The Sheldrake Shift: A Critical Evaluation of Morphic Resonance

By Dr. Thomas Stark

You think you understand Rupert Sheldrake's theory of formative causation and morphic resonance? You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. Sitting beneath his theory is the most extraordinary theory of all, the theory that changes everything.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: May 9, 2019
• ISBN: 9780244183837

Book preview

The Sheldrake Shift: A Critical Evaluation of Morphic Resonance

The Sheldrake Shift: A Critical Evaluation of Morphic Resonance

Dr. Thomas Stark

Copyright © Dr. Thomas Stark 2019

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book, or portions thereof in any form. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored, in any form or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical without the express written permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

The Ontological Mathematics Foundation

Extra Omnes

Two words rule the world. Just two words. They are extra omnes – outside, everyone [who does not belong here].

When a new pope is to be elected, a conclave is held. The Master of the Papal Liturgical Celebrations stands at the doors of the famous Sistine Chapel – where the conclave has been held ever since Pope Alexander VI, the notorious Borgia pope, was elected – and calls out those two fateful words, extra omnes. All must leave, other than those taking part in the process. The Master then seals the doors. They will not be reopened until a new pope has been announced, until the white smoke has risen from the chimney on the roof of the Sistine Chapel.

Conclave literally means a room that can be locked with a key (from the Latin con with, and clavis key). The cardinal electors are locked-up, locked in, to prevent any outside forces influencing the papal election.

Everything that counts in the world goes on in secret chambers, private rooms, clandestine meeting places, far from the madding crowd, far from the reach of democracy, the sham used by the elite to dupe the gullible masses. The doors are always shut against the people. The in-group are on the inside, the out-group firmly locked out.

Another version of the conclave, on a much bigger scale, is the wall. The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, and the Berlin Wall are three of the most famous walls. Even Game of Thrones has its mighty Wall, keeping out the Wildlings. Donald Trump wants his wall too.

On one side of any great wall is the in-crowd, the chosen people, the elect, the select. On the other side is the Alien, the Other, the Undesired, the Undesirable, that which is feared, that which must be kept out. The Monster. The Threat. The Unacceptable. The Intolerable.

Remember those two words extra omnes. Outside, everyone who is not wanted here, here on this side of the door, on this side of the wall, on the good side.

Every day, all of us are in extra omnes situations. For most of us, the most important doors are slammed in our faces. We have no pass to gain us access to the important areas and important people. The elite survive by denying everyone else the golden passes.

Only a revolution can change that. In the French Revolution, the elite went from being on the right side of the door to the wrong side. They found themselves in cold prison cells, awaiting execution for high treason against the people. All the doors previously locked against the people were at last thrown open to them. A new age had dawned. The New World Order had arrived, an order without kings, nobles and priests ruling the people.

Every profession enacts an extra omnes system. Science is one of the worst offenders. You can’t become a cardinal of science until you are fully initiated into the cult of scientism and agree with every orthodox doctrine of the sect, just as every Catholic cardinal mindlessly and unquestioningly regurgitates the dogmas of Catholic theology.

No dissent is allowed in the fortress of scientism. All heretics, apostates, blasphemers, non-conformists, dissidents, infidels, and freethinkers are purged. Just as the Catholic Church does not permit rival versions of Catholicism to operate under its jurisdiction, the scientific elite do not allow alternative versions of science to operate.

Can you imagine the scientific world split in two, with scientific materialism and empiricism on one side, and scientific idealism and rationalism on the other, offering radically different interpretations of the same scientific experiments, and producing theories framed according to wholly different truth-criteria? As they say in Highlander, There can be only one.

A dialectical system, a far more mature system, is not afraid of conflict. Conflict is built in via the thesis and antithesis. The task is then to find the synthesis that embraces the best of the thesis and antithesis and rejects the worst. At the very least, the fact that the thesis faces a powerful critique from the antithesis, and vice versa, should compel both to up their game. The disaster for science is that it’s a cozy little club full of smug groupthinkers who all espouse the same worldview. Peer review – claimed to be something wonderful – is simply how science enforces orthodoxy and gets rid of any challenge to the central tenets of scientism. Nothing would be more beneficial for science than for it to be exposed to an extremely harsh critique furnished by philosophers, mathematicians and apostate scientists.

