinite causal regress. This is no good because physical space and time must have a beginning, and there can be no beginning if we have an infinite series. 2) Science says that a random fluctuation in nothing got everything started. This random fluctuation is not explained, has

no conceivable explanation, has no sufficient reason, is uncaused and belongs to an entirely different category from causality. An acausal event cannot be the source of causal events. This is a category error, which are all too common in science. No scientist has ever explained how random events, without causes, give rise to a causal world rather than to the random, chaotic, acausal world you would expect. Scientists don’t engage with such questions, dismissing them as “philosophy” (by which they mean they have no idea what they’re talking about and refuse to highlight their own ignorance and irrationalism). 3) Religion and classical philosophy say that “God” is the first cause, the Prime Mover. 4) In ontological mathematics, countless mathematical minds (monads) are the uncaused first causes, the prime movers, the sources of everything in the universe, the initiators of all causal chains. The Big Bang was therefore not a random event (pure magic!) but a rational event (pure mathematics!). The Big Bang was causal not acausal, rational not irrational, explicable not inexplicable. Well, which option will you go for? Why do people take science so seriously? It actually provides the worst explanation of all, even worse than that of religion. It doesn’t make any sense at all, is a category error, a contradiction in terms, and represents the highest possible irrationalism and folly. Science has taken humanity down a disastrously wrong track. It has its uses in the phenomenal world, but is 100% useless in the noumenal world, the world of ultimate explanation. Science can’t give any plausible answers to the big questions of life, the universe and everything. And it never will. “Randomness” is the very worst answer possible, the “worst of all possible worlds”. The scientific method and ideology simply fail exactly where true reality begins: the Monadic Singularity. Science took its success in the phenomenal world and imagined it could extend it to the ultimate things, while failing to realise that these are noumenal and belong to a wholly different category of existence, about which science literally has zero to say since noumena are not part of the sensory, empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science.

Science can never give you any insight into true reality. That’s a fact. True reality is about noumenal mathematics, not phenomenal science.

The Big Bang Wavefunction Modern science is all about randomness and the quantum wavefunction. No scientist has ever explained how randomness produces a wavefunction, how an “unreal”, “unobservable” wavefunction is possible at all (where is it, what is it, how is it and why is it?), and how this non-locally and randomly “collapses” from potential states to actual states. Standard science says that an “observation” (totally undefined, natch) is required for wavefunction collapse, yet this implies something external to the allegedly allencapsulating wavefunction (hence is yet another category error!). The wavefunction is all-embracing yet cannot collapse itself, hence requires something outside itself, so is not all-embracing after all! It claims to be everything, and yet it can’t be, hence contradicts its central claim. How stupid and irrational would you have to be to place your trust in science? Science is for dummies, while mathematics is for smart people. In ontological mathematics, the all-embracing wavefunction comprises nothing but mathematically self-optimising, dynamic, deterministic monadic minds and their causal mathematical interactions. There’s no randomness, no acausality, no category errors, no external requirements. Get with the programme! Become smart. Embrace ontological, noumenal, rationalist, causal mathematics, enshrining the principle of sufficient reason. Reject scientific “magic” where things happen for no reason at all (because science regards causality as non-empirical, hence non-existent, although, of course, randomness is also non-empirical, and must therefore be equally non-existent!).

The Character of Quantum Theory “In quantum theory predictions of the results of measurement are statistical in character and not deterministic. Quantum theory deals in probabilities rather than certainties.” – John Polkinghorne Anyone who believes that the universe throws dice is irrational. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is totally fallacious and deployed purely to avoid the alternative conclusion of a noumenal,

deterministic, rational, certain, mental, mathematical reality unamenable to the scientific method. As soon as mathematical hidden variables and rational unobservables are accepted, all of the quantum bullshit vanishes and is replaced by the hyperrationalism and determinism of ontological mathematics. Choosing between science and ontological mathematics is the same as choosing between irrationalism (indeterminism; acausality; randomness) and rationalism (determinism; causality; certainty). Remember, if you reject rationalism it’s because you are not someone prepared to accept the intelligible truth of existence. You are as alienated from the truth as religious believers.

Waves of What? “The advent of wave mechanics had raised the familiar question, Waves of what? “Initially there was some disposition to suppose that it might be a question of waves of matter, so that it was the electron itself that was spread out in this wave-like way. Born soon realised that this idea did not work. It could not accommodate particle-like properties. Instead it was waves of probability that the Schrödinger equation described. This development did not please all the pioneers, for many retained strongly the deterministic instincts of classical physics. Both de Broglie and Schrödinger became disillusioned with quantum physics when presented with its probabilistic character. “The probability interpretation implied that measurements must be occasions of instantaneous and discontinuous change. If an electron was in a state with probability spread out ‘here’, ‘there’ and, perhaps, ‘everywhere’, when its position was measured and found to be, on this occasion, ‘here’, then the probability distribution had suddenly to change, becoming concentrated solely on the actually measured position, ‘here’. “Since the probability distribution is to be calculated from the wavefunction, this too must change discontinuously, a behaviour that the Schrödinger equation did not imply. This phenomenon of sudden change, called the collapse of the wavepacket, was an extra condition that had to be imposed upon the theory from without.” – John Polkinghorne, Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction

Will you stand with the Randomists – Bohr, Heisenberg and Born – or the Determinists – Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie and Bohm? The debate is nothing to do with “science”. It’s pure philosophy. Incredibly, science has chosen to be irrational. Don’t let yourself succumb to the disease of illogic. Absolutely nothing can prove that the universe is indeterministic. All the evidence points in the 100% opposite direction.

Inflating “Proof” An article in Scientific American proclaimed, “Gravitational Waves from Big Bang Detected: A curved signature in the cosmic microwave background light provides proof of inflation and spacetime ripples.” Well, no, that’s not right at all. What the headline should say is, “Data has been collected which is being interpreted as evidence for gravitational waves.” There is no such thing as “proof” in science. Science is all about a) the gathering of experimental data, and b) the interpretation of this data. At no stage within the scientific paradigm is this interpretation definitive. Alternative interpretations are always possible, depending on who is doing the interpreting, and what assumptions, models, schemas and paradigms they are using. Scientific American says, “What’s more, the signal is coming through much more strongly than expected, ruling out a large class of inflation models and potentially pointing the way toward new theories of physics, experts say.” So, even within inflation theory, there are multiple interpretations, and a whole range of predicted outcomes. How can anyone “know” that if some ad hoc amendment – such as science is famous for (!) – were made to one of these other interpretations, it would not then fit the data perfectly? Scientific American says, “Physicists have found a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called gravitational waves, researchers announced today.” What we have is a remarkable degree of observer bias, an all too common aspect of science. People are looking for something that they are expecting to find. If they do find it, they will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize, so there’s an overwhelming incentive to take any data that looks like it might be in the right ballpark and to start unconsciously “moulding” it

into the desired fit with the theory, so that the Prize is won. Science would be a staggeringly different undertaking if scientists approached all of their work with no observer bias, no assumptions, total neutrality, no incentives for finding a particular result, and paying due respect to multiple different theories produced by multiple different Meta Paradigms. Science is a popularity contest, and inflation theory is one of science’s most popular theories, which has spawned a vast number of scientific papers and fuelled many scientific careers. Science therefore has an overwhelming desire to find evidence for this theory, which it will then call “proof” (although it’s most certainly not). Scientists start to look at the universe in a totally blinkered way, through “inflation”-coloured goggles. They design their experiments to find “inflation” (and not to find any alternatives), and they interpret the evidence to “prove” inflation (and not any alternatives). The same was true of the search for the Higgs boson. An entirely different group of scientists, with an entirely different mindset, would design the experiments entirely differently and interpret the data entirely differently. Science, in order to be credible, ought to be dialectical. There should be scientific groups that are massively committed to debunking the latest “discoveries”, who do not at all share the groupthink and conformism of the science establishment, whose job is to pick holes in everything that the discoverers are doing, and are all about challenging their assumptions and observer biases. Only if these people – these professional critics of scientific groupthink – could find no flaws in the method and interpretation of the experiment would the discovery be deemed valid, and even then only provisionally – because we all know that scientific theories and discoveries get overturned. The idea that no other theory could provide an alternative explanation for all the latest “inflation” discoveries is absurd. Just because so many scientists are working on inflation to advance their careers does not make it “true” and does not mean that other theories are false.

The Problems of the Complex Conjugate “The properties of a quantum system are described by a mathematical expression, sometimes known as the ‘state vector’ (essentially another term for the wave function), which contains information about the state of a

quantum entity – the position, momentum, energy and other properties of the system (which might, for example, simply be an electron wave packet). In general, this state vector includes a mixture of both ordinary (‘real’) numbers and imaginary numbers (those numbers involving i, the square root of -1). Such a mixture is called a complex variable, for obvious reasons. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the state vector corresponding to the particular state of the electron. But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror-image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part: if it was + it becomes – , and vice versa. The two complex numbers are then multiplied to give the probability. But for equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is equivalent to reversing the direction of time! The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrödinger equations, one describing advanced waves [going back in time] and the other representing retarded waves [going forward in time].” – John Gribbin, Schrödinger’s Kittens Well, did you know that Schrödinger’s system has solutions going back in time (whatever that means! – doesn’t that violate scientific causality and refute Einstein’s special theory of relativity?). Gribbin goes on, “It should be no surprise, after all this, to learn that two sets of solutions to the fully relativistic version of the wave equation of quantum mechanics are indeed exactly these complex conjugates. But in time-honoured tradition, for some 70 years most physicists have largely ignored one of the two sets of solutions because ‘obviously’ it didn’t make sense to talk about waves travelling back in time.” Did you know that scientists simply discard solutions they don’t like or can’t explain? Talk about observer bias! Do you see how scientists steadily build a model they like that has all “inconvenient truths” removed from them? Why aren’t scientists expected to fully explain all of the solutions to any of their theories, whether they’re convenient or not? What they are effectively saying is that their most cherished theories throw up “nonsense” solutions as well as “valid” solutions, and then the nonsense ones are

promptly swept under the carpet and ignored. Well, until such times as someone can find a use for them, and then they’re resurrected from the grave. This is what passes as science! It’s all about cherry-picking and selective blindness. Consider what Andrew Holster says about the Quantum Mechanical Time Reversal Operator: “Callender argues for two contentious conclusions, both of which I support: that non-relativistic quantum mechanics is irreversible (non-time reversal invariant, or non-TRI for short), both in its probabilistic laws, and in its deterministic laws. These claims contradict the current assumptions in the subject. ... Callender distinguishes between TRI (Time Reversal Invariance) and WRI (Wigner Reversal Invariance), the latter being generally interpreted as time reversal invariance in quantum mechanics, while the former is generally dismissed in quantum mechanics as logically incoherent. TRI is symmetry under the simple transformation: T: t → -t alone. WRIis symmetry under the combined operation: ☐ ☐ T*, where T is the simple time reversal operator, and * is complex conjugation. Callender first observes that: ‘If one surveys the literature concerning this issue, one finds many arguments that attempt to blur the difference between WRI and TRI. Probably the most frequent claim is that in quantum mechanics the physical content is exhausted by the probabilities. As Davies puts it, ‘a solution of the Schrödinger equation is not itself observable’ so Wigner’s operation can restore TRI while leaving ‘the physical content of QM unchanged’. ... This brings us back, however, to the first reason mentioned by Callender ... for adopting T* as the time reversal operator. Essentially, it now appears that the choice to use QM rather than T(QM) is arbitrary, because there is no way of measuring the wave functions directly, and we cannot distinguish whether a wave function is ‘really’ ☐ or ☐ * ☐ On the positivist view, the two theories, QM and T(QM), are indistinguishable in their physical predictions, and so they should be taken to represent the same theory. ... Two different kinds of arguments should be distinguished here. The first – and strongest – appeals to the ‘probability interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, in which physical reality is denied to the wave function altogether, and only the probabilities represented by the wave function are regarded as physically real. If this is correct, then the asymmetry between

the theories QM and T(QM) is not a physical feature of the universe at all, because the wave functions are simply not physical things.” Holster concludes, “The orthodox account of time reversal transformations in quantum theory presented authoritatively in a wide range of textbooks and specialized treatises is conceptually inadequate. The arguments typically put forward that T* rather than T must be adopted as the time reversal operator in quantum mechanics for logical reasons are mistaken. There is no reason to reject the T operator on such grounds. Alternative positivist arguments from the ‘indistinguishability’ of QM and T(QM) are also laden with errors. Arguments from the ‘probabilistic’ interpretation of the quantum wave function are more serious, but they are not reasons to reject that T is the time reversal operator, only to conclude that the irreversibility of QM in this respect is not a physical feature of the universe – because this interpretation denies that the wave function is itself physical. “These conceptual flaws in the account of time symmetry of quantum theory, when considered along with the decisive flaws in the account of time symmetry of the probabilistic component of quantum theory raised by Watanabe, Healey, Penrose, Callender, and Holster, should be a cause for deep concern. They show how poorly the conceptual foundations of quantum theory are understood. If there is any single culprit for this state of affairs, it is the complacency engendered by the positivist approach to conceptual analysis in physics. For despite being accepted as deeply inadequate by philosophers and logicians for over fifty years, positivism unfortunately remains as the central point of departure in many conceptual accounts of quantum physics, and is found at the centre of the orthodox analyses of the subject of time reversal. “T is indeed the time reversal operator in ordinary quantum mechanics, and this theory fails to be time reversal invariant unless we adopt the probabilistic interpretation. However the arguments of Costa de Beauregard show that relativistic quantum theory may be convincingly interpreted as being TRI by adopting the Feynman interpretation of anti-particles as ‘particles travelling backwards in time’, i.e. by adopting the view that time reversal transforms particles into anti-particles. This view needs to be explored in more detail.” This is exactly the sort of analysis that quantum mechanics requires, and yet it’s almost wholly ignored by practising scientists, who regard it as

‘philosophy’. In other words, scientists continuously ignore the actual meaning of their theories, and simply adopt cavalier assumptions that suit their biases and allow them to churn out scientific papers. It’s impossible for anyone to understand modern science because it’s so ad hoc, arbitrary and heuristic, and so laden with selective, convenient, and instrumental assumptions. Science does not reflect ontology and epistemology in any way. Great thinkers such as Plato and Leibniz would regard modern science as a joke, as pure sophistry rather than meaningful knowledge. Well, what do you think? Are you a member of the quasi-religious cult of science? Science sweeps every inconvenient objection under the carpet yet pretends it’s about proof and truth. Science is nothing but interpretation, and, in fact, misinterpretation. Science is no more anchored in truth than Abrahamism and Karmism. It acknowledge no absolute, eternal, infallible, immutable, Platonic, standards – those of ontological mathematics. Science needs to encourage critical thinking – exactly of the type demonstrated by Holster and his colleagues. Whole departments should be established to critically examine every major assumption deployed by science. Until such an exercise is undertaken, science will have no sure values, and there will never be any “final theory” of science. Of course, people such as Holster are philosophers of science rather than scientists per se. Instead of there being a symbiotic relationship between scientists and philosophers of science, there’s extreme tension between the two. This is disastrous for science and it’s why so much of the foundational understanding of science is dubious in the extreme.

Which Is It? Holster makes a crucial point that is invariably overlooked in any mainstream treatment of quantum mechanics: “...there is no way of measuring the wave functions directly, and we cannot distinguish whether a wave function is ‘really’ ☐ or ☐ * ☐ ” If we don’t know whether a wave function is ☐ or ☐ *, how do we know what to multiply it with ( ☐ *or ☐☐ to get the positive, real number solution the empiricists demand? This shows how utterly arbitrary this exercise is, and also proves that the wavefunction is inherently indefinable since we can never know

whether it is ☐ or ☐ *. We are dealing with a scientific fiction, not a mathematical reality. Holster says, “...physical reality is denied to the wave function altogether, and only the probabilities represented by the wave function are regarded as physically real. If this is correct, then the asymmetry between the theories QM and T(QM) is not a physical feature of the universe at all, because the wave functions are simply not physical things.” A probability cannot be physically real. The probability of getting a head or a tail when tossing a coin is not a real thing; it’s a prediction of what the outcome will be, all things being equal. The probability is even less of a real thing if the coin itself is not a real thing (!). How can unreal things be associated with real probabilities? Again, we fall foul of Descartes’ principle that effects can never have more reality than their causes. If wavefunctions are not physical things, how can they have any physical consequences whatsoever? The doctrine of causal closure says, in the words of Agustin Vincente, “All physical effects have only physical causes.” This is a physicalist stance intended to eliminate any suggestion that physical effects can have mental causes. Scientists, as fanatical physicalists who deny the independent existence of mind, would of course agree with this. Yet, when it comes to quantum mechanics, they are now fully prepared to believe that unphysical causes (unphysical wavefunctions) can produce physical effects. WTF! What is an unphysical wavefunction? – it’s mental!!! Everything in science points to a non-physical reality underpinning the physical world, yet this is furiously denied by all scientists despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, mostly coming from their own most prized theories! What are black hole singularities, photonic singularities and the Big Bang Singularity if not non-physical, mental entities? Is there even one intellectually honest scientist? Is even one of them rational? Everything to do with quantum mechanics points straight to a real, mental reality. When scientists call the quantum mechanical wavefunction, “unreal” and “unphysical”, why don’t they just conclude that it’s real but mental (unphysical)?

Wave Interference

When two or more waves come together, they “interfere”. Depending on how the peaks and troughs of the waves match up, the waves will partially or totally add together or partially or totally cancel each other. The principle of linear superposition states that when two or more waves come together, the result is the sum of the individual waves. The amplitude at any point is the addition of the amplitudes of the individual waves at that point. Waves interfere with each other only where they meet. Otherwise, they continue travelling as if they had never come together, i.e. their form and motion is the same as it was before they encountered each other. Constructive interference is said to occur whenever waves coming together are in phase with each other. Their oscillations at a given point are in harmony, resulting in a combined amplitude at that point. In the case of total destructive interference, the waves have the same amplitude in opposite directions, hence cancel each other out. Usually, whenever a number of waves come together, their interference is neither completely constructive nor completely destructive, but somewhere in between.

God and the Singularity The Abrahamic God is said to be beyond time, space and matter. Funnily enough, that’s exactly the definition of the mathematical Monadic Singularity! The latter isn’t one mind, but countless minds, and each mind is not inherently conscious but can evolve consciousness.

Hatred of Perfection If you are faced with a choice between 1D-strings vibrating in 11 dimensions as the basis of existence, or perfect, analytic, mathematical sine and cosine waves gathered into dimensionless monads, which would you opt for? The latter offers you a perfect mathematical solution to existence while the former guarantees that there will be no definitive answer to existence since strings are inherently imperfect and non-analytic. The truth is that it’s rationally impossible for existence to be based on anything other than hermetically sealed perfection. Any flaw at all would instantly rupture the universe.

The scientific notion that reality is based on randomness and indeterminacy is impossible. Such a universe would be eternal Chaos of the kind the ancient Greeks envisaged – Chaos (matter) in need of being ordered by Form (mind).

Indeterminism: An Unsure Future “Schrödinger evolution of a matter wave is fully deterministic. That means that if we specify the present state of the matter wave, its future state is fixed completely by Schrödinger ‘s equation. “This determinism of the theory fails when we consider measurement. For when we measure the position of a particle represented by a wave packet, we do not know for sure which position will be revealed. The best we can do is to say which are the candidate positions and, using a standard rule, compute the probability of each. “Thus measurement introduces indeterminism into quantum theory. A full specification of the present state of the matter wave and everything that will interact with it is not enough to fix what its future state will be. “The rule that determines the probability of each candidate outcome depends essentially on superposition. Consider, for example, a wave packet. It is the superposition of many spatially localized pulses. In general there are infinitely many. “What is important is that the amplitude of the component pulses vary according to the part to which they will contribute in the fully assembled wave packet. “A pulse contributing to the large amplitude central section will have a large amplitude. A pulse contributing to the smaller amplitude edges will itself have a smaller amplitude. “This last fact is the clue that tells us how to compute the probability of a measurement outcome. “We expect the measured position of the particle to appear more probably in the large amplitude centre of the wave packet, than in the lower amplitude edges. “Max Born used this fact when he proposed the ‘Born rule,’ that tells us that the amplitude of the component fixes the probability that this component will be the outcome of measurement.

“The slight complication in Born’s rule is that the amplitudes of the components are not real numbers. They are complex numbers that include things like ‘i,’ the square root of minus one and other more complicated things like 1 + i and 37 – 10i. Probabilities have to be real numbers between 0 and 1. So Born had to convert the complex-valued amplitudes into a real numbers. There are many ways of doing this. Few give a real number that also obeys all the rules of the probability calculus. Taking the ‘square’ of the amplitude turns out to be the one that works. “When quantum theory first emerged as our best theory of fundamental particles, the central role of probabilities in the theory caused much concern. The probabilities associated with the collapse of the wave packet were not of the type always formerly seen. “Prior to quantum theory, the probabilities that had crept into physics could always be thought of as manifestations of our ignorance of the true state of affairs. “We might not know whether a coin will come up heads or tails when tossed, so we say there is a probability of 1/2 on heads. But that probability merely masks our ignorance. If we knew exactly how hard the coin had been flipped, exactly how the air currents in the room were laid out, and a myriad more other details, we could in principle determine exactly whether the coin would be heads or tails. “In quantum theory, when the wave packet collapses, we find different probabilities for the different outcomes. But there is no definite fact of the matter over which we are ignorant. There is no one true, hidden outcome prior to measurement. No further accumulation of information could lessen our ignorance. There is nothing more to know. The best we can say is that each of the position measurements are possible and that they will arise with such and such probability. “It is now a little hard to see why this difference in the probabilities led to so much anxiety among physicists in the 1920s and later. All that has happened is that we have found the world to be a little different from what we expected. We may once have thought probabilities to be expressions of ignorance. We now find that they are irreducible parts of the way the world is put together. Their appearance in theory has nothing to do with what we may or may not know. The world just is fundamentally chancy in certain of its aspects.

“The irreducible probabilities of quantum theory showed that the present state of the world does not fix its future state. The best it does is to give probabilities for different possible futures. Therefore, according to the nineteenth century conception, the world is not causal. Thus the physicists of the 1920s frequently lamented the violation of the “principle of causality.” – John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theor y_waves/index.html

***** This is a particularly good summary of the standard position regarding the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The Twin-Slit Experiment When the twin-slit experiment is performed with “classical” particles (e.g. bullets), no interference pattern is detected. The probability to arrive at any point on the screen is the probability to go through slit 1 plus the probability to go through slit 2, i.e. P12 = P1 + P2. When the same experiment is performed with classical waves, the relevant property of the wave is its intensity, which is proportional to the square of its amplitude (amplitude can be negative as well as possible, so it’s squared to get rid of the negative numbers). When two waves pass through slits 1 and 2 at the same time, an interference pattern is created. I1, the intensity through slit 1 is |h1|2, and I2, the intensity through slit 2 is |h2|2. The combined probability is I12 = |h1 + h2|2. When the same experiment is performed with a quantum particle (e.g. electron), the question is whether the same behaviour as a classical particle or the same behaviour as a classical wave will be detected. The observed outcome was that quantum particles produced a wave interference pattern. P1 = |ψ1|2, P2 = | ψ2|2 and P12 = |ψ1 + ψ2|2. Even if we send only one electron at a time through the twin slits, an interference pattern is produced. The naive implication is that quantum particles are actually waves, and this raises the question of why classical particles exist, given that classical particles are made of quantum particles.

However, if an attempt is made to detect the quantum particles as they go through the slits then the wave interference pattern is typically destroyed and the standard particle distribution is obtained. Regarding the observation process, if we use light to detect an electron, we seem to somehow “bump” it and thus get rid of the interference pattern. Experiments have been attempted to reduce any such effect. So, what happens when the intensity of the light is reduced? Sometimes, the electron is not detected, in which case interference is observed. If the electron is detected, no interference is observed. When the frequency of the light is reduced, the wavelength grows bigger than the distance between the slits, and the interference pattern is restored. Summing up, an act of observation influences the experiment and can radically change the outcome. Without successful observation, one outcome is produced. With successful observation, a different outcome is produced. This therefore raises the whole issue of the nature of objective reality: why is observed reality different from unobserved reality? Therefore, we end up with the paradox of wave-particle duality. Quantum particles sometimes seem to act as waves and sometimes as particles. Light, which was previously believed to be a pure wave phenomenon, was found to behave in the same way, hence light must be made of quantum particles too (which in this case are called “photons”). So, material particles with mass, and immaterial particles without mass, are both “particle-waves” in some sense. All particles exhibit this waveparticle duality. As Richard Feynman observed, all of the mysteries of the quantum world are contained in the twin-slit experiment. Therefore, to understand quantum mechanics, it’s essential to fully understand this experiment. Many interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed, but none has been unambiguously accepted. The default interpretation is that of the Copenhagen school. This provides the establishment “paradigm” and heavily influences all quantum mechanical work and thinking. This interpretation, it must be stressed, has never been proved correct. It’s a speculative hypothesis, not any kind of “fact”. At small-scales, our common intuitions (based on classical physics) fail. Rules have been established that accurately predict the results of quantum experiments, yet no scientist has a deep understanding of what is taking place. A particle is said to be associated with a “probability amplitude”

giving the probability of where the particle might be found, which could in fact be anywhere in the entire universe! According to standard quantum mechanics, there are no real particles and no real waves. Everything is ultimately a “particle-wave”, even though the properties of particles contradict those of waves. This is the fundamental mystery of quantum mechanics.

***** Particle-waves (or wave-particles) appear to depart as particles, travel as waves, and arrive (at detection equipment) as particles. How can this be? The simplest way to understand it is to conclude that particles are always particles, but inherently move in a wavelike manner, not in a classical particle manner (in a straight line). In other words, we can invoke the Aristotelian concept of “form” – matter’s “mind”, so to speak, which dictates how “matter” behaves. For Aristotle, matter and form always went together in our world. Science got rid of form, leaving just matter with no interiority, no agency. Form gives matter an internal program. Without form, it can have no such inner program, hence will move in the simplest possible way (a straight line). Without attributing an inner program (form) to a particle, you are left with few options. The Copenhagen, probabilistic, indeterministic interpretation – reducing reality to randomness rather than causality – is inevitably what you arrive at. As soon as you accept an Aristotelian form directing particles, you can easily escape from the Copenhagen interpretation, but at the expense of introducing “hidden variables”, because, of course, the Aristotelian form is “inside” the particle (like a mind) and is not scientifically observable. It can only be rationally, mathematically inferred. If all particles have an inner form dictating wave behaviour then we fully expect particles to move as waves as their default behaviour. This is disrupted when two particles collide. The collision, which takes place at a point, is a particle interaction (because each particle’s inherent wave trajectory has no chance to express itself during a point collision). What many people forget is that even macroscopic entities such as human bodies have wave properties. When the wave properties are

averaged over trillions of particles, what emerges is something displaying “classical” particle behaviour. The classical and quantum worlds aren’t fundamentally different except in terms of numbers and averaging. An isolated part of the quantum world involves few particles while an isolated part of the classical world involves trillions of particles. Therefore, it’s the difference between wave behaviour involving a few particles and wave behaviour involving a vast number of particles that’s crucial, the latter being subject to an immense averaging process which results in what we know as the “classical world”. Direct collisions between a couple or a few particles also lead to classical effects since these are “particle-like” (rather than wavelike) interactions.

