Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason

By Mike Hockney

A book attacking the ideology of Richard Dawkins is invariably assumed to be a defence of religious faith. Nothing could be further from the truth in this case. This book equates faith with insanity. Instead, it argues that we live in the hyperrational reality of ontological mathematics. We attack the scientific dogma of Dawkins and his fellow travellers for being incompatible with ontological mathematics, and, in fact, constituting a quasi-religious (hence mad) faith in empiricism, materialism, randomness and meaninglessness (nihilism), all of which are refuted by ontological mathematics, which reflects the principle of sufficient reason. Are you rational enough for the truth? Are you intelligent enough to be an ontological mathematician? Many are called, few are chosen.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Mike Hockney
• Release date: May 1, 2016
• ISBN: 9781310642555

Mike Hockney

Mike Hockney invites you to play the God Game. Are you ready to transform yourself? Are you ready to be one of the Special Ones, the Illuminated Ones? Are you ready to play the Ultimate Game? Only the strongest, the smartest, the boldest, can play. This is not a drill. This is your life. Stop being what you have been. Become what you were meant to be. See the Light. Join the Hyperboreans. Become a HyperHuman, an UltraHuman. Only the highest, only the noblest, only the most courageous are called. A new dawn is coming... the birth of Hyperreason. It's time for HyperHumanity to enter HyperReality.

Book preview

Introduction

Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the shithouse. – Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism

The world has waged Total War against reason. Nothing has fewer friends than reason. It stands alone in the corner, cold and shunned, reviled by all.

Religion has always dreaded reason, knowing that it’s staring at its own inevitable replacement. The soft-minded New Age gurus proclaim that Love stands at the centre of existence. Not one of them says that Reason is the root of all, the Source, the sine qua non. The entertainment industry would rather perish than base anything on reason rather than emotion. Capitalism bypasses the rational mind completely and heads straight for the most primitive part of the human – the reptilian brain stem. Not once has an advertisement been about reason and intellect.

Reason was in fact the final gift conferred on humanity. The last thing in Pandora’s Box was named Hope, but in truth it was Reason, since that is humanity’s greatest hope, the sole means to dispel all the darkness and horror that has afflicted the human race.

The Coming Race of Higher Humanity – those that will rule this world as Gods – will be the enlightened people of reason, not those of love or faith.

Mathematics, the most hated and feared subject on earth, is the standard bearer of reason. Mathematics, not to point too fine a point on it, is the Mind of God. We live in a perfect mathematical universe, without a single flaw.

If the universe contained even one error, it could not exist. A mistake in the cosmos would spread like an uncontainable virus, like an out-of-control chain reaction, like the biggest atomic bomb ever. This would not be a Big Bang that makes the universe, but, rather, unmakes it.

Mathematics alone can furnish perfection. Mathematics, you see, is perfection. Any definition of perfection must conclude as a statement of pure mathematics.

There’s one subject that you might expect to be the greatest ally of mathematics – science. Yet that’s not the case. Science stands condemned as the most spectacular traitor. It has repudiated reason. If religion is all about feelings, science is all about the senses. Neither is about reason. Mathematics, however, is nothing but reason. No feelings come to the mathematical party, and mathematics is in no need of any scientific experiments, or any input from the deceptive senses, which are the agents of Maya = illusion.

Science has long rejected metaphysics, but here’s the most astounding fact about metaphysics: its true language is mathematics. Mathematics, hence metaphysics, is at the heart of modern science, so much so that science without mathematics is inconceivable. Yet mathematics is an analytic, a priori, rationalist, deductive subject that has nothing to do with the synthetic, a posteriori, empiricist, inductive method of science. To put it another way, mathematics is the opposite of the scientific method, yet science could not function without mathematics.

What is the real meaning of this extraordinary contradiction? It’s that physics, despite its protestations, is entirely dependent on metaphysics. Physical mathematics (empiricism) is underpinned by ontological mathematics (rationalism). Physics is sensible, mathematics intelligible. Physics is phenomenal, mathematics noumenal. Science can’t admit to any of this since it religiously worships its method, and its method has nothing to do with the mathematical method, apart from being its opposite!

The Popes long ago surrendered their triple crown of Unreason (no one listens to them anymore). Incredibly, it has been picked up by the scientific materialists. Richard Dawkins is now the Pope of Unreason. The Catholic Popes were no friends of mathematics, and nor is Richard Dawkins, despite his claims to the contrary. You must choose either science or mathematics. You can’t have both since their methods have nothing in common.

This book is about the most damaging war fought in intellectual history. The war is not between science and religion (since religion isn’t intellectual at all), but between science and mathematics, between sensible physics and intelligible metaphysics.

The world cannot evolve until science has been put in its place, as the servant of mathematics, as a rather minor branch of applied mathematics dealing with sensory, phenomenal things. Physics must acknowledge a more fundamental reality, that of metaphysics, i.e. of ontological, noumenal mathematics.

God = Math

Men, Descartes argued, know that they are imperfect yet find in their minds an idea of supreme perfection. Whence this idea? Descartes deployed a principle that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect. If we – imperfect beings – have a notion of perfection, it cannot, Descartes said, have originated within us. It must, therefore, have its source outside us, in something genuinely perfect: God.