It’s extraordinary how much criticism of scientism is available that is never once addressed by the scientific community. The Catholic Church believed it could ignore protesters. Martin Luther proved the Church wrong. The Protestant Reformation created a great schism in Christianity that has never been healed. Scientism similarly ignores all of its critics. It is doomed to suffer the same fate as Catholicism.

Nothing is more amusing and ridiculous than the claim that science is open-minded and full of people who question everything. Chance would be a fine thing. The last thing scientists would do is question the assumptions – totally unproved – on which science is predicated. Like all articles of faith, these are accepted without a second thought, without any thought at all. They are deemed self-evident. All systems that reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) fail at what they consider self-evident.

What you consider incontestable – if it is not adamantine reason – is invariably a confession on your part. You are confessing what personality type you have. Scientists are sensing types, which is to say they believe the existence of the sensory world to be the most obvious fact of reality, and they believe it self-evident that this sensory world is made of matter. Every fallacy of science is born right there, at the very first step, at the defining concept that underlies the whole undertaking.

Why can you never persuade people they are wrong? It’s for the simple reason that you are attempting to deprive them of what they most believe in, what they most take for granted, what they are least likely to doubt. Their mistake is invariably located in the last thing they would ever challenge, the last thing they would ever suspect, the last place they would ever look for an error. That is the very thing that made them a believer in the first place, hence is the last thing they would question.

Finagle’s Third Law states, In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake. … No one whom you ask for help will see it. … Everyone who stops by with unsought advice will see it immediately. Your enemies, not your friends, are always your fiercest critics. Peer review should always be conducted by enemies, not cheerleaders. The dialectic makes fierce criticism the basis of the whole system. Science offers no platform to its critics and never once responds to its critics in any serious way.

Descartes sought to doubt everything except what could rationally not be doubted. Most people refuse to doubt whatever seems most concrete and real to them, and that means they disregard reason and logic, which don’t seem concrete and real to them at all. If you asked ordinary people to name the subject which they believe most abstract and unreal, they would all say mathematics. It’s self-evident that mathematics is manmade, they would say.

The reason the bulk of humanity has not yet understood reality is that, on the basis of the self-evident, they have forbidden consideration of the true answer to existence, which is of course mathematics, the only thing that average people have never tried, never considered, and is least likely to be considered by them. As Nietzsche said, "Nitimur in vetitum [‘We strive for the forbidden’]: in this sign my philosophy will one day conquer, for what has been forbidden on principle has never been anything but the truth."

The truth – mathematics – has been forbidden as the answer to existence on the grounds of self-evidence, i.e. average people cannot conceive of mathematics as reality. Such an idea is simply beyond them. The Truth is beyond them. The Truth transcends the human condition, but almost all of humanity swears by the human condition. Man is the measure of all things, as the Sophist Protagoras said.

Humanity does not pursue Philosophy. It is ruled by Sophistry and the abject priesthood of Sophists, the pseudo-intellectuals, the pretenders to knowledge. The scientists are the highest of this Order.

To see that science is just a quasi-religion, you need only look at the way it has treated the work of Rupert Sheldrake. Sir John Maddox, a high priest of scientism, said of Sheldrake’s first book A New Science of Life, This infuriating tract… is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years. Later, he expanded, I was so offended by it, that I said that while it’s wrong that books should be burned, in practice, if book burning were allowed, this book would be a candidate (...) I think it’s dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency. It’s unnecessary to introduce magic into the explanation of physical and biological phenomena when in fact there is every likelihood that the continuation of research as it is now practiced will indeed fill all the gaps that Sheldrake draws attention to. You see, Sheldrake’s is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, with exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy. Heresy? In science? Heresy means choosing for oneself, without slavishly following established authority and orthodoxy.

Maddox has given the whole game away. Science is now a Church, with an ideology and a set of dogmas that no scientist is allowed to choose to question. So much for the ludicrous propaganda of science that it supports freethinking. It supports only the type of thinking that supports its own orthodoxy. It peer reviews itself, which is to say it excludes everything that questions its paradigm. It then claims that peer review is a mark of objectivity and quality. It’s the opposite. It’s the expression of groupthink and mindless orthodoxy. All other thinking is rejected out of hand. It’s not the case that it is ever formally refuted. It is simply denounced as being anti-science or pseudo-science. That term is intended to instantly shut down any debate. (Of course, science itself is just pseudo-mathematics, mathematics subjected to the fallacious ideology of materialism and empiricism.)