***** The ancient Greek Atomists believed in a world of permanently moving atoms constantly coming together and breaking apart via collisions. These particles moved in straight lines. No inner “form” was attributed to them: they simply were entities moving in straight lines. The Newtonian vision of reality introduced a new notion: force, a rather occult entity, if truth be told, as Leibniz pointed out. Entities no longer needed to collide. They could influence each other through mysterious “action at a distance” (voodoo!). Newton’s worldview consisted, essentially, of fundamentally stationary particles in an absolute space, where forces, especially gravity, were the source of motion. That is, dynamic forces acted on stationary particles and made them move. Without any forces, nothing would move. This, of course, raised a host of problems. Are forces gods (prime movers)? How do immaterial forces, not observable in themselves but only through their effects, fit in with the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science? Have we not introduced a Cartesian dualism between solid particles and unsolid forces, which seem disturbingly like mental entities? Newton secretly believed that forces were manifestation of God’s will, keeping the world together and maintaining objective reality. He also believed that absolute space constituted God’s “boundless uniform sensorium”. Newton said of God: “He is a uniform Being void of organs, members or parts ... being everywhere present to the things themselves.” This means that God’s will is enacted immediately, and not indirectly

through a material medium. Newton additionally described God as: “A powerful ever-living Agent, who being in all places, is more able by his Will to move the bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the parts of the universe, than we are by our will to move the parts of our own bodies.” God wills directly (immaterially) and humans will indirectly (materially, via their bodies). God’s Will is what, in effect, transmits gravitational effects across any distance, instantaneously. They don’t teach you that in physics class, do they? And to think that was this same Newton who claimed, “I do not feign hypotheses”! What a hypocrite. How can this religious maniac and expedient liar be such a hero to atheistic science? “Forces”, for Newton, are God’s will, put into effect mathematically, and universally. They are mental, not physical. Invoking ancient Aristotelian ideas, Newton regarded force (especially gravity) as an active principle, and matter as a passive principle. In effect, Newton took Aristotelian “form” away from matter and put it in God’s Mind (his “sensorium”). Form did not, therefore, act from inside matter, but from outside it, via God’s thoughts! Nevertheless, this is very much an Aristotelian, teleological vision of reality. It’s all about passive matter in need of being ordered by active form, which, Newton claims, is actually God’s Mind, and enacted through “force”. So much for the great champion of empiricism and materialism, the hero of people like Dawkins, Hawking and Cox. Leibniz thought it was ridiculous to claim that God should constantly be interacting with the world to keep it going. Couldn’t he have designed it well enough at Creation to ensure that his involvement was no longer necessary? What kind of bungler was he where he was constantly needed to stop his Creation disintegrating into Chaos? No one should ever forget that Newton, the great “scientist”, was a religious nutjob, heavily influenced by alchemy and the Unitarian Christian heresy. His conception of reality was entirely religious and based on God’s active Mind versus passive Matter. Leibniz saw immediately that Newton was an unscrupulous charlatan. Newton suppressed most of his crazy religious ideas and confined them to his unpublished notebooks, and gradually the false notion took hold that he was some sort of quasi-atheist and forerunner of modern atheistic scientists such as Dawkins, Hawking and Cox. Nothing could be further from the truth. As ever, a Mythos has been accepted as truth. The only way to

understand Newton’s system of forces, especially gravity, is within the context of God’s Mind! And that’s the last thing they’d teach you at school. Newton’s forces are taught as mainstream science when in fact they are part of mystical religion. They make zero sense in terms of the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science, and, even during his life, Newton’s more perceptive critics accused him of being an occultist and magician. Since that’s the truth of Newtonian physics, that’s what ought to be taught in schools, rather than the sanitized version, stripped of all religious aspects, which, without those elements, cannot make any possible sense, as Leibniz ruthlessly revealed. Be in no doubt that Newtonian gravity is a speculative, metaphysical concept. It can’t be observed. It can’t be seen, heard, tasted, touched, smelt or experienced. No gravitational causation can be perceived. It’s something inferred. David Hume regarded Newton’s laws as inductively derived “facts”, and like all other inductive “facts”, they might be falsified at any time. Einsteinian gravity has nothing in common with Newtonian gravity and involves spacetime geometry rather than instantaneous action at a distance across empty space. In quantum theory, gravity is supposedly mediated by particles called gravitons, although there is in fact no credible theory of quantum gravity at the present time. In other words, no scientist knows what “gravity” is.

***** “In him are all things contained and moved, yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.” – Newton “[God] is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. ... He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure.” – Newton

***** In effect, Newton claimed that the material world existed inside God’s mind, and his mental forces sustained it. Bishop Berkeley questioned the need for the material world at all and concluded that, if we all exist inside

God’s mind, all God has to do is create the idea of the material world, rather than the material world itself. There’s no need for any infinite “absolute space”, which would make God incredibly remote from his creations. God can intimately create an objective mental world, and individual souls that perceive this objective world of God’s idea of the material world. Matter, in itself, is a redundant concept.

The Concept of Force The notion of force was introduced by Aristotle: “It was Aristotle who first developed a systematic set of ideas about the physical world, which is often referred to as Aristotelian physics. Related to his concept of force is his classification of motion as natural, voluntary, and forced. “In the natural motion category, Aristotle believed that objects intrinsically either have a natural tendency to fall down to the earth, which he called gravity, or a natural tendency to rise into the sky, which he called levity. He thought that heavy bodies fall faster because the falling speed is in proportion to the physis (nature) or weight of the objects. The earth and the sky are natural places objects would move to according to their internal natural tendencies. “Voluntary motion refers to motion of living organisms such as animals and humans, who are agents able to exert force to make other inanimate things move. Nonliving objects are obstacles that stop or guide motion, but they do not exert forces. “In the forced motion category, an object moves because of the moving force applied to it by an agent. The object continues to move after the agent is no longer in contact with it because force is still transmitted to the object through a medium such as air (which is called the antiperistasis theory). Motion in a vacuum is thus not possible. A force does not move an object unless it overcomes the object’s inertia, an intrinsic resistance of the object. A constant force applied to an object produces a constant speed which is also inversely proportional to the inertia of the object. In the absence of force, an object would stop immediately. So, forced motion is made consistent to the other two types of motion by Aristotle through his notion of antiperistasis and his theory of entelechy or agency.

“In sum, for Aristotle, no motion is possible without force acting on the moving object, or in other words, motion and force are inseparable and a moving object is always an effect of some kind of entelechy, either visible or invisible.” – http://www.thecatalyst.org/physics/chapter-two.html Note that Aristotle didn’t need an apple to fall on his head to formulate a theory of gravity! Millennia before Newton, he said that heavy objects always fall to the ground. However, Aristotle certainly didn’t believe in any force of gravity being instantaneously transmitted across a vacuum. For Newton, the earth pulls the apple to the ground. For Aristotle, the apple falls to the ground because of its natural tendency to do so. Newton’s first law of motion is highly Aristotelian: every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. (Stationary objects remain in their zero state of motion unless a force is applied.) This is known as the Law of Inertia. In other words, everything has a natural tendency to remain in its current kinetic state: if stationary, it will stay stationary; if in uniform motion, it will stay in uniform motion.

Form It’s impossible to logically omit form from any deterministic theory. In Plato, “God” imposes ordering form on chaotic matter. In Aristotle, chaotic matter and ordering form go together. In Newton, God’s mind is ordering form, and, as far as the material world goes, is expressed as force. Force – that can instantly cross infinite space since it has a divine origin – holds the material world together and directs all material interactions. Einstein got rid of this by making spacetime have geometrical properties that could produce a force such as gravity. The speed of light became the cosmic speed limit. Yet Einstein had to introduce the principle of relativity, which is incompatible with objective reality (which requires an absolute framework). Moreover, it has now been proved that the universe is non-local, and that too is incompatible with the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit, as Einstein conceived it. While only believers in God want form to be external to matter, why would any rational person object to form being present inside matter and

directing its motion? What’s wrong with having mathematical form inside matter? Empiricists object because such a concept is rationalist and not empiricist. Form cannot be observed, only mathematically worked out. It’s a “hidden variable”. Yet, if you don’t accept inner form, you are relentlessly driven to deny causality and determinism and you end up with the Copenhagen conclusion that we live in an indeterministic world where things happen randomly, without cause or sufficient reason, and where any notion of objective reality is impossible. Is that preferable to accepting the existence of hidden mathematical variables? Only to a lunatic!

The Four Forces Modern science posits four forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity. The forces are conceived in terms of force fields mediated by particles. The “particles” reflect wave-particle duality, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the indeterministic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It’s no longer clear what “matter” is in these terms. It certainly doesn’t resemble classical matter. Moreover, the whole modern scientific conception of reality is, if it were honest about it, based on non-locality, which takes us closer to Newton than Einstein. Also, the notion of force fields mediated by particles is not unlike Aristotle’s notion of the combination of form and matter (with particles as matter being directed by force fields as forms). In addition, having forces mediated by particles is like a return to the old need for direct physical contact rather than occult “action at a distance”. The more you look at modern science, the more it seems a horrendous hodgepodge of ancient ideas masquerading as new ideas. We are still faced with all the old issues of form and matter, mind and matter, instantaneous communication and non-locality (operating via something akin to Newton’s God, and based on ancient religious and philosophical ideas). What are forces? Can anyone genuinely explain this within the prevailing scientific Meta Paradigm? There’s only one place where immaterial form (force) can exist: outside space and time, in a mental Singularity. You either accept the existence of a non-empirical, rationalist mathematical frequency domain, or you accept the Copenhagen stance that there are no hidden variables, so there’s no objective reality, no causality, no

principle of sufficient and no determinism. We inhabit a random, meaningless, accidental universe where nothing happens for any reason or with any purpose, yet an ordered Cosmos somehow, miraculously, emerges from this fundamental Chaos. Well, which option do you chose? In other words, how rational are you?

The Most Absurd Claim of All What is nothing in science? Is the “nothing” prior to the Big Bang the same as the “nothing” post the Big Bang? Before the Big Bang, space, time and matter did not exist. The laws of the physical universe could not, according to science, have existed prior to the creation of the physical universe since, if they did, this would indicate the existence of a lawful reality beyond and preceding the physical universe, something that is 100% denied by science. Nothing in science can legitimately be non-empirical and immaterial (although, of course, the “cause” of the Big Bang itself is non-empirical and immaterial, as, indeed, are the laws of science themselves!). By the logic of empirical science, the laws of quantum mechanics come into existence after the Big Bang, not before. So, quantum mechanical considerations cannot be applied to the state prior to the Big Bang since there was no quantum mechanics then. Yet the “cause” of the Big Bang is invariably portrayed by science as a random quantum fluctuation. Yet how can such a thing happen if the quantum world does not yet exist (since it only comes into existence with the Big Bang)? To argue that quantum mechanics precedes the Big Bang is to argue that there is an eternal order of quantum existence. This is an entirely metaphysical, not scientific, claim. Scientist Martin Rees says, “Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise ‘from nothing’. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realized ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualizes them in a real cosmos. The fundamental question

of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, that ‘whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.’” There are numerous problems with Rees’s statement. He has not distinguished between ‘nothing’ before and after the Big Bang. In the context of “nothing” prior to the birth of the physical universe, what’s the point of referring to Einstein’s view of space? It’s irrelevant – unless the metaphysical claim is being made that Einsteinian “space” is the same before and after the Big Bang, which radically changes the nature of Big Bang theory and implies that space existed before space was created (!), a contradiction in terms. Rees says that space shrunk to a point is latent with particles and forces. Again, is this before or after the Big Bang? If before the Big Bang then the claim is being made that particles and forces existed before the creation of matter and spacetime, which means that explicit reference is being made to an immaterial mode of existence outside space and time, a blatant contradiction of scientific materialism and empiricism (but wholly compatible with the immaterial Singularity, outside space and time, of ontological mathematics!). Rees says that physics will never breathe fire into its equations. Indeed! So what’s the point of them? They’re useless in terms of describing ultimate reality. Rees denies that physics can ever answer why there is something rather than nothing, Ontological mathematics of course takes this in its stride, as explained throughout the God Series. Rees then finishes by saying that thinkers ought to remain silent about such things. That’s the typical reaction of empiricists, but certainly not of rationalists. We don’t need to perceive something to know it’s there and that it can be defined mathematically, consistently and completely. Science is a busted flush. It must be replaced wholesale by ontological mathematics, which can rationally explain everything.

***** “Nothing” in science is most certainly an example of a moving target. No one has ever defined it, and it seems to be whatever a scientist wants it to be at a particular instant to support his argument. The general tendency of science seems to be to depict “nothing” as an unreal, unobservable arena of

“potentiality”, from which things can randomly actualize, including an entire universe, or even Multiverse! Frankly, if you believe science, you’re even more irrational than Abrahamists and Karmists. Science does not really say that something can come from nothing. Rather, it says that nothing is non-actuality: it’s potentiality and it’s not ruled by any laws, causality, determinism or any principle of sufficient reason, but by total randomness that has no cause at all! Science ultimately claims that something (actuality) randomly comes from “nothing” (potentiality); order randomly comes from disorder; Chaos randomly creates the Cosmos. Not a single thinker of the ancient world would have regarded any such claim as anything other than deranged. To this extent, scientists have made the world more stupid. Science, in terms of its intellectual content, is actually taking the world backwards towards increasing irrationalism. Where the ancients sought sufficient reasons for everything and were certain that we live in a meaningful universe, modern science says that all “explanations” can ultimately be traced back to nothing but accident and chance, and the universe is therefore totally meaningless. Ontological mathematics repudiates science. There’s no such thing as unreal, random potentiality underlying authentic existence. Existence is grounded in real, ontological, immortal, indestructible entities – living, mathematical minds. So, what’s it to be? Are you a randomist, irrationalist scientist, or a determinist, rationalist ontological mathematician? It’s time to bring the mad Cult of Science to an end. The only difference between science and Scientology is “ology”! Science is just an enormous system of non-explanation since randomness does not belong to the category of explanation. It’s a category error to believe it does. Randomness inhabits the same category as magic, miracles, mystery, faith, prayer, and the “will of God”. It has no explanatory power whatsoever and is 100% contradicted by the principle of sufficient reason.

***** “I call him free who is led solely by reason.” – Spinoza Scientists are led by their senses, and reject reason, hence are not free.

The Multiverse “Multiverse” isn’t a well-defined term in science. Cosmologist Max Tegmark describes four levels of Multiverse: Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon; all possible initial conditions are realized. All have the same physical laws and physical constants. Level II: Universes with different physical constants, hence different versions of physics. Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Every possible observation in quantum mechanics inhabits a different universe. Tegmark says, “The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old threedimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.” “Similarly, all level II bubble universes with different physical constants can in effect be found as ‘worlds’ created by ‘splits’ at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a level III multiverse.” – Wikipedia Level IV: Ultimate ensemble “The ultimate ensemble or mathematical universe hypothesis is the hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level considers equally real all universes that can be described by different mathematical structures.” – Wikipedia In short, we have: 1) different universes in spacetime with different initial conditions but the same laws of physics, 2) different universes that may or may not be in a common spacetime (depending on interpretation), but have different physical constants and different laws of physics, 3) different universes in a mathematical rather than physical space; this is where the conventional spacetime of physics definitely breaks down and is replaced by mathematical parallel universes in a non-physical space, and 4) different mathematical universes obeying different laws of mathematics. So, we have: 1) different mini-universes in a single physical spacetime, which obey the same laws of physics, 2) different mini-universes in (maybe!) the same physical spacetime but with different laws of physics, 3)

different mini-universes in different physical spacetimes (in an overarching mathematical universe), and 4) different mathematical universes. All clear now?! This, believe it or not, is what some people call “science”! This is what you get when you scorn the principle of sufficient reason.

***** Why don’t different physical universes in the same physical spacetime cataclysmically collide with each other or expand into each other? Can they collide with mathematical universes? Can mathematical universes collide with each other? What does spacetime mean if mathematical universes can exist outside it? Never forget that the Multiverse is the worst possible violation of Occam’s Razor, which instantly renders it untenable and impossible. All theories that predict Multiverses are false. They are metaphysical speculations of the worst kind. They don’t make any sense mathematically, and even less physically, and even less in the interface between physics and mathematics.

The Free Lunch Universe “In the late 1960s, a young assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward P. Tryon attended a seminar given by Dennis Sciama, a noted British cosmologist. During a pause in the lecture, Tryon threw out the suggestion that ‘maybe the Universe is a vacuum fluctuation.’ Tryon intended the suggestion seriously, and was disappointed when his senior colleagues took it as a clever joke and broke into laughter. It was, after all, presumably the first scientific idea about where the Universe came from. “By a vacuum fluctuation, Tryon was referring to the very complicated picture of the vacuum, or empty space, that emerges from relativistic quantum theory. The hallmark of quantum theory, developed to describe the behaviour of atoms, is the probabilistic nature of its predictions. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behaviour of any one atom, although it is possible to predict the properties of a large collection of atoms. The vacuum, like any physical system, is subject to these quantum uncertainties. Roughly speaking, anything can happen in the vacuum,

although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is absurdly small. Tryon was advancing the outlandish proposal that the entire Universe materialized in this fashion! “Tryon put the idea of a vacuum fluctuation Universe out of his mind for a while, but returned to it several years later while he was preparing a popular review of Cosmology. In 9173 Tryon published an article in the journal Nature, with the title ‘Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” He had understood the crucial point: The vast cosmos that we see around us could have originated as a vacuum fluctuation – essentially from nothing at all – because the large positive energy of the masses in the Universe can be counterbalanced by a corresponding amount of negative energy in the form of the gravitational field. ‘In my model’, Tryon wrote, ‘I assumed that our Universe did indeed appear from nowhere about ten billion years ago. Contrary to popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics.’ “A weak point of Tryon`s paper was its failure to explain why the Universe had become so large. While the scale of vacuum fluctuation is typically subatomic, Tryon was asking us to believe that all the matter in the Universe appeared in a single vacuum fluctuation. He pointed out that he laws of physics place no strict limit on the magnitude of vacuum fluctuation, but he did not estimate the probability of such an unusually large fluctuation. ‘In answer to the question of why it happened,’ he wrote ‘I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.’ Although the creation of Universe might be very unlikely, Tryon emphasized that no one had counted the failed attempts. Nonetheless, the immensity of the observed Universe remained a striking feature for which Tryon`s proposal had no explanation. For a number of years Tryon`s work was largely ignored, as most other physicists apparently believed that any Universe produced from a quantum fluctuation would, with overwhelming probability, be much smaller than the one that we observe. ... “The central feature of [Inflationary] theory is a brief period of extraordinarily rapid expansion, or inflation, which lasted for an interval perhaps as short as a trillionth of a second. During this period the Universe expanded by at least a factor of a hundred billion, and perhaps a great deal more. After the stupendous growth spurt of inflation the description merges

smoothly with the standard big bang theory, which for several decades has been the generally accepted picture of cosmic evolution. “Working within the general framework of the accepted laws of physics, the inflationary theory can explain how the Universe might have evolved from an initial seed as small as Tryon`s vacuum fluctuations. Inflation provides a natural mechanism for tapping the unlimited reservoir of energy that can be extracted from the gravitational field, energy that can evolve to become the galaxies, stars, planets, and human beings that populate the Universe today. While the standard big bang theory assumes that all the matter in the universe was present in some form from the beginning, the inflationary theory shows how all the mass could evolve from an initial seed weighing only about an ounce, with a diameter more than a billion times smaller than that of a proton. ... “If inflation is correct, then the inflationary mechanism is responsible for the creation of essentially all the matter and energy in the universe. The theory also implies that the observed universe is only a minute fraction of the entire universe, and it strongly suggests that there are perhaps an infinite number of other universes that are completely disconnected from our own. ... [Inflation is the] phenomenon by which the universe is driven into exponential expansion by the repulsive gravitational field created by a false vacuum. The inflation would end with the decay of the false vacuum.” – Alan H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe It’s extremely hard to make sense of “reality” according to the latest scientific thinking. In ontological mathematics, on the contrary, things are very simple. There’s an immaterial, analytic, mathematical Singularity outside space and time, composed of frequency domains (monads). These give rise to the material spacetime domain via Fourier mathematics. End of story. There are no “random fluctuations” of any kind. This is a fully deterministic system, but is based on complex numbers rather than the real numbers of science. What, then, does science say? The most immediate problem lies in the nature of the quantum vacuum in which quantum fluctuations are said to take place. Is this extended in space, or not? Is it in time, or not? The quantum fluctuation that gives rise to the Big Bang universe of space and time is certainly outside the space and time of that universe, but is it in the space and time of some other universe? Is there some super universe of space and time in which all the Big Bang sub-universes appear? But, of

course, this would simply raise the issue of where the super universe came from. It either belongs to a super super universe (!) – and if we then ask where that universe comes from, we get into an infinite regress – or it was brought into being by a quantum fluctuation outside space and time (i.e. a fluctuation in a singularity “vacuum”). So, is the fundamental quantum vacuum extended or non-extended (a singularity)? If the latter, we are forced to think of it as mental rather than physical! Science simply avoids all such questions, and they are in any case metaphysical rather than physical.

***** The whole aim of atheistic scientific materialism is to achieve one goal: to remove any hint of God or mind as the source of the universe, and to thereby remove any meaning and purpose from existence. Theistic Abrahamism says that God is the eternal source of existence, and that he created the world out of nothing. Abrahamism is all about feelings. Pantheistic Eastern religion says that some divine, living, mental Oneness outside space and time is the source of existence, and created the universe out of itself, then lay a veil of illusion (Maya) over itself to conceal the Truth of reality. Eastern religion is all about intuition. Ontological mathematics says that a mathematical Singularity is the eternal source of existence and that it makes the material world of spacetime out of itself via Fourier mathematics. Ontological mathematics is all about thinking (reason). All three of these systems point to a rational, purposeful order – a living, mental force of some kind – as the ground of existence. Abrahamism posits a conscious being (“God”) as the root of all things, while Eastern religion posits an unconscious unitary force as the root of all, and ontological mathematics posits unconscious mathematical minds located in an eternal Singularity. Science repudiates all of this and gives an utterly astounding answer to the ground of existence: randomness. This is not a person, not a mind, not rational, not orderly, not organised, not causal, not deterministic, not purposeful, not meaningful. It doesn’t reflect any principle of sufficient reason. It’s pure chance. It’s pure accident. It’s the Dice Man universe!

When atheists remove God and mind from existence, randomness (chaos, disorder, meaninglessness, purposelessness) is all that’s left. In the ancient world “God”, the gods, “Mind”, or mathematics was invoked to explain the ordered cosmos, or how order was imposed on Chaos. Science can’t abide any such explanations, so got rid of them all, finally making the mad claim that chaos (randomness) orders itself! Science really does say that a meaningless, accidental, purposeless, random fluctuation in nothing triggers a process, grounded in ongoing indeterminacy, that miraculously and magically leads to the staggering degree of order we observe in our universe. Are you buying it? You’re totally irrational if you do. G K Chesterton said, “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” Illuminism says, “When a man stops accepting reason, he doesn’t then accept nothing, he accepts anything.” That’s what science has done. It has strayed as far from reason (rationalism) as it’s possible to get. It has embraced anti-reason: chaos – pure randomness. Here are two unarguable truths: 1) something cannot come from nothing, unless “nothing” is a special kind of something (namely, perfectly balanced positive and negative, real and imaginary mathematics), and 2) order can only come from order, and the original order must be eternal and mathematical. Science denies both of these, and claims both that something can come from nothing and that chaos can produce order – two entirely absurd propositions. Science despises explanation, and has simply got rid of it. Randomness doesn’t and never can explain anything at all. An explanation for existence implies mind, reason, purpose – all of the things science fundamentally rejects. Science does not want to explain existence. It wants to say, and has said, that it happens by accident, serves no purpose and is meaningless. Science, it can never be stressed enough, is for sensing types. These people are estranged from feelings, hence do not imagine the universe being created by a being (God) with whom they can have an emotional relationship. They are estranged from intuition, hence cannot conceive of a meaningful order of existence that cannot be perceived with the senses. They are estranged from thinking, hence cannot imagine a rational, mathematical universe. When you abolish feelings, intuition and reason,

guess what’s left? – randomness as the source of existence. And a totally pointless universe. Scientists, believe it or not, actually like this explanation. People such as Dawkins, Hawking and Cox celebrate it as if it were something wondrous rather than ridiculous, irrational nonsense. Never forget, if there are no minds – conscious or unconscious – in the universe then there can be no purposes, no reasons, and no meaning. Scientific materialism, by denying the existence of mind as anything other than the product of lifeless, mindless, meaningless matter, was destined to end up proclaiming meaningless randomness as the root of all. That’s exactly what a mindless universe is. Once you have truly grasped that science is quintessentially irrational and meaningless, you know that it cannot explain existence in any way at all. Unless you’re happy with: “Existence happens by accident.” Well, are you? Science is just autism applied to the cosmos. Science is a mental disorder. Scientists are incapable of thinking rationally. They are the sensory versions of Abrahamists.

The Quantum Game Are you ready to play the quantum game? How you play will determine how you interpret reality. Will you approach the game from a feelings, thinking, sensing or intuitive perspective? Will you approach it introvertedly or extravertedly? Choices, choices, choices. Want to know how science plays the game? Well, from the sensing, extraverted perspective, of course. Here’s the game in a nutshell. Before the advent of quantum mechanics, science regarded particles as particles and waves as waves. That was nice, simple, classical physics. It was a mathematical world of real numbers. Then, with quantum mechanics, the horror of wave-particle duality appeared on the scene. How could waves be particles, or particles waves? It didn’t make any sense. What on earth was going on? Physics had a nervous breakdown and in a few short years went from being deterministic to its total opposite: indeterministic. This is the most radical volte-face in the history of thought yet is almost never commented upon. In religious terms,

it would be the equivalent of the Pope waking up one day and proclaiming himself an atheist to the masses in St Peter’s Square. So, let’s examine the various possibilities relevant to the quantum conundrum: 1) Baseline: classical physics – particles are particles and waves are waves. 2) Quantum option 1): particles are, somehow, waves (equivalent to waves are particles). There are no real particles. Schrödinger held such a view for a while. It wasn’t a sustainable idea. 3) Quantum option 2): particles are real and they are guided by real waves – “pilot” waves. These waves are, however, extremely unusual because they are “non-local”. They are present everywhere in the universe, but they collapse down to a single point when a macroscopic event takes places (a measurement or observation). This was the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. No one much liked it. It wasn’t rejected because it was provably wrong but simply because it wasn’t popular with scientists who intensely disliked the notion of real particles that they couldn’t see, and a weird nonlocal pilot wave that they couldn’t see either even though it was everywhere. 4) Quantum option 3): particles are unreal and waves are unreal. An unreal, non-local wavefunction defining all possible states of a potentially real particle collapses and produces reality at the point of collapse. The potential particle with many possible states becomes an actual particle with an actual state. This is the Copenhagen interpretation. Schrödinger, Einstein, de Broglie and Bohm all hated it, and even its champions didn’t much like it – but they regarded it as the least bad option. Although it invoked all sorts of bizarre metaphysical elements such as potential particles rather than actual particles, unreal and unobservable wavefunctions, non-local wavefunctions, inexplicable, random wavefunction collapse, indeterminism rather than determinism, acausality rather than causality, a moon that’s there when no one’s observing it, the apparent necessity of observers, a possible requirement for conscious observers, simultaneously dead and

alive cats, particles that are everywhere at once and take all possible routes to their destination, instantaneous communication between infinitely separated particles, and so on (!), it was nevertheless consistent with the experimental method and enshrined experimental observations and measurements as the beall-and-end-all of science. It explicitly rejected the notion of “hidden variables” inaccessible to the scientific method, and this was its main objective. No one suggested combinations of real particles and unreal waves, or unreal particles and real waves. Those, then, are your basic choices. What’s it to be? Remember, which version you choose determines your view of the nature of existence. There’s no evidence to help you here. No one can prove which option is right using any experiments. Hold on, though – surely it’s possible to think of other interpretations of wave-particle duality. For example, what about particles that are particles but which move as waves (they have a wave trajectory programmed into them mathematically)? Yet there’s something drastically wrong in this whole discussion, the elephant in the room. Why isn’t the classical view of distinct particles and distinct waves correct? Why is there any such thing as wave-particle duality at all? How can reality be so bizarre? The answer is that the world of classical physics is based on real numbers and localism, while the world of quantum physics is based on complex numbers and non-locality. The Copenhagen interpretation is so laughably crazy because it’s trying to do the impossible: to take an ontological system of complex numbers and non-locality and explain it away in terms of real numbers and localism. This is the real reason why physics has changed from being 100% deterministic to 100% indeterministic. Yet it can be switched back to 100% deterministic again through one stunningly easily manoeuvre: to accept imaginary numbers as every bit as ontological as real numbers, meaning that reality is grounded in complex numbers rather than real numbers. It’s easy to say what “physical” property imaginary numbers are associated with: time, aka imaginary space. Real numbers define real space and imaginary numbers define imaginary space (time). Objects move

through real space and imaginary space, but science describes the latter type of movement as movement through time. Time has nothing to do with change and motion. It’s just space – imaginary space. It’s energy, not time, that’s the source of movement. Energy is expressed through motion. Motion is what energy does; is what energy is. Energy moves through two different types of space: dimensionless space (mental space) and dimensional space (physical space). Dimensional space, in turn, has two aspects: real space and imaginary space (aka time). All that exists in the universe is energy moving through space (real and/or imaginary). There’s nothing else going on. Energy is mathematical: it’s just sine and cosine waves. Cosine waves are the basis of space, and sine waves the basis of imaginary space (time). Cosines waves are even, symmetric functions, and sine waves are odd, antisymmetric functions, and it’s these differences in the properties of sines and cosines that drive all the different phenomena we encounter in the universe. You simply don’t need anything other than sine and cosine energy, imaginary and real energy, positive and negative energy, symmetry and antisymmetry, to drive the whole of ontological mathematics and physics. Sine and cosine waves are not active at all points along their length. Rather the wave is active at a location known as the “flowing point”: the wave’s point of focus at each instant. This point is permanently in motion. It’s always in the process of moving from one point to the next, and it’s this motion that we experience as the passage of “now”, the ever-moving present instant that we can never pin down. The sines and cosines provide a wholly causal, deterministic, mathematical system. There’s no need at all for Max Born’s absurd probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that destroys the reality principle. Reality can be fully restored, but at the expense of the scientific method. This method is now relegated to a mere tool to help explore phenomenal, observable reality, while ontological mathematics takes over as the means to define true reality. Well, now you have your clear choice: 1) physical mathematics – the mathematics of real numbers, of the sensible world and the scientific method, of a world grounded in randomness, and no objective reality, of dimensional existence.

