The Mathmos

By Mike Hockney

The universe is nothing like how it appears to us. So, what's it really like? What is it in itself? Neither our senses nor any experiments can reveal the ultimate truth of existence. Fortunately, one thing can: reason. We inhabit the Mathmos: the mathematical cosmos. This book reveals the compelling secrets of the hidden reality that we will never once "see", but we can surely know - thanks to mathematics.

Do we live in a rational universe or a random universe? This is the choice between a mathematical universe and a scientific universe. The mathematical universe has a rational ultimate answer, the scientific universe does not. The scientific universe is magicked out of non-existence, as if out of a magician's top hat.

Are you a member of the magicians’ cult of science? Nothing is more alchemical than modern science. You can generate a cosmos out of randomness in nothingness, which is a much greater trick than merely manufacturing gold from lead.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Sep 12, 2014
• ISBN: 9781326016609

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

Quotations

The traditional mathematician recognizes and appreciates mathematical elegance when he sees it. I propose to go one step further, and to consider elegance an essential ingredient of mathematics: if it is clumsy, it is not mathematics. – Edsger Dijkstra

Mathematics is the most beautiful and most powerful creation of the human spirit. – Stefan Banach

Mathematics is the music of reason. – James Joseph Sylvester

We in science are spoiled by the success of mathematics. Mathematics is the study of problems so simple that they have good solutions. – Whitfield Diffie

One would have to have completely forgotten the history of science so as to not remember that the desire to know nature has had the most constant and the happiest influence on the development of mathematics. – Henri Poincaré

The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom. – Georg Cantor

Thus, in a sense, mathematics has been most advanced by those who distinguished themselves by intuition rather than by rigorous proofs. – Felix Klein

Mathematics is the result of mysterious powers which no one understands, and which the unconscious recognition of beauty must play an important part. Out of an infinity of designs a mathematician chooses one pattern for beauty’s sake and pulls it down to earth. – Marston Morse

May not music be described as the mathematics of the sense, mathematics as music of the reason? The musician feels mathematics, the mathematician thinks music: music the dream, mathematics the working life. – James Joseph Sylvester

Table of Contents

The Mathmos

Quotations

Table of Contents

The Origin of Causality

Drone Theory

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

The First Problem

The Difference Between Religion and Philosophy

Ancient Holography

The Prime Mover

Nous versus Logos

The Intellectual Disaster

The Body Snatchers

The Heisenberg Mystery

Ontological Mathematics

The Two Worlds and the Truth

Taoism

Mathematics and Physics

The Pneumatics

Beelzebub

The World-Soul (Psyche)

The Strange Loop Universe

The Ontology of Strange Loops

The Living Force

Living Reason

The Angels

The Chamber of Dreams (Barbarella)

Epistemological Meaning

The Force (Star Wars)

The Three Greatest Fictional Villains

The Inflection Point

The Answer

Two Minds

The Four Types

The Eternal

The Ultimate Thinker

Soul Science

Speculators versus Skeptics

Truth and Falsehood

The Cosmic Egg

Successful Lying

The Scientific Sophists

The Selector Function

Conclusion

The Origin of Causality

The Mathmos is the mathematical cosmos. The Mathmos is the causal, noumenal reality that underpins the phenomenal world of the senses. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant believed the noumenal domain was unknowable. He was wrong. The noumenal domain is the Platonic intelligible domain, and it’s entirely defined by mathematics. Mathematics is the true language of metaphysics, the subject that comes after physics and which explains physics.

Physics is phenomenal mathematics; ontological mathematics is noumenal physics. Physics has suffered a catastrophic failure to produce a final scientific theory and the reason for this is straightforward: it’s now running up against how reality really is and its empiricist materialist ideology yields a wholly false ontology.

You can’t have a final theory of everything unless you have a final ontology. The true ontology of the universe is twofold: dimensional (extended; material, based on spacetime) and dimensionless (unextended, mental, based on frequencies); phenomenal and noumenal. Science, by denying the autonomous domain of mind – which is the metaphysical domain of ontological mathematics – has made it impossible to reconcile general relativity and quantum physics.

David Hume asked devastating questions about the nature of causality, and whether it even existed. This book provides the answer to what causality actually is, and where it is. If you don’t know these things, how can you claim to know anything at all?

The origin of causality goes to the core of existence. Science has now abandoned causality and claims that things ultimately happen randomly, for no reason at all, with the Big Bang being the most egregious example of science’s repudiation of causality. According to science, the universe itself was born of an inexplicable random fluctuation in absolute nothingness! Scientists aren’t even embarrassed by this claim.

So, do we live in a rational universe or a random universe? This is the choice between a mathematical universe and a scientific universe. The mathematical universe has a rational, ultimate answer, the scientific universe does not. The scientific universe is magicked out of non-existence, as if out of a magician’s top hat.

Are you a member of the magicians’ Cult of Science? Nothing is more alchemical than modern science. You can allegedly generate a whole cosmos out of a random event in nothingness, which is a much greater trick than merely manufacturing gold from lead.

*****

The universe is nothing like how it appears to us (phenomenon). So, what’s it really like? What is it in itself (noumenon)? Neither our senses nor any experiments can reveal the ultimate truth of existence. Fortunately, one thing can: reason.

We inhabit the Mathmos, the mathematical cosmos. This book reveals the compelling secrets of the hidden reality that we will never once see, but that we can surely know – thanks to ontological mathematics, the source of causality itself.

Drone Theory

Human bodies are like predator drones that are remotely controlled by pilots located elsewhere, perhaps thousands of miles away. In the case of human bodies, the pilots are souls, and they literally exist in a different dimension.

