The Science of Monads

By Mike Hockney

Scientific materialism isn’t the only type of science. Leibniz, the great German genius, was a champion of scientific idealism. The atoms in his system weren’t physical, but mental, and he named them monads. A present-day Leibniz might say, “All things are made from mental atoms, which are simple mathematical substances from which all compounds are mathematically derived via the laws of ontological mathematics. Monads are expressed through constant motion, and that mental motion is what we call thinking. Pure thinking takes place in an immaterial, mathematical frequency domain outside space and time. By virtue of Fourier mathematics, frequency functions can be represented in a spacetime domain, and this domain is what is known as the physical world of matter. It is just a certain mode of mental functionality. There is no such thing as scientific matter. There is only mind. A mind is a monad, and monads are all there are. Everything is an expression of monadic, mental mathematics.”

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Jul 31, 2015
• ISBN: 9781326380403

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

Table of Contents

The Science of Monads

Table of Contents

Introduction

Eternal Reason

The Real World

Success?

The Monadology

The Wonder of the World

Substance

Don’t Fear the Reaper

You and God

Apocalypse Never

Who’s Wearing the Mask?

Redundancy

The Two Universes

Illuminism

Efficient and Final Causes

The Material Illusion

Illuminism versus Science

The Dream

Four Worldviews

The New Mythos Mind

Two Worlds in One

Black Holes

Excellence

Inner Force

Metamorphosis

The Past

Will to Power

The Best World

Monads

Life-Giving Comets?

The Universal Spirit

Descartes and the Soul

The Unconscious Mind

Esoteric Devil Worship

The Importance of Music

Hyperego?

The Blame Game

Mythos, Pathos, Logos, Eikonos

The Mathematical Point

The Labyrinth of the Continuum

Lunar Time

What Is Mind?

Near Death Experiences

The First Philosopher

The Earth Is Not Enough

The God of Failure

Ontology

The Will

The Laws of Existence

Leibniz’s Principle of the Best

The Answer

The Divine Genetic Code

Spinoza versus Leibniz

The Math God

Quantum Consciousness

Enlightenment

Soul Breath

Perfection

Life and Death

The Most Exclusive Club on Earth

Atheism

Love

Charm

Hanging Out?

The Next Phase

The Hollywood Doctrine

The Evolution of Illuminism

What a Wonderful World?!

Slave to Money, Slave to Power

Hardcore?

The Failure of Physics

The Failure of Biology

Forbidden Planet

The Great Machine

The Mind/Matter War

Kitsch

The Monster

The Ugly Knight

The Creators

A Clockwork Orange

Transhumanists

Humanity 2.0

The Creator

Black and Blue Cities

The Rich Man’s Con

Zombie Politics

Project Fear

The Democratic Deficit

Narcissus: the Self-Admirer

Immune System

Stuck

War and Peace

Zombies

Ronins

Mysticism

Why?

The Truth

Monadic Science

Introduction

If a scientific materialist were asked to sum up his belief system, he might reflect exactly what Richard Feynman, a pope of science, said: If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

Scientific materialism isn’t the only type of science. Leibniz, the great German genius, was a champion of scientific idealism. The atoms in his system weren’t physical, but mental, and he named them monads. To counter Feynman’s position, a present-day Leibniz might say, "All things are made from mental atoms, which are simple mathematical substances from which all compounds are mathematically derived via the laws of ontological mathematics. Monads are expressed through constant motion, and that mental motion is what we call thinking. Pure thinking takes place in an immaterial, mathematical frequency domain outside space and time. By virtue of Fourier mathematics, frequency functions can be represented in a spacetime domain, and this domain is what is known as the physical world of matter. It is not ‘physical’ in any true sense. It’s just a certain mode of mental functionality. There is no such thing as scientific matter. There is only mind. A mind is a monad, and monads are all there are. Everything is an expression of monadic, mental mathematics."

Well, who’s right between Feynman and the modern Leibniz? Both are scientists, but Feynman is a materialist who believes in material atoms in spacetime as the basis of our reality, while the modern Leibniz is an idealist who posits mental, mathematical atoms in an immaterial frequency domain as the ground of existence. Feynman is an empiricist who believes in sensory experiments as the source of reliable evidence, while the modern Leibniz is a rationalist who advocates mathematical reason as the source of provable Truth. These are two wholly opposed worldviews, at war with each other.