Or 2) ontological mathematics – the mathematics of complex numbers, of the intelligible world and the mathematical method, reflecting objective reality and the principle of sufficient reason, of dimensionless existence. Well, what’s it to be? We will tell you in advance what you will think. If you are intuitive, you will know that we are absolutely right and that we have correctly explained ultimate, objective reality. If you are a sensing type, you will say we are idiots, that we are absolutely wrong, and you will stick to your observable world grounded in irrationalism, indeterminism, acausality, probability and randomness. You will laugh at us and mock us, while asserting that the moon isn’t there when no one is looking! Well, who’s the real fool?! We are rationalists – hyperrationalists. We are the mathematikoi. We have contempt for scientists and their ridiculous, irrational, sensory worldview. We laugh at the plebeian notion that anything that cannot be perceived cannot exist, that the scientific method is the be-all-and-end-all. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox are anti-mathematical irrationalists for whom we have particular loathing. They are the High Priests of the Science Mythos, the Science Delusion, the Church of Science. If they accepted mathematics, they would reject the scientific method in favour of the mathematical method. In the war of mathematics versus science, there can be only one winner: the rational one. How stupid would you have to be to argue that reality is grounded in meaningless randomness? – yet that’s exactly what Dawkins, Hawking and Cox all trumpet. We defend the principle of sufficient reason (expressed through mathematics) as the ground of reality, while they defend the principle of unreason, expressed through “random fluctuations”. Well, are you a member of the Church of Unreason (Science) or of Absolute Reason (mathematics)? Your choice.

Non-Locality and Complex Numbers

Just as quantum mechanics results from reality being based on complex numbers rather than real numbers, so non-locality is also caused by complex numbers. Ontologically, complex numbers originate in the generalised Euler Formula, and this Formula is all about dimensionless (non-local) existence – mental existence! The God Equation defines the Fourier frequency domain and it’s thanks to this domain, outside space and time, that quantum entanglement is possible.

The Ontological Elves “The Born interpretation does away with any worry about the significance of a negative (and, in general, complex) value of ψ because |ψ|2 is real and never negative. There is no direct significance in the negative (or complex) value of a wavefunction: only the square modulus, a positive quantity, is directly physically significant, and both negative and positive regions of a wavefunction may correspond to a high probability of finding a particles in a region. However ... the presence of positive and negative regions of a wavefunction is of great indirect significance, because it gives rise to the possibility of constructive and destructive interference between different wavefunctions.” – Peter Atkins, Julio de Paula, Atkins’ Physical Chemistry Er, you mean the problems raised by the Born interpretation get swept under the carpet and forgotten about? Have you understood the Born game yet? All sorts of things involving complex and negative numbers happen behind the scenes (which completely affect the scene via interference), and then all of these complex and negative “virtual elves” vanish – or are killed off – by turning them into nice, real, positive results. So, here’s the vital ontological issue. If complex and negative factors produce ontological – i.e., real – interference effects then why are they not treated as real in general? What science says is that anything you like (involving complex and negative numbers) can happen while you’re performing your calculations, but when it comes to the final stage, all complex and negative numbers must be erased (as if they had never existed), and replaced by nice, positive real numbers. Anyone who thinks this is a legitimate ontological operation is crazy.

Either complex and negative numbers are ontological, or they’re not. In ontological mathematics, it’s essential for mathematics to be consistent and complete, and that can happen only if all numbers are, ontologically, treated equally and none are privileged over the others. What “physical mathematics” (science) says is that you can do whatever you like with complex and negative numbers when you’re performing your calculations – and these calculations will definitely affect the final outcome – but then, at the end of your calculations, all traces of them must be removed. So, how can “unreal” complex and negative numbers affect real outcomes in any way? If complex and negative numbers are unreal, they should not be used in any calculations. To use them is to engage in an ontological farce. If they can affect outcomes, they must be ontologically real. If they have no ontological significance (which logically indicates that they cannot affect the real world in any way) then they must be excluded from legitimate calculations. Science performs the outrageous and unacceptable procedure of using complex and negative numbers as if they were real, with real effects, and then banishing them at the end of calculations by a totally arbitrary, brute force method of converting them into positive real numbers. It’s astounding that anyone with one iota of mathematical or philosophical integrity could ever take this seriously. What it resembles is the fairytale of the Elves and the Shoemaker. The elves work unseen at night and leave fully made shoes for the Shoemaker to find in the morning. Well, if the shoes are real, the elves must be real, but science doesn’t believe in elves. If the elves aren’t real, they couldn’t have made the shoes. Likewise, if complex and negative numbers aren’t real, they can’t contribute to real calculations. If they can contribute – even if working unseen in the dark – then they must be real. This reflects the whole debate regarding “hidden variables. Science denies the existence of ontological hidden variables and yet uses them all the time, providing they are banished by the end of any calculation by nothing but mathematical diktat. Well, either hidden variables exist or they don’t. You can’t use them and then in the same breath deny their existence. Just who does science think it’s fooling? Well, all the scientists themselves, it seems. Bring back the elves!

***** Schrödinger, the author of the wave equation and critic of the subsequent Copenhagen interpretation of his work, was alarmed by the presence of imaginary numbers in his formulation and believed that any valid description of the microscopic world should be based on real functions alone. This, of course, is a logical stance if you consider “reality” to be based on “real” functions. What’s extraordinary is that people such as Schrödinger didn’t conclude that the presence of imaginary numbers in their equations was no accident or error but was actually telling them that reality is not based on real functions but on complex functions. Scientists claim to be driven by “facts”, “evidence” and “proof”, yet they are in fact driven by empiricist, materialist philosophy, and all the biases against rationalism and idealism this entails. Schrödinger wasn’t driven to abandon empiricism and materialism by his wave equation – even though that was the logical conclusion of his work – but to try to “explain away” his finding, or to hope that some new version of his equation would come along where imaginary numbers were absent. This raises the whole problem of mathematics being at the core of modern physics. Scientists do not in fact accept the mathematical conclusions of their work, but filter all mathematical results through their empiricist, materialist biases. All mathematical results not consistent with their philosophical prejudices are rejected as “unreal”, and an extraneous mathematical procedure is then invented to get rid of these unwelcome mathematical elements. This is nowhere more obvious than in the ridiculous Born probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the laughable notion of observer-triggered wavefunction collapse. The standard way of looking at quantum mechanics is driven by a perceived need to interpret a complex numbers formulation in terms of positive real numbers only. This is mathematically obscene, and the height of intellectual fraud. Scientists laugh at Abrahamists for selectively changing the “facts” to suit their beliefs, yet, mathematically, that’s exactly what scientists do. Instead of accepting the reality of a world of complex functions rather than real functions, scientists bludgeon all the mathematics they don’t like to death, or simply use mathematical tricks to transform the “bad” results into “good” results (the results they like!).

They have massacred the integrity, consistency and completeness of ontological mathematics in order to serve their quasi-religious belief system of empiricism and materialism. The absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics – involving the wholesale destruction of causality, determinism and objective reality – is not driven by anything other than belief and bias, and flies in the face of the mathematical facts, evidence and proof, thus making a mockery of scientists’ claim to be truthful and honest people, driven by the facts alone. Well, the unarguable facts of quantum mechanics are that we live in a world of complex rather than real mathematical functions. Rather than accept this logically unavoidable conclusion, scientists simply denied it and sought to change it by reinterpreting the mathematics in terms they liked, and frequently using ad hoc mathematical methods to force the results to come out in the form of which they approved. These ad hoc methods were bolted on for philosophical reasons, not mathematical reasons. Max Born won a Nobel Prize for empiricist philosophy, not for “science”. The history of science is littered with mathematical solutions that scientists didn’t like being either ignored or dismissed as “unreal”, or being subjected to additional, artificial mathematical operations that serve no purpose other than to get rid of undesired negative or imaginary numbers. The sole reason why antimatter was discovered was that Paul Dirac took seriously negative solutions to his equations, which all other scientists would simply have deemed unreal, hence not worth thinking about. More and more, it becomes obvious that the sole problem facing science is how to correctly interpret mathematics. Science, of course, is unable to define what mathematics is, even though the whole of modern science is predicated on increasingly mathematical foundations. The ontological status of mathematics becomes more and more pressing with every passing year. Scientists are searching for a scientific final “theory of everything” – which will be expressed entirely mathematically – and yet this final theory (which will never come if science remains empiricist and materialist!) will be unable to explain what mathematics is. In other words, science’s final theory will not be able to account for the very means through which it is expressed! Is that not astounding? Therefore, it won’t be the answer to everything but, rather, the answer to nothing.

Ontological mathematics is the answer to existence. That’s a fact. That’s what science has actually demonstrated – before fleeing from the truth for philosophical reasons. It’s not mathematics that should be continuously reinterpreted by scientists to get the results that suit their beliefs, it’s science that needs to be reinterpreted to reflect complete and consistent mathematics, based on complex rather than real functions. Ontological mathematics is the system that reinterprets science wholesale. Science has reached the end of its road. It must convert to ontological mathematics if it’s to have a future. This means that empiricism and materialism will be replaced by rationalism and idealism, that the scientific method will give way to mathematical proof, that “hidden variables” (rational unobservables) will be accepted, that the principle of sufficient reason will be placed at the core of all things, that it will be recognised that the phenomenal world of appearances is underpinned by a noumenal world of things in themselves. This permanently hidden world is made of Fourier frequency singularities, which are none other than living mathematical minds called monads. These are the authentic souls that religion tries so feebly and irrationally to describe. All souls are 100% mathematical and defined by the generalised Euler Formula. They are all about complex numbers, not real numbers. In the ontological mathematical future, all scientists will desist from butchering their own mathematics. They will stop trying to get rid of negative and imaginary numbers, zero and infinity. They will stop adding ad hoc mathematical techniques to convert mathematical results they don’t like into those they do. Above all, every attempt to reinterpret mathematics in empiricist, materialist terms rather than its native rationalist, idealist nature will cease. Science, as practised to date, has been all about the sensible world. Yet we actually inhabit an intelligible, rational world of ontological mathematics. The sooner scientists get with the programme, the better. Let the Copenhagen interpretation stand as the high watermark of scientific irrationalism and absurdity, where reason itself was finally abandoned and replaced by randomness. If you want to be an empiricist and materialist, you are compelled to describe reality in terms of random accidents. If you accept rationalism and

idealism (defined by ontological mathematics), you get a rational world with a precise answer. So, then – choose.

The Future Science now stands at a crossroads. Its future, if it’s to have one, lies in the total repudiation of Max Born’s indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (“God plays dice”) and the acceptance of the ontology of complex numbers, leading to the full restoration of deterministic science (God does not play dice”), but now wholly based on analytic, ontological mathematics. Since the advent of quantum mechanics, everything has become crystal clear. The philosophy of empiricism and materialism, which defines science, lead inevitably to the claim that ultimate reality is grounded in pure accident – randomness and indeterminism. The alternative philosophy of rationalism and idealism, which defines ontological mathematics, leads inevitably to ultimate reality being grounded in the principle of sufficient reason, expressed through mathematical monads. The choice facing us now cannot be any clearer: science and randomness versus ontological mathematics and reason; science and indeterminism versus ontological mathematics and determinism; science and acausality versus ontological mathematics and causality; science and matter versus ontological mathematics and mind; science and real numbers (an inconsistent and incomplete subset of mathematics) versus ontological mathematics and complex numbers (the consistent and complete expression of mathematics as it actually exists). To put it another way, the whole history of human thought has now collapsed to just a single issue: mathematics. How is mathematics to be interpreted; what is mathematics; what is the ontology of mathematics? All the rest is propaganda.

***** Science has succeeded only to the extent that it has worn mathematical clothes. However, it has not done so consistently and completely. It has got away with this for centuries, but now, as it strives to address ultimate

reality, it can no longer evade the issue. For science to proceed any further, it must be grounded in complete and consistent mathematics, and that, in short, means complex numbers, zero and infinity – everything that science has hitherto rejected in its bizarre, irrational and anti-mathematical campaign to define reality in terms of positive real numbers only. Why has science done this? Because science is a quasi-religion with a fanatical devotion to empiricism and materialism, and only positive real numbers are compatible with this ideology. All the rest of mathematics involves “hidden variables”, beyond the scientific method. For science to advance, it must drop the scientific method as its primary instrument and turn instead to analytic, ontological mathematics. In other words, it must stop being science as science has traditionally been understood and practised. Getting this to happen is as challenging as getting Muslims to reject the Koran, Protestants to repudiate Jesus Christ, the Catholics to depose the Pope, Jews to stop calling themselves the Chosen People and Karmists to abandon the concept of karma. That is, science belongs to the domain of religious faith. You cannot reason with irrational believers. You cannot reason with scientists. And that’s humanity’s greatest tragedy. That’s why the Enlightenment failed. All it did was replace faith in feelings (mainstream religion) with faith in the senses (science). It did not embrace reason. Only when the whole of humanity acknowledges hyperrationalist, ontological mathematics as the ground of existence, will humanity be enlightened and capable of building heaven on earth. So, what’s it to be? Your choice!

The Challenge Scientists claim to be rational and open-minded. Very well, then. Let them try out a new version of science based on complex numbers rather than real numbers. What have they got to lose? Can a single scientist give any reason beyond empiricist, materialist bias to reject complex numbers as the basis of reality? Wouldn’t scientists prefer to work in a framework of analytic necessity (ontological mathematics) rather than synthetic contingency (science)? Only the former can provide an actual answer to existence. That’s a fact.

Reputations Don’t be afraid of reputations. Don’t be intimidated by names such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Born. These people all stepped outside of science and entered the domain of philosophy, for which they were eminently unqualified and unsuited. They saw fit to pronounce on the nature of reality without having a shred of evidence for their irrational conclusions, which turned science on its head and made it random and indeterministic. They all saw fit to pronounce on the nature of mathematics. Who gave them the right to conclude that real numbers bear on reality and complex numbers don’t? These people were simply expressing their opinions, beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations, not any facts, proofs or truths. Science chose to follow them rather than the likes of Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie and Bohm. What an error! Of course, the latter were interpreters too, but they were gifted with more intuition and reason than the former, and they understood that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not be right under any circumstances, and was the opposite of the truth since it turned science upside down. As Einstein observed, they made God play dice, and that was something God had never done previously. There was no need for him to start. It was Bohr, Heisenberg and Born who put the dice in his hand and made him roll. Much lesser scientists such as Dawkins, Hawking and Cox have even less right and even fewer qualifications to interpret the world according to the randomist, empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. These people don’t understand the meaning of facts, evidence and proof. They don’t understand that they have never been anything other than philosophical interpreters. Nietzsche was an enormously greater thinker than any of these interpreters. He, at least, understood the nature of the game: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” It’s about time science faced that stark fact. There’s only one arena where absolute truth is on the agenda: the eternal truths of reason, encapsulated by ontological mathematics. Everything else is the interpretation game – especially science.

No New Thinking

In classical physics, particles are particles and waves are waves. When it became clear that particles have some kind of wave nature, a paradigm shift was ipso facto necessitated. Only brand new thinking would shed light on the deeper level of reality revealed by quantum physics. But it never came. Physicists were clueless about how to introduce new thinking. So, they simply borrowed old thinking and argued their case via (strained) analogies. The Schrödinger wave equation was heavily dependent on Maxwell’s equations of classical electromagnetism. The complex wave function was adapted from the complex electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetism. Max Born’s probability density is deemed analogous to the intensity of the electromagnetic field (the absolute value of the electric field squared plus the absolute value of the magnetic field squared). For all waves, the amplitude squared gives an intensity. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, the “intensity” is deemed to be the probability of finding the particle in a particular position: Schrödinger’s equation is interpreted as describing a “probability wave” for the particle. The wavefunction is to be regarded as a probability amplitude with no physical meaning per se. The square of the wavefunction is a probability density in that it generates a probability when multiplied by an appropriate volume element. A probability wave is totally different from an ontological wave. It’s virtual rather than real. In fact, it’s unreal, a complete abstraction. It defies the reality principle. No scientist has ever explained how a probability wave can belong to objective reality. The nature of quantum science is that it’s statistical, not deterministic. It’s grounded in fundamental randomness: things happening for no reason at all. Particles are not behaving as waves; it’s their probability patterns that behave in this way. Quantum mechanics should have demonstrated to scientists that there was a fundamental problem with the empiricist, materialist, positivist Meta Paradigm of science. It should have shown them that a science based on real numbers was no longer tenable, and that science had to switch to the ontology of complex numbers. But science changed neither its Meta Paradigm nor its attitude to mathematics. All it did was offer increasingly bizarre interpretations to justify its old Meta Paradigm, and its obsession with real numbers alone. The equations of science are successful because they have been painstakingly matched to experimental results (the “real” world). The scientific interpretation of these equations is absurd because they are

matched to a philosophy (empiricism, materialism and positivism) that has no connection at all with true reality (which is rationalist, idealist, noumenal, intelligible and mathematical). Science strives to be material and local, while true reality is mental and non-local. Not only are the equations of science fitted to experimental data, the thinking of science is wholly devoted to the phenomenal, sensible world and wholly rejects the noumenal, intelligible world (which is deemed nonexistent.) Plainly, if all the equations of science are phenomenal and all the interpretations of science are phenomenal then science has a radical problem if the foundational equations of existence are noumenal and require a noumenal interpretation. Scientists simply refuse to consider this. Quantum mechanics should have shown them they were wrong. Instead, they chose to abandon causality, determinism and the reality principle itself rather than change their Meta Paradigm. That’s why science is now a religion driven by beliefs rather than a serious intellectual subject driven by reason and facts.

Mathematical Vanishing Tricks “In mathematics, the absolute value (or modulus) |x| of a real number x is the non-negative value of x without regard to its sign. Namely, |x| = x for a positive x, |x| = −x for a negative x, and |0| = 0. For example, the absolute value of 3 is 3, and the absolute value of −3 is also 3. The absolute value of a number may be thought of as its distance from zero. ... the absolute value of x is always either positive or zero, but never negative. ... Since the square root notation without sign represents the positive square root, it follows that |a| = √a2 (Equation 1) “Since the complex numbers are not ordered, the definition given above for the real absolute value cannot be directly generalised for a complex number. However the geometric interpretation of the absolute value of a real number as its distance from 0 can be generalised. The absolute value of a complex number is defined as its distance in the complex plane from the origin using the Pythagorean theorem.

For any complex number z = x + iy, where x and y are real numbers, the absolute value or modulus of z is denoted |z| and is given by |z| = √(x2 + y2) ... “The absolute value of a complex number can be written in the complex analogue of equation (1) above as: |z| = √((z∙z*) where z* is the complex conjugate of z.” – Wikipedia

***** If you don’t like a negative number (and empiricist materialists never do!), just take its absolute value or modulus, and, hey presto, the pesky varmint vanishes. Moreover, with imaginary numbers, you not only get rid of the pesky negative numbers, but the even peskier imaginary numbers themselves. What a result! And now you know exactly why Max Born won the Nobel Prize for physics. He applied the square of the modulus to the Schrödinger wavefunction with all of its nasty imaginary elements and, by nothing but mathematical decree, abolished its horrors in one fell swoop. All that remained was to apply a probabilistic interpretation to what came out since it certainly couldn’t be anything deterministically related to the underlying wavefunction with all of its complex, “unreal” mysteries. Hey presto, he was awarded a Nobel Prize and hailed as a genius. He should in fact have been awarded a prize by the empiricist materialist philosophical society since what he did had nothing to do with science and plenty to do with philosophy. It’s Max Born’s work above all that must be repudiated if science is to have a future. It was Born who turned science on its head and made it indeterministic rather than deterministic. He it was who destroyed causal, objective reality and replaced it with observer-constructed subjective reality grounded in randomness. Not a single scientist noticed that Born was, in truth, awarded a Nobel Prize for philosophy rather than science. All that Born did was interpret quantum mechanics from the perspective of empiricism, materialism and positivism, and provide the necessary fallacious mathematics to support it.

Funnily enough, Born originally argued that ψ itself was the probability density, but then said, “On more careful consideration, the probability is proportional to the square of ψ.” Even he struggled to grasp what he was saying!

The Razor “Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” – Wikipedia Occam’s razor, by itself, repudiates all Multiverse thinking. If the razor is regarded as a primary tool of reason – as indeed it ought to be – then it implies that the answer to existence must consist of just one equation, formula or law. Such an equation, formula or law is necessarily consistent and complete since it cannot be inconsistent or incomplete with reference to itself. The answer to existence must be a single, all-encapsulating law – the “God Equation”. This fundamental formula, not a being, is the True God. God as a person is disproven by Occam’s razor. He requires too many assumptions in comparison with a single divine, perfect equation that defines everything (including God himself, of course, if God were possible).

The Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics “A philosopher once said, ‘It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.’ Well, they don’t!” – Richard Feynman So much for the scientific method, Richard! So much for repeatability. All of the paranormal practitioners routinely mocked by scientists because they can’t get the same results time and time again should just quote Feynman! “Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings

us closer to the secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.” – Einstein That’s right – he doesn’t! “It seems hard to look in God’s cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that He plays dice and makes use of ‘telepathic’ means (as the current quantum theory alleges He does).” – Einstein Actually, he is telepathic. “What nature demands from us is not a quantum theory or a wave theory; rather, nature demands from us a synthesis of these two views which thus far has exceeded the mental powers of physicists.” –Einstein But not the mental powers of ontological mathematicians. “However I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory is incompatible with the principle that physics is to represent reality in space and time, without spookish long-distance effects.” – Einstein Ontological mathematics describes reality outside space and time – in the Singularity. “Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.” – John Wheeler Er, yes it can! It’s only science that has irrationally rejected objective reality and the reality principle. “I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” – Schrödinger We know how you feel! “The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that.” – Richard Feynman Just as it gave up on reality itself. “If that turns out to be true, I’ll quit physics.” – Max von Laue, Nobel Laureate 1914 (Talking about de Broglie’s thesis on electrons having wave

properties.) Oops! “The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the spacetime coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.” – Niels Bohr It does no such thing! “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description.” – Niels Bohr Wrong! “Very interesting theory – it makes no sense at all.” – Groucho Marx Right!

Zero-Point Energy “Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zeropoint energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy. ... “Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.” – Wikipedia

Hidden Variables

Bell’s theorem states, “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” However, non-local hidden variables are perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia says, “When introduced in 1927, the philosophical implications of the new quantum theory were troubling to many prominent physicists of the day, including Albert Einstein. In a well known 1935 paper, Einstein and co-authors Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (collectively EPR) demonstrated by a paradox that QM was incomplete. This provided hope that a more complete (and less troubling) theory might one day be discovered. But that conclusion rested on the seemingly reasonable assumptions of locality and realism (together called ‘local realism’ or ‘local hidden variables’, often interchangeably). In the vernacular of Einstein: locality meant no instantaneous (‘spooky’) action at a distance; realism meant the moon is there even when not being observed. These assumptions were hotly debated within the physics community, notably between Nobel laureates Einstein and Niels Bohr. In his groundbreaking 1964 paper, ‘On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox’, physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR’s hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). After providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of QM. In experimental tests following Bell’s example, now using quantum entanglement of photons instead of electrons, John Clauser and Stuart Freedman (1972) and Alain Aspect et al. (1981) convincingly demonstrated that the predictions of QM are correct in this regard. While this does not demonstrate QM is complete, one is forced to reject either locality or realism (or both).” A hidden variables theory certainly isn’t ruled out by Bell’s theorem, but it cannot be one based on strict Einsteinian localism, hence – assuming a reality principle applies – must involve non-local, dimensionless existence, exactly as features in Illuminism. Scientific materialism accepts Bell’s work only up to a point, but still refuses to accept the primary implication of Bell’s work, namely that Einsteinian relativistic physics contains fatal conceptual errors and cannot furnish a valid account of reality. Physicists, while accepting non-locality,

also believe that the macroscopic world is strictly one of Einsteinian localism. This is an incoherent position. They are trying to have their cake and eat it. They reject Einsteinian relativity in one context (non-localism) then immediately insist on it in terms of the observable world (localism). We do not live in a scientific world of real numbers but a mathematical universe of complex numbers. Imaginary numbers, imaginary space, imaginary particles and imaginary energy are therefore the most obvious way to prove that mathematics is correct and science false. Scientific materialism and the whole scientific establishment will fall if imaginary entities are discovered (which will have to be by non-sensory means, of course, since there are no instruments that detect and measure imaginary entities). We are just one genius of the calibre of John Bell away from this revolution that will change humanity’s conception of reality forever, placing mathematics right at its core, exactly where it belongs. The quantum mechanical wavefunction itself has imaginary numbers at its core, but is regarded as ontologically unreal, leading to the absurd, realnumbers, probabilistic interpretation that dominates scientific thinking today, and which won the Nobel Prize for Max Born, the worst Nobel Prize ever awarded since it has proven the biggest-ever obstacle to comprehending objective reality based on ontological mathematics and Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.

The Collective Flowing Point Each analytic wave is active (actualised) at its flowing point. When many waves are put together, the whole collection has just one flowing point, not one for each component wave. This means that the collective flowing point reflects all of the information of the collection of basis waves. In terms of the cosmic wavefunction, we could actually say that the “physical” universe consists of just one collective (cosmic) flowing point, reflecting all of the information of the material universe. Linking to this are the flowing points of individual minds (souls). Each mind, being an enormous wave frequency system, has its own collective flowing point, reflecting all of its internal wave properties. So, there’s a net cosmic flowing point reflecting the Monadic Collective, and there’s a net flowing point reflecting each monad, and these all interact to produce the mind-matter world of our experience. Have you got the point?