If a military drone is shot down, malfunctions, develops a fault, crashes, suffers a computer error, or whatever, then the link to the pilot is broken. It’s the drone that dies, not the pilot. So it is with the body and soul. Bodies always die in due course. Souls never do. Souls continuously connect and disconnect from bodies via the process of reincarnation. Once a soul has worked out how to link to one body, why wouldn’t it do the same again after the first body fails? Why wouldn’t it keep doing so? This is not some mystical, religious process. It’s a strict mathematical operation defined by Fourier mathematics.

The phenomenon of consciousness makes the pilot (soul) believe it’s inside the drone (body) rather than remote from it. This makes the drone far more effective, of course, and ensures that the pilot take far greater care of it. He’s as motivated as possible not to allow the body to come to harm. He’s terrified of death, which should really be renamed as disconnection since the soul can never die, only the physical vessels it temporarily inhabits.

The film Avatar provides an approximation to what takes place. In that movie, a disabled soldier is put in a psionic link unit, a machine that allows him to remotely control another body, which has full mobility. The soul is never disabled and doesn’t require any physical machine equipped with psionics. It remotely controls the body via the machinery of well-known Fourier mathematics.

Another way to think of reality is as a video game. The avatar that you control in the game of life is your own body. You are elsewhere. When your avatar dies, you don’t. In a video game, you resurrect your avatar, or choose a new one. In reality, you go and get a new body/avatar (via mathematical reincarnation) and start the game of life again.

We inhabit a remote controlled world where minds (souls) located in a living, mental, immaterial, dimensionless, frequency Singularity outside space and time control the dead, material, dimensional world of space and time, and all of the bodies located within it. The remote control protocols are handled via Fourier mathematics: forward and inverse Fourier transforms.

When a body dies, the soul does not leave it; rather, it is disconnected from it. The Fourier link goes down! Reincarnation occurs when the Fourier link is re-established, but with a new body (since the old body is gone forever, reduced to mere dust).

Mental reality – Soul World – is all about a Singularity outside space and time, comprising living, mental mathematical units (monads), which are autonomous frequency domains. In religious terms, they are immortal, indestructible souls.

Soul World is the Cartesian unextended domain of thinking, and the Fourier frequency domain. Material reality – Science World – is all about space and time, filled with lifeless, mindless, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. Science World is the Cartesian extended domain of matter. It’s the Fourier spacetime domain. Thanks to Fourier mathematics – which allows mathematical functions to be represented in two different domains (the frequency and spacetime domains) – the two domains are fully interactive, thus resolving the notorious Cartesian mind-body problem.

The spacetime domain of matter is the Kantian phenomenal world and the frequency domain of mind is the Kantian noumenal world. Scientists have absolutely refused to accept the existence of a mathematical, noumenal domain outside space and time and have, as a direct consequence, been forced to abandon causality and the principle of sufficient reason. They now make the lunatic claim that ultimate reality is grounded in randomness, in a dice-playing God, as Einstein so brilliantly summed it up.

God does not play dice. We live in 100% causal, mathematical universe and mathematics is none other than the principle of sufficient reason ontologically expressed. There’s an exact reason why everything is thus and not otherwise. Nothing at all happens randomly. You might as well believe in magic if you seriously imagine that things happen for no reason at all, as science now maintains. Modern science is a system of total irrationalism that seriously believes that cats in specially prepared closed boxes can be simultaneously dead and alive unless someone takes a look (!), in which case they will be either dead or alive. Science has become an insult to intelligence and reason. Above all, it’s an insult to ontological mathematics. Scientists vainly search for a grand unified of everything while being wholly unable to explain what mathematics is and what it’s doing at the heart of all scientific theories.

Modern science is a salutary but depressing lesson in how not to think clearly and logically, in how to abandon reason in favour of a quasi religion of the senses (empiricism and materialism). The Church of Science makes almost as many absurd claims about ultimate reality as the Church of Abraham.

Seeing Is Believing?

The real world is nothing like its appearance, its persona, the sensory mask it wears. We see a representation of reality, not reality itself. We encounter phenomena – things which appear or are seen – not noumena, things as they are in themselves (beyond their appearance).

A noumenon is an object of intellectual intuition or perception, as opposed to a phenomenon, which is an object of sensory perception. Noumena are perceived or apprehended by the mind, and phenomena by the sense organs. If we regard intuition as our sixth sense then our first five senses deal with phenomena and the sixth with noumena. In all cases, reason operates on the data gathered to try to make sense of it all. The trouble is that phenomena and noumena are wholly different and can’t be understood within the same paradigm. It’s a category error to treat them on a par.

Physical objects perceived by the physical senses belong to the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Non-physical, immaterial, dimensionless, noumenal objects outside space and time – of which the soul is the archetypal example – are dismissed by science. The existence of the noumenal domain is rejected wholesale by science.

For science, appearance is reality. Anything that doesn’t appear, that doesn’t present itself to our senses, doesn’t exist. The mind itself is not accepted by science. Science regards mental phenomena as currently unexplained results of brain activity, i.e. as products of physical, molecular states and interactions within and between our brain cells that generate the illusion of mind. Take away the brain, scientists insist, and there’s no mind. (This is a wholly unprovable assumption of science. If the mind is not in the brain but merely connected to it to form a brain-mind complex then when the brain goes, the mind does not.) If there is in fact a noumenal domain underlying the phenomenal domain then the scientific paradigm and the scientific understanding of ultimate reality are 100% false. That’s a fact.

Kant famously asserted that our minds construct reality, which is why, he argued, we are able to make sense of anything at all. When Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible, he was ignoring Kant’s philosophy, which was predicated on the universe being comprehensible precisely because our own minds are responsible for how we perceive everything in the phenomenal world. It constructs all of the rules of perception. The phenomenal world conforms to the mind, not the mind to the phenomenal world.