Scientific materialists imagine themselves clear thinkers opposed to believers in silly Mythos religions, but those are not their real enemies. Their true opponents are mathematical rationalists who advocate reason and intellect over the senses and experience. The Truths of reality are not sensory, contingent, empirical truths of fact. They are non-sensory, eternal, necessary, non-empirical truths of reason. Only one subject can capture the eternal truths of reason: ontological mathematics. Scientific materialism won’t help you one jot.

You have a simple question to ask yourself. Is Truth sensory or rational? If it’s sensory, it’s not rational (it’s empirical), and if it’s rational, it’s not sensory (it’s non-empirical). Scientific materialists are believers in sensory, empirical truth, but that’s not Truth at all – that’s opinion, conjecture belief and interpretation. Only rational truths are unarguably, absolutely, infallibly, eternally true, and only they constitute knowledge. Scientific materialism has nothing to do with authentic knowledge, only with the current interpretive best guess, which can change as soon as a new theory comes along. Scientific materialism is about producing successful, expedient simulacra of reality in order to do pragmatic things, but it has no capacity to explain what reality actually is in its innermost kernel. Plato said as much well over two thousand years ago, but scientific materialists have never understood Plato given that, like Leibniz, he was an idealist and rationalist rather than a materialist and empiricist.

Writer Flannery O’Connor said, The truth does not change according to our ability stomach it. Even though 99.9% of the human race can’t stomach mathematics as the ultimate answer to everything, that doesn’t change one iota the fact that it is. It’s irrational to imagine that anything other than mathematics – the quintessential rationalist subject – could explain the rational universe in which we find ourselves. How could the most rational subject not be the basis of rational reality? Science is not a rational subject. It’s an empirical subject, which is something entirely different.

If you don’t consider that the universe is in fact rational then any irrational answer is as good as any other for making irrational sense of the irrational!

Richard Feynman said, This is the key of modern science and is the beginning of the true understanding of nature. This idea. That to look at the things, to record the details, and to hope that in the information thus obtained, may lie a clue to one or another of a possible theoretical interpretation.

This is a typical statement by a philosophically illiterate scientist. On the one hand, Feynman advocates empiricism (the close observation and experience of nature), and, on the other hand, he requires this empiricism to generate a theoretical interpretation. But all scientific theories are expressed in quasi-mathematical terms, and are wholly dependent on mathematics, yet mathematics has zero need of empiricism. Mathematics is a 100% rationalist, deductive, necessary, analytic a priori subject. So, where is Feynman’s explanation for what mathematics is, and why it’s so critical to the success of science ... which is an empirical, inductive, contingent, synthetic a posteriori subject? No scientist on earth can answer this question, and if they can’t do that, why should we imagine that they can explain anything else?

Scientists do not explain anything. What they do is model phenomena. Models are interpretations of reality, not reality itself. Models can be stunningly successful while being entirely false. Einsteinian physics falsified Newtonian physics in ontological terms, yet Newtonian physics remains incredibly accurate in all scenarios humanity typically encounters.

Newtonian physics is an effective approximation to day-to-day reality, but approximation isn’t Truth. Truth is about absolute precision, infallibility, eternal validity and correctness, and closed, analytic necessity.

People don’t understand what words such as Truth and Knowledge actually mean, and they misuse them all the time. They mistake interpretive evidence for proof; they mistake models, simulations, interpretations and approximations of reality for reality itself; they mistake consensus for confirmation and corroboration. They continuously mistake things for other, different things. They continuously mistake opinions, beliefs, interpretations and conjectures for something more than that. They mistake Mythos for Logos. They mistake metaphor for literalism. As Nietzsche said, ...truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour...

It’s almost comical – or perhaps tragic – what people believe true, and what they consider untrue. It’s just as bad what they consider concrete and what they believe abstract. Mathematics is regarded as the supreme abstraction, and yet it’s actually the most concrete thing of all: it’s the fibre of existence, the basis of true ontology and epistemology.

Nietzsche said that humanity’s truths are merely its irrefutable errors. Only one thing cannot be refuted – ontological mathematics, the true ground of existence.