What is the Wavefunction? “Schrödinger had decided that ψ represented a ‘shadow wave’ that somehow indicated the position of the electron. Then he changed his mind, saying it was the ‘density of the electronic charge’. Truthfully, he was confused. A more acceptable idea was developed by Max Born in the summer of 1926. He wrote a paper on collision phenomena, in which he introduced the quantum mechanical probability. ψ is the probability amplitude for an electron in the state n to scatter in the direction m. It is, in a sense, its own intensity wave. When it is squared and the absolute value is taken, it turns out to be a physical probability of the associated particle’s presence. “One month later, Born stated that the probability of the existence of a state is give by the square of the normalised amplitude of the individual wavefunction. This was another new concept – the probability that a certain quantum state exists. No more exact answers, said Born, in atomic theory, all we get are probabilities. ... This is not probability due to ignorance. This probability is all we can ever know about an atomic system. Born had found a way to reconcile particles and waves by introducing the concept of probability. The wave ψ determines the likelihood that the electron will be in a particular position. Unlike the electromagnetic field, ψ has no physical reality.” – J. P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate, Introducing Quantum Theory The central question of quantum mechanics is this: why was Born’s interpretation accepted as correct? Isn’t is just another hypothesis with incredibly controversial implications? Schrödinger was said to be in “trouble” with his interpretation. Why was Born given a Nobel Prize for his interpretation that destroyed objective reality, causality, determinism, the principle of sufficient reason and reversed the entire course and basis of science hitherto? If that interpretation wasn’t “troubling”, what does “troubling” mean? Where was the great intellectual debate amongst all scientists, philosophers and mathematicians about Born’s interpretation? There wasn’t one (just as there wasn’t one regarding Einstein’s special theory of relativity which overturned the previous course and basis of science, making it relativistic rather than absolutist). Basically, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born bullied Schrödinger, Einstein and de Broglie, and all the rest of the science community went along with it. Born was awarded a Nobel Prize, but at no

stage was his interpretation proved. Indeed, it never can be since it’s entirely fallacious. Anything that destroys causality is a joke and should be instantly rejected. So, if we grant that ψ has no physical reality, does that prevent it from having mathematical, ontological, noumenal reality? Who says that we live in a physical (scientific) world rather than in a mental (mathematical) world? Who’s going to prove it? Do you see that the Copenhagen interpretation flows directly from an empiricist, materialist philosophical view of reality? Given a rationalist, idealist view, Born’s interpretation of ψ is automatically rejected. Born’s interpretation remains exactly that: an interpretation. It has not been proved. It’s not factual. It’s a philosophical belief, nothing else. By exactly the same token, Einstein and science’s rejection of the ether was yet another direct consequence of the empiricist and materialist worldview. Deploy rationalism and idealism, and the ether can be instantly restored. If we live in a mathematical rather than physical universe, all of the nostrums of science – with their legions of logical problems and bizarre conclusions – fail. Here’s a very simple question: can scientists prove that empiricism and materialism are correct and rationalism and idealism false, or is it just an assumption, a philosophy, a belief system? To a rationalist, the irrational consequences of scientific materialism and empiricism are laid bare by Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which destroys causality, determinism and objective reality, hence is rationally impossible and ipso facto false. John Bell said he would rather give up Einstein’s special theory of relativity and go back to the concept of an ether (preferred frame of reference) than give up on the notion of reality. He could equally have said the same of the Born interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you want to accept objective reality, you must repudiate empiricism and materialism. Otherwise, you must accept the irrational belief system of modern science that denies causality itself. What’s it to be? Of the de Broglie-Bohm notion of local particle and non-local pilot wave working together, Bell said that it “seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.” The reason is

simple. The de Broglie-Bohm view explicitly demonstrates the falsehood of localism, empiricism and materialism, hence is unacceptable to the science establishment. Non-localism is also a feature of Born’s interpretation, but is much less in your face and can be “explained away” to some degree. Empiricism and materialism are absolutely dependent on localism, while rationalism and idealism have no trouble at all with non-localism, and in fact actively require it. Therefore, the question of non-localism versus localism should be the central battleground of the rival views of science (Newtonian, empiricist and materialist, or Leibnizian, rationalist and idealist). Bell’s inequality, and the Aspect experiment that endorsed it, explicitly demonstrate that any interpretation of quantum reality must involve non-locality. Only hidden-variables theories are logically and causally compatible with non-locality, hence this is direct evidence that the current scientific paradigm is false. Any non-hidden-variables theories said to be consistent with non-locality necessarily involve acausality, total randomness and “magic” (things happening for no reason). You cannot have a causal, deterministic non-hidden-variables theory consistent with nonlocality. Bell’s theorem was described by Henry Stapp as “the most profound discovery of science.” This is exactly right. It’s the most important because it allows us to decide a metaphysical question: whether reality is empiricist and materialist or rationalist and idealist. Bell’s inequality mathematically proves the following: There is an objective reality (causal, deterministic and reflecting the principle of sufficient reason) only if reality is based on non-localism and hidden (mathematical) variables. This is compatible only with a rationalist and idealist philosophy. The alternative philosophical view of empiricism and materialism can be true only if there is no objective reality, if reality is not causal, deterministic and reflective of the principle of sufficient reason. And, if you believe that, as all scientists do, then you are irrational and you might as well espouse magic as the basis of reality! Contrary to what Born said, it’s impossible to reconcile particles and waves by introducing the concept of probability. Probability has nothing to do with it. The only way to reconcile particles and waves is to switch to a mathematical rather than physical understanding of reality, and to posit

mathematical flowing points (particles), moving in wave trajectories in complex space. When a physicalist scientific theory makes reference to an entity (wavefunction) that is said to have “no physical reality”, you know for a fact that science has become incoherent and self-contradictory. Physicalist theories cannot refer to non-physical entities. Empiricist theories cannot refer to non-empirical entities. Materialist theories cannot refer to immaterial entities. Theories that rely on observation cannot refer to unobservable entities. Science is no longer a rational subject. It contradicts itself at every turn, and is now wholly speculative and metaphysical (but in the worst possible way – irrationally metaphysical).

Immaterial Waves and Material Waves Reality is all about waves. There are two types of waves: dimensionless waves outside space and time and dimensional waves inside space and time. There’s nothing else. We might say that Maxwell’s wave equations describe immaterial waves and Schrödinger’s wave equation describes material waves. The latter tells us how a wave associated with any particle varies in space and time as the particle moves under various forces. The Schrödinger wave equation is analogous to the equations for other waves in nature, so effectively unifies of all reality in terms of a wave description. Illuminism is entirely predicated on sine and cosine waves (defined by the generalised Euler Formula). These are the basis of everything (which is why existence has an exact answer: there are no “mysterian” elements that cannot be defined). Anything that exists is ultimately resolvable into sines and cosines. These constitute analytic, mathematical “energy”. When anyone mentions “energy”, they are in fact referring to sine and cosines waves, and nothing else. There is nothing other than mathematical energy, coming in the form of sines and cosines. We live in a universe of mathematical energy, not “physical” energy. Particles unquestionably have some association with waves. The task is to define that association without falling into contradiction (given that particles and waves are so logically different).

The meaning of the term “wave” in Schrödinger’s “wave equation” was extremely controversial. Schrödinger suggested two possibilities: 1) that the wavefunction was a “shadow wave” that indicated the position of the particle, 2) that the intensity of the wave at a point in space represented the ‘amount’ of the particle present at that point (i.e. the particle was spread out rather than concentrated at a point): particles didn’t exist at all and were actually “wave packets”. These views were rejected on the grounds that particles are always experimentally detected as localised entities not as spread out (as they would be with conventional waves). This is the central issue of quantum mechanics: why do things that arrive as particles seem to be move in some sort of wavelike manner? In other words, everything in quantum mechanics revolves around how “wave-particle” duality is to be understood. Contrary to what scientists believe, this is not a scientific question, but an outright philosophical, mathematical and metaphysical one. Max Born introduced an extraordinary interpretation which was subsequently adopted by the scientific establishment (and Born was awarded a Nobel Prize). He denied that the wave was in any way physical and instead claimed that it was, instead, an unreal “probability” wave. Where the associated wave had a large amplitude, the probability of finding a particle there was high. One would always find the whole particle, not parts of it. What is truly bizarre about Born’s interpretation is that, in order to save empiricism and materialism, it totally refuted empiricism and materialism! It became evident that, without Born’s interpretation, “hidden variables” would have to be introduced into physics to rationalise what was going on. By being experimentally unobservable, these would fatally contradict the scientific method (which is entirely predicated on observability). So, to avoid this outcome, Born introduced the probabilistic wavefunction, which is itself “unreal”, non-material, “hidden” and unobservable. In other words, to avoid hidden variables that refuted the scientific method, science embraced the ultimate hidden variable – Born’s version of the wavefunction – and said that this unreal entity mysteriously “collapsed” into specific, observable, “real” outcomes. Science now claims that “reality” exists where an unreal wavefunction collapses for no reason at all, giving rise to observable phenomena, consistent with the scientific method. To be absolutely clear about this – because it’s such a critically important point – the much-vaunted scientific

method is no longer connected with a reality principle (with an objective world that exists whether or not there any observers), but with the inexplicable collapse of a physically unreal wavefunction! The scientific method is now the expression of an unreality principle based on something that has, according to science’s own account, no ontological reality. This is the most deranged conclusion anyone could possible arrive at. Science, for ideological reasons, has destroyed the concept of reality itself. Why? To save the scientific method and avoid the alternative – hidden variables permanently outside the scientific method. Yet the Born wavefunction itself is completely beyond the scientific method. It’s connected with “reality” only at the point at which it collapses for no reason. Neither Born, nor any other scientist, has ever explained how reality can be generated by the indeterministic collapse of unreality! It beggars belief that this nonsense has ever been taken seriously. It’s the height of irrationalism and anti-intellectualism: an out and out insult to reason. Not even an Abrahamist could suggest anything so ridiculous. Well, what’s it to be? Will you revere the scientific method and reject objective reality? (You will claim that God plays dice, that the moon isn’t there when no one’s observing it, that the universe is acausal, indeterministic and obeys no principle of sufficient reason.) Or will you accept objective reality and reject the scientific method as the means to reveal ultimate reality (i.e. you will reject science itself as it currently stands). Objective reality is associated with causality, determinism and the principle of sufficient reason. God does not play dice, and the moon is there even when no one is observing it. To put it another way, you have two choices: 1) Empiricist materialist science that makes the scientific method (predicated on experiments) the be-all-and-end-all. This is the type of science established by the likes of Newton who did not “feign hypotheses”. 2) Rationalist idealist science that incorporates experimentally undetectable hidden variables into science, hence overturns the scientific method. This type of science is that championed by Leibniz who did “feign hypotheses.” This type of science reduces to ontological mathematics.

Traditional science rejects metaphysics and ontological mathematics. The “new” science embraces metaphysics and ontological mathematics (which are in fact one and the same). Let’s state your choices once again: 1) You can have empiricist materialist science that rejects objective reality and determinism (causality). 2) You can have rationalist idealist science that rejects the scientific method and replaces it with ontological mathematics (which is in no need of any experiments at all!). Well, choose. As ever, your choice says everything about you and how rational you are. No rational person would ever reject objective reality and causality in order to save the primacy of experimental observations. Once you have rejected observation as the means to address ultimate reality, you have ipso facto turned to reason alone. You have acknowledged that there’s a noumenal reality which can never be observed and for which there will never be any sensory evidence. You have acknowledged that a rational, intelligible world lies under the empirical, sensible world, just as Plato said well over two thousand years ago. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is all about deciding between empiricism and materialism on the one hand, and rationalism and idealism on the other. It’s all about deciding whether mind comes from matter (the empiricist, materialist, scientific claim), or whether matter comes from mind (the rationalist, idealist, ontological mathematical claim). Objective reality is consistent only with the latter view. In the alternative view, objective reality is replaced by something physically unreal from which observable reality is probabilistically plucked via wavefunction “collapse” (a wholly undefined, magical process!). Modern science is based on a kind of Aristotelian system of potentiality and actualisation. Scientists claim that “reality” is the actualisation, through wavefunction collapse, of an unreal wavefunction that describes the potentiality of the universe (yet how can something that does not in fact exist describe anything at all?!). Ontological mathematical science asserts that reality is based on a mathematical Singularity of monadic mathematical minds, entirely defined by the God Equation. This Singularity is real, eternal and indestructible. It’s the World Soul. It’s not a person. Rather, it’s countless, unconscious,

autonomous, living mathematical units (Fourier frequency information systems) that have the ability to evolve consciousness and thus become “persons”. Go on, try to define what “you” really are. You will eventually see that you can be nothing other than self-optimising mathematical information. And what’s wrong with that? What would you rather be – a meaningless and inexplicable scientific random accident, or a “soul” created by an inexplicable “God”, or part of a mystical “divine Oneness” labouring under the forces of Karma (moral “cause and effect”) and Maya (illusion)?

***** Quantum mechanical waves are either ontologically real (as ontological mathematical rationalists insist) or unreal (as the science establishment now claims). Which is it? Do you think – as scientists do – that reality is grounded in unreality? This is a totally irrational stance. If quantum mechanical waves are ontologically real then the question is whether they are ontologically physical or ontologically mental. (Science of course rejects any notion of an independent mental reality, and prefers to accept physical reality grounded in physical unreality!) Schrödinger wanted to have a simple physical interpretation of the wave equation: it describes physical, matter waves in ordinary space. This proved untenable. Born concluded that quantum mechanical matter waves actually represent probability amplitudes associated with the actualisation of potential events, i.e. physical reality is some kind of actualisation of an unreal, abstract wavefunction that specifies everything that might happen in the next instant. According to Multiverse thinking, as many universes will be created as to allow everything possible to happen! Science makes no attempt whatsoever to explain how a potentiality wavefunction that doesn’t exist (it’s not physically real) can nevertheless provide the substratum of the observable, “real” world (just as it makes no attempt to explain how existence can randomly spring from non-existence). Science, bluntly, has become a belief system based on what can only be described as magic, with things happening for no reason at all. Science, in order to defend its “method”, has made itself totally irrational. *****

Born said that in the case of there being multiple alternatives for an event (e.g. lifting the lid of the box in the Schrödinger’s cat experiment to observe the fate of the cat), the total amplitude is the sum of the alternative amplitudes. The absolute square of the overall amplitude – the intensity of the wave – is to be reinterpreted as the probability that the event will happen. Where in classical wave theory the intensity is a physical aspect of the wave, in Born’s theory it’s an unreal probability. Born simply took a classical concept and then reinterpreted it. Physics often works this way, i.e. a new theory is simply an old theory repackaged within a new paradigm. New theories all too often work by analogy with older theories and don’t involve any genuinely new thinking. This is especially true of quantum mechanics which made no attempt to rethink ontology – how the world actually is – but simply sought to work out how classical wave theory could be applied to particles (to produce wave-particle duality). Born recast Schrödinger’s wave equation in probabilistic terms, a manoeuvre that Schrödinger himself never accepted (who, like Einstein, wanted an interpretation based on realism and causality). According to the scientific establishment, the world of the very small is entirely different from the world of the large. The quantum world is indeterministic and the classical world deterministic. This is logically absurd – a category error – and yet is taught as “fact” by science. In classical, Newtonian, deterministic physics, statistical probabilities played no part in foundational physical law, while quantum physics is based on statistical probabilities and is wholly indeterministic. Science has changed its stance 100% yet still claims to be the same enterprise. That’s irrationalism for you! In quantum physics, particles are not real things in space moving along a definite path. They are now unreal probability clouds that, through some unknown means, occasionally collapse into real states before reconverting into unreal potentiality clouds. This is what now passes for “reality” in modern science. It has repudiated the reality principle and does not accept that the moon is a real thing when unobserved. Rather, it’s an unreal probability cloud. If you believe modern science, you’ll clearly believe anything. In fact, you might as well believe in God, which is certainly no more outrageous a concept than the irrational junk science is peddling today.

***** Of course, wave-particle duality applies just as much to light as to matter. Light is now considered as much in terms of photons (particles) as light waves. Light is to be viewed as a probability wave for photons. Is reality deterministic or indeterministic? Reality is “real” only if the former is true, and otherwise its grounded in random unreality. Incredibly, this is the stance science has chosen. It’s 100% irrational. An objectively real, deterministic universe goes hand in hand with ontological mathematics, rationalism, idealism, mind and non-locality. An unreal, indeterministic universe goes hand in hand with science, empiricism, materialism and localism. So, which side are you on?

***** “It is difficult to give the wavefunction ψ a physical significance because ... it can have both real and complex parts. In 1926, Max Born suggested that the wavefunction of a particle, ψ, multiplied by its complex conjugate, ψ*, might be connected with the probability of finding the particle at a particular point. We have to be careful here, because the probability of finding the particle at the point x, y, z depends on how accurately the point is defined. The more exact the definition, the lower is the probability of finding the particle there. ... Mathematical aside: the complex conjugate of a complex number is obtained by putting a minus sign on front of i, wherever it occurs. Thus, if ψ = a + ib, then ψ* = a – ib. When a complex number is multiplied by its complex conjugate, the result is always a real number: ψψ* = (a + ib)(a – ib) = a2 + b2” – David O. Hayward, Quantum Mechanics for Chemists How you think about the interpretation of quantum mechanics is not a scientific issue. It all depends on whether you are empiricist and materialist, or rationalist and idealist; on whether you consider that local matter is primary and non-local mind derived from it, or non-local mind primary and local matter derived from it. Science refuses to state the philosophical basis (empiricism and materialism) of its conclusions yet refuses to countenance any interpretations that oppose empiricism and materialism. Science is

therefore a belief system that refuses to question its own beliefs. This makes it a religion, not an enlightened, rational discipline (as it claims to be).

***** The concepts of science are so hard to grasp that when people have persuaded themselves that they understand what science is saying, they have no energy or inclination left to say, “Hey, this is bullshit. I’ve been sold a pup.” They simply accept what science tells them. Disgracefully, science refuses to tell them to keep an open mind and to accept that different theories and interpretations reflecting radically different ontologies are possible and even much more rational. Science, like a religion, tells you only what it wants you to hear and what suits the paradigm of the scientific establishment (which is as dogmatic and closed minded as the Catholic Church – just listen to “Pope” Richard Dawkins).

The Vacuum Electromagnetic waves, unlike other waves, require no medium in which to propagate. This is extremely puzzling physically. However, mathematically, it poses no problems at all. Photons “propel” themselves via their internal mathematical programming, and do so forever. They have absolutely no need of any physical transmission medium.

String Theory “In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. In string theory, the different types of observed elementary particles arise from the different quantum states of these strings. In addition to the types of particles postulated by the standard model of particle physics, string theory naturally incorporates gravity, and is therefore a candidate for a theory of everything, a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. ... Strings can be either open or closed. A closed string is a string that has no end-points, and therefore is topologically equivalent to a circle. An open string, on the other hand, has two end-points and is topologically equivalent to a line interval. Not all string theories contain open strings, but every theory must contain closed

strings, as interactions between open strings can always result in closed strings. ... Open and closed strings are generally associated with characteristic vibrational modes. One of the vibration modes of a closed string can be identified as the graviton. In certain string theories the lowestenergy vibration of an open string is a tachyon and can undergo tachyon condensation. Other vibrational modes of open strings exhibit the properties of photons and gluons.” – Wikipedia

Fourier Analysis “Fourier analysis follows from Fourier’s theorem, which states that every function can be completely expressed as a sum of sines and cosines of various amplitudes and frequencies. This is a pretty impressive assertion – no matter what the shape of a function, and how little it looks like a sine wave, it can be rewritten as a sum of sines and cosines. The Fourier series tells you the amplitude and frequency of the sines and cosines that you should add up to recreate your original function. ... A cosine wave is just a sine wave shifted in phase by 90 degrees ...Cosine functions are even functions while sine wave are odd functions. ... An even function is symmetric with respect to the y-axis, meaning that its graph remains unchanged after reflection about the y-axis. On the other hand, an odd function is symmetric with respect to the origin, meaning that its graph remains unchanged after rotation of 180 degrees about the origin. In the language of linear algebra, Fourier’s theorem states that sine waves and cosine wave create a complete basis set that spans all possible functions. Sines and cosines are in fact independent (and also orthogonal) – there is no way to add up cosine waves to create a sine wave. ... The extension of a Fourier series for a non-periodic function is known as the Fourier transform. When calculating the Fourier transform, rather than decomposing a signal in terms of sines and cosines, people often use complex exponentials. They can be a little easier to interpret, although they are mathematically equivalent. ... The Fourier transform allows you to write any function (f(t)) as the integral (sum) across frequencies of complex exponentials of different amplitudes and phases (F(ω)). f(t) is often called the ‘time domain’ representation while F(ω) is called the ‘frequency domain representation.’ The key thing to understand about Fourier transforms is that these two representations are different ways of expressing

the same information. ... Once you know the complex exponential F(ω), you can transform back into the time domain by calculating the inverse Fourier transform, and recover the original function f(t).” – http://mathtools.stanford.edu/reader/Ch5_Fourier_Analysis.pdf

De Moivre’s Theorem eix = (cos x + i sin x) (Euler’s Formula) eifx = (cos fx + i sin fx) (cos x + i sin x)f = (cos fx + i sin fx) (De Moivre’s Theorem) A ei(fx) = A (cos(fx) + i sin(fx)) There are two ways to adjust the amount of energy in the mathematical system based on Euler’s Formula (of which De Moivre’s Theorem is the frequency extension). A, the amplitude, adjusts the energy “externally”, and f, the frequency, adjusts the energy “internally”.

Inflation Theory Would the advocates of Inflation Theory like to explain how the cosmic wavefunction randomly collapses in such a way as to produce “inflation”? Why isn’t inflation happening at all times, everywhere, creating a universe of nothing but inflation, and ensuring that no actual universes can ever come into being (since they are automatically overtaken by random inflationary process, which destroy all would-be order)?

What Waves? “According to pilot wave theory, the point particle and the matter wave are both real and distinct physical entities. (Unlike standard quantum mechanics, where particles and waves are considered to be the same entities, connected by wave-particle duality. ) The pilot wave guides the motion of the point particles as described by the guidance equation. “Ordinary quantum mechanics and pilot wave theory are based on the same partial differential equation. The main difference is that in ordinary

quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger-equation is connected to reality by the Born postulate, which states that the probability density of the particle’s position is given by ρ = |ψ|2. Pilot wave theory considers the guidance equation to be the fundamental law, and sees the Born rule as a derived concept.” – Wikipedia Pilot wave theory has a real wave (but of an exotic, non-local nature) going through the slits of the twin-slit experiment. This wave guides a real particle through one slit or the other, but in way that reflects a wave-interference pattern. The pilot wave “collapses” at the point of measurement. Copenhagen theory has an unreal probability wave, carrying a potential particle, passing through the twin slits. The unreal wave “collapses” at the point of measurement and the potential particle is actualised in a particular state corresponding to whatever has been measured. Both of these theories are trying to interpret a complex-number equation in terms of a “real” world of real numbers. It’s the strain of this attempt – which is a mathematical category error – that topples such interpretations into absurdity, with the Copenhagen interpretation proudly denying objective reality. There’s a simple way out of all this nonsense. We inhabit a complexnumber universe, not a real-number universe. The Schrödinger wave is an ontologically real wave but of an inherently complex-number nature. Real numbers correspond to space and imaginary numbers to imaginary space (aka “time”). Therefore, spacetime is a complex-number entity, not a realnumber entity defined by real-numbered space and real-numbered time. As soon as you grasp that time is imaginary space, the whole of physics falls into place, and quantum “weirdness” vanishes. The weirdness is an artefact of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, not of quantum mechanics itself. In particular, quantum weirdness is directly produced by the desire of scientists to interpret reality in terms of real numbers only (“observables”), rather than complex numbers. Real numbers are an inconsistent and incomplete expression of mathematics. Ontological mathematics must be expressed in terms of complete and consistent complex numbers. The fact that humans have evolved the ability to sensorily observe spatial things, but only to experience time in terms of its passing (no one can see, hear, feel, smell or taste time) is what has led to science’s catastrophic misunderstanding of Nature, which is driven by sensory, empiricist and materialist ideology. Time – being imaginary space

– is not a sensory entity (it’s a “hidden variable”), hence is outside empiricism and materialism, hence outside conventional science. Einstein stumbled upon the true nature of time as imaginary space, but failed to grasp the fact ontologically, as did the entire scientific community. When properly understood, Einstein’s theory of relativity is actually a theory of a complex-numbered universe, an absolute universe. As with quantum mechanics, a false interpretation of reality – the Einsteinian principle of relativity – flows from attempting to understand a complexnumbered reality in terms of real numbers alone.

Max Born and Causality Max Born removed causality from the real world and placed it in the “virtual” world of the unreal yet evolving probability wavefunction. This, naturally, is ridiculous. Causality is about actuality, not about potentiality. The probability wavefunction has no causality until it generates actual things, yet it does so only through acausal, random collapses that have nothing to do with any causal processes. Even to say that the probability wavefunction evolves in time is ludicrous since time is about actual events, not virtual events that never happen until a “collapse” occurs. The Schrödinger wavefunction, viewed from the Born perspective is static. Time is injected into it only at the point where a random collapse takes place and makes an actual event occur. Only then can the wavefunction reflect that event and reflect any advance of time. Without random collapses, the wavefunction would never reflect the passage of time and remain in a permanent superposition of all possibilities, all of them waiting to be actualised. Hugh Everett III found a way out of many of the difficulties of quantum mechanics, but only by positing infinite worlds – which is an excessive price to pay. His “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics is well-summarised by Jim Al-Khalili: “The basic idea is the following: When a quantum system is faced with a choice of alternatives such as a particle going through one of two or more slits, rather than the wavefunction entering a superposition, we think of it and the whole universe with it, as splitting into a number of realities equal to the number of options available. These different worlds/universes/branches will be identical to each other apart from the different option chosen by the particle: in one universe it has

gone through the upper slit, in the other it has gone through the lower slit. The universes overlap, only in that region where interference is taking place, until decoherence sets in. This then causes them to separate into noninteracting independent realities. That is it. There is no measurement process anymore and the wavefunction never needs to ‘collapse’. Schrödinger’s cat will end up dead in one universe and alive in the other. We, as observers, will also split and so only ever see the outcome of our branch. But there will be other copies of us in parallel universes for whom the alternative outcomes are realized.” Hugh Everett became disillusioned with physics when his idea wasn’t warmly embraced, and abandoned the subject, instead becoming a rich private contractor in the American defence industry (!). Of course, his idea is yet another mad assertion by a scientist. We are now expected to believe in infinite parallel worlds, none of which we can observe except our own. There are countless clones of us, allegedly (a total insult to our uniqueness). That’s the maximum degree of violation of Occam’s Razor, and energy conservation seems to have totally gone out of the window, with new universes being generated out of thin air. If new worlds interfere before fully splitting off, where are all the interference effects we would expect? Why are they only at the more or less unobservable microscopic level? Why don’t we notice an experience interference effects while we are taking decisions? Why aren’t there worlds of mixed dead and alive Schrödinger’s cats (it’s not at all obvious how the many-worlds interpretation makes this impossible)? If all possible would-be decisions taken by us are actualised somewhere, randomly, why don’t we experience jumpy, random lives? Why do we seem to be part of a continuous, non-random conscious reality, with no bizarre jumps? If a person has the idea of taking off all his clothes in the middle of the street then this choice must be actualised somewhere, but why aren’t we doing crazy thing like this all the time, if we are in fact guided by randomness and not conscious decision-making where we explicitly chose not to take our clothes off in the middle of the street? Science is now full of nutty ideas and they all come from the contempt that science has for reason, purpose, meaning, compossibility, free will and mind. As far as scientists are concerned, the more random and meaningless a theory is the better! They might as well believe in magic where anything at all can happen for no reason at all.

Constraint Physical mathematics (science) is too constrained in the sense that it attempts to explain reality via real numbers only, even though its most basic equations and laws involve complex numbers. Therefore, physical mathematics is inherently Gödelian incomplete and inconsistent. Abstract mathematics is not constrained enough. There are no ontological constants within mathematics that make certain operations invalid. Abstract mathematics, because of its lack of constraint, can invalidly extrapolate beyond ontological limits and constants, leading to Gödelian inconsistency and incompleteness. Gödelian consistency and completeness can apply solely to a single, alldefining mathematical formula, the scope of which is everything ontologically possible. The God Equation is this formula. It’s necessarily consistent and complete since it refers to nothing else that could render it incomplete or inconsistent. It involves no Cartesian substance dualism. Anyone who claims to have a theory of everything must demonstrate that it has an eternal ground state energy of zero, is Gödelian consistent and complete, and can explain mind and matter (the God Equation achieves this latter objective through Fourier mathematics, which is a direct consequence of the God Equation). Illuminism is the only theory of everything that meets these conditions. Only Illuminism is true. All other theories of everything are false. That’s a mathematical, ontological and rational fact. What is the God Equation? It’s none other than the principle of sufficient reason expressed ontologically. It provides a precise reason why every fact is thus and not otherwise.