For Kant, things in themselves (noumena) are not in space and time and are not physical objects. They cannot be perceived by sense organs. He even went as far as to say that noumena could not be known at all. To this mysterious, unknown domain, he consigned the equally mysterious triad of God, the soul and human freedom. None of these could be explained in terms of phenomena since we can’t see any of them and they don’t make any sense in terms of purely physical or phenomenal causality. Kant shunted off the apparently inexplicable into the apparently unknown and unknowable.

If mind unconsciously and automatically constructs the phenomenal world from noumenal things then the mind, when it becomes conscious (in the phenomenal world), never encounters true reality, only what it has constructed from it. Mind lives in what it has built rather than in what has built mind. It uses its physical senses to perceive its own constructs while being unable to know what it is itself (what it is constructed from), except through mysterious intuitions.

Eastern religion is all about intuiting a true domain concealed by Maya (illusion). This is essentially the same view as Kant’s. To grasp true reality, we have to transcend our own minds. We must leave behind our empirical self that experiences the phenomenal world and access our transcendental self that underpins our empirical self.

Science has never once addressed the Kantian view of reality, or, for that matter, David Hume’s savage attack on causality, which prompted Kant’s mature philosophy in the first place. Scientists simply ignore such issues, claiming that they are not science. Yet they are profound intellectual positions and, if science can’t tackle such issues, it’s of limited intellectual use and value. In many ways, science is a fanatically anti-intellectual subject, choosing to operate within extremely narrow, self-defined limits. Compare the writings of an archetypal scientist such as Newton with those of an archetypal intellectual such as Leibniz, and it’s certainly not Leibniz that suffers in the comparison. Leibniz seems like a God in relation to Newton. It’s one of the greatest travesties of history that Newton is so well-known and admired, and Leibniz so obscure. The truth has never prospered in this world of ours.

In ontological mathematics, the Kantian noumenal domain is not unknown. It’s none other than the frequency domain of Fourier mathematics, defined by the generalised Euler Formula (the God Equation). It’s immaterial, dimensionless, and outside space and time. It comprises ontological mathematical units known as monads – which are none other than transcendental Kantian minds, or souls to use a religious designation. These are all mathematical singularities and belong to a Super Singularity of all singularities. This is the Big Bang Singularity and it gave rise to the spacetime domain of the material universe via an inverse Fourier transform on a cosmic scale.

The whole Kantian project can be fully explained mathematically. The unknowable noumenal domain is abolished and replaced with a fully knowable world of mathematics. All of the Kantian mysteries are dispelled.

Scientific materialism is the false doctrine that the phenomenal world is the only world, the real world. Scientific materialism denies the existence of any noumenal domain. In terms of Fourier mathematics, scientific materialism accepts the existence of a Fourier spacetime domain but not of a Fourier frequency domain outside space and time. This is mathematically deranged and shows that science fundamentally repudiates mathematical rationalism.

Science is an irrational system of quasi-religious faith in the non-existence of a noumenal frequency domain. In Fourier mathematics, it’s impossible to have a spacetime domain without an interlinked frequency domain. Quantum mechanics is actually based on Fourier mathematics and yet it brazenly and dementedly denies the ontology of the frequency domain. This is one of the key reasons why the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is so bizarre. It rejects the existence of a frequency domain that must exist in order for spacetime to exist. Imagine trying to explain reality using only one domain of a mathematical system that requires two domains in order to work. Copenhagen quantum mechanics is automatically nonsense because of this catastrophic mathematical error.

Reality is actually straightforward. It comprises two domains: a dimensionless frequency domain outside space and time and a dimensional, material domain inside space and time, the two being linked by Fourier mathematics. The frequency domain is the Kantian noumenal domain, and the spacetime domain is the Kantian phenomenal domain. Mathematical causality (not scientific randomness) is built into every part of the system.

We don’t inhabit a physical cosmos but, rather, a mathematical cosmos – the Mathmos!

It’s time for the final great paradigm shift. It’s time for the idea that we live in a material, scientific world to perish. We actually inhabit an immaterial frequency Singularity of pure mind – a noumenal, non-scientific world – which has the capability to generate the mental illusion of space, time and matter via Fourier mathematics.

Ontological mathematics, not physics, is the explanation of everything. All of the science textbooks will have to be scrapped and rewritten as ontological mathematics textbooks.

Far from being the founders of a glorious new scientific age, the leading thinkers of quantum mechanics were the last dying gasp of scientific materialism. They thought they were ushering in a revolution. Instead, they were counter-revolutionaries obstructing the replacement of science by ontological mathematics, the final explanation of everything, and the true grand unified theory of everything, including the soul!

Welcome Greeks Bearing Gifts

The pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece posed all of the fundamental questions of existence. Everything since then has been a set of footnotes and refinements to their work.

Classical Greek philosophy – that of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – systemised the thinking of the pre-Socratics and turned it into vast, monumental edifices. Then came lesser schools – often concerned with lifestyle rather than hard philosophy – such as the Sophists, the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics. Then came Gnosticism, Mithraism and Hermeticism, culminating with Neoplatonism, the great attempt to perfect Platonism and reconcile it with Aristotle’s philosophy.

The greatest disaster in human history occurred when the Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and paved the way for this bizarre Jewish heresy to become the world’s most successful religion. Rome, fatally infected by the Christian virus, quickly grew weak, enfeebled and dumbed down. It wasn’t too long before the western empire collapsed (in 476 CE).

The Roman Emperor Julian the Philosopher (the Apostate or Transgressor to Christians) heroically tried to turn Rome to Neoplatonism but did not reign for long, being mortally wounded in battle against the Persians. Had Julian succeeded, Rome would never have fallen. Neoplatonism would have fully reinvigorated and reenergised the empire. Knowledge would have been prized over faith, the intelligent over the stupid, the strong over the weak, the go-getters over the slaves to God (Jehovah/Jesus). The West would have saved a thousand years and avoided the mass insanity of the Dark Ages and the medieval Christian period with its countless exterminations, persecutions, pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, self-flagellation cults, dancing cults, saint cults, trade in relics, superstition, fear of God, and so on.