Of course, God is not the only entity that lays claim to eternal, immutable perfection. Ontological mathematics does too. Descartes’ whole argument can be redeployed to validate the existence of perfect mathematics, not of a perfect Christian God. Ontological mathematics – of which we are all in fact constituted – is the true source of our idea of perfection.

Humanity’s greatest problem is that it has conceived of God as a perfect person rather than as a perfect system of mathematics. An eternal world absolutely needs eternal perfection (it can’t exist without it), but this perfection cannot reside in an eternally perfect being, only in an eternally perfect system.

People have taken the idea of a perfect being and applied it to their own situations for their own purposes. The Jews called themselves the Chosen People, the people of the Covenant, and claimed that the one who chose them was the perfect Creator of the whole universe, who had rather prosaically promised them a barren land owned and occupied by others (the Canaanites). Why didn’t he create a brand new planet for them – a paradise of milk and honey – Planet Jew, shall we say? Isn’t that what a real God who had authentically chosen the Jews would have done? What sort of God chooses the Jews and then abandons them to the Nazi Holocaust, especially having previously delivered them from bondage in Egypt? Talk about a bad legal contract. The Jews, as the archetypal lawyer race, sure got screwed on that one!

Religion makes perfect sense as soon as you remove any personification, reification or anthropomorphication from God, and redefine him (it!) as perfect ontological mathematics. No one is required to kneel to math and slavishly worship math, to fear eternal hell if they don’t do math’s bidding! No one needs math to die for them on a cross.

Humanity cannot evolve until it gets rid of the idea of God as a person with any interest at all in people. In truth, we ourselves are the race of Gods. We are far from perfect right now but we are all mathematically capable of becoming perfect and then we truly shall be Gods.

Why does humanity want God to be a person? It’s because only a being can care for them, and only a being can punish others. Only a being can deliver heaven for the righteous and hell for the wicked, paradise for the Elect and the inferno for the Damned. Math, on the other hand, doesn’t care a jot for anyone. Like the Aristotelian God, it contemplates only itself, its own perfection.

Humans are driven by their feelings, and their feeling are most manifest in their relationships with others. You can’t emotionally relate to a system such as ontological mathematics. You can only admire (if you’re smart enough) its infinite, austere perfection.

Mythos – story logic – is the perfect way for feeling types to understand the world, which is why stories feature so heavily in religion, while, in mathematics, science, philosophy, physics, and metaphysics, they are almost wholly absent. The latter all belong to Logos, and feeling types cannot abide Logos.

Modern religion is just a replay of ancient animism on an infinitely grander scale. Rather than individual rocks and trees being associated with a personality and will, the ancients conceived the entire universe in these terms.

It’s one thing to say that the universe is inherently mental and alive, it’s quite another to say that this life and mind originate in a single, eternal, all-powerful superbeing. As soon as this step is taken, religion collapses into madness and evil because it becomes a projection of fanatical human beliefs, desires and feelings. That’s why Jewish monotheism is the worst idea – the most evil idea – in human history.

The idea of a perfect Creator Superbeing must be eradicated before humanity can evolve. There’s no such being and there never can be. It’s a wholly false doctrine.

Logos must replace Mythos. Humanity must turn to reason rather than feelings. Feelings will always have a place, but they must be subordinated to reason. This is humanity’s destined evolutionary trajectory.

Feeling types, with their Mythos nonsense, have ruled this world for too long. Now it’s time for the Enlightenment, for the rule of Reason.

The Triune Brain

"The triune brain is a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behaviour proposed by the American physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean. MacLean originally formulated his model in the 1960s and propounded it at length in his 1990 book The Triune Brain in Evolution. The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution." – Wikipedia

Animals began as creatures of pure will and instinct – as reptiles, we might say. Higher animals then evolved a limbic system, which brought sophisticated feelings into play. The limbic system allowed animals to feel a sophisticated spectrum of pleasure and pain, and to pursue a broad policy of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. All lower mammals and most humans are ruled by their limbic system, which can harness the reptilian brain stem. Religion and Mythos ultimately originate in the limbic system. The highest humans, however, are those who make heavy use of the latest evolutionary development – the neocortex. This is the source of Logos. Where Limbic people proclaim the virtues of love, Neocortex people look to reason. These are entirely different worldviews.

It’s humanity’s destiny for Neocortex (Logos) Humanity to succeed and replace Limbic (Mythos) Humanity.

Mythos humans are drawn to religion, entertainment, soap operas, Hollywood, fiction, feelings and faith. Logos humans are drawn to mathematics, science, philosophy, metaphysics, fact, evidence and proof.

Mythos humanity circles the Kaaba seven times then kneels en masse to an imaginary being. Logos humanity lands men on the moon. We have no future as a Mythos species. It’s Logos or extinction. The choice is yours. Survival of the human species is not compulsory.

Cause and Effect

Descartes proposed the powerful argument that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect. This seems self-evident. After all, how could an effect have more reality than what caused it? How could extra reality be added to the effect if it were not present in the cause? That would mean it had appeared by magic, or was caused by something else, in which case the same argument would still apply.

By itself, this principle refutes the entire Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this absurd interpretation, an unreal wavefunction collapses to produce real effects, i.e. effects have more reality than their causes – a logical impossibility.