A Test So, Max Born used complex conjugation to ensure a real number answer in his probability calculations, and it seemed to work well. But is his use of complex conjugation successful for a different reason from the one he had in mind? Recall that complex conjugation is said to correspond to the action of time-reversal on the wave-function. If we multiply the forward and reverse time components they produce unity (which is equivalent to removing time as a factor).

The remarkable thing about science is that it has frequently arrived at the right answer for the wrong reasons. If you think about it, this is almost inevitable when people are ensuring that their hypotheses match experimental data. They will play around with their equations until they fit, but then they are faced with explaining why they fit and they enter into speculation, opinion, belief, interpretation and philosophy. They can get their reasoning totally wrong while nevertheless producing a formula that works perfectly. Virtually everything in quantum mechanics and relativity theory is wrongly interpreted, yet the system is highly successful. “Shut up and calculate” say the scientists, tacitly acknowledging that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Models are not truth. Anything that is true – absolutely, unconditionally, immutably and infallibly – has been true forever. The only such truths are the eternal truths of reason, which are none other than the eternal truths of ontological mathematics.

***** The whole basis of science is to use trial and error to find a formula that can be made to fit with experimental data. No analysis, no systematic methodology, no axioms, no first principles, no ontological laws are used in this undertaking. It’s all done on the fly, by the seat of the pants, on the hoof, by holding a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. What science has proved is not that scientists are great at discovering the truth, or great at producing wondrous models that reflect reality. No, what they are great at is fiddling with equations until they fit the observed data. Is that really such a great skill? Inevitably, by finding a formula that fits the given data rather well, scientists approximate the true mathematical equations of reality. But then the problems begin. Having essentially guessed at the answer and used trial and error to refine the guess, scientists are then confronted with trying to explain the meaning of their equations. That’s when science falls apart. Scientists start offering opinions, beliefs, conjectures, hypotheses and interpretations regarding the meaning of their work. They especially use the Meta Paradigm of empiricism, materialism and positivism. The equations of quantum mechanics may be staggeringly successful, but the interpretations of quantum mechanics are just as staggeringly unsuccessful.

There’s an absolute disconnect between the success of scientists at finding equations, laws and formulae to reflect experimental data, and the ability of scientists to make sense of their equations, laws and formulae. All of their “principles”, such as they are, are contingent, provisional, ad hoc, inconsistent, incomplete, inductive, a posteriori and synthetic. That’s why Illuminism is so powerful. The whole of ontological mathematics deductively flows from the God Equation alone. It’s a single, all-powerful, all-unifying system – a true Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Science will never accomplish such a theory while it remains empiricist and sensible rather than rationalist and intelligible.

The Measurement Problem “An essential part of quantum mechanics deals with how matter waves change over time. Mostly, matter waves behave just like ordinary waves. If you have ever watched ripples spread on the surface of a smooth pond, you have seen at least qualitatively just what matter waves do. “Take a particle that we localize to just one place, so its matter wave is a spatially localized pulse. Left to itself, that pulse will spread out in all directions as propagating waves. It is just like what happens when a pebble hits the surface of the pond. The localized splash immediately spreads out in broadening ripples. “That type of behaviour is called ‘Schrödinger evolution,’ because it is governed by Schrödinger’s wave equation. That equation just says that matter waves propagate like waves. “If Schrödinger evolution were the only way that matter waves could change, we would have some difficulty connecting matter waves with our ordinary experience. Matter waves typically are spread over many positions and are superpositions of many momenta. Yet when we measure them, we always find just one value for position or momentum. “For example, the simplest sort of measurement is to intercept a matter wave with a photographic plate or a scintillation screen that glows when struck by a particle. In both cases, we find that the matter waves yield just one definite position. They give us a single spot in the photograph or a localized flash of light on the screen. “The standard solution to this problem is to propose that there is a second sort of time evolution for matter waves. The first type, Schrödinger

evolution, arises when matter waves are left to themselves or when they interact with just a few other particles. “The second type arises whenever we perform a measurement of a quantity like position or momentum. Then the matter wave collapses to one that has a definite value for the quantity measured. If we are measuring the position of the matter wave, it collapses to a localized pulse. If we are measuring momentum, it collapses to a wave with a definite momentum. “This second sort of time evolution is called ‘measurement’ or ‘collapse of the wave packet.’ “It is not easy to specify exactly when a measurement evolution will take place. The simplest condition is that it arises in a circumstance in which we are trying to ascertain the value of a quantity. That condition is of no use in theory formation. For matter waves do not ‘know’ what we are intending; they do not choose to evolve in one way or another according to our wishes or interests. The best we can come up with is a simple rule of thumb. Matter waves left to themselves or interacting with just a few particles undergo Schrödinger evolution. Matter waves interacting with macroscopic bodies (such as particle detectors) undergo collapse.” – John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theor y_waves/index.html

***** This is an exemplary summation of the standard quantum mechanical interpretation. The big issue of course is the bifurcation of reality into the Schrödinger evolution aspect and the measurement aspect. What on earth does this mean ontologically? The measurement aspect seems to be an arbitrary, external mechanism bolted onto Schrödinger evolution to bring about the observed states of the world. It’s a desperate remedy.

The Mathematical Magic Tricks

Don’t like infinity? Don’t worry, you can “renormalize”. As John Gribbin said, “In effect [renormalization] involves dividing both sides of an equation by infinity to get the answer you want – something you were surely told at school is not allowed. ... Physicists accept renormalization because they have no choice – it can be made to give the right answers. ... three researchers were given the Nobel Prize for showing everyone how to do it. But a few years before he died Richard Feynman said that ‘having a resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent ... [renormalization] is what I would call a dippy process!’” Lee Smolin wrote, “Feynman figured out that if one simply crosses out these infinite answers wherever they appear, and substitutes the right, finite answer, the answers to all other questions become sensible. All the infinite expressions can be removed if one forces the theory to give the right answer for the mass and charge of the electron. This procedure is called renormalization. When it works for a theory, that theory is called renormalizable.” So, did you know that theories that claim to be the most accurate in human history actually involve the blatant and wholly illegal manipulation of infinities (!) in such a way as to conveniently abolish them, leaving nothing but the required experimental results? Haven’t scientists simply said, “Well, we know what the experimental answer is, so we’ll just play around with our equations until they give us the right answer, then we’ll proclaim the equations staggeringly accurate! We’ll divide by infinity, add or subtract infinity, replace infinities with finite terms – whatever it takes!” It’s all a magician’s trick. These allegedly dazzling theories that have been garlanded with Nobel Prizes are just huge fudges. They are totally inconsistent and incomplete, have no mathematical necessity and have been directly adjusted to remove the infinities that would otherwise destroy them, and forced to match the experimental data. These theories aren’t accurate at all. They are inaccurate as they could possibly be – infinitely inaccurate, in fact – and yet they masquerade as truth, as ontologically real. The degree of intellectual dishonesty, manipulation and lack of intellectual and moral integrity in the physical sciences is unprecedented. When you drill down into any “successful” scientific theory, recognised by a Nobel Prize, you invariably discover that it’s irrational junk where the

right answers (to correspond to experimental answers) have been crowbarred out using illegitimate, brute-force, mathematical con tricks. Science should hang its head in shame. It’s nothing but dippy hocuspocus, to quote Feynman. It’s mathematical alchemy that knows the desired answer and just fiddles around until it gets it. This is exactly why no scientist knows what quantum mechanics means. It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a vast system of mathematical smoke and mirrors driven by philosophical ideology.

***** 1) Don’t like negative numbers? Just take their absolute value and they vanish – like magic. 2) Don’t like imaginary numbers? Just square them to get negative numbers. Then see 1). Or just ignore them. Or just take the real part of a complex expression. 3) Don’t like complex numbers? Just multiply by the complex conjugate. 4) Don’t like infinity? Just “renormalize” to get rid of it. 5) Don’t like zero? Just make sure you don’t divide by it. Use 1D strings rather than 0D points! Remember, you never need to be troubled by negative, imaginary and numbers, or infinity and zero. You can always magic them away by mathematical diktat.

***** Have you obtained a negative, imaginary, complex, infinite or zero answer? Not to worry. Just use your battery of techniques to make them vanish, leaving nothing but indeterministic, acausal, meaningless randomness! If you get a negative, imaginary, complex, infinite or zero answer you don’t like and, for some reason, you can’t magic it away, then your next resort is to simply ignore it and hope that you also have a nice, safe, positive, real-number solution, which you can then claim as the “real” solution, while the others are just “unreal” artefacts.

You’d be absolutely astonished at how selective scientists are in what they choose as the answers to mathematical problems. They don’t accept all of the answers, just the ones they like! Which is exactly the same as how Abrahamists interpret the world. They ignore everything incompatible with their paradigm and accept everything compatible with it – exactly like conspiracy theorists. What a joke! Do scientists have even one shred of intellectual integrity? They are driven by ideology and faith, and have no compunction about “fiddling the books” to get the answers they want. To use “truth, facts, evidence and proof” in the same sentence as “science” is preposterous. These tricks are how empiricist materialists can interfere with mathematical integrity to force the outcome into the one they desire. Of course, if mathematics is ontological, which it is (!) then they are performing wholly invalid mathematical operations, driven by philosophical rather than mathematical requirements.

***** “People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” – Nietzsche Scientists don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism destroyed.

Fact and Opinion Measurements provide “facts”, but what kind of facts? No measuring instrument is 100% accurate and 100% reliable. How do you know that the instrument hasn’t malfunctioned? How do you know it has been correctly calibrated? Moreover, the environment is continuously changing, so what’s being measured is a moving target unless extreme control is exerted over all variables in the environment. Additionally, all equipment is susceptible to operator error, and all equipment is associated with a characteristic error range. So, every “fact” is an approximate fact, not an actual fact. It’s immediately subject to interpretation as to its validity and accuracy. The next problem is what theoretical interpretation should be applied to these approximate facts, and, in science, this is subject to a 100% range.

After all, science once interpreted everything as 100% deterministic and now it argues for 100% indeterminism at the fundamental level. What about a controversial subject such as Climate Change? Well, no one denies that it’s happening. The cause of the change is, however, hotly debated. Is Global Warming caused by manmade activities or does it reflect natural climate cycles? Long before humans were having any possible effect at all on the climate, there were Ice Ages and Tropical Ages – so Earth’s climate naturally has a very wide range. How do we know that we haven’t entered a natural period of Global Warming, which is being interpreted as a manmade period? What “facts” can clearly distinguish between the two possible contributions (from man and from nature)? Now, it doesn’t matter if 100% of the scientific community agree that Global Warming is manmade. After all, this is the same community that rejects determinism, causality, and the principle of sufficient reason. This is the same community that champions randomness, accident and meaninglessness. Moreover, this community has proved itself to be enormously prone to groupthink, conformism and careerism, and spectacularly intolerant of heretics, freethinkers, apostates, infidels and everyone who does not subscribe to the scientific ideology of empiricism, materialism and positivism. Many scientists openly call for only “experts” to be heard regarding Global Warming, but since 99% of the “experts” are part of the uncritical scientific groupthink machine, this is to advocate nothing but propaganda of exactly the type humanity has been subject to from science for hundreds of years (just as it has been subject to political, religious and economic propaganda). Global Warming may well be manmade, but science is more or less useless at convincingly demonstrating it. Why isn’t fifty percent of the scientific community assigned the task of attempting to show that Global Warming is not manmade? We should have a dialectical debate involving thesis and antithesis, not a cosy, complacent, consensus debate where all scientists pat each other on the back and shun and denounce anyone who speaks out against the consensus. There are many non-expert lobbyists loudly denying that Global Warming is manmade, and their opinions are every bit as biased and

dubious as those of the scientific groupthinkers and careerists. The entire debate is therefore a farce. Facts, evidence and reason are in staggeringly short supply on all sides. The main opponents of manmade Global Warming are driven by financial greed, and the main proponents of manmade Global Warming are driven by selective interpretation and groupthink. Until there is a detailed theory of how different phases of solar activity affect the world’s weather, all ideas regarding Global Warming will remain pure speculation. Humanity simply doesn’t understand the climate enough to be able to pontificate. Who in their right mind could place their complete trust in the kind of people who unanimously agree that the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat bears on reality rather than being an outright artefact of empiricist dogmatism?

The Absurdity The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says that the wavefunction is an unreal, complex, mathematical abstraction, while all physical observables must be represented by real quantities. There you have it, the inherent real number bias of physics. This reflects pure empiricist and materialist philosophy, not science. Why not accept the complex wavefunction as ontologically real? Then we no longer have a fundamental contradiction between the wavefunction and observables. They don’t belong to different categories of existence (with the wavefunction belonging to unreal potentiality and observables to real actuality). We don’t have the equivalent of a Cartesian substance dualism. How can an unreal potentiality wavefunction produce real observables? How can the two radically different orders of existence interact? Absolutely no rational answers come from the scientific community, or even any debate of the issues. What science does is simply recast old philosophical debates in new forms and then deny that they are philosophical issues. No sane person could deny that the Copenhagen interpretation makes outrageous philosophical claims, which are not subject to any philosophical analysis and debate within the general scientific community, the vast majority of whom are 100% philosophically illiterate. Scientists are always doing scientific research and writing scientific papers. They are never engaged in

what any of their work means ontologically, which should surely be the entire goal of their work. Is it more rational to have an unreal wavefunction that produces real observables, or a real wavefunction that produces real observables and real, rational unobservables (hidden variables)? The latter involves no ontological category errors, but does overthrow science’s Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Science preferred to stick with its philosophy and overturn the reality principle rather than accept the reality principle and overturn its philosophy. Which do you prefer?

Science and Antaeus Antaeus was a legendary giant, son of Poseidon and Gaia, who compelled all strangers to wrestle with him, and then he killed them. No one could defeat him while he remained in physical contact with earth (Gaia), who filled him with invincible power. Heracles succeeded in slaying him by lifting him off the ground, thus denying him his power, and crushing him in mid-air. “He would challenge all passers-by to wrestling matches, kill them, and collect their skulls, so that he might one day build out of them a temple to his father Poseidon. He was indefatigably strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground (his mother earth), but once lifted into the air he became as weak as other men. Antaeus had defeated most of his opponents until it came to his fight with Heracles (who was on his way to the Garden of Hesperides for his 11th Labour). Upon finding that he could not beat Antaeus by throwing him to the ground as he would reheal due to his parentage (Gaia), Heracles discovered the secret of his power. Holding Antaeus aloft, Heracles crushed him in a bearhug. The story of Antaeus has been used as a symbol of the spiritual strength which accrues when one rests one’s faith on the immediate fact of things.” – Wikipedia Science could easily be represented by Antaeus. It only has power while it remains in contact with physical, phenomenal, sensible things. In the domain of noumenal, intelligible, unobservable things, it loses all of its power and becomes absolutely useless.

Are You Buying It? “Quantum entities not only seem to be able to pass through both holes at once, but to have an awareness of past and future, so that each can choose to make its own contribution to the interference pattern in just the right place to build the pattern up without destroying it ... The quantum entities seem to know when you are watching them and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Each single quantum entity seems to know about the whole experimental set-up, including when and where the observer is choosing to monitor it, and about the past and future of the experiment.” – John Gribbin, Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics Is it acceptable that science is now based on the occult knowledge allegedly possessed by quantum particles? Can they see the future and remember the past? WTF!

The Magic of Decoherence Modern quantum mechanics tries to invoke “decoherence” to get rid of interference effects in the macroscopic world. Decoherence involves the mixing of microscopic states with macroscopic states involving trillions of elements. All interference effects are said to lose their coherence (to decohere) in these circumstances, leading to these interference terms effectively averaging to zero, hence having no observable consequences. Decoherence irreversibly converts quantum behaviour (involving additive probability amplitudes, which are complex and can be positive or negative) to classical behaviour (involving additive probabilities, which are always real and positive). The interference terms simply vanish. Like magic. Not that they were ever “real” in the first place, of course!

***** Decoherence requires the existence of macroscopic objects in order to cause microscopic objects to lose their quantum interference effects and to collapse their wavefunctions. But macroscopic objects cannot exist until the wavefunctions of microscopic wavefunctions have collapsed. So decoherence can’t get started in the first place. Moreover, macroscopic

objects are just like Schrödinger’s cat and the moon – they don’t exist when you’re not observing them!

Modelling and Proof “Science doesn’t do proof. What science does is make observations, and then based on those observations produce models of the universe. Then, using that model, it makes predictions, and compares those predictions with further observations. By doing that over and over again, we get better and better models of how the universe works. Science is never sure about anything – because all it can do is check how well the model works. It’s always possible that any model doesn’t describe how things actually work. “But it gives us a good approximation, in a way that allows us to understand how things work. Or, not quite how things work, but how we can affect the world by our actions. Our model might not capture what’s really happening – but it’s got predictive power.” – Mark Chu-Carroll Exactly right. Science doesn’t do proof. Which is exactly why it’s a quasireligion. Scientists believe their models reflect reality, but they are never anything other than unprovable models (simulacra). The answer to existence isn’t a model. It isn’t a belief. It isn’t an opinion. It’s something provably true, and the only things provably true are the eternal, analytic truths of complete and consistent ontological mathematics. That’s a fact.

The 6D-Universe Imaginary axes are orthogonal to real axes. The simplest way to conceive of the true universe is as a 3D real world (space) with a 3D imaginary world (imaginary space = time) superimposed right on top of it, making a 6D complex world. We emphatically do not inhabit the 3D spatial world of science, with some relationship to a mysterious fourth dimension called “time” (which has never been ontologically defined by science). The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wholly driven by the attempt to explain experimental observations in terms of a 4D real world comprising three real spatial dimensions and one real time dimension. Given that reality actually comprises three real dimensions and three imaginary dimensions, it’s no wonder that science has got is so badly

wrong. Its basic ontology is false, just as it was with Newton with his absolute space and absolute time, and Einstein with his relativistic spacetime, and M-theory with its 11 dimensions. All theories are ipso facto false if they cannot get the basic ontology of the universe correct. Any true ontology mustn’t privilege real numbers over imaginary numbers since there’s no sufficient reason to do so. That’s why there are three real and three imaginary dimensions in the absolute spacetime of ontological mathematics. Real and imaginary elements are, of course, perfectly balanced in the God Equation. Science has simply never bothered to address fundamental ontology in any rational, logical way, which is why it now invokes crazy notions such as seven rolled-up dimensions (in M-theory) and total asymmetry between space and time dimensions (there are always many of the former and only one of the latter). Science has never explained how space and time can interact at all and has never specified what they actually are. Are they substances? Are they energy? Are they mathematical abstractions? Are they mental constructs, or Kantian intuitions? How can they be united in spacetime? Of course, all of these mysteries vanish if we understand spacetime in terms of complex numbers, with real numbers providing the “space” component and imaginary numbers the “time” component (imaginary space). We are always moving through spacetime. When we are stationary in space, all of our motion is directed through imaginary space (time). Science has got it all wrong. It’s wrong because it became obsessed with real numbers (an inconsistent and incomplete subset of mathematics), and attempted to understand a consistent and complete world of complex numbers via real numbers alone. Quantum mechanics finally demonstrated the absurdity of this approach, but scientists preferred to abandon objective reality and determinism rather than relinquish their silly need for real numbers alone. This is a mathematical, not physical, universe. Our senses evolved the capacity to perceive real numbers and experience imaginary numbers via the passage of time. Scientists can’t directly put numbers to imaginary things – they can’t measure them except through indirect means such as with clocks – so they have concluded that they don’t exist, and then have to interpret a complex universe through only the real part of complex numbers. Max Born brought this approach to its absurd conclusion by

talking of waves based on complex numbers being unreal probability waves, rather than ontologically real waves. Born committed the greatest mathematical solecism in history, yet snagged a Nobel Prize! Well, that’s science for you – the Ship of Fools.

Time’s Up A fundamental problem in relation to how quantum mechanics is formulated is that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation refers to both imaginary numbers and time. In fact, what science calls time is imaginary space defined by imaginary numbers. This points up the fact that if you can’t ontologically define time (and science can’t) then all sorts of anomalies are sure to arise. The Born interpretation of the Schrödinger wavefunction makes the wavefunction unreal and then claims that this unreal entity evolves in time. How can it? What does the passage of time mean in relation to something that is not physically real and is just a vast, abstract mathematical superposition? The reality is that the world comprises energy in motion through space, whether dimensionless space, or real or imaginary dimensional space. What physicists measure (with clocks) as the passage of time is actually the passage of energy through imaginary space. It’s the energy that provides the motion, not “time” (which is static imaginary space). When the Schrödinger wavefunction evolves it’s because it’s full of energy constantly in motion. According to conventional physics, space is stationary and time dynamic. The truth is that space is stationary and so is time (it’s just imaginary space), and the dynamism is provided by energy flowing through static spacetime.

***** When Einstein talked of “time dilation” and “length contraction”, he actually meant dilation of imaginary space, and corresponding contraction of space (since they are inversely coupled). By the same token, length dilation and time contraction take place in the opposite direction.

Quadratic Equations

“A quadratic equation with real or complex coefficients has two solutions, called roots. These two solutions may or may not be distinct, and they may or may not be real. ... “In the quadratic formula, the expression underneath the square root sign is called the discriminant of the quadratic equation, and is often represented using an upper case D or an upper case Greek delta: D = b2 – 4ac “A quadratic equation with real coefficients can have either one or two distinct real roots, or two distinct complex roots. In this case the discriminant determines the number and nature of the roots. There are three cases: If the discriminant is positive, then there are two distinct roots (−b + √D)/2a and (−b − √D)/2a, both of which are real numbers. For quadratic equations with rational coefficients, if the discriminant is a square number, then the roots are rational—in other cases they may be quadratic irrationals. If the discriminant is zero, then there is exactly one real root −b/2a, sometimes called a repeated or double root. If the discriminant is negative, then there are no real roots. Rather, there are two distinct (non-real) complex roots −b/2a + i(√−D/2a) and −b/2a − i(√−D/2a), which are complex conjugates of each other. In these expressions i is the imaginary unit.” – Wikipedia

***** With a simple quadratic equation such as x2 = 25, there are two solutions: +5 and −5. When science is confronted with two such solutions, it normally accepts the positive as “real” and the negative solution as “unreal”, which is then simply discarded. Any solutions involving complex roots are also discarded as unreal. Perfectly valid mathematical solutions are abandoned

for no other reason than that scientists don’t like them and can’t make any empiricist, materialist sense of them. The relationship between mathematics and philosophy is as follows: 1) Empiricist, materialist philosophy (science) is based on positive real numbers (with a few negative numbers accepted to describe properties such as electric charge). On the whole, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, zero and infinity are rejected as “unreal”. If they nevertheless appear in calculations, mathematical techniques will be applied to ensure they are removed by the end of the calculation – this is best illustrated by Max Born’s treatment of the quantum wavefunction. Born was applying empiricist, materialist philosophy to mathematics. His entire approach fails if his philosophy is rejected. “Physical” mathematics is the incomplete, inconsistent subset of ontological mathematics based on positive real numbers. It’s totally invalid mathematically. 2) Rationalist, idealist philosophy (ontological mathematics) is based on all numbers: real numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers, positive and negative numbers, zero and infinity. All of these numbers are defined by the generalised Euler Formula (God Equation). Ontological mathematics is consistent and complete and involves none of the artificial, invalid techniques deployed by physical mathematics to get the “right” (i.e. empiricist, materialist) results. Max Born’s treatment of the quantum wavefunction, and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, are wholly rejected, thus abolishing all of the absurdities and weirdness generated by these approaches. 3) Abstract mathematics (i.e. the “pure” mathematics studied in universities) is the inconsistent and incomplete mathematics that results when mathematics is not treated ontologically; when it is not wholly defined by a single, all-powerful, all-controlling, allencapsulating ontological formula (the God Equation). All manner of bogus axioms, extrapolations and “logical inferences” can be applied to abstract mathematics that would never be permitted with ontological mathematics, and it’s all of these extraneous, invalid accretions that render abstract mathematics inconsistent and

incomplete and lead to insoluble mathematical paradoxes and anomalies. Tragically, the history of mathematics has been the history of abstract rather than ontological mathematics, with science regarded as the subject that applies mathematics to the “real world”. In other words, abstract mathematics has provided the theoretical aspect of mathematics, and science the practical and applied aspect of mathematics. Abstract mathematics and science (“physical” mathematics) have thus acted as an unholy alliance. Ontological mathematics replaces the empiricist, materialist, “physical” mathematics of science and theoretical, abstract mathematics disconnected from ontological reality. The current mathematical paradigm is: Abstract mathematics (theoretical mathematics) plus Physical mathematics (pragmatic, applied mathematics = science). Many professional mathematicians are happy to regard their subject as “useless” and “nothing to do with the world”, and to leave any practical applications of mathematics to science. The new mathematical paradigm is: Ontological mathematics replaces abstract and physical mathematics wholesale. From now on, all mathematics is ontological. Science is now ontological mathematics (reflecting rationalism and idealism rather than empiricism and materialism), and there’s no such thing as abstract mathematics cut off from reality. The new paradigm will of course be fiercely resisted by both the abstract mathematicians and the physical mathematicians (scientists). That’s the nature of the dialectic. The dinosaurs must become extinct before evolution can progress to the next, higher stage. If you haven’t grasped it yet, the whole history of the highest human thinking (i.e. that involving philosophy, mathematics, science and religion) has really been a struggle to comprehend the true nature of mathematics – its ontology. All questions of philosophy, especially those concerning the standoff between empiricism and materialism on the one hand and rationalism and idealism on the other, are actually questions of mathematics. Empiricism and materialism have reflected physical mathematics (science) based on positive real numbers.

Rationalism and idealism are completely defined by ontological mathematics, based on complex numbers, zero and infinity. Physical mathematics is phenomenal while ontological mathematics is noumenal, and explains phenomenal mathematics via Fourier spacetime functions. Abstract mathematics has involved the manipulation of symbols and numbers without regard to noumenal or phenomenal reality. Scientists have borrowed from it whatever seemed of relevance to empiricist and materialist philosophy. Religion has been a vast Mythos treatment of ontological mathematics, which is of course the quintessential Logos subject. Abrahamism has personalised the ontological God Equation as an all-powerful being (“God”) with emotions, who wants to enter into relationships with his creations (human souls). He creates the universe out of nothing (void). Eastern religion has characterised the ontological God Equation as “Void”, “Emptiness”, “Nothing”, “Tao”, “Nirvana” or “Brahman”, from which everything comes and to which everything will return. It’s all about the underlying cosmic “Oneness”. Ontological mathematics defined by the God Equation can be called the mathematics of the ultimate noumenon – the immaterial, frequency Singularity, outside space and time, from which everything comes and to which everything returns. The Singularity is not a “Oneness”. Rather, it comprises countless autonomous, eternal, indestructible singularities (Fourier frequency domains). These are unconscious mathematical minds called monads. When they evolve consciousness, they are souls! They are the fundamental units of ontology. They are existence itself. All the laws of ontological mathematics are encoded in each and every one of them. You can go on believing in Mythos, in abstraction, in physicalism, in mysticism – that’s your choice. However, if you want to understand how reality actually works, you have nowhere else to go than ontological mathematics, the explanation of everything. That’s a fact. The average human being is simply not configured to have a relationship with the truth. That’s the human tragedy. People are led away from the truth by their feelings (Abrahamism), their senses (science), by their abstract thinking (pure mathematics and much of philosophy), and their mystical intuitions (Eastern Religion). Only thinking types – rationalists,

hyperrationalists – can grasp the nature of the rational, intelligible, ontological mathematical universe we inhabit. The human tragedy will eventually be resolved – by dialectical evolution. One day, the smartest people in the world – the hyperrationalists – will develop the will to seize total control of the world. They will use their superior intelligence to defeat all of their enemies and they will make this world of ours hyperreal and hyperrational – a fitting home for HyperHumanity, the replacement of old, deluded, failed humanity. Only HyperHumans can become Gods! Never forget – it’s all in the math!