Had pagan philosophy triumphed over Abrahamic faith, we would now be living in terrestrial paradise. Moreover, Pythagorean sacred mathematics would have dictated the shape of science, not atheistic empiricism and materialism (the dialectical response to Abrahamism). Our world would now revolve around ontological mathematics and we would have a Star Trek society.

It’s time to get things back on track. It’s time for the rebirth of Greek paganism. It’s time for Pythagorean mathematics.

A Brief History of Mathematics

Historically, mathematicians struggled with zero, infinity, negative numbers and imaginary numbers (thus complex numbers). Science reflected exactly this same struggle and is effectively the belief system that positive real numbers between zero and infinity have a connection with physical reality while no other numbers do (apart from negative numbers used for charge).

Ontological mathematics is the rational assertion that no numbers can be privileged over any others, that they are all as real, as ontological, as each other. The fact that some numbers may be undetectable by the human senses is no rational objection to their existence, although scientific materialism teaches precisely this fallacy and asserts that all real things must in principle be perceivable by the human senses. Observation, in science, is deemed more important than reason. Science is a formally irrationalist belief system that refuses to confront the elephant in the room: the ontology of all mathematical numbers. Why should some numbers be real and all the rest fictitious? How can that make any sense at all? Either all of mathematics is real and valid, or none is. You can’t pick and choose in order to satisfy human sensory biases. Why should the unreliable, fallible, easily deceived, contingent, irrational human senses be the arbiters of what is real and what isn’t? That’s mad! Reason alone can decide what must exist necessarily, and mathematics is simply ontological reason, how reason actually exists in the world.

It’s time for the mathematical revolution. It’s time for the Truth.

Leibniz versus Kant

The great German thinker Leibniz suffered not only in comparison with Newton in science, but also in comparison with Kant in philosophy. Kant is commonly regarded as the greatest philosopher of all, while Leibniz is relegated to a mere footnote. This is extraordinary given that Leibniz was a far superior thinker. Kant’s philosophy is just a dumbed-down, inconsistent and illogical version of Leibniz’s philosophy.

Leibniz said, in essence, that all that truly existed were noumenal minds (monads), and, between them, they created the phenomenal world. He was attempting to present the notion of holography – the whole is in each part, with each part reflecting the whole from its unique perspective – but the Fourier mathematics that underlies holography was still a long way from being discovered, so Leibniz was forced to use a highly metaphysical, technical and daunting language to try to communicate his meaning. Most people simply didn’t get it (and still don’t). Kant succeeded in finding a way to present similar ideas but in a way that philosophers found far more comprehensible. As Nietzsche said, Success has always been the greatest liar.

Kant said, in effect, that true reality consisted of noumenal point-atoms outside space and time, some of which were material and some mental. The material point-atoms linked together in various ways (presumably according to mathematical rules), and the mental point-atoms then projected a space and time framework over these to create the material phenomena we experience in the normal world.

What Kant did was essentially to recreate Cartesian dualism but now outside space and time. He got rid of extended matter as a real thing and made matter unextended (like mind). Extension was generated when mind projected extension onto matter, not because matter actually possessed extension. It was all a phenomenal illusion (Maya, as Hindus would say). Yet Kant couldn’t explain why there were two types of point atoms – material and mental – and thus he was no further forward with explaining substance dualism and how different substances can interact. He had created noumenal matter to accompany noumenal mind, but couldn’t explain the difference between them, and the mechanism of their interaction. Arrogantly, he then dismissed the possibility that anyone could ever know what was really going on. He himself, he believed, had gone as far as anyone could. His successors found this preposterous, and promptly went further, Hegel in particular.

In relation to ultimate reality, Illuminism entirely supports Leibniz. There are no noumenal material point-atoms. There are only point-minds (monads), just as Leibniz said, and they create conventional matter through Fourier mathematics. Inverse Fourier transforms add dimensionality (space and time) to dimensionless frequency functions (thoughts).

Matter is the collective thought of minds. It seems different from mind because it’s controlled by all minds, not by individual minds. When we contemplate thinking, we can’t help but relate it to our own private experience of thinking. In fact, minds can think privately (individually) and publicly (collectively). Individual thinking constitutes the mental world; collective thinking constitutes the material world. All subatomic particles and material atoms are just the basic components of thought when conducted by a vast collective of minds. All thoughts, whether individual or collective, are just mathematical functions.

We combine basic thought units to produce our own complex thoughts. All complex (molecular) thoughts are built up from atomic thoughts, just as words are built up from letters. In the so-called material world, subatomic particles take the role of ontological letters, atoms take the role of ontological words, and molecules the role of ontological sentences. DNA – the molecule of life; the double helix – is the optimal molecular code, allowing individual minds to take control of collective mental entities (bodies).

Mental mathematical functions are all there are. There’s no such thing as matter existing in its own right (separate from mind). Leibniz was right all along: matter is produced by mind. Matter is collective thinking, hence has a radically different quality and set of properties from individual thinking, yet is still fully mental. With individual thinking, we don’t encounter resistance to our own thoughts. With collective thinking, we experience nothing but resistance since we are opposed by every other mind in the universe. Matter seems solid, enduring and different from us simply because of this resistance. This is more or less what Leibniz argued, and he was right all along.

Scientific materialism is 100% false – the precise inversion of reality – when it claims that matter creates mind. Mind is the source of everything, including matter – which is just an expression of the collective rather than individual mind.