Only an empiricist with absolute contempt for rationalism could ever make effects more real than causes. An effect is empirical. A cause is not. A cause is rational, noumenal and, as David Hume pointed out so devastatingly, cannot be perceived (hence cannot form any part of empirical science). Empiricists simply can’t bring themselves to acknowledge a real, causal, unobservable domain.

Nearly every principle associated with quantum mechanics is false, stemming from an obsession with interpreting this subject empirically rather than rationally. Given that causality cannot be perceived (it’s unobservable), is it any surprise that science – based on observables – has finally got rid of it and declared that ultimate reality is instead random, indeterministic and probabilistic?

Causation is the supreme hidden variable, but hidden variables were exactly what the Copenhagen school most strenuously opposed, so, insanely, they renounced causation. Thus they made science perform the most incredible volte-face in intellectual history. Science went from being totally deterministic to totally indeterministic. Why? Because science is empiricist, and the logic of empiricism, as Hume understood, is to deny causation. Causation is a strictly rationalist, metaphysical, and, finally, mathematical concept.

*****

Cause and effect must have exactly the same degree of reality. An effect can’t have less reality than its cause, and definitely can’t have more reality, as the science community insists with its ludicrous randomist ideology.

A corollary is that random causes can have only random effects, and so no order could ever appear in such a system, in contradiction of the ideology of modern science in which randomness miraculously produces the deterministic universe we encounter and experience.

A rational cause must have a rational effect. A deterministic cause must have a deterministic effect. An irrational cause must have an irrational effect. An indeterministic cause must have an indeterministic effect. A cause for which no sufficient reason can be given must have an effect for which no sufficient reason can be given. An inexplicable wavefunction collapse (cause), for example, must have an inexplicable wavefunction effect, hence indeterministic wavefunction collapse can play no part in true quantum mechanics, associated with the ordered world we find ourselves in.

An indeterministic cause cannot have a deterministic effect, by rational definition. Nor can a deterministic cause have an indeterministic effect. A rational cause cannot have an irrational effect. An irrational cause cannot have a rational effect. Cause and effect must always belong to the same category. Otherwise, a blatant category error applies – as in an indeterministic version of quantum mechanics being proposed as the ground of the classical determinism we encounter in the macroscopic world.

To say, as science does, that indeterminism underlies determinism is ridiculous. It’s irrational. Sadly, scientists have an extreme problem with rationality. Philosophically, science increasingly resembles an expression of David Hume’s extreme empiricism and skepticism. Yet, at exactly the same time, science is becoming more and more mathematical, and mathematics is the quintessence of rationalism.

There is not a single scientist alive today who attempts to account for why science espouses empiricism (via its scientific method), yet is meaningless without mathematics (rationalism). How can any thinking person endure such a blatant and fatal contradiction?

In case you’re not up to speed with the ideology of quantum mechanics, it is claimed that the quantum mechanical wavefunction is completely deterministic, but unreal, and it collapses indeterministically to generate observable, empirical reality. If you think this makes any sense, you are not rational. Unreality cannot underpin reality. Determinism cannot be the source of indeterminism. Unreal causes cannot produced real effects. Yet these are exactly the irrational claims made by contemporary scientists.

What is the central problem facing science? It’s a purely philosophical issue – how to marry the scientific method (empiricism) with mathematics (rationalism). Scientists, because they are philosophical ignoramuses, have entirely failed to address this issue.

The Copenhagen school came up with the crazy formula that mathematics belongs to an unreal order, and the scientific method to a real order. The problem is extremely easily resolved: mathematics is the real order but is metaphysical (noumenal), while science is its phenomenal expression.

The true way to understand quantum mechanics is that mathematics is true reality (reality in itself), while the observable world is the appearance of the underlying mathematics. This is the rationalist, deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, which makes mathematics primary and the scientific method secondary.

The crazy way to understand quantum mechanics is the one taken by science. Science says that mathematics is unreal and observable reality real (not appearance).

To put it another way, deterministic quantum mechanics asserts that mathematics is noumenal and the observable world phenomenal (this view is formally metaphysical, idealist and rationalist).

Indeterministic quantum mechanics asserts that there’s no such distinction as noumenal versus phenomenal. Only that which can be observed is real, it says, and since anything noumenal cannot be observed, it cannot be real. So, this approach to quantum mechanics denies the metaphysical distinction between noumena (hidden variables) and phenomena (observable variables). However, because science cannot dispense with mathematics, it has to introduce a radically different distinction, namely, reality versus unreality.

Where deterministic quantum mechanics says that real noumena (actual reality) underlie the appearance of noumena (i.e. phenomena = how reality appears to us, but not how it is in itself), indeterministic quantum mechanics says that unreal wavefunctions underlie actual reality, and unreality collapses into reality for no reason.

These two views reflect the difference between the philosophies of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism says that true reality is unseen – it’s noumenal, metaphysical and mathematical. Empiricism says that true reality is seen – it’s physical and scientific, and anything unseen cannot be real.