Abstract Mathematics Abstract mathematics is not “pure” mathematics at all, despite what its proponents claim. Modern mathematics is an expression of materialist, empiricist, positivist philosophy expressed through logic. Modern abstract mathematics is based on set theory, but set theory is an expression of logic and has nothing to do with mathematics per se. In ontological mathematics, everything is ultimately about sinusoidal waves – which are the true pure, ontological mathematical entities. Sets, on the other hand, could relate to anything. You could talk about sets of beans, sets of sets, sets that contains themselves, sets that don’t contain themselves, and so on. Consider the “set of all sets that are not members of themselves”. This set is a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself (!). This is known as Russell’s paradox. Is this a paradox of mathematics or a paradox of the logic of set theory? This is a hugely important question since set theory is now commonly regarded as the foundation of mathematics. This paradox is irrelevant to ontological mathematics, and set theory plays zero part in the definition of ontological mathematics. It’s essential to understand that the foundations of existence must be 100% perfect. They cannot contain a single error or flaw. They cannot contain any inconsistencies or contradictions. They cannot in any way be incomplete or lacking anything. They cannot contain any ambiguity or display any paradoxes. They cannot in any way be random (as science claims). Anything imperfect in ontology, no matter how tiny or trivial, would instantly destroy the universe and make existence formally impossible.

Perfection alone suffices. Perfect alone is stable under all operations and transformations, under all possible “attacks” on it. As soon as you come across any problem, any imperfection in any system, you know you are dealing with a manmade system and not an ontological system. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems constitute the test for whether something is manmade (temporal and contingent) or ontological (eternal and necessary). Any manmade system will be Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete. All human systems of Mythos and Logos, all human religions, all human philosophies, sciences and definitions of abstract mathematics are Gödelian inconsistent and/or incomplete. Only one system is Gödelian consistent and complete. That is ontological mathematics, which reflects the eternal Platonic truths of reason, and is in fact nothing but the principle of sufficient reason itself. Ontological reason cannot be inconsistent and/or incomplete. It’s perfect.

The Simple Choice “In most treatments of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is complexvalued. In one important interpretation of quantum mechanics called the Copenhagen interpretation, the modulus squared of the wavefunction, |ψ|2, is a real number interpreted as the probability density of finding a particle in a given place at a given time, if the particle’s position is to be measured. Since the wavefunction is complex valued, only its relative phase and relative magnitude can be measured. It does not directly tell anything about the magnitudes or directions of measurable observables, one has to apply quantum operators to the wave function ψ and find the eigenvalues which correspond to sets of possible results of measurement. “However, complex numbers are not necessarily used in all treatments. Louis de Broglie in his later years proposed a real-valued wave function connected to the complex wave function by a proportionality constant and developed the de Broglie–Bohm theory. ... “In 1927, Pauli phenomenologically found a non-relativistic equation to describe spin-1/2 particles in electromagnetic fields, now called the Pauli equation. Pauli found the wave function was not described by a single complex function of space and time, but needed two complex numbers,

which respectively correspond to the spin +1/2 and −1/2 states of the fermion. Soon after in 1928, Dirac found an equation from the first successful unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics applied to the electron, now called the Dirac equation. In this, the wave function is a spinor represented by four complex-valued components. Spin was an automatic consequence of this wave function. ... the projection of a complex probability amplitude onto itself is real.” – Wikipedia Is the quantum mechanical wavefunction, which involves complex numbers, ontologically real or not? If it is, we inhabit a real, ontological mathematical universe. If it isn’t, we inhabit an unreal world! Well, are we living in reality or not?! Never forget that in order to uphold the primacy of the scientific method, science has abolished reality. “Reality”, for scientists, is that which is observed, and anything not observed is not real ... so the unobserved moon is not real. Objective reality has vanished from science. It does not reflect a reality principle.

Probability Amplitudes In quantum mechanics, probability amplitudes are complex numbers, so, to get “meaningful”, observable numbers, it’s necessary to take the absolute value of the probability amplitude. However, if “reality” is not in fact based on “observable” real numbers, then this operation is entirely invalid, and, in fact, is the monumentally stupid step that turns deterministic quantum mechanics into an indeterministic mess. If you accept the ontological reality of complex amplitudes, quantum mechanics becomes a wholly objective, deterministic subject, exactly as science proudly used to be, and as Einstein believed it should remain. “Reality” is thus reduced to a very simple issue: is the world based on complex numbers or real numbers? If the former, reality is real, objective, deterministic, causal and reflects the reality principle and the principle of sufficient reason. If the latter, “reality” is unreal (and is “real” only at the point of observation), is subjective, relativistic, acausal, indeterministic, and rejects both the reality principle and the principle of sufficient reason. Incredibly, science preferred the latter option, i.e. it preferred a “physical” world where the scientific method was paramount, but where reason and reality were abolished, to a mathematical world where the mathematical

method was paramount, and reason and the reality principle fully respected, but scientific observations relegated to mere phenomena. Mathematics makes reality noumenal, and regards science as phenomenal. Physics regards reality as observational and mathematics as unreal (since, like causation, it cannot be observed; of course, mathematics is causation). So, which is it?

***** “The wavefunction itself isn’t a ‘thing’ that has a real only value everywhere in space. The physical thing is the probability, which is obtained by multiplying the wavefunction with its complex conjugate and integrating over the space under consideration.” – Mew But probability isn’t a physical thing! Probability is associated with things (there’s a fifty percent probability of getting a head if you toss a coin; the coin is the thing, not the probability). Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation is indeed treating probabilities as things. There are no real particles, only probabilistic wavefunctions – which is rather like saying that there are no coins, only the probabilities associated with them.

***** Scientists say that to obtain the “physically meaningful” result of probability in quantum mechanics, you must multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate. But this is plainly a false procedure if the complex probability amplitude is already ontologically real. In quantum mechanics, complex amplitudes are added together to produce the total amplitude, and then the probability is calculated as the “square of the modulus” of the total amplitude. The wavefunction itself is not regarded as a “real” thing, i.e. it is not treated as an observable quantity. What’s “real”, says science, is the probability distribution associated with the wavefunction. But this isn’t, and never can be, real. It’s not a “thing”, just a probability calculation. Imagine a world where you don’t toss an actual coin and get a head or a tail but, rather, an unreal coin wavefunction “collapses” to produce an observable head or tail. Then, when you stop looking, the coin vanishes back into an unreal coin wavefunction. That, incredibly, is what science says the world is like!

Similarly, there is no cat in the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, just a cat wavefunction. Actual things are replaced by unreal probability wavefunctions. Are you buying it?

The Quantum Mechanical Recipe First find the total probability amplitude, then find the “actual” probability as the square of the total modulus. Yet if you accept that the total amplitude is ontologically real in itself, there is no requirement to apply the probabilistic methodology, and you reach a completely bizarre, indeterministic interpretation of reality if you go ahead and do so. In effect, you wipe out real, causal, hidden variables: you wipe out complex numbers. This is the nub of the whole Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and all of the false doctrines (especially indeterminism) and mad assertions that have flowed from it. It’s easy to cure all of this nonsense: just accept the ontology of complex numbers, and acknowledge that there are indeed hidden variables and rational unobservables. It’s all in the math!

It Works? “It is done because it works, which is always the final justification in all of science.” – dmckee But the problem is that it doesn’t work, or only works partially. Science works for the observable world, but doesn’t work for the unobservable world, which is where the meaning of existence, and everything truly important to us, including our own souls, resides. Science is 100% useless at addressing the noumenal domain of True Reality. That’s a fact. The scientific method has no access or relevance at all to noumenal reality.

The Replacement The greatest catastrophe in intellectual history was to regard physics as real and mathematics as an unreal abstraction. In fact, mathematics is noumenal (true) reality, and physics is phenomenal (illusory) reality. Mathematics tells you what things are in themselves, and physics tells you how they appear to

us. Mathematics is the perfect ground of existence, defined by the God Equation. It’s the source of causation, determinism and objective reality; all of the things now formally denied by physics, which claims that observable reality is indeterministically born of unreal, probabilistic wavefunctions. It’s time to replace the scientific method with the mathematical method. It’s time to recognize that true reality is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; unobservable, not observable; metaphysical, not physical; hidden, not manifest; rationalist, not empiricist; necessary, not contingent. Physics is literally incapable of detecting true reality since true reality is an eternal, indestructible, dimensionless mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. The Singularity is a precisely defined Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing “woo woo” about it. In fact, it’s as anti woo woo as it’s possible to get. It’s pure math. Physicists suffer from a disorder of the mind that causes them to believe that sensible, temporal objects have more reality than eternal, immutable Platonic mathematical objects, and to place more trust in their senses than in their reason, more trust in the scientific method of “evidence” than the mathematical method of eternal proof. Never forget that sensory objects are just ideas in the mind. According to quantum physics, objects are just the observable entities produced by the collapse of unreal wavefunctions, and don’t formally exist when they are not being observed. Niels Bohr, in response to Einstein, literally denied that the moon existed when it wasn’t being observed. The subject that comes after physics is metaphysics, and the true language of metaphysics is ontological mathematics. Physics is the phenomenal expression of noumenal mathematics. Mathematics has one final wonder to confer on us. It provides a complete definition of the human soul, which is, like the universe in itself, just an immaterial, dimensionless mathematical singularity defined by the God Equation. As above, so below. The soul is the microcosm and the universe the macrocosm. Anyone who denies that reality is 100% mathematical is simply too stupid for the truth. Truth is not a democracy. It’s not for everyone, only for humanity’s smartest individuals. As Robert Heinlein said, “Democracy can’t work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that’s all there is – so democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and

peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.” This book comprehensively exposes the diabolical philosophical illiteracy, ignorance, bankruptcy and irrationalism of modern scientific “thinking”, most spectacularly evident in the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, the standard interpretation of which is more or less indistinguishable from insanity, yet is taught as “fact” (but is nothing but an extremist expression of empiricist philosophy). Ontological mathematicians are vastly more intelligent than physicists. It’s all in the math!

Coherence and Decoherence “Coherence: a fixed relationship between the phase of waves in a beam of radiation of a single frequency. Two beams of light are coherent when the phase difference between their waves is constant; they are noncoherent if there is a random or changing phase relationship. Stable interference patterns are formed only by radiation emitted by coherent sources, ordinarily produced by splitting a single beam into two or more beams. A laser, unlike an incandescent source, produces a beam in which all the components bear a fixed relationship to each other.” – http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/124568/coherence “In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behaviour. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the total scene’s wavefunction from interfering with each other.” – Wikipedia

Decoherence is used to explain why we do not routinely see quantum interference effects in the world. A pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by the environment. However, the wavefunction of a macroscopic object is heavily mixed with its surrounding environment and becomes decoherent (no longer pristine). So, it’s not the case, so the argument goes, that quantum mechanics stops working for objects larger than some specific size. Rather, macroscopic objects are not sufficiently isolated from their environment to prevent decoherence, while microscopic objects can be sufficiently isolated to ensure they exhibit quantum behaviour. According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the twin-slit experiment is “explained” via the claim that an unreal (!) wavefunction interferes with itself at the slits. The wavefunction has to exhibit coherence for this to happen. It is then claimed that when the unreal wavefunction is in classical, macroscopic, scientific materialist environments, all of its interference terms “decohere”, leaving nothing but classical particle effects and no wave interference. Of course, no one ever explains how any macroscopic, classical environment (which is required for decoherence) comes about in the first place since there was nothing outside the Big Bang wavefunction that could have collapsed it to produce “reality”. The whole decoherent case is simply incoherent!

Impossible It’s impossible for any rational person to find the indeterministic claims of modern science anything other than absurd. Einstein was right: quantum mechanics is not a final theory. The problem for Einstein and his ilk is that the only way to overthrow quantum mechanics is to overthrow the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science, and relegate the scientific method to a valuable tool of science rather than the defining centrepiece of science. Science must be replaced with mathematics. Even Einstein could not bring himself to call for the overthrow of science as it has hitherto been understood and practised. It’s the philosophy of science, its Meta Paradigm, that is now the key to the future of science. The current Meta Paradigm produces indeterminism. A Meta Paradigm of rationalism and idealism

would lead to determinism, and ontological mathematics as a straight replacement for science. Any rational person who encounters ontological mathematics immediately realises that it’s correct and science is false. The entire way in which quantum mechanics is conventionally understood is intellectually offensive. Scientists – people with no intellectual integrity – disregard all of the problems and mindlessly obey the dictum, “Shut up and calculate!” In other words, who cares what the calculations mean as long as they work (are “successful” and lead to the publication of many scientific papers and enhanced career prospects). You might as well believe in God if that’s what works for you: “Shut up and pray!” as the Abrahamists say, or “Shut up and meditate!” as the Eastern philosophers encourage us. We say, “Shut up and use your reason, and, if you can’t, just shut up.”

***** “All the wisest of every age are in agreement: It is foolish to wait for the fools to be cured of their folly! The proper thing is to make fools of the fools!” – Goethe It’s time to make fools of scientists and their irrational Cult of the Senses, their Church of the Observable. Reality is not what you see. All the mysteries of existence are what you don’t see. Reality is about essences, not appearances.

Not One Shred There is not one shred of evidence that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. Isn’t that amazing? It’s taught in schools, colleges and universities, and textbooks, as if it were scientifically proven and yet it’s nothing but a metaphysical theory, and an extremely controversial philosophy at that. The Copenhagen interpretation is perhaps the most ironic theory in the history of thought. Its central aim was to rule out any metaphysical elements of quantum mechanics involving “hidden variables”: entities that established a deeper, deterministic layer of quantum mechanics, but were beyond the reach of the scientific method. The Copenhagen school decided

that observation and measurement constitute the core of science, and these became their definition of “reality”, i.e. things can be said to be real only at the point of observation or measurement. Plainly, there’s nothing “hidden” at that point. Yet, what was the price that the Copenhagen school paid to arrive at this misinterpretation of reality: the one overwhelmingly supported by scientists to this day, and taught as if it were some great insight into the workings of reality? Here’s a list of what the Copenhagen school abandoned: 1) The Reality Principle itself: In the past, objects were deemed to exist even when unobserved. The Copenhagen interpretation says that nothing is real when unobserved. 2) Determinism: Before the Copenhagen interpretation, science was 100% deterministic. After, it was 100% indeterministic at the fundamental level of existence. 3) Materialism: With the Copenhagen interpretation, it’s no longer possible to coherently define what a material particle is. Particles have ceased to have definite positions and momenta. They are now here, there and everywhere, with all sorts of potential states superposed over each other, and they exhibit what is known as wave-particle duality – a fundamentally contradictory state. 4) Non-Observer Reality: according to the Copenhagen interpretation, observers construct reality. If observers didn’t exist, there would be nothing to collapse the wavefunction to a particular, measurable state. Observers, by virtue of their observations and measurements, construct “reality”. Without those observations and measurements, reality would unfold differently, or, actually, not unfold at all. Observers can choose whether the wave nature of things or their particle nature is exhibited by virtue of their choice of apparatus for looking at it. Although wave and particle behaviour are mutually exclusive (they can never be observed at the same time), both are necessary to the Copenhagen interpretation, and are embraced by the so-called Complementarity Principle. Reality doesn’t define how reality unfolds, observers do!

5) The Difference Between Life and Death: According to the Copenhagen interpretation, life and death are not mutually exclusive states, but, rather, “superposition states” that can coexist. A cat can be dead, alive and dead-alive (i.e. a mixture of dead and alive). This shows how much contempt science has for life and how scientists are essentially machine zombies that do not consider themselves inherently alive. After all, if we are made of nothing but atoms and atoms are mindless, lifeless material entities, how can any collection of atoms, no matter how intricately organised, be anything other than mindless and lifeless? In science, life isn’t different from death; it’s just a very weird expression of death! This all constitutes empiricist nonsense of the highest order. It’s philosophical speculation and yet is treated as, and taught as, scientific “fact”. Many people buy into this garbage and believe this is how the world actually works. The supreme irony is that in their eagerness to avoid hidden variables and metaphysics, the Copenhagen school promptly produced an interpretation that is itself all about hidden variables and metaphysics. The wavefunction upon which the whole of Copenhagen quantum mechanics is predicated is deemed “unreal”. It’s inherently unobservable (hence entirely metaphysical) and is nothing but a mathematical abstraction, full of the hidden variables of complex numbers. The Copenhagen interpretation of the famous twin-slit experiment is that an unreal, abstract wavefunction passes through the slits and interferes with itself. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, according to science, unreal things can operate in the real world and indeed are the basis of the real world! If that’s not pure metaphysics and a theory of hidden variables, what is? And get this – the icing on the cherry so to speak – the “trick” for converting unreality into reality is to multiply the unreal wavefunction by its equally unreal counterpart, the complex conjugate of the wavefunction! So, at the heart of the scientific understanding of reality is the astonishing, utterly irrational, lunatic claim that if you multiply two unreal abstractions you get concrete reality! Science, a supposedly rational subject, claims that something can come from nothing (impossible), that randomness at the microscopic scale produces determinism at the macroscopic scale (impossible), that things fundamentally exist as mutually exclusive waves and particles (impossible),

that “life” can come from death (impossible), that reality is observerconstructed and doesn’t exist when no one is doing any observing (impossible) and, most ridiculous and impossible of all, that multiplying unreality by unreality produces reality!!! Science is a spectacularly idiotic interpretation of mathematics, and uses all sorts of preposterous mathematical tricks to support its empiricist dogmatism. It’s a total abuse of mathematical coherence, consistency and integrity. Science is now the philosophy of the madhouse. It’s infinitely mad when you throw in all of its even more preposterous Multiverse theories where mad scientists are cloned infinitely many times, and infinite cosmic lunatic asylums are generated to hold all of them. When religion makes crazy claims, scientists scoff away to their heart’s content. When science makes even crazier claims, scientists all nod sagely and declare, “We have glimpsed the Mind of God.” In your dreams, you lunatics!!! Science, sad to say, is actually worse than mainstream religion in the claims it makes about reality. Many religious claims are spectacularly improbable. The fundamental claims of modern science are, however, utterly impossible. Science is now itself a religion, a cult, suffering from the incredible delusion that it’s rational and saying real things about the real world. It does nothing of the kind. What science does is measure the world accurately and highly successfully and then interprets what these measurements tell us about reality in a bogus and fallacious way. Scientists are unable to distinguish measurement from the interpretation of measurement. The first is what science is actually all about; the second is where science turns itself into an inept and laughable amateur philosophy. Scientists claim that science is based on “evidence”. In fact, measurements constitute this “evidence” and science stops being evidential the moment it seeks to interpret these measurements. At that point, it becomes philosophy. If science simply stuck to measurements, and to models and hypotheses intended to “explain” these measurements in a useful way, without any claim that these models and hypotheses had any bearing on reality, all would be well. There’s nothing wrong with the Copenhagen interpretation if it’s regarded as nothing but a tool that’s useful in allowing scientists to

predict future phenomena and design useful technology. Newtonian physics is absolutely false ontologically and yet is extremely useful (you can use it to land men on the moon), so having an entirely fallacious ontological model is no obstacle to performing productive work that transforms the world. The Copenhagen interpretation should, likewise, be regarded as wholly ontologically false, but a useful, heuristic tool. The problem is that scientists have been carried away with the success of their theories and now regard them as “true” rather than as productive rules of thumb with no ontological significance. The Copenhagen interpretation of “reality” is false and impossible. It’s disgraceful that it’s taught as if it has any bearing on reality. It should be made clear to everyone that this interpretation is just a philosophy and a model that has no more claim to reality than any other philosophy, or any religion for that matter. Only one theory of ontology can be correct. All the others must be false. Ontological mathematics is the one true theory of existence. That’s a fact. Ontological mathematics abolishes all of the ludicrous claims of science, from Darwinism to quantum mechanics to Multiverse Cosmology. Ontological mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason, as it actually exists in the world. Everything has a precise reason why it is thus and not otherwise. There is no “unreality”, no acausality, no indeterminism, no irrationalism, no statistical reality, no probabilistic Nature, no randomness, no things springing out of nothing for no reason, no inconsistency, no incompleteness. Existence has a complete analytic answer. If ontological mathematics weren’t true, there would be no truth at all in the universe. The universe would be exactly as described by Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations”; “Ultimately, what are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors.”

The Impossible Union It’s precisely because relativity theory and quantum mechanics are successful models with no ontological truth content that it’s impossible to reconcile them and produce a theory of quantum gravity, the so-called final theory of everything (in your dreams!).

Science does not obey first principles. It isn’t rationalist. It isn’t deductive, analytic and a priori. It offers no consistency, completeness and causal closure. Science is a vast system of trial and error, of trying to fit hypotheses (guesses) to “facts” (experimental measurements). Relativity theory and quantum mechanics were both successful at being matched with measurements but that, of course, doesn’t make them any truer than the Newtonian physics they replaced (because they were slightly better than it was at matching hypothesis to measurements). Relativity theory and quantum mechanics imply two wholly different and incompatible ontologies, hence it’s impossible for them to be brought together in a single theory. If scientists seeking to unify them were better philosophers than they are “measurers”, they would realise they have been wasting their time for the last fifty years. A final theory must be analytic, and that means mathematical, constructed deductively from first principles. In the case of ontological mathematics, there’s only one principle – the God Equation, which might as well be regarded as God itself since it’s the source of everything.

The Invention of Knowledge? “In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of ‘world history’ – yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.” – Nietzsche Nietzsche, for all his protestations to the contrary, was exceptionally close to being a nihilist. Like scientists, he regarded existence as ultimately meaningless. Unlike scientists, he even considered our claims to knowledge illusory. Knowledge was a mere human invention that would die with us. True knowledge is of course invented by no one. It existed before any human beings, and will continue to exist after them. It is this knowledge that made the universe, the innumerable solar systems, our sun, us, and everything else. We didn’t invent this knowledge: we tune into it, we discover it, we reveal it. True knowledge is the immutable, perfect, absolute, Platonic knowledge of ontological mathematics, which is eternal, indestructible and creates

everything else. We literally inhabit a universe of knowledge, and we explore knowledge with our reason. Sadly, foolish people imagine we inhabit a sensory universe, or an emotional universe, or a mystical universe, or a universe of faith, or a universe of Mythos. We don’t!

The Error Science is the sensory misinterpretation of mathematics. Science is phenomenal mathematics. Ask yourself a very simple question: is it possible to even conceive of science in the absence of mathematics? Ask yourself another question: if sensory experiences, if phenomena, are not mathematical, what on earth are they? Is it possible to conceive of any information system that is not reducible to mathematics?

The Devil and Science “God made the bulk; surfaces were invented by the devil.” – Wolfgang Pauli God made mathematics; science was invented by the Devil. Mathematics is the study of light. Science is the study of darkness. Mathematics is light. Science is matter. God resides in the light. The Demiurge resides in the dark and rules over matter.

The Descent What is the descent? From light to darkness. From light to matter. What is individual thought? – light. What is collective thought? – matter = darkness, the non-light.

***** “Everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness; on the confines of the two everlasting empires, necessity and free will.” – Thomas Carlyle Free will is light. Scientific determinism is matter = darkness.

If Not Math?... “Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modelling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. “‘Superstring theory’ is a shorthand for supersymmetric string theory because unlike bosonic string theory, it is the version of string theory that incorporates fermions and supersymmetry. “Since the second superstring revolution the five superstring theories are regarded as different limits of a single theory tentatively called M-theory, or simply string theory. “The deepest problem in theoretical physics is harmonizing the theory of general relativity, which describes gravitation and applies to large-scale structures (stars, galaxies, super clusters), with quantum mechanics, which describes the other three fundamental forces acting on the atomic scale. “The development of a quantum field theory of a force invariably results in infinite (and therefore useless) probabilities. Physicists have developed mathematical techniques (renormalization) to eliminate these infinities which work for three of the four fundamental forces – electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces – but not for gravity. The development of a quantum theory of gravity must therefore come about by different means than those used for the other forces. “According to the theory, the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of the Planck length (about 10−33 cm) which vibrate at resonant frequencies. Every string, in theory, has a unique resonance, or harmonic. Different harmonics determine different fundamental particles. The tension in a string is on the order of the Planck force (1044 newtons). The graviton (the proposed messenger particle of the gravitational force), for example, is predicted by the theory to be a string with wave amplitude zero.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics says that everything is made of sinusoidal waves. What do science’s “best guess” theories say everything is made of? Well, “strings”. But “strings” are just arbitrary mathematical entities. Science doesn’t deny that everything is mathematical. What it denies is that everything is analytically mathematical, i.e. perfect, with perfect solutions. Science has simply invented the concept of the string. This

concept has no necessity. It does not fit into any overarching mathematical theory. It’s just really bad math, with a really bad definition. Its conception is driven by empiricism, not by rationalism. What is “God” made of if not math? What is the Tao, or Brahman or Nirvana made of if not math? What is the soul made of if not math? It’s actually impossible to avoid a mathematical description and explanation of ultimate reality.

Certainty? “You can never be certain in science.” – James Lovelock Which is why science can’t be truth. Truth is certainty. Truth is not doubt. Truth is not inaccuracy. Truth is not uncertainty. Truth is not contingency. Truth is not fallibility. Truth is in no need of experimental verification, and truth cannot be experimentally falsified. If you accept the existence of truth, you are bound to accept that it is a mathematical truth, not scientific. Science can never deliver truth.

The Invisible College “The origins of the Royal Society lie in an ‘invisible college’ of natural philosophers who began meeting in the mid-1640s to discuss the new philosophy of promoting knowledge of the natural world through observation and experiment, which we now call science. ... The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.” – https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/ Where did the philosophy of empiricist materialism – which today we call science – come from? Nowhere can stake a greater claim in its foundation than the English Royal Society. It’s time for the demise of this decrepit, irrelevant Institution. It’s time for the end of this type of science and its replacement by science grounded in ontological mathematics. It’s time to abandon “seeing is believing” and replace it with the principle of sufficient

reason. All statements of truth must be mathematically provable, not experimentally “verifiable”.

Two Worlds Science deals with the sensory world and uses mathematics to do so. Mathematics deals with the sensory world (through Fourier spacetime functions) and the non-sensory world (through Fourier frequency functions), and has no need of science to do so. Science needs mathematics. Mathematics does not need science. Ergo we live in a mathematical world. Science is simply “sensory mathematics”.

The Difference The difference between mathematics and science is the difference between rationalism and empiricism. The trouble for the empiricists is that mathematics is at the heart of science, and science isn’t at the heart of mathematics. Science has an empirically inexplicable rationalist core. Mathematics has no need of experiments at all. The whole of ontological mathematics could be worked out without looking at the world once. Ultimate reality isn’t sensory. Ultimate reality was there long before any senses existed, so the senses are irrelevant to ultimate reality. The senses are contingent. They evolved. The ultimate truths are necessary. They are eternal and immutable. They didn’t evolve. How could the senses ever help us with the non-sensory truths of eternity? Isn’t that the most self-evident truth of all? Why have scientists never worked it out? These simpletons imagine that experiments based on the senses can reveal ultimate reality. What a joke. The Royal Society claims to reject “authority” (although it is of course itself an “authority”), but it has never once questioned the “authority” of the senses. Nietzsche’s dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations, destroys the whole basis of the Royal Society. The eternal truths of ontological mathematics are the only things that stand outside interpretation. Mathematics has no inexplicable empiricist core. Unfortunately, the scientists and empiricists are too irrational to understand the implications of that.

Heart or Head? “If I create from the heart, nearly everything works; if from the head, almost nothing.” – Marc Chagall The world always uses the heart rather than the head – that’s why it’s fucked! We live in a Mythos world (the world of emotional, irrational stories, the world of the heart); we need to live in a Logos world (the world of reason, logic and mathematics). Mythos should be reserved for entertainment, for play, not for economics, politics, religion and science.

Returning to the Dark “When I have clarified and exhausted a subject, then I turn away from it, in order to go into darkness again.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Isn’t it time for the scientists to go into the darkness of the non-sensory? “The enchanting charms of this sublime science reveal only to those who have the courage to go deeply into it.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Are you courageous enough for the ultimate depths? “I am coming more and more to the conviction that the necessity of our geometry cannot be demonstrated, at least neither by, nor for, the human intellect.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Even Gauss wasn’t fearless enough. There is absolutely nothing that reason cannot demonstrate. “We must admit with humility that, while number is purely a product of our minds, space has a reality outside our minds, so that we cannot completely prescribe its properties a priori.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Even Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, couldn’t grasp the ontology of mathematics and numbers. “It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Yet one would not do the first (learning) if not for the sake of the second (knowledge). This is a teleological process.