*****

Subatomic particles are, as we have said, ontological letters. They are the basis of the material alphabet. Groups of subatomic particles form ontological words = atoms. Atoms can be considered as words like the, a, and, or, with, and simple nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Molecules are ontological sentences made up of these words. The material world is just an interactive book written with ever-changing combinations of subatomic particles rather than humanly invented letters.

When you become smart enough, you can literally read Nature like a book. DNA is a much more interesting chapter of the book than the chapters about rocks, dirt and sand. DNA is the chapter where the characters really come to life (!), when individuals minds start interacting with the lifeless products of the Collective Mind. It’s rather like when people, instead of passively watching TV, start interacting with the TV, as if they were participating in a collective video game. We all control an avatar in the game – our own body. When one body wears out, we get another via reincarnation.

Just as the world of video games is a mathematical invention and doesn’t exist in its own right, so is the world we experience. If all the minds were taken away, there would be nothing left, no matter at all!

What is DNA? It’s an ontological code that allows the collectively written book of the world (of Nature) to have individual authors inserted into it, who can then write the book of their own life (via their own actions and behaviour in the physical world). DNA is the mathematical-biophysical code linking the individual mind with the collective mind. Lifeless rock, lacking DNA, reflects only the collective mind, and not any individual minds. Our bodies, encoded with DNA, allow our individual minds to control an avatar (body) in the physical world (the creation of the collective mind). DNA is how individual minds connect to the output of the collective mind, how individual thoughts intersect with collective thoughts, influence them and are in turn influenced by them.

There are thus four types of causality:

In science, there’s only one type of causality: material things operating on material things. There is therefore no scope at all for freedom. In Illuminism, freedom exists because minds are not subject to inescapable external causality. Exactly like human beings, minds are influenced by the environment in which they operate, but can generate their own behaviour. They are not marionettes being forced at all times to obey external causality, as science claims.

*****

We are individual thinking units within a collective thinking unit, thoughts within thoughts, minds within a Mind, singularities within a Singularity. We are private thoughts within collective thought (the material world).

There are only two things that happen in the world: individual thinking and collective thinking: individual thinking by individual monads, and collective thinking by the total collection of monads. The collective thinking of monads is what constitutes the material world. Collective thinking is completely machinelike and simply reflects the element that all monads have in common: objective ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula).

All monads are objects with respect to each other. The Monadic Collective thinks like a mathematical machine, which is why so many scientists believe that the universe is a mindless, purposeless, dead mechanism. But, to itself, each monad is a subject, and this is the critical factor that scientists have never understood. Science does not cater for subjectivity at all, and refuses to accept that it exists. Subjectivity is the sphere of mind rather than matter: individual thinking rather than collective thinking. Individual thinking is subjective, not objective. It’s dialectical, not Aristotelian. It’s why free will is possible.

Following the Big Bang, the universe unfolds according to pure objective mathematics. A machine is created: the material cosmos. At this stage, the machine exhibits zero subjectivity. All monads are behaving as objective mathematical computers, not as living subjective organisms. No individual monad is as yet powerful enough to make any difference whatsoever to the behaviour of the Monadic Collective. What must an individual monad do to accomplish any effect in the material world (against the irresistible force of all other monads)? It must acquire an individual body, through which it can operate independently, free of the Collective.

So, how does an individual body come into existence? A mind somewhere – a staggeringly powerful mind – has to create the code that allows subjective life to enter the objective world. How is the gap between objectivity and subjectivity bridged, between mind and matter, between the individual and the Collective? It’s done through a specific information code such as DNA. DNA allows matter to be organised in such a way that it can be host to an individual, controlling monad. It allows part of the objective world to be detached from the rest and brought under individual, subjective control rather than collective, objective control.

The end-result doesn’t come about through any rational planning. Nor does it come about through complete randomness (as modern evolutionary theory claims). It actually comes about through dialectical trial and error. The strongest minds in the universe – those of the first generation of potential gods – continually try to grab and organise atoms and molecules into cells, and finally succeed in producing plants and animals.

To the uninformed (evolutionary scientists!), random material events seem to underlie evolution. They acknowledge no trace of any unseen minds at work, trying to establish a link to the physical world (via the mechanism of Fourier mathematics). Individual minds keep performing mathematical experiments until something eventually works. Mental, unconscious, trial and error is the basis of evolution, not random movements and interactions of mindless, lifeless atoms, as science claims. It can take millions and even billions of years for the first minds to achieve life, i.e. subjective control of collections of objective atoms and molecules.

Initially, every subjective mind operates unconsciously, in a vegetative way. Only when a highly complex body is built – that of humans or a comparable species – does it become possible for unconscious minds to become conscious. In Illuminism, the very first mind to attain consciousness is the most powerful mind in the universe and is called Abraxas. Abraxas is also the first mind to attain gnosis – God consciousness – and thus Abraxas is the First God. Abraxas then assists other elite, meritocratic minds to join him in a Community of Gods. Eventually, every mind in existence is promoted to divinity, and it’s then time for the Cyclical Age to end, and for a new Big Bang and a new universe.

The Letters of Life

Imagine subatomic particles as the letters of the alphabet brought into physical existence i.e. imagine quarks, leptons, gluons, photons, Higgs bosons and so on as the ontological equivalents of a’s, b’s, c’s, d’s and so on. Each letter is a specific mathematical function defined by the Monadic Collective. Atoms are built up from the basic letters, molecules from atoms and bodies from molecules. Nature is a book, and the letters, words, sentences and chapters are ontological mathematical functions.

Imagine a universe of self-writing books, where the letters are forever arranging themselves into all compossible words, sentences and chapters. That’s what the material world is.