The Model

Science is merely a model of reality, not reality itself. People seem to have real difficulty appreciating the difference. A model can be highly successful, but totally false. Unfortunately, simple-minded people associate success with Truth. They believe that if a model makes successful predictions, it must reflect reality. This is a childish notion. Science makes successful predictions because it uses mathematics, not because science’s claims – its non-mathematical interpretations of reality – are true. In fact, they’re invariably false.

Newtonian physics is fantastically successful while being 100% false ontologically and epistemologically. It’s successful because the mathematical formulae Newton arrived at are good approximations to the true mathematics of reality within the circumstances and environments we typically encounter. The problem with science is that it bases its ontology and epistemology (such as they are) on success, not on analytic principles, not on Truth.

The folly of this approach is mercilessly exposed in the standoff between relativity theory and quantum mechanics. These theories are both wondrously successful – which is science’s only criterion of truth – and yet are 100% incompatible. They are the absolute contradiction of each other. They imply wholly different ontologies and epistemologies. In fact, it’s arguable that neither theory is consistent with any rational ontology or epistemology at all. They are nothing but inconsistent, illogical models that fail to reflect the rational hidden variables (mathematical variables) that underlie them.

How is science supposed to find an overarching theory (a final theory) that embraces these two incompatible theories? Logically, it can’t be done, yet scientists – absurdly – have been trying for many decades to do so. These people suffer from a complete lack of rationalism. They think that some miraculous Feynman guess will save the day. But no guess can salvage incompatible theories. One or indeed both theories must be admitted to be wrong, but that flies in the face of the way science does things. All that science cares about is whether a theory matches the experimental results. It has no interest in whether the theory makes any sense – as relativity and quantum mechanics both demonstrate. No scientist understands either theory.

If experimental success is all you rely on, how can you make any progress with two theories that are both experimentally successful but contradict each other? You have nowhere to go. There are no techniques, principles or analysis you can use. You are stuck with your Feynman guesses, but no guess will ever make two incompatible theories compatible. If scientists had any philosophical literacy, they would realise that. As it is, they will go on guessing forever! They are the new inheritors of the task of Sisyphus ... pushing the boulder up the hill and watching it fall back down again until the end of time. There’s no way out.

Isn’t it remarkable that scientists talk of a final theory at all? That theory – even if it were scientifically possible – would be a 100% materialistic theory and would therefore say nothing about the mind, life and consciousness, hence wouldn’t be final at all. It would be just another theory, just another model, just another interpretation.

The Big Question

Q. Why is the universe intelligible?

A. Because it’s made of reason. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be rational, hence it wouldn’t be intelligible. An irrational universe – a universe composed of anything other than something intrinsically rational – could not be understood since it would obey no laws and exhibit no order, organisation, pattern and structure. The ontological system that enshrines reason is none other than mathematics. The universe is intelligible because it’s mathematical. It’s really very simple!

No Material Atoms

"But atoms of matter are contrary to reason. ... There are only atoms of substance, that is to say, real unities absolutely devoid of parts, which are the sources of actions, and the absolute first principles of the composition of things, and as it were the ultimate elements of analysis of substantial things. They can be called metaphysical points: they have something vital in them, and a kind of perception, and mathematical points are their points of view for expressing the universe." – Leibniz

Math

If there were a Creator God, what would he use to create the world? He would use the perfection of the operations of mathematics. But then the question arises, Isn’t mathematics more perfect, eternal and necessary than God himself?

Isn’t God either mathematics itself, or created by mathematics?

Eternal Reason

For in eternal things, even if there is no cause, we must still understand there to be a reason. In things that persist, the reason is the nature or essence itself... – Leibniz

Uncaused, uncreated substances (monads) must have a sufficient reason for their existence. In fact, uncaused substances are reason. They are reason itself, living reason. Their nature or essence is that of reason.