The Catholic Church could equally go around denouncing everything that contradicts Catholic ideology as anti-Catholicism or pseudo-Catholicism. Denunciation is not disproof.

Science expends no resource at all on engaging with anything outside what is mandated as science by the self-serving scientific establishment.

If anything should be cremated, it is any claim by the worshipers of scientism that their cult is any different from a religious cult and operates in any different way.

Science says it’s based on evidence. It’s not. It’s based on evidence as interpreted via the paradigm of scientism, namely that of the dogmatism of empiricism and materialism.

Since there is no such thing as evidence that explains itself, all evidence is only as good as the interpretation applied to it. All interpretations reflect philosophical and even religious attitudes and proclivities. Even though science denies it is a philosophy, it is without question fully reflective of the philosophy of naturalism, positivism, empiricism and materialism and, indeed, used to be called natural philosophy. It has never proved the validity of this philosophy, yet it rejects all other philosophies without a second thought. It is a philosophy that refuses to engage with philosophy, to admit it is a philosophy. Just like a religion, it resists all pressure to intellectually justify itself. It says it is merely a method of investigating nature, yet every scientist pontificates as if their interpretations were the gospel truth.

Rupert Sheldrake is an astute critic of many of the most cherished doctrines of materialism yet the priests of scientism never respond to anything he says. Instead, they denounce him and call for his books to be burned.

Scientists are not intellectuals. They are not interested in truth. They are technicians. They are interested in results.

Although the present book is not supportive of Sheldrake’s stance, it engages seriously with his ideas, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

When have you come across any scientist writing a critical book about the work of another scientist? It’s as likely as one infallible pope authoring a book about why a previous infallible pope was wrong (!).

No scientist openly criticizes another because it would reveal how fallible and unsure science is. The emperor in his new clothes would be exposed as the naked old fool he really is. Science operates an immense and exhaustive propaganda effort to maintain message discipline, to keep the Wizard-of-Oz show on the road. Never look behind the curtain. You won’t like what you see.

Science talks about the values of peer review. When are any of the popular books published by scientists – those that shape the public perception of science – subject to any peer review in the court of public opinion? When do you ever come across any scientist being savaged by another scientist in public? Or does peer review consist entirely of patting each other on the back behind closed doors?

You can no more imagine scientists attacking each other publicly than you can imagine Catholic cardinals attacking each other. And for exactly the same reason: they are upholding a rigid orthodoxy that must be seen not to express any internal dissent for fear of uncovering the whole enterprise as just a bunch of fallible opinions, beliefs, speculations and conjectures. You can’t lay claim to infallibility and then be seen to squabble in public.

Yet science claims to be on the side of freethinking, and to hold no truck with authority. What a joke. It’s the opposite of what it imagines itself. It’s just another worn-out paradigm in need of a revolution.

This book will prove a taste of things to come. It’s about time that prominent books were subject to detailed scrutiny, and not just given a free pass. It’s time scientists engaged in public debate rather than hiding behind the locked doors of their offices, lecture rooms and laboratories.

We need to overturn extra omnes. When it comes to science, it should be a case of intra omnes … inside, everyone. That’s what democracy was intended to provide for politics. Science needs to be able to debate in full view what the defining assumptions of science are, whether or not they are valid, and how they might be reformed. What has it got to be afraid of?

The great revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre said, The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. How many people are scientifically literate? Whose fault is that? Is the science establishment deliberately trying to keep the people ignorant by refusing to debate its own deficiencies and defects? It must open itself up. It must communicate clearly, without its jargon to bamboozle the masses and prevent them from understanding what claims are being made.

People have stopped believing scientists. Scientists have only themselves to blame. Like any cult, they have refused to answer their critics. It’s time they lived up the motto of the enlightenment: sapere aude … dare to know … dare to be wise … dare to think for yourself. Dare to furnish answers.