Dreamers

We are all private dreamers in a collective dream. The material world is the collective dreamspace. Our own dreams take place in our private rather than public dreamspace. The dreamspace (the public dreamspace) of the collective dream is made out of things produced by the Monadic Collective, so these things have objective existence (acknowledged by all minds), hence obey rigid mathematical rules. In our own dreams, no such objective entities exist (everything is subjective), so we can change whatever we like in our dreams just by willing it. We encounter no fundamental resistance in our own dreams but we always do in the collective dream. That’s the difference between the two dreamspaces.

Holmes and Watson

In the tales of the great detective Sherlock Holmes (by Arthur Conan Doyle), Holmes functions as pure intellect, pure reason, pure nous. He’s more akin to a computer than a person. He’s the one with the vast IQ, while his pedestrian partner, Dr Watson, is the one who supplies a high EQ (emotional intelligence).

Watson functions as the proxy for the reader, with Holmes having to laboriously explain everything to him, and thus to the reader.

In Star Trek, Spock takes the Sherlock Holmes role, and Dr McCoy the Watson role. Captain Kirk is the synthesis of Spock (thesis) and McCoy (antithesis). He’s not as logical as Spock, but nor is he as emotional and sentimental as McCoy, and he has the best judgment and decision-making talent of them all (which is why he’s the captain).

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Commander Data actually plays Sherlock Holmes in the Holodeck. Commander Riker is the new, tougher version of Watson (with emotional duties also being distributed between Dr Crusher and Counsellor Troi). Captain Picard is a kind of Zen Kirk, much more spiritual.

All interesting stories and casts of characters will typically reflect the components of the Platonic soul, or some such theory of the mind or soul. We will have a logical, rational character reflecting the Platonic Nous, a character of spirit and heart reflecting the Platonic Thymos, and a character (often the enemy) of pure appetite and desire, representing the Platonic lowest part of the soul.

In Freudian terms, we will have a moralistic Superego character (Dr Jekyll), an immoral Id character (Mr Hyde) and a rationalist, pragmatic Ego character (the synthesis of Jekyll and Hyde).

In Jungian storytelling, we will have a transcendent Self character, a luminous Anima/Animus figure, magical Mana characters, a sinister and deadly Shadow figure, a fake and phoney Persona figure, and a confused Everyman Ego hero seeking the truth of his existence.

In stories based on David Riesman’s sociological types, we will have characters obsessed with their peer group (other-directed), those obsessed with their communities and upholding the way things have always been done (tradition-directed), those reflecting the values of their parents (inner-directed), and free-thinking radicals and outsiders (the autonomous).

We all fit into some story role or other. We can understand the world by understanding the roles those around us are playing. If you’re highly logical, there’s no point in expecting to be surrounded by like-minded Mr Spocks. You will meet many McCoys and Kirks, and many people almost the complete opposite of you, who will oppose virtually everything you stand for. That’s life. It’s the Never-Ending Story.

The Scientific Method

In the 19th century, science was 100% deterministic. In the 20th century, the advent of quantum mechanics (and the establishment’s specific interpretation of it), changed science to 100% indeterministic. Of what rational value is the much vaunted scientific method if it has a 100% range, i.e. if tomorrow it can declare that black is in fact white?

Ontological mathematics is 100% true, infallible and absolute forever. Why would any rational person prefer to seek truth via the scientific method rather than the mathematical method?

Physis and Arche

"Physis is a Greek theological, philosophical, and scientific term usually translated into English as ‘nature’." – Wikipedia

"Arche is a Greek word with primary senses ‘beginning’, ‘origin’ or ‘first cause’. Later, ‘power’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘domination’ as extended meanings were accepted by some. This list is extended to ‘ultimate underlying substance’ and ‘ultimate undemonstrable principle’. In the language of the archaic period (8th-6th century BC) arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. In ancient Greek Philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing. If a thing is to be well established or founded, its arche or starting point must be secure. The most secure foundations are those provided by the gods – the indestructible, immutable and eternal ordering of things." – Wikipedia

The pre-Socratic philosophers spoke of physis in two ways: 1) the basic substance of existence, out of which everything else in the world is made (also known as the arche, the first principle), or, 2) a unifier, a pattern, an ordering system via which all things in the world are united.

Heraclitus used the term Logos for the divine pattern that guides and unifies all of nature. Therefore, to understand the world we must understand Logos. Anaxagoras said that Nous (mind) is the rational force within nature, guiding and ordering the cosmos. Nous and Logos are similar concepts and can easily blend into each other.

It’s only by understanding the Logos that we can make sense of our experiences and arrive at knowledge of the true nature of the world. In modern Illuminism, Logos is ontological mathematics, as indeed it was originally for Pythagoras.

Aristotle called the pre-Socratic philosophers the phusikoi because they were so obsessed with identifying the physis. This is the origin of the modern word physicist. Yet these original physicists were as much metaphysical as physical, hence radically different from today’s physicists.

The search for the arche often reflected the doctrine of Material Monism – the concept that all objects in the world are variations on a single physical substance, that Nature has a single material building block. For Thales, the physis (arche) was water. For Anaximines, the physis was aer (air), a thick mist or breath. However, non-material conceptions were also possible. For Anaximander, the physis was apeiron (the infinite, the unbounded, the eternal and indefinite substance, without any properties of its own). For Pythagoras, the physis was numbers, and for Heraclitus it was fire (or mathematical energy, as we would now say).

Parmenides generated a philosophical crisis when he argued that true reality bore no resemblance to our sensory experience. He insisted that reason revealed that everything that existed was one, continuous, eternal, unchanging, unmoving sphere with no qualities or characteristics. This was the Parmenidean Real.

The Eleatics, including Zeno and Milessus, were the philosophers who endorsed this position. They were the first outright metaphysicians and rationalists, considering pure, abstract reason (as opposed to observation and experience) as the sole criterion of, and route to, truth. Their position 100% contradicted the empiricist view of reality.