It’s all a question of ontology, i.e. of what truly exists. Rationalism says that ontological mathematics – total rationalism – is what truly exists. If you removed all phenomena (appearances), you would encounter reality in itself, and it would be strictly mathematical. Empiricism says that if you removed the observable world, you would remove reality itself, i.e. there’s no unobservable ontology.

You therefore have an extremely simple question to ask yourself. Is true reality seen or unseen? If true reality is unseen, we can underpin the world of appearances with an absolute, perfect, rational mathematical order. If true reality is seen, as science claims, then the unseen order that underpins it (e.g. the quantum mechanical wavefunction), is not real. This is exactly what the Copenhagen school claimed. They said that an unreal mathematical order (consisting of unobservable wavefunctions) lay underneath reality.

Because causation cannot be observed, it also belongs to unreality, hence all that remains, in the Copenhagen view, is for an unreal, unobservable quantum mechanical wavefunction to collapse randomly (without any cause) to generate reality.

That, believe it or not, is the central claim of science. All hidden variables = noumena = ontological mathematics = minds = causation = rationalism, have been consigned to unreality, leaving nothing but indeterminism and acausality as the basis of reality.

Scientists say that the deterministic macroscopic world emerged from microscopic indeterminism, that reality is underpinned by unreality, that the universe was produced by a random fluctuation in nothing, that genes randomly mutate, and so on. Are you buying it? If you are, you’re totally irrational. There’s an easy, wholly rational way out – to accept that true reality is mathematical, not scientific, to accept that mathematics defines ontology, i.e. what truly exists. If you accept this, you ipso facto accept that existence has an answer. If you don’t accept it, you are saying that existence has no answer and is grounded in unreality – in irrationalism, magic, mystery, opinion, conjecture and faith.

That, logically, is the position held by Richard Dawkins and his cohorts. It’s a religious position, not a position consistent with reason.

It all comes down to the status of the scientific method. In ontological mathematics, the scientific method concerns phenomena, not noumena. Experiments do not, and never can, reveal true reality, which is always hidden from our senses, but not from our reason. It’s intelligible, not sensible. Therefore, the scientific method cannot show us true reality. For scientists, however, the scientific method is their God. Without it, they are lost; their faith is destroyed.

For scientists, things are real only to the extent that the scientific method says so. Anything not amenable to the scientific method – including causation, determinism, ontological mathematics, metaphysics and rationalism – is consigned to unreality. But that’s insane. Unreality, by definition, doesn’t exist, so no one, especially not an empiricist, can use it to underpin observable reality! Incredibly, this is exactly the mad ground on which science, and people like Richard Dawkins, now proudly stand. Science is a formally irrationalist subject, and all scientists are irrational. Their claims concerning ultimate reality are lunatic claims. As soon as any scientist strays beyond phenomena, he ceases to say anything that makes any sense at all. That’s a rational fact.

If you haven’t already grasped it, science isn’t science, it’s philosophy. Specifically, it’s empiricist philosophy with a method attached – the scientific method – and the method defines the philosophy, i.e. only things amenable to the method are regarded as real, and everything else is dismissed as unreal, including mathematics, although science without mathematics is unthinkable. How can something defined as unreal be at the core of something that purports to be about reality? How can an unreal wavefunction underpin observable reality? It’s nonsensical.

Science is a philosophy that refuses to call itself a philosophy, and which rejects all philosophical challenges to the empiricist philosophical claims it makes. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is nothing to do with real science and is instead all about empiricist philosophy. Like a religion, science refuses to engage with any critics, with any heretics or apostates, with any infidels or freethinkers. This makes it an irrationalist quasi-religion.

It’s a Church, the Church of Empiricism, and Richard Dawkins is its pope, the Pope of Unreason.

The Soul

With regard to science, the soul has exactly the same status as mathematics. It’s a hidden variable, a noumenon, a non-empirical entity that cannot be directly observed under any circumstances. No Large Hadron Collider can detect the soul, just as no Large Hadron Collider can detect mathematics in itself. The reason, in each case, is exactly the same. The soul – the mathematical monad (singularity) – is mathematics. Mathematics exists as monads. These are autonomous frequency domains defined by the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). Monads are the noumenal basis of mind, matter, religion, metaphysics, physics and psychology. They are the unseen reality that underpins the world of observables, of appearances. Monads are the agents of causation, determinism and rationalism. As uncaused first causes, they are also the basis of free will, i.e. they can initiate their own causal chains without reference to anything else.

The soul is a totally rationalist, mathematical entity that underlies everything. Leibniz wrote all about the soul as the basis of reality in his Monadology, some three hundred years ago! Monads, defined by the generalised Euler Formula and reflecting Fourier mathematics, must now be regarded as the hidden variables that Einstein sought in order to make quantum mechanics deterministic rather than indeterministic. Without monads, there’s only madness. Without monads, science rejects determinism, rationalism, causation and ontological mathematics and makes the deranged and impossible claim that reality is underpinned by unreality – whatever that is! With monads, science can become an analytic, hyperrationalist subject with a precise mathematical answer.

The soul – the true soul – is nothing to do with God, or faith, or mainstream religion, or Mythos. It’s the transcendent, immanent, noumenal basis of reality. It’s zero and infinity – the singularity. It’s pure math – the most mathematical object you can possibly get. And it’s alive! It’s a dimensionless mind, an autonomous Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. It’s immortal and indestructible.