Order Out of Chaos

Rupert Sheldrake’s work is all about form. The Greek word for form is morphe and Sheldrake directs his attention towards concepts such as morphic resonance, morphic fields and morphogenesis. He believes that form is something that has not been properly addressed by science, hence science needs a theory of form, which he is seeking to supply. For Sheldrake, form is so powerful that it more or less becomes the defining feature of science and is more important than all other considerations.

Sheldrake defines form as the shape, configuration, or structure of something as distinguished from its material. Straight away, we note a dualism between matter and form. Form, according to Sheldrake, is not something matter inherently possesses but is something externally added to matter to cause matter to be formed, to have a structure, a shape, an organization.

Morphogenesis concerns how form comes into being. The question of how form appears in the world and relates to the world has a very long history, although form is taken in a much broader sense than the one used by Sheldrake. This topic of form once dominated philosophy since it concerned the intelligible nature of reality. It was through form, not matter, that we gained knowledge of existence. Knowledge was deemed intellectual, not sensory. Today, thanks to science, the senses, and not reason and logic, rule the roost as determinants of knowledge.

Where matter was once regarded as secondary to form, today matter is all important – materialism rules the academic world – and form in its classic sense is more or less dead as a subject. If nothing else, Sheldrake should be congratulated for again highlighting the critical importance of form. Anyone that wishes to challenge the crushing, numbing power of materialism must come to the fight from the perspective of form.

The ultimate subject of form, analytic form, is mathematics, hence the subject best able to combat materialism is mathematics. Sadly, Sheldrake takes a drastically different view. He sees mathematics as intimately connected to materialism, and adopts an anti-mathematical stance in order to escape from scientific materialism.

We might say that the god that most inspires Sheldrake is Morpheus, the son of Sleep, the god of dreams, the Dream Shaper (the maker of the forms, shapes and figures we see in our dreams).

Sheldrake’s thought experiment was, so to speak, to replace Morpheus with a set of fields – morphic fields – which provide all the form present in the world (and presumably in dreams too). Without these fields, the world would be formless. It would be a Chaos rather than a Cosmos since nothing would have any definite shape, form, structure, or organization. Other fields, such as gravitational fields or electromagnetic fields, would not have anything structured to operate on, hence would be negated. Such fields – energy fields – are in Sheldrake’s worldview subservient to form fields.

Sheldrake’s form fields are non-energetic and undetectable except through their effects on matter. Sheldrake has thereby invented a dualism of energy and form (non-energy). Form fields, since they are not energy fields, have nothing to do with the law of the conservation of energy. Does a law of conservation of form then apply to them? Sheldrake says no. There is no limit to what they can do with form. They can create form out of nothing, or out of formlessness. By the same token, since form is not conserved, it could vanish from existence at any instant. Sheldrake tries to avoid this by claiming that form is stabilized by morphic resonance, through which present form is underpinned up by past form. But what’s underpinning the first form? If that’s not stabilized, the whole system can collapse at any moment. There is nothing to prevent it since form is not a conserved property.

To properly appraise Sheldrake’s morphic system, it’s essential to trace the history of form. In ancient Greece, Plato placed form at the core of his philosophy. He deemed forms eternal, immutable and perfect. They provided his absolute standard of knowledge. They were the unchanging, intelligible aspect of existence. The rival aspect of existence was provided by matter, the opposite of Form. Matter, for Plato, was temporal, mutable, and imperfect, hence not a valid source of knowledge. Plato was a rationalist, not an empiricist. He would never have bought into what passes as knowledge today, as defined by scientific materialism and empiricism.

The world of Forms cannot be seen by the senses, but the world of matter can. The world of Forms is intelligible, the world of matter sensible. The world of Forms is rational, the world of matter empirical.

Platonic Forms were defined as transcendent, but could be brought into contact with matter by an intermediary (the Demiurge) to produce formed matter in the immanent world. Aristotle modified Plato’s system by making Forms inherently immanent rather than transcendent. Aristotle was amongst the first to champion the outlook now known as empiricism, whereby huge emphasis is placed on the phenomenal world of our direct sensory experience, and much less emphasis on the noumenal world we cannot observe.