The pluralists believed that there were multiple true things in the world, rather than the one of Parmenides.

The Macrocosm/Microcosm Principle

As Above, So Below

According to this principle, observations about human beings or human society can tell us about the whole universe. The workings of things on the small scale tell us about the workings of things on the large scale.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

The principle of sufficient reason: there is no effect without a cause, no change without a reason for the change. For every fact, there’s a reason why it is thus and not otherwise.

Although Leibniz was the first to name and precisely formulate this principle, Anaximander was the first to deploy it (to account for why the earth needs no material support in order to stay stationary in space, i.e. without falling).

This principle is the most important of all. In fact, it defines existence. Mathematics alone is consistent with the principle of sufficient reason. Looking at it another way, mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason.

Consider the two alternatives to a universal principle of sufficient reason:

1) A universal principle of unreason: everything happens for no reason at all. This is a universe of randomness and might as well be a universe of magic since anything can happen at any time for no reason.

2) A universal principle of some reason and some unreason. There could be no possible rational justification for such a universe, and nothing would make any sense in it. Nothing would be predictable.

Therefore, you have a choice between a mathematical universe of sufficient reason, or a non-mathematical universe of no reason at all or partial reason and partial unreason. Which is it to be?

If this is a rational universe – which it is – then the universe must be 100% mathematical. An irrational universe is inconceivable. It would destroy itself instantly since there would be no reason for any order, organisation and pattern in such a universe.

Classical science was totally deterministic and 100% consistent with the principle of sufficient reason. The advent of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics turned this on its head. The three chief proponents of this view – Bohr, Heisenberg and Born – were all Nobel laureates, and yet they destroyed science as it had hitherto been known. They made science indeterministic. Science, thanks to them, became based on randomness, probability and statistics rather than on reason and determinism. Science is now absolutely irrational.

Why did this happen? It was caused by science’s hatred of analytic, ontological mathematics and reason, and its preference for the scientific method and empiricism.

The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is the greatest error in scientific history. There’s no valid reason for it at all. Why was Max Born awarded a Nobel Prize? It was for turning something real (ontological) – the quantum mechanical wavefunction – into something unreal and probabilistic. Born should have his Nobel Prize retrospectively revoked, unless being 100% wrong is something that science values and promotes.

The pure wavefunction involves imaginary numbers and these are unacceptable to empiricists. Rather than accept that imaginary numbers are ontological and that a principle of sufficient reason applies, Born chose to dismiss imaginary numbers and remove them by squaring the wavefunction (making it negative) and taking its absolute value (making it positive), thereby introducing the catastrophe and insanity of core randomness and probability into science (to the total disgust of physicists such as Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie and Bohm). Bohr, Heisenberg and Born all ignored hidden variables and replaced the principle of sufficient reason with the ridiculous principle of unreason. This has nothing to do with science and truth, but solely with philosophy – which is what modern science actually is: the philosophy of empiricism and materialism.

The First Problem

The earliest Greek philosophers were all concerned with the physis, the arche, i.e. with what is the most basic substance of the world. What is it that underlies everything else?

Thales and Anaximines gave answers of actual, observable substances. Thales said water was the arche, while Anaximenes said it was air. Anaximander was boldest by proposing a rational substance – the apeiron – that could not be observed at all, making him the first rationalist rather than empiricist.

For the pre-Socratics, the physis was either some basic cosmic constituent or some basic cosmic lawlike pattern. In Illuminism, ontological mathematics is the physis, the arche, and all things are derived from ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the basic lawlike pattern and it’s encoded in, and expressed through, living, mental mathematical entities called monads, the basic units of existence. This is the definitive answer the pre-Socratics were searching for. In fact, Pythagoras and Heraclitus, two pre-Socratics and also two Grand Masters of the Illuminati, had already arrived at it, and Anaximander had foreshadowed it with his apeiron, as had Anaxagoras with his Nous.

Pythagoras said that all things are numbers, and that number rules all, and that’s exactly right. Heraclitus said that the arche, as a substance, was fire and, as a unifying set of laws, was Logos that controlled the entire natural world (and was expressed through the fire). Today we would simply identify the Logos with the laws of mathematics and fire with mathematical energy that conveys the laws.

*****

Parmenides claimed that only one thing truly existed: a unified, unchanging, unmoving reality. In this view, everything else was pure illusion, but Parmenides made no attempt to explain how this dynamic, plural illusion could be caused by his unmoving, unchanging One.

The Plurality Problem

How can one substance, a monism, give rise to the plurality of objects we observe in the world? There’s only one way – mathematically. Mathematics alone has the power to generate infinite diversity. It’s built into mathematics, and not into anything else.

For Anaximander, the arche was the Unbounded (the apeiron), and it contained all opposites. This was a kind of Taoist yin and yang vision, or a scientific attraction and repulsion dichotomy, or love and strife (as Empedocles put it), or a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. Therefore, opposites contained within the arche created the required diversity.

All such ideas are vague and mystical until framed mathematically, and especially in terms of the different but complementary properties of sine and cosine waves, above all in terms of their respective symmetry properties, sine waves being odd and antisymmetric while cosine waves are even and symmetric.

*****

In Illuminism, existence can be considered as both a monism and plurality. There’s only a single universal law – the God Equation – but it’s expressed through countless, individual, autonomous monads. The single law provides the monistic aspect of the system, and the monads the pluralistic aspect.

The Maintenance Problem

How does the universe retain and maintain its order and organisation? There’s no mystery if the universe is eternally mathematical, given that order and organisation are built into mathematics. Mathematics alone can deliver natural equilibrium, lawfulness within nature, homeostasis, self-regulation, and yet all within an overarching dialectical progression. Without mathematics, everything would degenerate into chaos.