It’s all in the math!

Far from being the most irrational and fantastical entity conceivable, as Dawkins would claim, the soul is reason itself – pure mathematical reason with a precise analytic equation. The soul, far from being vague and mystical, is the most well-defined entity there can possibly be, and everything else is a consequence of it, exactly as Leibniz realised so long ago, and Pythagoras much earlier than that – an astonishing two and half thousand years ago, in the Golden Age before Christianity darkened the minds of men.

What is reality? Science says that science itself is reality, underpinned by unreal mathematical wavefunctions that collapse inexplicably and indeterministically. Ontological mathematics says that mathematics itself is reality, and science is its phenomenal expression. Science is the appearance of mathematics while mathematics is reality in itself. Mathematics is 100% deterministic. There is no magical, miraculous collapse of anything, just the unfolding of a cosmic mathematical equation with infinite autonomous nodes (monads). Monads explain everything. There is nothing else.

If you are rational, you will accept the truth of noumenal, ontological mathematics, wholly beyond the reach of the scientific method, yet underpinning every single observable thing. If you are irrational, you will accept randomist, indeterministic, acausal science. You will worship the scientific method like a true believer, you will subscribe to seeing is believing, you will irrationally accept absence of evidence as evidence of absence, you will reject all hidden variables and rational unobservables, you will reject the ontology of mathematics, and you will especially reject the soul – the basic unit (monad) of ontological mathematics, the Fourier frequency domain, the immaterial, analytic singularity beyond space and time.

No one forces you to worship science and its method. Reason explicitly instructs you not to. If, like Richard Dawkins, you go on believing, it’s because you are an enemy of reason, just like all the crazy Abrahamists and Karmists.

Absolutely nothing is more irrational than to claim that existence randomly sprang out of nothing, that unreality is the ground of reality, that reality is fundamentally indeterministic, that mathematics isn’t real despite being the engine of science, that genes randomly mutate, and so on, i.e. nothing is more irrational than to agree with the worldview of Richard Dawkins. Even God offers a more rational explanation of reality than scientific randomness.

Scientists have become the least rational people of all – and all because they refuse to accept the ontology of mathematics. Mathematics is the arche – the ground of existence – that which defines all. To oppose ontological mathematics is to oppose reason itself.

No one forced scientists to be empiricists. They chose that as their philosophy. Reason didn’t guide them there; their sensory obsession did. Empiricists reject rationalism, and that’s identical to rejecting the ontology of mathematics since it’s ontological mathematics that constitutes pure reason.

*****

The mathematical soul (monad) = noumenon. The world produced by monads = the observable world of phenomena. Souls (immaterial frequency singularities) produce the material, spacetime domain via Fourier mathematics. That’s it. That’s the mathematical, rational explanation of reality. It’s not so hard to accept, is it?

Perfect Existence

In the Fifth Meditation, Descartes argues that God’s existence follows from the fact that existence is contained in the true and immutable essence, nature, or form of a supremely perfect being. Existence can no more be separated from the concept of a supremely perfect being than can the fact, regarding a triangle, that its angles must equal two right angles. That’s its essence.

Descartes is absolutely right that existence cannot be separated from perfection. He’s absolutely wrong that perfection means the Christian God, or any God. Only mathematics is perfect.

Perfection exists objectively in monads, the basic units of ontological mathematics. Monads are not of course perfect subjectively, only objectively. Subjectively, monads start off (at the beginning of a cosmic cycle) in a state of absolute potential and then, through dialectical evolution, achieve absolute actualisation, at which point the objective and subjective are brought into perfect alignment, into perfect symmetry. This constitutes the end of a cosmic cycle.

Only perfection necessarily exists. All other existence results from these perfections.

All of the classic ontological arguments of medieval philosophy were basically correct. Their only error was to conceive of God in terms of a being rather than in terms of ontological mathematics. If you simply replace all references to the perfection and necessary existence of God with references to the perfection and necessary existence of ontological mathematics, all of the ontological arguments become valid.

Platonic mathematical Forms are eternally perfect, but no person is eternally perfect. All monadic persons begin as perfect potential (alpha) and evolve, through eons of imperfection, to perfect actualisation (omega). The perfection of a person – his apotheosis – results from evolution. No person starts off perfectly actualised, so there is no perfect God (when conceived as a person rather than as a mathematical system).

Humanity has, throughout history, confused the real perfection of ontological mathematics with the imaginary perfection of God. All Gods are evolutionary, hence do not belong to the category of eternal perfection. Only ontological mathematics does, and its perfection is conveyed by myriad mathematically perfect monads. To qualify this statement, they are perfect as regards form, but not as regards content. Their form is immutable (it’s eternally defined by the flawless God equation); their content does nothing but change – from potential to actualisation.

God is humanity’s Mythos interpretation of ontological mathematics; it’s humanity’s feelings, beliefs and desires projected onto ontological mathematics, turning it into a person rather than a system. It’s ontological mathematics reified, personified and anthropomorphized. Logos Humanity can correct this catastrophic error and understand that there is no perfect Being, only perfect Becomings – self-optimising monads. They are already perfect in objective form (this is Aristotelian logical perfection), and they must become subjectively perfect in content (via Hegelian dialectical logic).