In science, matter is associated with energy and there is no such thing as classical form. The laws of matter-energy are the presumed source of all form. In the time of Plato and Aristotle, energy was linked more to Form than to matter. Form was actuality, being. Matter was potentiality, non-being, which became being only when activated by Form.

The Greeks saw Form as an energy that made matter real (matter was otherwise unreal), whereas Sheldrake sees matter as real in its own right (an expression of energy), while Form is a kind of abstract non-energy that somehow shapes matter. His position stands between science and Greek philosophy. It’s less coherent than either.

Ancient thinking was all about how order was brought from chaos. Matter was the source of chaos. It was regarded as non-being, as formless, as potentiality rather than actuality, as nothing. When the Abrahamic God was said to have created the world out of nothing, this actually meant that he created it out of pre-existing matter. Genesis says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty …

Clearly, God didn’t create the earth if it was formless and empty. That’s a description of nothing (emptiness), or chaos (formlessness), not of order. Since prime matter is formless and empty (chaotic nothingness, lacking any ordered actuality), the implication is that God actually used pre-existing prime matter to create the earth.

In Plato’s cosmology, prime matter (Chaos), the Forms (Order), and the Demiurge (the Craftsman) were all eternal. The Demiurge created Order out of Chaos by bringing matter and the Forms into contact.

In Aristotle’s system, God (matterless Form) was pure Order, prime matter (formless matter) was pure Chaos, and between them stood a great chain of being (Order out of Chaos), a great ladder of matter-Form substances stretching all the way up to the door behind which God himself, free of matter, was to be found.

For Pythagoras, the Monad (One) was Order and the Dyad (Two) Chaos. The Monad (Form) acted on the Dyad (matter) to produce Order out of Chaos. Diogenes Laertius wrote, [For the Pythagoreans] the principle of all things is the monad or unit; arising from this monad the undefined dyad or two serves as material substratum to the monad, which is cause; from the monad and the undefined dyad spring numbers; from numbers, points; from points, lines; from lines, plane figures; from plane figures, solid figures; from solid figures, sensible bodies, the elements of which are four, fire, water, earth and air; these elements interchange and turn into one another completely, and combine to produce a universe animate, intelligent, spherical, with the earth at its center, the earth itself too being spherical and inhabited round about.

In Plato’s system, transcendent metaphysical Forms dictate reality. In Aristotle’s system, a transcendent God (matterless Form) and immanent metaphysical Forms dictate reality. In Pythagoras’ system, transcendent and immanent mathematical Forms, originating in the Monad, dictate reality.

In ancient Greek Atomism, the Atomists believed only in atoms moving around chaotically in a void. These atoms could bring Order out of Chaos by colliding with each other, gripping together, and forming bodies and stable objects. According to the Atomists, the human soul was made of perfectly smooth, spherical fire atoms, the most mobile of atoms. These caused both mental action (thought) and bodily action (physicality) via their smooth motions.

The Atomists associated life with heat and movement. Dead bodies are cold and still. They have lost their fire atoms, their animating soul.

The Atomists believed that form was built into atoms, i.e. matter came formed and was not something separate from form. Today, scientists believe that energy fields determine the form of matter. No special morphic fields are required and science has no means to utilize them anyway since they do not belong to the prevailing scientific paradigm. The whole of science would need to change if Sheldrake’s morphic fields were to be accommodated.

For Sheldrake, immanent, evolving morphic fields dictate reality, although he now and again flirts with the idea of the transcendent. He wrote, The universe as a whole could have a cause and a purpose only if it were itself created by a conscious agent that transcended it. If this transcendent conscious being were the source of the universe and of everything within it, all created things would in some sense participate in its nature.

Sheldrake, a professed Christian, believes in a God that creates prime matter and also morphic fields to act on it and give it form. These are not fixed morphic fields but evolve as they go along, producing a radically evolutionary universe. God himself does not know what these fields will do.

Sheldrake says that the morphic fields operate in conjunction with energy fields – such as gravity and electromagnetism – to organize and control material reality. The morphic fields are non-energetic. They affect only the form of matter, which, according to Sheldrake, but not science, is not determined by the energy fields.