“When a philosopher says something that is true then it is trivial. When he says something that is not trivial then it is false.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Er, that’s the case with science! “I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss That’s why intuition isn’t enough. “Mathematicians stand on each other’s shoulders.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss No they don’t. They expand each other’s thoughts. “The problem of distinguishing prime numbers from composite numbers and of resolving the latter into their prime factors is known to be one of the most important and useful in arithmetic. It has engaged the industry and wisdom of ancient and modern geometers to such an extent that it would be superfluous to discuss the problem at length... Further, the dignity of the science itself seems to require that every possible means be explored for the solution of a problem so elegant and so celebrated.” – Carl Friedrich Gauss Indeed.

The Many and the One “A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One.” – Georg Cantor The dialectic of the Many and the One: the One Singularity composed of many singularities (souls). “I realise that in this undertaking I place myself in a certain opposition to views widely held concerning the mathematical infinite and to opinions frequently defended on the nature of numbers.” – Georg Cantor The truth is always born with the individual, never the group. The group is that which resists the truth. It is that which must be overcome.

The Future? “Against all the retrogressive endeavours (Bohm, Schrödinger, etc. and in some sense also Einstein), I am sure that the statistical character of the ψ-

function and hence of nature’s laws – on which you insisted from the very beginning against Schrödinger’s resistance – will define the style of the laws at least for some centuries. It may be that later, e.g. in connection with the living processes, one will find something entirely new, but to dream of a way back, back to the classical style of Newton-Maxwell (and these are just dreams these gentlemen are giving themselves up to) seems to me hopeless, digressive, bad taste. And, we could add, it is not even a beautiful dream.” – Wolfgang Pauli [to Max Born] Wrong! The future belongs to the principle of sufficient reason. The nightmare of the “statistical” interpretation of reality is doomed. It should never have been born in the first place. It was born of irrationalism of the highest order. “When one analyzes the pre-conscious step to concepts, one always finds ideas which consist of ‘symbolic images.’ The first step to thinking is a painted vision of these inner pictures whose origin cannot be reduced only and firstly to the sensual perception but which are produced by an ‘instinct to imagining’ and which are reproduced by different individuals independently, i.e. collectively... But the archaic image is also the necessary predisposition and the source of a scientific attitude. To a total recognition belong also those images out of which have grown the rational concepts. .... What now is the answer to the question as to the bridge between the perception of the senses and the concepts, which is now reduced to the question as to the bridge between the outer perceptions and those inner image-like representations. It seems to me one has to postulate a cosmic order of nature – outside of our arbitrariness – to which the outer material objects are subjected as are the inner images... The organizing and regulating has to be posited beyond the differentiation of physical and psychical... I am all for it to call this ‘organizing and regulating’ ‘archetypes.’ It would then be inadmissible to define these as psychic contents. Rather, the above-mentioned inner pictures (dominants of the collective unconscious, see Jung) are the psychic manifestations of the archetypes, but which would have to produce and condition all nature laws belonging to the world of matter. The nature laws of matter would then be the physical manifestation of the archetypes.” – Wolfgang Pauli “It seems significant that according to quantum physics the indestructibility of energy on one hand – which expresses its timeless existence – and the

appearance of energy in space and time on the other hand correspond to two contradictory (complementary) aspects of reality. In fact, both are always present, but in individual cases the one or the other may be more pronounced.” – Wolfgang Pauli Yet does not science say that energy was born with the big Bang – contrary to the law of the Conservation of Energy? It was created out of nothing, science absurdly claims. Ontological mathematics, on the other hand, says that energy is indeed eternal (timeless), and indestructible. It exists in a permanent, immaterial mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. And, via Fourier mathematics, it can be represented as if it were in space and time. “Although I have no objection to accepting the existence of relatively constant psychic contents that survive personal ego, it must always be born in mind that we have no way of knowing what these contents are actually like ‘as such.’ All we can observe is their effect on other living people, whose spiritual level and whose personal unconscious crucially influence the way these contents actually manifest themselves.” – Wolfgang Pauli Spooky, man! What was Pauli’s great failing? Like all scientists, he simply wasn’t rational enough! “Both of us [seem] to agree that the future of Jung’s ideas is not with [psycho-] therapy... but with a unitarian, holistic concept of nature and the position of man in it.” – Wolfgang Pauli The future of Jung’s ideas lies with ontological mathematics. “It is always the older that emanates the new one.” – Wolfgang Pauli Well, it would be astounding if the new emanated the older one!

***** Pauli said that “inner pictures” are the psychic manifestations of archetypes, and the laws of matter are the physical manifestation of these archetypes. In others words, mind and matter are two sides of one coin.

Permission

Most of the theories of modern science involve grotesque abuses of mathematics, driven by the fanatical philosophy of empiricism and materialism. We give all scientists permission to stop and think, for once in their lives. You say you want the truth, don’t you? Very well, reappraise all of your theories from an entirely different perspective – that of rationalism and idealism. What have you got to lose? You’re no scientist at all if you haven’t yet grasped that all modern scientific theories have much more to do with philosophical interpretation of science than with actual science. If you can’t comprehend that the Copenhagen indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is a needless interpretation, and would be swept away given a different philosophical outlook, you really shouldn’t be involved in science at all. You shouldn’t accept the Copenhagen interpretation because the scientific establishment has told to you (and because it’s good for your career) but only if you have extremely carefully analysed all of its claims from different philosophical perspectives and decided it must be rationally correct. The problem, of course, is that an indeterministic interpretation can never be rational under any circumstances! Indeterminism is the opposite of rationalism. In 1899, any scientist could have told you that. What went so catastrophically wrong with science that it performed the ultimate volte-face and abandoned determinism for its opposite? The answer is simple. It was hijacked by fanatical empiricists who were willing to abandon reason itself in order to save the scientific method. They proved that they had become members of a religion, not an intellectual, rational discipline. Science is now an irrationalist subject and a disgrace to the intellectual tradition. It’s literally clueless about its own nature and goals. It’s impossible for science to produce a final theory because its own contradictions now stand in the way of progress. What else would you expect from a subject that claims that existence is meaningless and accidental?

The Failure Science has failed. And, in truth, it was impossible for science ever to succeed. Science was never anything other than the study of the sensory world. At no time did it have anything at all to say about the non-sensory

world, and, in fact, in all its arrogance, it simply denied that such a world existed. It had no reason for doing so beyond sensory prejudice. The sensory world is just a representation of a deeper, non-sensory world – a world of pure, perfect mathematics. Many people find it impossible to accept that existence is exclusively mathematical. Why are they so resistant to this idea? And what do they imagine the alternatives are? If “God” isn’t perfect mathematics then what is he? What’s he made of? He must be made of something, after all. Whatever he’s made of, it must be perfect and eternal – and only mathematics qualifies. God could not be made of anything contingent, arbitrary, synthetic, a posteriori, inconsistent and incomplete. He must be made of something necessary, analytic, a priori, consistent and complete. i.e. ontological mathematical. But ontological mathematics is not a person, not a superbeing. Ontological mathematics is expressed via countless monads. They are not Gods, but can evolve into Gods when they perfect themselves mathematically (when they find the answer to their own equation!). Science says that existence is all about random, meaningless fluctuations in nothingness – then proceeds to use mathematics to define its “laws of meaninglessness”. What do Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism all point to with their talk of void, nothing, the unmanifest, the manifest, Maya, Brahman, nirvana, the Tao, and so on, if not mathematics described in the mystical language of gurus rather than the precise formulae of mathematicians? Mathematics has always been the answer to reality, and bubbles up everywhere, whether people like it or not. It’s simply impossible to have an ordered world without mathematics, so the ontology of mathematics is the supreme question of existence, and the Illuminati have provided the answer via the God Equation, which is so perfect it is none other than God itself, the True God. Science is just sensory mathematics. It was dumb enough to believe that it was somehow better than math, more real, truer, more ontological. Science is, to use a Hindu term, Maya – illusion itself. Science is all about the illusory world of appearances. What the phenomenal world hides is the noumenal world underneath – the world of pure, perfect, flawless, complete and consistent ontological mathematics. If you scrape the surface off science, what do you find underneath? – ontological mathematics!

It’s time to get rid of the illusion and address the true reality. It’s time for ontological mathematics to replace science and open up a vast new horizon to humanity – that of eternal mind. Copernicus ushered in a revolution when he removed earth from the centre of the universe and made it a humble planet orbiting the sun. Scientific materialism then claimed that not only was earth not at the centre of God’s Creation, but humans didn’t even have souls, and we were just meaningless, accidental, pointless agglomerations of matter that happened to be able to talk, philosophize and fall in love (!). Ontological mathematics ushers in a new reverse Copernican revolution by placing the soul = the mathematical mind (monad) at the centre of existence. Existence really does have a centre. It’s not the earth. Rather, it’s the Singularity, composed of countless monads. The Singularity, the Monad of monads, is, in effect, God in himself, God as pure potential. Via the Hegelian dialectic, it is converted into God as himself, fully expressed, fully actualised – via all of us!!! God comes into being through us because we are the divine cells that make up God, and each of us is a God too. With ontological mathematics, God and the soul return to the centre of existence, but these are not the silly God and soul of mainstream religion, of faith, Mythos and mystical intuition. God and the soul are now the quintessence of rationalism – of hyperrationalism – and are defined 100% mathematically, meaning that prophets, gurus, popes, priests, imams, pastors, reverends, vicars, rabbis have zero contribution to make to the real issues of real religion. They’re all out of a job. There’s no room for charlatans in the universe of mathematics. God and the soul are now about pure Logos, not pure Mythos. They are nothing other than the principle of sufficient reason in action, and this principle is nothing but Absolute Meaning. Science is empiricism = Maya (illusion). Mathematics is rationalism = reality. We live in a 100% rational universe, not a 100% empirical universe. The universe is either 100% rational or 100% irrational. It’s impossible for the irrational to coexist with the rational. It would involve a fundamental contradiction, a category error. How would a rational “patch” of the universe deal with an irrational patch? The two patches would necessarily have separate, incompatible origins and interfaces, implying untenable Cartesian dualism.

An empirical universe, however, can co-exist with a non-empirical universe without any contradiction. A sensible universe can coexist with an intelligible universe, a phenomenal universe can coexist with a noumenal universe, the revealed can coexist with the hidden, matter can coexist with mind, “something” can coexist with “nothing”. Scientists have never understood that the study of empirical things does not exclude the study of non-empirical things. Science believes that the universe is necessarily 100% empirical, yet there’s absolutely no sufficient reason for such a belief and it is in fact irrational. If scientists said that their method – the “scientific method” – is restricted to empirical phenomena, that would be fine, but they make a much stronger claim: that anything not amenable to the scientific method does not exist. Scientists used to be known as “natural philosopher”: philosophers who studied nature. That’s exactly what they are. They are not philosophers of ontology, epistemology and metaphysics, and they should keep their mouths shut about these areas about which they know precisely nothing.

***** The universe is either 100% unknowable or 100% knowable. It can’t be a bit knowable and a bit unknowable. What would constitute knowable and what would constitute unknowable? They plainly can’t be the same thing. There would have to be a well-defined substance that was knowable, and an indefinable substance that was chaotic, hence unknowable. This would amount to an incoherent, fatal, Cartesian substance dualism. Any proposition that reduces reality to Cartesian substance dualism is ipso facto false.

The Importance of Jiggling “Things are made of littler things that jiggle.” – Richard Feynman, when asked to explain all of physics in one simple sentence. Things are indeed made of littler things that jiggle. To be exact, everything is made of vibrations – of analytic, immaterial sinusoidal waves that exist outside space and time, within Fourier frequency singularities, which are simply eternal, indestructible mathematical minds, aka souls.

Max Tegmark Cosmologist Max Tegmark believes that the ultimate explanation of reality is mathematics. So far, so good. Unfortunately, he then ruins his insight by adopting the wrong philosophical stance. What he should be attempting to do is show how mathematics is the ontological, epistemological and metaphysical basis of physics. What’s he’s actually trying to do is carry through the traditional project of science – to express everything in materialist and empiricist terms. Tegmark has failed to understand the most basic quality of mathematics. Mathematics is entirely a priori and analytic. Therefore, it has nothing to do with experiments and empiricism. It requires no senses and no experiences. Experiments are a posteriori and synthetic, the opposite of mathematics. Mathematics is pure rationalism. Mathematics is necessary and deductive, not contingent and inductive like science. Science is phenomenal and physical; mathematics is noumenal and metaphysical. Tegmark’s idea that mathematics is empiricist, materialist, phenomenal and physical like science is preposterous and shows a spectacular ignorance of what mathematics actually is. Mathematics is inherently dimensionless, not dimensional. Mathematics is all about complex numbers, not real numbers (as in science). You simply cannot approach mathematics as a mainstream scientist – like Tegmark. You have to come at it as a metaphysicist and rationalist – like Leibniz. Ask yourself a very simple question: who is smarter between Tegmark and Leibniz? There’s simply no comparison. Tegmark is a pedestrian scientist with a mathematical intuition that he’s unable to explore properly because of all his sensory biases, while Leibniz is the most intelligent human being of all time. Dimensionless, immaterial monadic singularities are at the root of mathematics, something that a scientist such as Tegmark could simply never comprehend. Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) is ludicrous because he has failed to grasp the ontology of mathematics. Leibniz did grasp it. Mathematics begins with monads – which are none other than souls!

*****

How can anyone be taken seriously when they make mathematical claims about the universe if they do not accept the ontology of complex numbers, and deny that singularities, defined by zero and infinity, have any fundamental reality?

Amplitude and Intensity “Erwin Schrödinger, an exceptionally gifted Austrian physicist, explored the consequences of matter waves and proposed a wave equation for them, analogous to the known equations for other wave motions in nature. This wave equation describes how a wave associated with an electron or other subatomic particle varies in space and time as the particle moves under various forces. “Schrödinger’s theory of the quantum world is called wave mechanics. He worked out the exact solutions of the wave equation for the hydrogen atom, and the results perfectly agreed with the known energy levels of these atoms, seemingly without any of the complications and metaphysical speculations associated with the uncertainty principle. Moreover, the equation could also be applied to more complicated atoms, and even to particles not bound in atoms at all. It was soon found that in every case, Schrödinger’s equation gave a correct description of a particle’s behaviour, provided it was not moving at a speed near that of light. “In spite of this success, the very meaning of the waves remained unclear. Schrödinger believed that the intensity of the wave at a point in space represented the ‘amount’ of the electron that was present at that point. In other words, the electron was spread out, rather than concentrated at a point. However, it was soon found that this interpretation was untenable, because observations revealed that particles never spread out. For example, it follows from the wave equation that when a wave, representing an electron, strikes a target, it spreads out in all directions. Experimentally, on the other hand, the electron scatters in some specific direction but never breaks up. “Max Born, another German physicist and a good friend of Einstein, interpreted this result as follows: the wave associated with the electron is not a tangible ‘matter wave’, but one that determines the probability of scattering of the electron in different directions. Where the associated wave

has a large amplitude, the probability of finding an electron there is high. In any case, one would find the whole particle, and not parts of it. “This indicated that the simple interpretation of the wave equation as a description of the physical matter waves in ordinary space, as was originally assumed by Schrödinger himself, is incorrect. Born noted the following conclusions: “Matter waves represent probability amplitudes associated with the occurrence of an event. “If there are multiple alternatives for the event to happen, the total amplitude is the sum of the alternative amplitudes. “Finally, the absolute square of the overall amplitude, the intensity of the wave, must be interpreted as the probability that the event will happen. “Thus Max Born reduced Schrödinger’s equation completely into probabilistic terms, although Schrödinger himself was reluctant to accept this interpretation, and retained this reservation for the rest of his life.” – Thomas Haberkern and N Deepak http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap07.html “In quantum mechanics, a probability amplitude is a complex number used in describing the behaviour of systems. The modulus squared of this quantity represents a probability or probability density.” – Wikipedia Max Born perpetrated arguably the worst scientific analogy in history when he decided that the intensity of a quantum mechanical wavefunction should be interpreted in terms of probability. In classical physics, the intensity of a wave is proportional to the square of its amplitude, and the intensity of the wave is defined as the amount of energy that passes though unit area perpendicular to the wave direction in unit time. In other words, the intensity is all about energy and nothing whatsoever to do with probability. Born, a fanatical empiricist, should have taken a lesson from a rationalist. Any rationalist would have told him that if intensity in classical physics is concerned with energy, the correct analogy is to reach exactly the same conclusion in relation to quantum physics. The intensity of a quantum mechanical wave has nothing at all to with probability. The intensity of a quantum mechanical wave is, just like that of a classical physics wave, all about energy. To be precise, the intensity of a quantum mechanical wave tells you about the energy profile of the wave’s flowing point (active focus) at that location on its trajectory.

The only stumbling block with this conclusion is that it requires the complex-numbered amplitude of the quantum wavefunction to be treated as ontologically real, not empirically unreal. In other words, the interpretation of the amplitude of the quantum wavefunction is where rationalism and empiricism, mathematics and physics, collide head on. If a rationalist, mathematical attitude is taken to the amplitude, it stands for energy in a complex spacetime. If an empiricist, physicalist attitude is taken to it, then, against all logic and precedent, it’s converted into a mysterious probability. At one stroke, science ceases to be realistic, objective and deterministic and becomes unrealistic, subjective, randomist and indeterministic. The advent of quantum mechanics made it clear that its successful interpretation would require a revolutionary change in the understanding of science. Two choices were possible: to accept that reality is based on complex numbers rather than real numbers (mathematical rationalism), or to remove objectivity and determinism from science and turn instead to randomness and probability. Science chose the latter route and awarded a Nobel Prize to Max Born to sanctify its selection. It should now award a Nobel Prize to the Illuminati and accept that Born was wrong and the ontological mathematical conclusion correct. With this simple, rational change, sanity, rationalism and determinism can instantly be restored to science, and science can acknowledge that the reason it has mathematics at its core is that it’s just a branch of mathematics (the one dealing with phenomena). Well, what’s so hard about that? It’s the only rational thing to do. It’s all in the math!

The Proof Schrödinger’s equation and the quantum mechanical wavefunction are the proof of the mathematical nature of existence. However, what is “proof” if you can’t understand it for what it is? Humanity’s whole problem is that even if the truth is staring it right in the face, it can readily misinterpret it as something else. Religion, philosophy and science are overwhelmingly about the misinterpretation of truth and proof. Scientists looked at Schrödinger’s equation and the quantum mechanical wavefunction and, rather than accept it for what it self-evidently was – a definition of reality in terms of complex numbers – they promptly turned it

into something that was almost the opposite: a probabilistic, indeterministic, acausal, real-numbers version of “reality”, which was much more to their taste (but had no connection whatsoever with truth). Amazingly, scientists believe that this butchery of mathematical truth is warranted and “rational”. In fact, it’s just the conversion of rationalist mathematical truth into empiricist sensory prejudice. People have a staggering degree of difficulty recognising proof and truth. They will do almost anything to turn away from them. They will eagerly embrace Mythos, whether of the emotional (Abrahamism), sensory (science), or intuitive (Eastern religion) type. They will go out of their way to misinterpret and mistranslate the truth. They can’t help themselves. Look at scientists. They worked out the correct answer to existence – that it’s based on complex numbers – then immediately got rid of this correct answer and adopted insane gibberish that wholly contradicted objective reality. Why? So that they could cling to their empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm. They abandoned truth and reason for bad philosophy: empiricism. Only rationalists can accept rational truths. Everyone else flees from them and converts them into something more palatable to their tastes. The sorry tale of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics shows how easy it is for proof and truth to be misinterpreted and perverted to falsehood and delusion. It’s not enough to arrive at the truth. You have to recognise it when you get there! Most people walk on by to the shinier falsehood just up the road. Mathematics – perfection – is not what people want the answer to existence to be. They want it to be a superbeing, or some warm, embracing “Oneness”, or some physical thing they can see and touch. They don’t want it to be invisible, clinical, cold, unyielding reason that only the highest intellects can apprehend. People, it must be admitted, do not want the answer to existence. They want the “answer” that suits their taste, and such an answer is always delusional, wrong and false. Just look at Abrahamism. When it comes to the truth, people’s senses, feelings, desires, beliefs, opinions and private schemas always get in the way. As Nietzsche pointed out, humans have no organ for truth. What they do have is reason, and reason, when properly understood, is truth since it exists ontologically as mathematics.

Gödel summed it up when he said, “But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err.” This is absolutely right. When we use reason correctly, we always get the right answer. When we use it wrongly – to support our senses, feelings, beliefs, opinions, prejudices, desires, hopes, dreams, fears, mystical intuitions, and so on – it always goes catastrophically wrong and we get silly religions, silly philosophies and silly versions of science. Reason is math and math has nothing to do with all of the human traits and foibles just mentioned. Tragically, humanity goes wrong when it is being human. Humanity gets it right only when it transcends its humanity. Only when humanity is engaged in mathematics is it transcending itself and encountering the universe, eternal, infallible language of existence. The relativists and skeptics who claim that there are many answers to existence (one for every person), or no answer at all, are those who are simply incapable of transcending themselves. Mathematics is the same for everyone. 1 + 1 = 2 is the same everywhere in the universe. It’s the same for aliens, angels and gods. There are no exceptions. Only mathematics involves 100% unanimity – because only mathematics is true for everyone. In a movie, a character said, “Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” Humans, despite themselves, have met the Truth (ontological mathematics) on the road they took to avoid it, nowhere more so than in the case of science, which is all about math but pretends to be about the senses and experiments. Isn’t it time that scientists accepted the truth? It’s time for them to stop being irrational and anti-rational. It’s time for them to stop being enemies of the truth and, instead, become its advocates.

The Mystery of Consciousness “The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world. Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is ‘like something’ to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would

find no evidence of it in the physical universe – nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibres or pain-avoiding behaviour will bring the subjective reality into view.” – Sam Harris Exactly so, Sam. Consciousness cannot be physical in origin, so why don’t you stop being a silly empiricist, materialist atheist and embrace Illuminism? “All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the study of our consciousness. Here is a hint of aspects deep within the world of physics, and yet unattainable by the methods of physics.” – Sir Arthur Eddington Why have so few people understood that physics inherently can’t say anything about consciousness – or the unconscious for that matter – because consciousness is no part of the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm used to construct the ideology of physics? The unconscious, and the consciousness to which it gives rise, is, on the other hand, built into the rationalist, idealist Meta Paradigm of ontological mathematics.

The Grand Unified Theory of Everything A grand unified theory of everything must be encapsulated in a single law, i.e. a “God Equation”. The four forces of the standard model of physics cannot be real, independent forces. They are simply different manifestations of just one, all-powerful mathematical formula. Here’s a question. What rational, first principles – ontological principles – are scientists using to unite the four forces in one formula? Well, they’re not using any principles at all, just trial and error, and contingent experiments and hypotheses.

Everywhere Max Tegmark deploys the following argument: if quantum particles can be everywhere at once then human beings, who are made of quantum particles, can be everyone at once too, i.e. we can inhabit countless parallel universes. Superficially, the argument seems to have a plausible form until you start to think of what a particle actually is, and what a human actually is. To say

that humans are nothing but collections of quantum particles is automatically to subscribe to the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. If this Meta Paradigm is false, (which it is!) then the whole argument is ipso facto false. Every human being has a soul. No particle does. A soul is a unique monad located in the Singularity of singularities. There aren’t infinite versions of your soul – you only have one! – hence there cannot be infinite versions of you. There can only ever be one of you! That’s the most solid fact of all. It’s I think therefore I am, not I think therefore we are (I and all my clones in parallel universes). What is a particle? A particle is controlled by the Monadic Collective, not by an individual monad. A particle is everywhere at once insofar as it associated with every monad, and none has a controlling say over it. “Life” begins when a vast number of particles are brought into an arrangement (a body) that a single monad can link to and control via a Fourier mathematical information system (that we know as “DNA”). Tegmark’s entire analysis is false because he thinks of reality in terms of empiricism and materialism rather than rationalism and idealism. The two opposing Meta Paradigms lead to 100% different ontologies. The first is associated with indeterminism and the latter with determinism. They couldn’t be more different. All talk of parallel universes, many worlds and Multiverses is possible only in the random, indeterministic, acausal philosophy of empiricism and materialism. From the perspective of rationalism and ideals, it’s all irrational, laughable and preposterous drivel from beginning to end. Let’s be crystal clear. You will automatically reach the wrong answers about existence if you subscribe to the wrong philosophy. Science has adopted a false philosophy, hence has no contribution at all to make concerning ultimate reality. It’s as irrelevant to ultimate reality as Abrahamism is.

Quantum Madness The whole point of quantum mechanics is that everything is interconnected and everything takes all paths at once at the quantum level. Such a seemingly outrageous and mad claim can make sense in only one context – that of a mental, non-local Singularity made of sinusoidal waves, exactly as

in ontological mathematics. It makes no sense relative to a vast, material universe of local things. The theory of wavefunction collapse and decoherence tries to separate the unitary cosmic wavefunction into a multitude of independent pieces, but what sufficient reason exists to break up the cosmic wavefunction in this way? None at all, other than the ideological requirements of empiricism and materialism. It’s absurd to refer to individual, unreal wavefunctions within a cosmic, unitary wavefunction. The wavefunction collapses everywhere, as one, or not at all. Quantum mechanics relies on the irrational con job of unreal, microscopic wavefunctions “decohering” thanks to interaction with the macroscopic world (the “environment”). Yet, according to quantum mechanics’ own logic, as interpreted by the Copenhagen school, there is no objective, macroscopic world. Just as the moon allegedly doesn’t exist when no one’s observing it, nor does the world! There certainly doesn’t exist any rational mechanism to collapse the wavefunction, to explain decoherence or to separate the cosmic wavefunction into separate, isolated parts. In philosophy, arguments have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. In science, they don’t. A mad theory will be fully endorsed by scientists if it seems to have any tenuous experimental validity. They will declare that the “evidence” supports it. Science does nothing but appeal to “experiment”. It never appeals to reason, and frequently rejects reason if it should contradict the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Virtually every major interpretation adopted by the Copenhagen school contradicted reason, yet was accepted by the general scientific community without demur. Why was the Copenhagen interpretation accepted despite the fact that no one liked it much, and it didn’t make any sense? It was because the alternatives were deemed even worse. It was all a matter of taste, not of reason. The Copenhagen interpretation was the one most in accord with the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Science certainly isn’t driven by rationalism. Scientists are willing to accept crazy ideas if they seem less crazy, and more successful, than the other suggestions. Is that what passes as “science”? Science is an intellectual disgrace. It always hides behind “experiments” and refuses to engage with reason.

The Feynman Interpretation Richard Feynman said that each particle in the twin-slit experiment goes through not just both slits, but simultaneously takes every possible trajectory to the target (this is the sum-over-histories interpretation). Summed together, the paths mostly cancel each other, leaving just the resultant path that the particle actually took. In a universe that, ultimately, is just a singularity comprising countless dimensionless monads, with every monad sitting right on top of every other monad with no separation, the Feynman approach is highly suitable. Yet Feynman would have been the last person to accept the existence of an unobservable Singularity.