To state that something has a reason for existence implies that reason precedes existence, but of course nothing can precede existence. The only way to square this is for existence to be reason itself, i.e. existence and reason are synonymous. We live in a rational universe because the universe is reason. If the universe weren’t reason, it would ipso facto be irrational, but an irrational universe is impossible because it would dissolve into meaningless, irrational chaos and randomness, from which neither order nor organisation could ever emerge. We could never have a cosmos – an intelligible universe – if it were not actually made of reason, i.e. if it did not have order and organisation built into it. Of course, reason must have a specific form and that is none other than ontological mathematics. Mathematics is what encapsulates living, existential reason. In ontological mathematics, everything has a reason. It comes built in to the mathematical framework.

Ontological mathematics is the principle of sufficient reason. It provides the sufficient reason why everything is such and not otherwise. Ontological mathematics is both uncaused and the source of all causality. It’s the uncaused cause, the first cause. Ontological mathematics is the sufficient reason for the operations of cause and effect. Ontological mathematics = the principle of sufficient reason = the principle of causality. No scientist or philosopher has ever explained what causality actually is. Causality is simply dynamic, ontological mathematics, from which the universe is made, i.e. causation is built into everything. Uncaused mathematics is the first cause, the prime mover, which causes and moves everything else (which are all the effects of mathematics).

There must be a reason for causality and the reason is reason itself – the fundamental stuff of existence. As ontological mathematics dynamically moves from one mathematical state to another, it does so flawlessly according to its own inbuilt mathematical laws. Each state inexorably produces the succeeding state, and so on. There is no room for irrationality, randomness, magic, faith, God or anything else.

When Hegel said, The real is rational, and the rational is real, he was declaring that reason is ontological and therefore everything that is real – everything that exists – is rational.

Hegel’s dialectic is all about the rational, logical operations of living, cosmic reason.

*****

Therefore, since the ultimate ground must be in something which is of metaphysical necessity, and since the reason for an existing thing must come from something that actually exists, it follows that there must exist some entity of metaphysical necessity, that is, there must be an entity whose essence is existence... – Leibniz

The only thing whose essence is existence, and which can provide a sufficient reason for everything else ... is reason itself. If something had existence as its essence but was not itself reason (hence reason did not precede it), it would have no sufficient reason for its existence. If the ultimate stuff of existence did not require a sufficient reason for its existence, nor would anything else derived from it, hence we would live in a universe of absolute chaos, or absolute magic.

The only way in which the ultimate stuff of existence can have a sufficient reason is if it is reason, in which case we are guaranteed that everything has a reason since the universe is made of reason. This absolutely refutes the scientific materialist understanding of the universe, originating in inexplicable randomness (which has no sufficient reason).

Since the universe is made of reason, which is just the same as ontological mathematics, then reason and mathematics are innate in all of us and precede any of our experiences, exactly as the rationalists always claimed and the empiricists always denied.

Whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, we are all rationalists and mathematicians. The problem is, we are not conscious rationalists and mathematicians. And unconscious reason is a very different beast from conscious reason.

Where objective unconscious reason (associated with matter and efficient causes) operates like an immense mathematical machine devoid of freedom, subjective unconscious reason (associated with life and final causes), operates according to the most primitive expression of reason – the brute-force dialect where opposites are violently collided together and syntheses generated (which constitute higher rational states and the raw material for further iterations of the dialectic).

*****

Beasts are purely empirical and are guided solely by instances, for, as far as we able to judge, they never manage to form necessary propositions ... The consequences beasts draw are just like those of simple empirics, who claim that what has happened will happen again in a case where what strikes them is similar, without being able to determine whether the same reasons are at work. This is what makes it so easy for men to capture beasts, and so easy for simple empirics to make mistakes. Not even people made skilful by age and experience are exempt from this when they rely too much on past experiences. This has happened to several people in civil and military affairs, since they do not take sufficiently into consideration the fact that the world changes and that men have become more skilful in finding thousands of new tricks, unlike the stags and hares of today, who have not become any more clever than those of yesterday. The consequences beasts draw are only a shadow of reasoning, that is, they are only connections of imagination, transition from one image to another; for, when a new situation appears similar to the preceding one, they expect to find again what was previously joined to it, as though things were linked in fact, just because their images are linked in the memory. – Leibniz

And is what Leibniz describes not exactly how most humans reason too? They use the shadow of reason, not proper reason. Just as the stags and hares of today think in exactly the same way as the stags and hares of thousands of years ago (their thinking hasn’t evolved at all), so do most humans, which is why they continue to believe in silly, refuted ancient religions.