The Big Bang

Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ – Terence McKenna

Religion says that God is eternal and creates the world. Scientific materialism – functional atheism (since God is a hypothesis that plays no part in science) – denies the existence of God and any eternal order. Science has to get the world started by itself. Sheldrake, channeling Terence McKenna, wrote, It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’ The one free miracle is the sudden appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.’

What is it that science fundamentally rejects? – it is an eternal, necessary, rational, logical, a priori order of existence. Why does science so strongly resist this concept? It’s because it proves that science is false. An eternal state is not a state on which you can perform any experiments. You cannot observe eternity. You cannot perceive it, but you can certainly conceive it. An eternal state is not an empirical state and there’s no reason to suppose that it’s a material state since there is no property of matter associated with the eternal and necessary order of existence. Matter is purely temporal and contingent.

The gospel of empiricism requires a starting point, the point from which empirical experiences are, at least in principle, possible. Consider science’s attitude towards the cause of the Big Bang, a state preceding the creation of space and time. This, by definition, cannot be a sensory, empirical state (since there was no space, time or matter at that point), hence it is fatal to the entire empiricist project. Science cannot admit that anything of the nature of the eternal and necessary should be referenced, given that science is inherently a subject of the temporal and contingent.

Only two subject subjects can address the eternal and necessary: 1) metaphysics, which can spin off into theology, religion, spirituality and mysticism or proceed along grand philosophical lines involving conceptual system-building, such as that carried out by Hegel; 2) Mathematics, the subject that reflects the eternal truths of reason. As it turns out, mathematics is the true metaphysics.

Science cannot refer to either metaphysics or mathematics since both contradict the scientific method and paradigm. This means that science has to address the cause of the Big Bang using strategies which avoid any suggestion of metaphysical or mathematical causation. Scientists have produced three general strategies: 1) They try to avoid the question by claiming it is devoid of meaning. They say things like, ‘before’ is a temporal term and therefore no one can refer to what comes before the existence of time. Of course, before is an ordering term and every effect has a cause that came before it. The creation of time is no different from anything else. Time had a cause and there is no escape from this issue through absurd semantic gymnastics based on words supplied by non-analytical, illogical, manmade languages; 2) They appeal to infinite regress. They say that there is no order of first causes (eternal and necessary causes), merely an infinite succession of secondary causes (temporal and contingent). Such a system has no possible explanation. It is not even compatible with empiricism since this infinite succession is impossible to experience, hence is of the exact order of what it seeks to critique, but without the virtue of being intelligible. It is a speculation, a conjecture. Nevertheless, scientists like it because it does not commit the cardinal sin of invoking the rational order of the eternal and necessary; 3) They appeal to randomness. They claim that things happen for no reason, without cause, via no mechanism, with no purpose. They happen because they do. That’s just the way it is. Science would rather appeal to miracles than to eternal, necessary reason and logic. That’s what they prefer. Emergence, chance, accident, randomness, acausation, probabilism, indeterminism, and indeterminacy all belong to the order of the miraculous. Anything that is asserted not to have a sufficient reason is ipso facto magical. There is literally no reason why it should happen. It would take a miracle to make anything happen without a reason or cause. Miracles are impossible, yet science is based on them. Science claims that the eternal and necessary order is impossible. In fact, it’s the order of things happening for no reason – the order at the center of science – that is impossible. Science rejects the PSR wholesale because the PSR is the quintessence of the eternal and necessary. It is the supreme a priori principle. It is the principle that destroys reliance on the fallible, limited human senses and their observations.

So, scientists, in order to escape the admission of the existence of the eternal and necessary, rely on strategies to deny, avoid, circumvent or explain away the problem. They are obliged to do so because any reference to the eternal and necessary automatically invalidates their system and proves them wrong. That’s the real reason why scientists despise religion, philosophy, metaphysics and mathematics – they all formally undermine science and its claim to be the best means to investigate the world. Science cannot do without mathematics, but nor can it admit that mathematics is ontological because that would immediately refute science. Therefore, science proclaims mathematics unreal, manmade, a mere abstraction. It is depicted as nothing but a tool that helps science.