The Role of the Observer “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question. Space exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness. The portions of the external universe of which we have additional knowledge by direct awareness amount to a very small fraction of the whole; of the rest we know only the structure and not what it is a structure of. Science is concerned with the rational correlation of experience rather than a discovery of fragments of absolute truth about an external world.” – Sir Arthur Eddington “We do not see the ‘space of the world’, we live our field of vision projected by incoming connections from all over the brain. Since reality and its cognition are a mode of operation of the nervous system as a closed neural network, perception and illusion are indistinguishable. There is no independently existing objective reality. The world everyone sees is not THE world but A world which we bring forth with others.” – Umberto Maturana “There is no world at large – only a description of the world which we have learned to visualize and take for granted.” – Carlos Castaneda “Sorcerers say that we are inside a bubble. It is a bubble into which we are placed at the moment of our birth. At first the bubble is open, but then it begins to close until it has sealed us in. That bubble is our perception. We live inside that bubble all of our lives. And what we witness on its round

walls is our own reflection... The thing reflected is our own view of the world. That view is first a description, which is given to us at the moment of our birth until all our attention is caught by it and the description becomes a view.” – Carlos Castaneda “The world of time and space is a projection.” – Robert Monroe “There is always a triple correspondence – (a) a mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world (b) some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is of inscrutable nature c) a set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings.” – Sir Arthur Eddington “To put the conclusion crudely – the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.” – Sir Arthur Eddington “A rainbow only appears when sun rays, atmospheric processes and the optical activity of an observer come together in a certain relationship in space and time. In Tantra’s understanding, all other objects, no matter how dense they may seem, like rocks, planets and men, are so intimately interwoven with men’s ideas of them as to be inseparable.” – Philip Rawson “Matter unobserved exists only in the form of probability patterns. These patterns can act together producing a new physical possibility – much as superimposing a number of transparent images in a slide projector can produce an image that is not contained on any of the individual transparencies.” – Fred Allen Wolf “The world, in the Copenhagen convention, is merely potential before our observation of it, and only becomes actual afterwards.” – Bryce S. DeWitt “No photon exists until a detector fires; only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behaviour are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.” – Niels Bohr “The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.” – John Wheeler “Instead of regarding the initial state of the system (whether described by hidden variables or not) as determining the outcome of measurements made on it, we might regard the outcome of the measurements as determining, at

least partly, the initial state. If this freedom to choose the initial state is not available, the whole causal thinking has no significance for man.” – Costa de Beauregard “In a looking glass universe, the observed and the observer are codetermined. If obstacles are placed in the way of an ensemble as it unfolds, effects and causes interweave with each other. A paradigm shift changes the data and the actual process of our looking changes nature’s laws.” – Briggs and Peat “Cyril Hinshelwood, a Nobel Laureate in physical chemistry has suggested that a more appropriate name for the particles (of elementary physics) might be ‘manifestations’.” – Lyall Watson “...We ourselves can bring into existence only very small-scale properties like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings ‘more conscious’ than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles?” – Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

***** Don’t these quotations, and countless others like them, reveal the stark truth that no one has the vaguest idea what “matter” is? Perhaps Sir Arthur Eddington summed it up best. We have a mental image of the material world, which is in our minds and not in the external world. We imagine that there is some kind of counterpart, of “inscrutable nature”, in the external world, but why should the external world be a material world and not a mental world, just as Bishop Berkeley contended? As for “science”, it’s merely “a set of pointer readings connected with other pointer readings”, i.e. it’s totally instrumental and has nothing to say about ontology and epistemology.

Bungee Jumping? “If you were ever brave (foolish?) enough to bungee jump, you would be forgiven if you felt, as you plummeted towards the surface of the planet accelerating all the time, that the pull of gravity had never been so manifest or dramatically experienced. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. This may well be the one time in your life that the action of gravity is completely

switched off and you are said to be in ‘free fall’. For those few exhilarating seconds you are experiencing zero gravity. ... More correctly, rather than saying that gravity is absent we say that it has been completely cancelled out by your acceleration.” – Jim Al-Khalili, Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines It’s not you that’s accelerating. You’re in free fall. So-called acceleration is an environmental effect, arising from spacetime warping. You are always in free fall. It’s the environment you’re moving through that adds “force”. Force = spacetime geometry.

***** “Do not try to bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... there is no spoon.” – The Matrix Science says there is no spoon, only a spoon wavefunction. There is no cat, only a cat wavefunction: an ontologically unreal abstraction. Things don’t exist when you’re not looking at them. So, when your eyes are closed, what is there for you to bend?

The End-Point The end-point for scientists is not the truth but being able to write a scientific paper that advances their careers, i.e. they simply come up with ideas that fit the prevailing Meta Paradigm and write about them in a neverending torrent of garbage. Scientists are all careerists, not truth seekers. They are drudges and drones, bureaucrats and functionaries. They are “last men”. Shame on them.

The Conflict Why are there so many interpretations of quantum mechanics? It’s because they reflect many different ways of interpreting the same core equations. Ernest Hemingway said, “The only kind of writing is rewriting.” Similarly, the only way of interpreting is reinterpreting. No matter what anyone tells you the equations of physics and mathematics mean, you can be sure that you will always be able to reinterpret them.

The task to define ultimate existence is two-fold: to define the complete and consistent mathematics that constitutes reality (we’ve already accomplished this: it’s the ontological mathematics defined by the God Equation). Next is to find the most consistent and complete phenomenal interpretation of the God Equation. There’s still scope here for radical new insights. Clearly, all of the existing interpretations of quantum mechanics are not consistent and complete.

The Concealment “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.” – Jean Baudrillard Science conceals the truth. Science is a simulacrum. The simulacrum is false.

Existence No question is more fundamental than what existence is made of. Everything you say about existence is nonsense unless you get this single, primary question right. Abrahamists say that existence is made of “God” – but no definition is given of God, so existence is undefined. Followers of Eastern Religion say that existence is made of some “divine Oneness” or some divine “essence”. Again, no definition is provided, so existence remains undefined. Followers of science say that the world is made of randomness – a bizarre, irrational, undefined and indefinable assertion. Science says existence is made of Chaos rather than Order: an absolutely ludicrous claim. However, when the irrational scientific view is further deconstructed, it turns out that science actually claims that existence is made of unreal (!), deterministic mathematics that takes the form of a quantum mechanical wavefunction. This is where Order originates in science – from something unreal! Science ridiculously claims that unreal, deterministic mathematics indeterministically “collapses” to create reality. No scientist has ever

addressed the fundamental absurdity of unreality being the basis of reality. How can unreality exist at all if, by definition, it’s unreal!? If it doesn’t exist, it clearly can’t have any influence whatsoever on existence. Unreality can’t collapse into reality, as science claims. Unreality can’t collapse at all since there is nothing there capable of collapsing. Science’s entire problem is of course that it’s a fanatical empiricist ideology. When it describes the mathematical wavefunction as “unreal”, it really means something else. What it means is that the mathematical wavefunction is unempirical, unobservable and has no connection with the scientific method (which is the defining basis of science). Since science regards only empirical things as real, it’s compelled to regard non-empirical things as unreal. Regarding an unempirical entity such as the soul, science dismisses its existence wholesale. However, it then crazily claims that there are certain unreal things (mathematical wavefunctions) that can be the basis of existence while not actually existing! Work that one out! They might as well believe in God. It’s deranged for an empiricist to say that empiricism is underpinned by something unempirical. Because empiricists can’t link their empirical observations to an underlying, unreal, deterministic wavefunction, they are compelled by their belief system to say that the deterministic wavefunction indeterministically collapses for no reason. Science is now predicated on this absurdity, and not a single scientist challenges it. Science is fundamentally irrational and all of its central claims are irrational. That’s a fact. All of these problems with science can be resolved at a stroke if it’s accepted that mathematics is the true reality, i.e. unempirical mathematics is not “unreal”. It deterministically produces the entire empirical order, while itself being unempirical. It is noumenal, while the empirical order is phenomenal. As soon as you accept the existence of an unobservable, rational, noumenal order, you have admitted that empiricism is false at the ultimate level, that the scientific method fails when it comes to the ultimate issues, and that science itself is just the phenomenal expression of something more fundamental – noumenal mathematics. It’s solely because science denies this that it has to make so many silly, irrational and impossible claims. Science has been destroyed as a rational,

intellectual discipline by its own ideology, above all by its slavish belief in its own method, which it worships as God. The scientific method is ultimately false. The mathematical method is true. Science can’t escape mathematics. Mathematics is at the heart of science, and yet science has never once accounted for the extreme anomaly that something (mathematics) which has no experimental, experiential basis is the basis of experimental, experiential science. This is exactly why science can never be a coherent subject. Science believes it’s about reality. It isn’t – it’s about the sensory appearance of reality, and beneath that sensory appearance is a non-sensory, noumenal reality – reality in itself. This level of existence is pure mathematics. Existence is made of analytic, mathematical sinusoids defined by the God Equation. You cannot get a more precise definition! Science and ontological mathematics both in fact say that mathematics is the ground of existence, but science madly says that reality is underpinned by unreality while ontological mathematics says that phenomenal reality (appearance) in underpinned by noumenal reality (existence in itself). Ontological mathematics is the thing in itself, existence in itself. So, is it more rational to say that observable reality (the phenomenal world) is grounded in unobservable reality (the noumenal world), or that observable reality is true reality (not appearance) but is grounded in mathematical unreality? That’s your choice. There’s only one rational conclusion. Science is just fanatical, irrational empiricism and must be replaced by mathematical rationalism.

What Science Says Existence comes from nothing for no reason, and is powered by nothing. Existence is entirely meaningless, pointless and purposeless – it’s nothing! And you think that’s rational?!!!

The Mess Leaving aside religion, science comes under attack from two directions: 1) from the ultra empiricists (the experimenters who believe that science has become ridiculously mathematical and no longer makes experimentally testable claims), and 2) the ontological mathematicians who assert that

science abuses mathematics at every turn to support empiricist and materialist interpretations of reality. In other words, science is a hopeless mess and muddle that doesn’t know what it is and what it’s doing. The debate about whether science is an empiricist or rationalist undertaking must be resolved once and for all.

Eternal Reason “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.” – Pythagoras This is one of Pythagoras’s supreme insights. The only thing that’s immortal is the principle of sufficient reason: reason itself. What does the principle of sufficient reason exist as? – ontological mathematics. “All things are numbers; number rules all.” – Pythagoras

The Resistance “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Gandhi Thus it will be with the dialectical trajectory of ontological mathematics. It will be ignored, then mocked, then violently resisted, and then it will crush all opposition. Humanity will, at last, become enlightened, and we shall enter the true Age of Reason, not of science, but of mathematics.

Extremity Feelings: emotional world, faith world, Mythos world. Extreme emotional brain = hysterics. Many religious believers are hysterical. Many of the “love and light” brigade are hysterical. Senses: phenomena, appearance, illusion. Extreme sensory brain = autistics. Most scientists and computer scientists are on the autistic spectrum. Intuition: glimpses of true reality. Extreme intuitive brain = mystics. Shamans and gurus are intuitives.

Thinking (reason): noumena, intellect, Logos world. Extreme rational brain = geniuses. The geniuses of the world are the best thinkers, the most rational human beings. No. 1 on the list is Leibniz.

Word There’s an extremely simple way to make sense of science – to conclude that it’s just an empirical expression of ontological mathematics.

Metamorphosis Classical physics was empiricist and materialist. Quantum physics is empiricist and idealist, though it certainly hasn’t acknowledged that it has abandoned materialism. Nevertheless, like the extreme idealist philosopher Bishop Berkeley, it says, “To be is to be perceived.” It denies that things exist objectively when unobserved. Rather, observed things are, when unobserved, replaced by unreal wavefunctions. The moon isn’t there when you aren’t observing it. In its place is an unreal moon wavefunction, which does not exist in space and time, hence has no physical reality and is not an empirical object (contrary to materialist ideology). Even worse, human bodies aren’t there when they are not being observed: they become unreal body wavefunctions. Since scientists claim that the mind is the brain, this also means that the mind becomes an unreal wavefunction. In order for a person to be “reactivated”, an observer is required, but that observer also requires an observer in order to be saved from being an unreal wavefunction himself, and so on, leading to infinite regress. Therefore, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is self-contradictory, inconsistent, irrational, false and impossible. In Bishop Berkeley’s scheme, God was the ultimate, eternal, sleepless, all-seeing observer who kept everything real even when a human wasn’t looking at the world. Strictly speaking, Berkeley wasn’t much bothered whether God was observing or not since, as a fanatical empiricist, he was purely focused on the contents of our immediate experience, and believed that everything else was irrelevant, and not a matter of knowledge, since we could have no knowledge of anything we weren’t currently experiencing;

everything else was pure speculation, including, it has to be said, God himself! Berkeley wasn’t concerned if objects didn’t exist when we weren’t perceiving them. He saw no need to accord them any status, since all that mattered was what they were when they were being perceived. It’s a fundamental point about empiricists that they have no interest in the continuous existence of things since things are real to empiricists only at the point of being experienced, and, when they are not being experienced, they are not empirical entities, hence are outside the empiricist paradigm. Rationalists accept the real existence of the world when no one’s looking at it, and see the need to rationally account for it, and its continuity. Extreme empiricists like Berkeley deny the existence of the unobserved world and don’t feel any need to rationally account for anything that is not a content of our immediate experience. The continued existence of the unobserved world is purely speculative as far as empiricist philosophy goes, and can form no part of “true knowledge”, which must always be empirical. The Copenhagen school essentially agreed with this philosophical position. They denied the continuous existence of real, material objects and declared that only what was being temporarily observed was “real”. Reality is that which is perceived: everything else is unreal. When Berkeley was being consistent, he refused to speculate about unobserved things or accord them any ontological status. As a Christian, he invoked “God” as the ultimate source of existence, but a more consistent empiricist, such as Hume, would never have allowed any reference to a non-empirical God within his empiricist philosophy. The Copenhagen school certainly didn’t invoke God – they would have been laughed out of science if they had – but they did invoke something just as bad, or even worse: an ontologically unreal, unobservable, unempirical, abstract, deterministic, totally speculative mathematical wavefunction. Where Berkeley and Hume denied that it was possible to meaningfully refer to anything that could not be observed (to such an extent that Hume even denied causation since it could not be perceived), the Copenhagen school, as fanatical but logically defective empiricist philosophers, underpinned empirical “reality” not with nothing at all (as all empiricists logically ought to do since unobserved, unexperienced reality has no formal meaning in empiricism, and cannot be an object of knowledge), but with an unreal wavefunction – one of the craziest ideas ever devised! This, believe

it or not, is the mad idea endorsed by most scientists. And to think that these people claim to be rational. Here’s a simple fact. True reality is mathematical, and cannot be observed, hence is outside empiricism and the scientific method. Only reason and rational intuition can access true reality: not feelings, not the senses, not mystical intuitions, and not faith. If you accept that existence is real and continuous and not some incomprehensible, unfathomable hallucination that switches on and off depending on observers who, themselves, have no real and continuous existence, then you must reject Copenhagen quantum mechanics and the entire indeterministic worldview to which it has given rise. The Copenhagen school mocked Einstein for being a silly old man who just didn’t get the new indeterministic paradigm. They told him to his face that the moon didn’t exist when no one was looking at it, that God did play dice, and that entangled quantum particles could communicate over infinite distances, even though there was no possible mechanism for this. However, it wasn’t Einstein who didn’t “get it”. He wasn’t the one who was wrong to deny a Dice God. It was the Copenhagen school that was wrong to worship such a false and impossible “God”. Their new paradigm – one of the most irrational and fallacious ideas of all time – was adopted by scientists only because 100% of them are philosophical ignoramuses. Science now operates at two incompatible levels: 1) an observable, empiricist, indeterministic “reality” amenable to the scientific method, and 2) an unobservable, unempiricist, deterministic “unreality” amenable to the mathematical method. It cannot connect the two levels, so it reaches the insane conclusion that the unobservable mathematical unreality randomly collapses into observable reality. In the whole history of thought, no philosopher would ever have made such a bizarre, unwarranted and impossible claim, but scientists aren’t philosophers and they will proudly pronounce any old rubbish as “truth”. If you’re not bent over double laughing at the claims of modern science, there’s something wrong with you. Science doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s actually more irrational than religion. It even proudly declares existence to be pointless, meaningless, purposeless, and just an enormous accident that happens for no reason at all. It’s essential for any credible system to be able to cope with both rationalism and empiricism. Science does so in the following way. It is

rationalistic insofar as it uses deterministic mathematics to define the world in terms of abstract mathematical wavefunctions. However, it then declares these “unreal”. It proceeds to claim that these deterministic, unreal wavefunctions indeterministically collapse, thus producing the observed, empirical, “real” world. So, they have unreal rationalism underlying “real” empiricism. But how can something that’s unreal and doesn’t exist – the abstract mathematical layer – be responsible for something that’s real and does exist (the empirical layer)? Not a single scientist cares a hoot about these fundamental questions and the blatant contradictions of their worldview. Scientists have zero interest in meaning and truth. They are instrumentalists and pragmatists, meaning that all they care about is success, about things that “work”. A successful theory – no matter how patently untrue and impossible – will be garlanded with Nobel Prizes and revered by the whole scientific community. Every scientist still loves Newton even though his theory of gravity was 100% ontologically false and deranged (as Leibniz and others pointed out at the time). Despite being totally wrong, it was nevertheless successful, and that’s all that scientists care about. In the religious sphere, Christianity and Islam are two examples of belief systems that are 100% ontologically false (they have zero truth content), yet are wildly successful. Humanity as a whole continually mistakes success for truth. Truth and worldly success have almost no connection. They are frequently the direct opposite of each other. Ontological mathematics dismisses scientific “philosophy”. There’s no such thing as an unreal, rationalistic, deterministic mathematical layer sitting – in some impossible way – beneath a real, indeterministic, empiricist reality. Rather, the rationalistic, deterministic mathematical layer is reality itself, the eternal ground of existence, and the empiricist world is simply its observable, sensory expression. Mathematics (rationalism) is the noumenon – existence in itself – and the observable world (empiricism) is the phenomenon, the mathematical world as it appears to our senses, as it’s interpreted by our minds. Empiricists deny that there’s a noumenal layer beneath phenomenal existence. They regard phenomena as reality, not underpinned by anything more fundamentally real. Yet when such a view is taken to its rational conclusion, you get the philosophy of David Hume who denied the self, the soul, God, causation, mathematics and any real knowledge. He was the

supreme skeptic and his philosophy is exactly what you get – perfect to the last letter – when you adopt extremist empiricist, skeptical views. Hume’s philosophy is 100% useless in the real world, and that’s no good to scientists who are pragmatic men who crave earthly success (despite their insistence that they, and everyone else, lacks free will!). All scientists are natural followers of Hume, yet they refuse to accept his ultra-skeptical conclusions (!), i.e. they’re pathetic followers. Instead, they have simply created a fantasy that would have made Hume throw up: a mathematical unreality that underpins empiricist reality. Scientists have no right to mathematics at all. It has no connection with empiricism. Mathematics is 100% rationalist. This is exactly why the most significant question that has ever faced humanity is this one – what is the ontology of mathematics? As soon as you grasp that mathematics is ontology, that the universe is 100% mathematical, all the absurdities of science and religion are dissolved, and existence has a precise, definitive, analytic, closed solution. This answer is available only to reason. Nothing else will assist. Feelings won’t help, the senses won’t help, faith won’t help, mysticism won’t help, meditation won’t help. It’s reason or nothing. If you’re not a rational person, you will never encounter truth. Fact! Sadly, scientists are empiricists, not rationalists, and they will remain as alienated from the truth as Abrahamists and Karmists.

Where Is It? Where does the unreal function “exist”? How does it exist? Why does it exist? How did it come to be? How is it available to “collapse”? If it isn’t ontological, how can its existence be referred to at all? How can you rely on non-existence to support your arguments? If you want to read empiricist philosophy, read Hume, not science. Hume is enormously smarter than all scientists put together. The scientific method is 100% useless when it comes to ultimate reality. All ultimate things are immaterial, metaphysical, and noumenal. They are all outside space and time. Do you want an arbitrary, open-ended “solution” to existence such as science will give you? Or a closed, analytic, definitive solution: a precise formula and answer, which is what ontological mathematics provides?

No Jumping! “Natura non facit saltum (Latin for ‘nature does not make jumps’) has been a principle of natural philosophy since at least Aristotle’s time. It appears as an axiom in the works of Gottfried Leibniz (New Essays, IV, 16) and Isaac Newton, the co-inventors of the infinitesimal calculus (see Law of Continuity). It is also an essential element of Charles Darwin’s treatment of natural selection in his Origin of Species. ... “The principle expresses the idea that natural things and properties change gradually, rather than suddenly. In a mathematical context, this allows one to assume that the governing equations are continuous, and also differentiable to some degree. Modern day quantum mechanics is sometimes seen as violating the principle, with its idea of a quantum leap. Erwin Schrödinger in his objections to quantum jumps supported the principle.” – Wikipedia Science literally claims that existence jumps out of non-existence, that observable events jump out of unreal wavefunctions, that life jumps out of lifeless atoms, that mind jumps out of mindless atoms, that consciousness jumps out of things with no glimmer of consciousness, and so on. All of this is absurd. Leibniz was absolutely right that nature makes no abrupt, discontinuous leaps. As for “quantum jumps”, this is yet another scientific misinterpretation. If quantum events are explained correctly, in rationalist terms, no such jumps take place, just as Schrödinger insisted.

The Choice Science = empiricism. Mathematics = rationalism. Science is nothing without mathematics. Mathematics has no need of science. Well, which is right and which is wrong? Which is more fundamental? Which is phenomenal and which is noumenal? Are you a scientist or a mathematician?

The Planck Constant When Max Planck discovered Planck’s constant, one of the defining elements of quantum theory, he had no idea what it meant. He simply knew that it worked. He fiddled with a formula until it fitted the experimental

data, and Planck’s constant was an ad hoc factor he was forced to insert into his formula to get the right answer. He used no analysis and had no idea what his formula implied ontologically. It was all just a guess, followed by a process of trial and error. Thanks to the experimental data, he knew what was required, and he simply kept going until he had a formula that agreed with experiment, even though he had no idea what it meant. This continues to be how science operates. Scientists have no idea what they’re doing, but they do at least have the experimental results which their hypotheses must fit, and they make them fit no matter what, regardless of their understanding, or rather misunderstanding, of what they are doing. Should this ad hoc, crowbar exercise really be dignified with the name “science”? Should anyone consider it “rational”?

***** “Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, ‘faith’ interpreted as being similar to ‘having a working hypothesis’. For example the causality principle isn’t true or false, it is an act of faith.” – Wikipedia So, is the acceptance of causation an act of “faith”? Or an act of complete rationalism? Unfortunately, scientists, as empiricists, are natural enemies of rationalism. Causation cannot be perceived – it’s not empirical – so scientists are inclined to dispense with it. And that’s totally irrational. Causation is the most fundamental thing of all. It’s pure math!

The Misinterpretation The whole of the Copenhagen misinterpretation of quantum mechanics flows from an insistence on empiricism over rationalism. Copenhagen quantum mechanics flows directly from the refusal of scientific empiricist materialists to accept the ontological reality of imaginary and complex numbers, and thus to refuse to accept that the universe is mathematical, metaphysical and rationalist rather than scientific, physical and empiricist. For science ever to be proved “true”, it would in fact have to prove that rationalism is false. Only a madman would set out to show that reason cannot be correct, yet that, in effect, is what scientists strive to do every time they mindlessly turn to empiricism and the scientific method.

Are You Buying? “Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy.” – William Blake The God Series is entirely ignored by all but a handful of audacious souls with open minds. You should always be proud of yourself if you study new ideas without being told to do so by popes, priests, gurus, celebrities, “authorities”, or the mob. The vast majority of scientists would never dream of reading the God Series. Yet they would all read it if Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins told them to. They are little sheep. Most people in the world belong to flocks and herds. Don’t follow the crowd. Think for yourself.

The Answer Do you want the answer to existence? Do you think your beliefs and feelings will reveal it to you? Do you think your mystical intuitions and meditations will reveal it to you? Do you think your senses will reveal it to you? Or will it be your reason that reveals it to you? Everyone should think extremely hard about the form in which they imagine the final, unarguable, definitive, infallible answer to existence will be presented to them. If a being calling himself “God” appeared, and performed a few “miracles”, would that constitute the unarguable answer to existence? Does a “holy” book written by a bearded prophet who dreamt of an angel constitute the self-evident answer? Why is faith required if the answer is incontestable? If you meditate long and well enough, will that do the trick? If you feel a tremendous surge of love, will that provide the infallible answer? Will scientific speculations about arbitrary 1D “strings” vibrating in an arbitrary 11D universe satisfy every conceivable doubt? Or must the answer be something closed, analytic, complete, consistent, which perfectly obeys the principle of sufficient reason, and can be expressed in a single, all-powerful, all-defining, ubiquitous, eternal, immutable, Platonic mathematical formula?

Only the final choice offers an answer that could ever genuinely be regarded as the authentic Final Solution. Everything else is literally arbitrary nonsense, based on fallible opinions, beliefs, hypotheses, conjectures and hypotheses, none of which could ever, under any circumstances, be beyond challenge and doubt. If you think reality has an answer – and of course it does – you must first of all consider not what it is, but what form it must have in order even to qualify as a possible candidate. Mathematics alone offers the perfection, precision, completeness, consistency, logic, reason, universality, deductiveness and necessity upon which existence must be predicated. Only mathematics has the eternal, analytic, a priori character demanded of the infallible Final Answer to Everything Forever. Abrahamists intuited the right answer when they looked to eternal perfection as the answer to everything. The answer must indeed be perfect. However, they ruined everything when they claimed that perfection resides in an eternally perfect being (“God”). In fact, perfection resides in only one place: the God Equation. Mathematics, not God, is eternal perfection. 1 + 1 = 2 is as perfect as it gets. It’s infinitely truer than every religion, philosophy and science put together. Mainstream religion has, more or less, zero truth content. Philosophy is true only where it’s logical and rational. Of religion, philosophy and science, science is humanity’s most successful way of understanding the world for one reason alone: it’s the subject with the highest mathematical content. However, there is a subject with infinitely higher mathematical content than science: mathematics itself! Religion was the precursor of philosophy, and philosophy was the precursor of science. For humanity to progress, it must now grasp that science is the precursor of ontological mathematics, that physics is the precursor of metaphysics. Amazingly, metaphysics (ontological mathematics) is the rational basis of religion, and thus we come full circle: from irrational to rational religion, via atheistic and nihilistic science. Humanity has always been right that the universe has a religious dimension. Where it went wrong was conceiving of religion in terms of perfect beings (Gods) rather than in terms of a perfect system: ontological mathematics. It was a dialectically inevitable mistake. You must always start with a simple understanding of something before evolving a true understanding of it. That’s the way the dialectic works. The answer evolves

through a huge iterative clash of thesis and antithesis until all of the errors, beliefs, opinions, guesses, and contradictions are eliminated – in ontological mathematics. This is the only perfect system, the only complete, consistent and rational system. Humanity anthropomorphized mathematics. It turned mathematical perfection into a perfect being, which it then worshipped. Instead, it needs to unanthropomorphize “God” and regard “him” as a God Equation that must be understood and utilized, not worshipped. Here is humanity’s dialectical trajectory: 1) Mainstream religion: faith, Mythos, feelings, mystical intuitions, irrationalism. 2) Philosophy: religion with a much more skeptical and rational approach, but lacking any precise system in which to express itself. 3) Science: philosophy with two systematic, but contradictory, methods attached: the scientific method (empiricism) and the mathematical method (rationalism). 4) Ontological mathematics: science with the scientific method relegated to the study of empirical, phenomenal mathematics only, and the mathematical method used to study noumenal, metaphysical reality: ultimate existence itself, i.e. the very thing that religion sought to understand. Ontological mathematics is religion, philosophy and science transmuted into a perfect, unified, closed, analytic, a priori, deductive, logical, complete and consistent rational system. Can you see that there is nowhere left to go after ontological mathematics? We have truly reached the end of the line. Humanity has arrived at its intellectual Omega Point, providing the platform for us to become Gods! It’s rationally, evolutionarily and dialectically mandatory for humanity to become literate in ontological mathematics. This is the last step in the journey to divinity. Scientific materialism is now the great, irrational, sensory, atheistic obstacle to human progress. It’s the final barrier that rational, intelligent, enlightened people must overcome. You’re crazy if you think the answer to everything is about feelings (love and faith).

You’re crazy if you think the answer to everything is a superbeing called “God” (Abrahamism). You’re crazy if you think the answer to everything is mystical and meditative (“Eastern” intuition). You’re crazy if you think the answer to everything is sensory and empirical, literally something you can physically look at (science). You’re fully sane if you think the answer to everything is logical, rational, mathematical and intellectual. It’s time for the Death of Science and the Birth of Ontological Mathematics. Empiricism has failed. Only rationalism can deliver us. The Road to Divinity, the Road to Eternal Light, the Road to the Pleroma, is a rational road, the Road of Reason, the Road of Ontological Mathematics. The Principle of Sufficient Reason = Ontological Mathematics. Ontological Reason = Ontological Mathematics.

Reason = Math