The culmination of the dialectic is when form and content perfectly coincide, when Hegelian dialectical, living logic (of content) has been merged with Aristotelian analytic logic (of form), when objectivity and subjectivity unite, when objective reason and subjective reason are one and the same, when perfect symmetry is attained.

Where did humanity go wrong in its thinking? First, it was driven by feelings rather than reason (as in religion). Second, it was driven by the senses rather than reason (as in science). Humanity must be driven by reason alone – by rationalism, by math.

There are not multiple paths to the truth. There’s only one – reason – and reason is fundamentally about mathematics. Historically, rationalism is associated with philosophy, but it should be understood strictly in terms of ontological mathematics. All the rationalist philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, and Gödel, were all profoundly mathematical in their views.

Rational Perfection

A rational universe is a rationally perfect universe. It’s perfect ontologically and epistemologically. It’s Platonically perfect. It’s a universe of ontological mathematics, the science of perfection.

An irrational universe is a universe of cosmic chaos, randomness and indeterminacy. Modern scientists claim that the universe is fundamentally of this nature. No one has ever plausibly explained how inherent randomness can produce the ordered cosmos we actually encounter. Given the size of the universe and the number of particles it contains, why aren’t fantastically implausible and improbable, yet possible, things happening all the time? They are simply never observed in the macroscopic world. We live in a universe that is without doubt 100% causal and deterministic – mathematically causal and deterministic. Mathematical causality involves complex numbers, zero and infinity, not positive real numbers only, as science fallaciously believes.

Existence is the ultimate perfection and only perfect things can necessarily exist. All imperfect existence is contingent, not necessary. Imperfection, in terms of fundamental ontology, is inconsistent, incomplete, contradictory, fallacious, flawed, in error, unstable and impossible. Any contradiction, error, lack, need, defect, insufficiency or instability instantly destroys any potential candidate for necessary existence (it renders its existence formally, rationally, logically, impossible).

The only thing that can survive every stress and strain is perfection. It endures eternally. Mathematical perfection is the sole thing so immutably stable it can exist forever.

The History of Anti-Intellectualism

It’s impossible to understand how science became so irrational without first understanding the irrational enemy that was so vital in defining it – religion. Science should have been about reason, but, instead, it chose to be a crude reaction and retort to religion, and that drove it down a catastrophic atheistic path.

Had it not been for religion, science would have become what Leibniz always thought it should be: a union of the empirical and rational, of the physical and metaphysical, with the rational and metaphysical being the dominant partners.

*****

Abrahamists believe that if reason contradicts faith, it’s reason that’s wrong. You cannot be a believer if you assert that reason must always be given primacy.

Abrahamists typically speak of God’s Truth (revelation) versus man’s reason (science, mathematics, philosophy). The former is regarded as infallible, the latter as distinctly fallible. So, if the Torah, Bible or Koran says one thing (infallible, divine revelation) then it must be right, and if science, mathematics or philosophy says anything that disagrees, it must be wrong, reflecting, allegedly, the weakness of human reason.

Abrahamists never consider that their own holy texts are written by men, hence are beset by the flaws of human reason and are thus completely unreliable. They insist that God wrote them directly, or inspired chosen men with long beards (prophets) to state verbatim what he had in mind.

That’s a faith position, one that refuses to be rationally contradicted. That’s the attitude that underpins Creationism (i.e. the belief that what the Book of Genesis says about the origins of the world is literally true). Logically, all Abrahamists ought to be Creationists. After all, if they don’t accept that their holy texts are infallible, why do they go on believing?

You can regard holy texts as either literal or metaphorical. If you believe they are literal, you are saying that they do not contain a single error since they are the infallible words of an infallible God. However, if you believe they are metaphorical, you are then faced with explaining why God chooses to talk in riddles, parables, allusions, and codes rather than simply stating the unarguable truth.

Why does God communicate obliquely rather than directly, metaphorically rather than literally, in code rather than plainly, confusingly rather than clearly, ambiguously rather than straightforwardly? Why is God so poor at communication, and why does he choose a metaphorical technique guaranteed to cause disagreement and confusion over interpretation? No confusion at all applies to the God Equation, or anything mathematical.

Those who regard holy texts as metaphorical are having their cake and eating it. They like religious belief, but they acknowledge that their holy texts are full of errors. They explain this away by saying that the errors aren’t errors at all because they’re actually metaphors, not intended to be taken as literal truths.

So, is the whole of any holy text a metaphor, or just the parts that contain proven errors? Why would God sometimes communicate literally and sometimes metaphorically in the same book, and why are the parts that contain errors always to be assumed to be the metaphorical parts? Why does God switch from one mode to the other and then back again, and why does he not make it clear when he is being literal and when metaphorical?

Realistically, you have to accept the whole of a holy text as literally true, or none of it all, i.e. it’s all pure metaphor. But if none of the New Testament is literally true and it’s all just metaphor then no one could go on believing in Jesus Christ and his alleged virgin birth, miracles, death on the cross and resurrection (which must all, by this logic, be metaphorical). It’s all just a big fiction designed to communicate some ambiguous metaphorical message, like a coded novel by a medieval writer of Arthurian romances.