Science is the systemic attempt to avoid reaching conclusions that support the a priori rational and logical order of the eternal and necessary. Such an order is the science-killer, hence science, for self-preservation, will do anything to discredit it. Like any religious faith, it takes any steps it needs to. It will, and does, repudiate reason and logic in order to defend the human senses, empiricism and materialism, temporality and contingency. Rationalism and idealism, the eternal and necessary, are all automatically lethal to science, which is why science never once contemplates that they may be correct.

Scientists say they are open-minded. They are in fact as closed-minded as any religious zealots. Like all people of faith, they refuse to accept reason and logic. Anyone that denies the ontology of reason and logic – enshrined in ontological mathematics – is an enemy of reason and logic because they relegate reason and logic to the order of unreality and mere abstraction.

What is the eternal, necessary order? It is the order of reason and logic. It is the analytic, a priori order, the conceptual order. It has traditionally been associated with God (religion), but it ought to be associated with mathematics (rationalism). Much of what is said about God in philosophy could equally be said about mathematics. The traditional proofs of the existence of God can easily be repurposed as proofs of the existence of mathematics. Attacks on God are actually disguised attacks on mathematics. Attacks on God typically come from empiricists, exactly the same people that oppose rationalism. Every time you come across a reference to God, you should test to see whether the word mathematics could be used instead. God is deemed the invisible cause of all. Ontological mathematics asserts that mathematics is the invisible cause of all. Actually, everything you see is mathematical, but you don’t see the mathematical building blocks – analytic sinusoidal waves – from which it is made, hence mathematics never comes to mind.

The days when science believed in only one free miracle – the miracle of getting things started in the first place – were the good old days, the days when science was deterministic. The days are long gone when science could claim that the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation. Science now relies on infinite miracles, and infinite universes (the Multiverse). Now, everything is a miracle. Nothing at all, science says, happens for a reason. Nothing is caused. God plays dice and nothing but dice. Probabilism is all that happens in the universe. Science, once totally deterministic, is now totally indeterministic. Things don’t happen for reasons or causes. They are instead plucked at random from probability matrices, which themselves have no explanations. They just are. That’s just the way it is. Brute force. Brute reality. Inexplicable reality.

How do you get anything started? You either start things from an eternal, necessary foundation, or you start them from no foundation at all, in which case you need magic, or a miracle. You require things to happen without causes. You require things that happen for no reason. Science is eager to accept anything, any pseudo-explanation, that avoids the eternal and necessary.

If science actually accepted the law of conservation of energy – that energy can neither be created nor destroyed – it would be forced to accept an eternal, necessary order of existence. But science does not accept that law, not in any genuine sense. Instead, it believes in a free lunch. It believes that any amount of energy can be produced at any instant, provided this energy can be divided into a positive and negative component which can be balanced to zero. In ontological mathematics, by contrast, all energy is eternal and necessary, not temporal and contingent, and balances to zero. This is the true law of conservation of energy. Science’s temporal and contingent law of conservation of energy is a false law since energy is not conserved at all. The only thing conserved is the net result of zero, not energy itself, which can be created and destroyed at whim provided everything has a net result of zero. Thanks to science’s doctrine of indeterminacy, even this criterion can be violated. You can asymmetrically borrow from reality any amount of energy you like, provided you pay it back. The more you borrow, the faster the repayment must be made. Science has been reduced to accountancy. The Tax Man is always hovering over it.

So, do the laws that govern the universe precede the universe, in order to create it, or are they created along with the universe, in which case the laws of science did not create the universe, so it cannot be a scientific universe! If those laws did not create the universe, which laws did? In ontological mathematics, mathematical laws create the scientific universe. In science, no laws exist other than the laws of science, so if the laws of science did not create the universe then the universe created itself using no laws at all, i.e. the universe appeared by miracle – randomly, for no reason, without any explanation. You would imagine that such an answer would satisfy no one, yet it perfectly satisfies scientists. They would much rather believe in miracles than in God or mathematics, i.e. in anything associated with the eternal and necessary order.

You don’t need to study science to know what science is all about. All you have to do is compare and contrast the eternal and necessary, the analytic a priori, the logical and deductive, and the rational and ideal, on the one hand, and the temporal and contingent, the synthetic a posteriori, the illogical and inductive, and the empirical and the material, on the other. Science is simply what plays out if you accept the latter list and reject the former. Mathematics is what you get if you accept the former list and reject the