Science absurdly claims that the answer to the maintenance problem is randomness (chaos), i.e. it says that order can emerge from underlying chaos and be maintained by underlying chaos, through the magic of statistics! For scientists, probability replaces cause.

Knowledge and Belief (Opinion)

How can we have any knowledge of things we can’t see? Aren’t we just kidding ourselves, inventing beliefs, conjectures and opinions? In fact, when it comes to mathematics, we can’t see it, yet we can have absolute knowledge of it. Therefore, if existence is mathematical, we can know everything rationally. We don’t need to see things.

Heraclitus said that trying to arrive at knowledge without understanding the Logos was like trying to decipher speech without understanding the language of the speaker. That’s exactly right. And the language of nature is mathematics. Mathematics is the Logos.

Why is it so hard for people to accept mathematics as the arche? It’s because they can’t imagine mathematics in terms of empirical things. Mathematics is grounded in non-empirical, ontological entities called monads – living mathematical minds, encoded with all of the laws of mathematics (in fact, ultimately with just one law: the God Equation). They are unconscious but can evolve consciousness. These monads are none other than souls. Souls are the basis of ontological mathematics, hence the basis of existence. This is what Leibniz’s Monadology is all about.

*****

Parmenides was so hostile to empiricism – to the notion that all knowledge comes to us through our senses and experiences – that he said we should rely purely on reason to arrive at knowledge. We should simply ignore the sensible world and sensory experience. The intelligible world alone is what matters. This way of thinking powerfully influenced Plato.

As for Heraclitus, he said that observation must be tempered by rational insight in order to reach authentic knowledge, in contrast with Parmenides who believed that any observations or experiences were bound to deceive us and lead us to untruths.

Parmenides’ true world, based purely on the faculty of reason, was wholly non-observable, non-physical and exhibited no change. We might say that what he was really describing was a perfect mathematical Singularity. There was no physical movement and no physical change. All movement and change were in fact mental.

So, already with the pre-Socratics, the great war between the empiricists and rationalists had begun, and final victory has still not been declared. There can, however, be no question that rationalism is correct – because the world is 100% mathematical and obeys the principle of sufficient reason.

The Sensible and Intelligible Worlds

The sensible world comprises five individual sensory worlds:

1) The world of sight – detected by the eyes.

2) The world of sound – detected by the ears.

3) The world of smell – detected by the nose.

4) The world of taste – detected by the tongue.

5) The world of touch – detected by the hands and flesh.

Are these five worlds the only worlds, as scientists and empiricists claim, or are there other worlds, for which we have no senses, hence no way of empirically detecting?

Rationalists claim that there’s an intelligible world beyond, behind and underpinning the five worlds of the senses, and that it’s invisible to the senses but not to intellect, reason and intuition. Ultimately, it’s a mathematical world, and we can fully understand it mathematically even though we can have no empirical encounter with mathematics itself, only with its sensory effects.

The sensible world is local, i.e. you can’t use your senses to detect anything outside a small range of your current location. Our senses create the localist illusion, the notion that non-local knowledge is impossible.

The intelligible world is strictly non-local and any part of it can be reached at any time, no matter your location, via your reason or intuition (or even Extra Sensory Perception!).

The sensible world is physical and local and the intelligible world mental and non-local.

The non-sensory world – the intelligible world – is detected by two intelligible faculties (and we might even call them senses, but mental rather than physical):

1) Intuition shows us portions of the intelligible world all at once, with no conscious thought required on our part. Intuition allows us to perceive directly, intellectually, without reasoning. This is our sixth sense and is very different from our five normal senses. The sixth sense has been described as a supposed intuitive faculty giving awareness not explicable in terms of normal perception; a power of perception seemingly independent of the five senses. It’s this sense that gives rise to ESP. All of the information of the local, sensible world is encoded mentally and holographically in the non-sensible world, and can be reached by intuition, bypassing the physical senses entirely. Intuition is our most powerful non-local faculty. In its truest sense of giving us access to information beyond our local sensory range, intuition is formally denied by scientific materialism. The Kantian noumenon is an object of intellectual intuition and is opposed to the Kantian phenomenon, which is an object of the senses. Noumena (from ancient Greek noos, mind) are those things which are apprehended or perceived by the mind, as opposed to phenomena (from ancient Greek phainomenon: that which appears or is seen), which are perceived by the senses. According to science, there’s no such thing as independent mind, hence nothing can be apprehended by the mind independently of matter and the physical senses.

2) Reason shows us, step by step, the intelligible world (of mathematics). If intuition is intellectually perceiving directly without reasoning, reason is intellectually perceiving directly with reasoning. Where intuition is associated with the unconscious and the right hemisphere of the brain, reason is associated with consciousness and the left hemisphere of the brain. Reason is what allows us to become conscious of the rational, intelligible world. Reason, strictly speaking, is relevant only to mathematics. When we try to apply reason to non-mathematical arenas, such as Mythos, religion, politics, economics, speculative philosophy, experimental science, scientific materialism and empiricism, reason can easily lead us astray since it’s no longer being used for its true purpose and now becomes an instrument of interpretation, conjecture, opinion, belief and hypothesis. True reason addresses only the eternal truths of reason (the truths of mathematics). False reason addresses contingent, temporal truths of fact, truths of faith, truths of religious dogmatism and revelation, truths of opinion and interpretation, and so on. Reason is our seventh sense.

Kant wrote his famous Critique of Pure Reason to expose where, in his opinion, reason went wrong. Ironically, his book is itself a classic example of reason being wrongly applied. Reason has only one true domain of validity: mathematics, incorporating the associated eternal truths of reason, and the principle of sufficient reason (of which mathematics is the ontological expression). Outside that domain, reason is corrupted by the senses, feelings, and desires, and is