Literalists are true believers while Metaphorists are fraudulent believers. They believe when it suits them, and don’t when it doesn’t. The Metaphorists want to play the religious and scientific games, without admitting that it must be one or the other. They have no real values. How dishonest can you get to claim that a holy text is literal where uncontradicted by science and metaphorical where contradicted? Talk about moving the goalposts! The Metaphorists are extremely prone to Orwellian doublethink: simultaneously believing two contradictory things, and switching from one to the other, depending on context.

Mainstream religion is pure Mythos (emotionally compelling narrative, but with no truth content), while science, mathematics and philosophy can, to varying degrees, claim to be Logos (reflecting logic, reason, facts, evidence, proof, but with almost zero emotionally satisfying content).

In life, you will encounter a small number of religious Literalists and many religious Metaphorists, the latter outnumbering the former by around four to one. You will encounter many Mythos people and few Logos people, the former outnumbering the latter, again, by around four to one. You will encounter many people of faith and few of reason. That’s our world. That’s what evolution created.

Where does Richard Dawkins fit into all of this? This book is about showing that the scientific materialism championed by the likes of Dawkins is not in fact rational at all. It does not reflect Logos but an elaborate Mythos. As Nietzsche put it, it’s about description and not explanation. Where religion primarily concerns a Mythos based on feelings (Abrahamism) or mystical intuitions (Eastern religion), scientific materialism is a Mythos based on the senses.

Plato divided reality into two domains: 1) a noumenal, rational, intelligible domain of truth, and 2) a phenomenal, irrational, sensible domain of illusion. The former domain is the authentic Logos domain and is metaphysical, with the proper language of metaphysics being ontological mathematics, i.e. mathematics that truly exists and is not some weird, undefined abstraction or manmade language selectively deployed by humans. Science is all about the illusory, sensory world – the Matrix – and has nothing to say about ultimate reality, which is noumenal, not phenomenal, mathematical, not scientific.

Prominent, popular scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox subscribe to a sensible Mythos but disingenuously claim it’s an intelligible Logos.

We will show why scientific materialism is an irrational quasi-religion, and the people who subscribe to it are believers, not rationalists.

Richard Dawkins, the most militant atheist and most active proselytizer on behalf of atheism, is the leader of the Church of Scientism. He’s the Pope of Unreason. Science is a quasi-religious cult based on a mania with the sensory world and the complete denial of the existence of anything non-sensory. Underneath science lies a whole domain of non-sensory, hidden variables, which are the fundamental units of ontological mathematics. These are Pythagorean-Leibnizian monads, but can also be described as immaterial, dimensionless, Fourier frequency domains (singularities), outside space and time. They are the unobservable source of causation. No experiment can ever detect them, only the highest reason: mathematical reason. The whole of phenomenal reality is simply an expression of their mathematical properties and interactions. They stand at the root of all of the processes of the universe and are 100% rational. They leave no room whatsoever for faith. There is no gap in which God or faith can find any refuge. Ontological mathematics is hyperrationalist and enshrines the principle of sufficient reason: for every fact, there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise.

This book is about the undeclared war between physical mathematics (physics; science) and metaphysical mathematics (ontological mathematics). The former is phenomenal and sensible, the latter noumenal and intelligible. The latter is the basis of the former, although science absolutely denies this. Ontological mathematics fully explains mind, life, the mind-body problem, the unconscious, consciousness, evolution, causality, determinism and the principle of sufficient reason.

Modern science asserts that reality is acausal, indeterministic, random, probabilistic, and it repudiates the principle of sufficient reason. Classical science, in agreement with ontological mathematics, held the exact opposite view. Science has literally gone from being a 100% deterministic system to 100% indeterministic. It’s therefore a formally irrationalist system with a 100% range, i.e. what it says today is white, it might well tell you tomorrow is black. Accordingly, it has zero truth content.

The apparent success of science is not based on truth, epistemology and ontology but on fitting phenomenal models to phenomenal observations (often with a metaphorical crowbar). At no time does noumenal truth come into it.

Richard Dawkins declares Darwinism a fact. Actually, it’s an interpretation. The facts of Darwinian evolution can be interpreted entirely differently. Rather than genetic mutation being random, it can be causal and teleological, driven by Fourier mathematics arising from monads (Fourier frequency singularities).

What we omitted to say about Pythagorean-Leibnizian-Fourier monads is that they are immortal, indestructible, mathematical minds. Normally, they are unconscious, but when they evolve consciousness, they become souls. These are emphatically not religious souls. They are not created. They are not caused. They have no owner or master. They are in no need of God or gods, of faith, of priests, popes, preachers or prophets, of holy texts, of temples, churches, mosques or synagogues. They are rationalist, mathematical souls and they are the explanation of everything.

The war between physical mathematics and metaphysical mathematics came to its head in the titanic struggle between Newton and Leibniz in the seventeenth century. Newton won because he was able to match his mathematical hypotheses (his laws of physics) to experimental data, and Leibniz wasn’t. Yet Leibniz was right all along. The only thing Leibniz lacked was the type of high-level mathematics we have today that had not yet been discovered in his day (in fact, it needed his wondrous innovation of calculus in order to be developed). What Leibniz needed to do was provide a precise mathematical formula for the monads he described in his Monadology. That didn’t become possible until the advent of Euler’s Formula. Next, Leibniz had to explain how monads could mathematically account for bodies. That didn’t become possible until the advent of Fourier mathematics (which can be derived from Euler’s Formula). Ontologically, Fourier mathematics allows immaterial frequency (mental) functions to be represented as material spacetime (physical) functions.

Science has spectacularly failed to produce a final theory of everything (despite the most intensive intellectual effort in history) because it relies on a wholly false ontology. Mind, matter, gravity, quantum mechanics, Einsteinian relativity and holography can all be explained in terms of Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics, and nothing else. These furnish the ontological mathematics that underlies everything, and explains everything.

*****

In response to the question, Why is reality like that?, scientists shrug their shoulders and say, It just is. Now shut up and calculate. Is that an answer any rational person would ever accept, or even allow to pass his lips? It’s an insult to the intelligence.

When Kant declared the noumenal domain unknowable, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel immediately and rightly mocked him. The fact that you can’t answer something doesn’t mean that it can’t be answered. There are much smarter people than you. There are much smarter people than scientists. Ontological mathematics is the highest and most demanding of all intellectual disciplines, for the smartest of the smart only.

The Atheist Delusion

Atheism is the religion (pseudo-religion) associated with the scientific materialist creed. It’s a religion because it’s about faith and is opposed to rationalism. Atheism (scientism) is the faith-based claim that there’s no domain beyond the senses. No facts, evidence, rational arguments or mathematics are used to support this claim. Instead, one must fanatically commit oneself to the irrational, unproven and unprovable ideologies of empiricism and materialism. These assume from the outset that there’s no such thing as dimensionless existence, and so, by definition, no part of atheism can address the possibility of such existence (dimensionless existence comprises points: immaterial, mental, frequency singularities – monads – outside space and time).

Atheism asserts, without a shred of evidence, reason or proof, that anything that cannot be observed cannot exist. In other words, it denies the existence of points (singularities). Absence of sensory evidence is regarded as evidence of ontological absence, even though dimensionless existence is, by definition, inherently impossible to detect with the senses since it’s immaterial and not in space and time.

Abrahamism is a faith-based claim that there is a domain beyond the senses. No facts, evidence, rational arguments or mathematics are used to support this claim. Instead, one must have faith in the Mythos sayings of bearded prophets, holy books and divine revelation. Most of these sayings directly contradict reason, in addition to all available facts and evidence.

Mathematics – the quintessential rationalist subject – has no connection with experiments and involves all manner of rational unobservables such as imaginary numbers, negative numbers, zero and infinity, and dimensionless points (singularities). Mathematics is the basis of modern science, without which science would be mere alchemy, astrology and soothsaying, yet the faith-based religion of atheism (scientism) claims that mathematics has no ontological reality – it doesn’t exist! Therefore, science is grounded, by its own account, in the non-existent, hence is a fantasy, just as atheism surely is. In order to deny the existence of rational unobservables, science denies its own existence! If that’s not a fanatical, faith-based religion, what is?

Reality is based on unobservable mathematical points (singularities). That’s the secret of existence. What’s at the centre of a black hole? – a singularity. What was the Big Bang? – a singularity event. What is the Big Crunch? – when spacetime returns to a singularity. What is light made of? – photonic singularities (immaterial and dimensionless; according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, photons have no mass, are maximally length contracted to zero, and time has stopped for them).

The whole universe is made of light. It comes from light and returns to light. Light is all about points – singularities. Light is the basis of thought, the basis of mind, and the basis of matter. Everything is derived from light, and light is nothing but mathematical points defined by the generalised Euler Formula, and it creates the visible world via Fourier mathematics.

Quantum mechanics – science’s greatest success – is, according to the scientific establishment’s interpretation, based on an unreal, unobservable mathematical wavefunction that nevertheless interacts with reality, albeit in an indeterministic, probabilistic way. How can any rational person who swears by observations, measurements and experiments, assert that observations, measurements and experiments are rooted in something metaphysical that can in no way itself be measured, observed or experimented upon? Instead, a deus ex machina process of wavefunction collapse (a wholly unexplained and indeed inexplicable process) must take place before something becomes observable. Moreover, an observer is required to perform the required observation. We thus arrive at a complete absurdity, the most spectacular example of circular logic: an observer is required to collapse the wavefunction but an observer can exist only if the wavefunction has collapsed. Without observers, the wavefunction cannot collapse, so at what point from the Big Bang onwards did any observer miraculously come into existence to collapse the wavefunction? The Copenhagen Interpretation is wholly silent on such questions. You might as well appeal to God as the agent of wavefunction collapse (which is what the extreme idealist Bishop Berkeley would have done)! Science certainly can’t say you are wrong.

Quantum mechanics is, in truth, derived from Fourier mathematics, and, ontologically, Fourier mathematics is a dualist system involving a dimensional spacetime (material) domain and a dimensionless frequency (mental) domain. According to the irrational, fanatical bigots of atheism and scientism, the dimensional (material) spacetime domain is ontologically real while the dimensionless (mental) frequency domain is not. They provide no sufficient reason for this flagrantly anti-mathematical claim. Their dogmatism