Space and Time

When most people imagine the universe, they have some sort of common sense notion in mind, more or less identical to that of Newton. They picture the universe as a vast box in which material things move, and in which time passes at a uniform rate, as if a great cosmic clock were ticking. This is what our senses appear to reveal, but, of course, we know this view is false ... Einstein decisively refuted it. But if this basic sensory picture is wrong, why should we imagine that any other sensory picture is right? Why should we ever rely on our senses and experiences? They are inherently unreliable witnesses that actively falsify reality. Yet the whole of science is predicated on the correctness of empiricism and materialism, even though relativity theory and quantum mechanics have more or less nothing in common with empiricism and materialism, and have much more in common with pure mathematics, a non-sensory, non-empirical subject.

All sensing types are basically Newtonians who just can’t get beyond their sensory impressions. Intuitives, on the other hand, can easily conceive that the sensory world is false. The most common intuition is that everything is interconnected, and this can be true only in an immaterial Singularity, a Oneness outside space and time.

Science refuses to accept this intuition, despite the fact that science is full of singularities, and the material world of spacetime actually originated in a Big Bang Singularity.

As Jung pointed out, sensing types and intuitives are the opposites of each other. The more sensory you are, the less intuitive you are, and vice versa. Scientists are hyper-sensing types, and have almost zero intuition and imagination. They can’t understand what quantum mechanics actually means because this requires the abandonment of the sensory, empiricist, materialist paradigm, but scientists are incapable of thinking outside of that particular box.

They can’t conceive of an immaterial frequency domain where space, time and matter simply don’t apply. Because they can’t conceive of it, they deny that it exists. Of course, they have no rational grounds for rejecting something just because they suffer from a lack of intuition and imagination, and because their scientific method is next to useless in probing the frequency domain.

It’s the scientific imagination, such as it is, that’s limited to space and time, not reality itself. It’s a monumental failure of science – the worst possible catastrophe – that it refuses to accept the existence of the mental domain of frequency. Only via the frequency domain can mind be explained, and only via mind can reality be explained.

The left hemisphere of the human brain addresses the sensory world of matter, space and time, and deals with Fourier spacetime functions. This is where consciousness resides. The right hemisphere addresses the non-sensory world of immaterial frequencies, outside space and time, and deals with Fourier frequency functions. This is where the unconscious resides, and where our religious instincts and oceanic feelings of interconnectedness arise. This is where all intuition, synchronicity and paranormal phenomena take place.

Consciousness is local, and disconnected from the rest of the world (it’s individuated). The unconscious is non-local, and interconnected with the entire universe. It’s all in the math.

Science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to accept the existence of a non-local mental domain. It has no reason for doing so beyond sensory prejudice. Non-local things are not sensory objects at all.

Nothing is more important than to grasp that the frequency domain of mind is more fundamental than the spacetime domain of matter, and thus science’s entire ontology and epistemology is false. Science is just wrong, and there’s no getting away from that.

Science is good at modelling the local world of appearances, but useless at addressing the non-local world of noumena. Science denies the existence of anything not susceptible to its method. Science is predicated on a method, not on reason, not on analysis, not on first principles. It’s not a rational subject. It’s not intellectual. A method does not constitute a rational system – unless it’s the mathematical method of incontestable, analytic proof.

Leibniz Against Empiricism

Furthermore, why must it be that everything is acquired by apperceptions of external things and that nothing can be unearthed from within ourselves? Is our soul in itself so empty that, without images borrowed from the outside, it is nothing? – Leibniz

Rationalists versus Empirics

Empirics were ancient physicians who despised theoretical study and instead trusted customs, traditions, folklore and their own experience.

Scientists are divided into two camps: theoretical and experimental, but the former are required to be closely guided by the latter, or they are deemed to have strayed off into speculation and metaphysics. The emphasis scientists place on experiment rather than reason means that they too are empirics. They have contempt for theory that pays no court to experiments and sensory experience.

Empirics are those who define the world according to truths of fact. Rationalists are those who define the world according to truths of reason. These are two wholly opposed worldviews. A rationalist doesn’t need to look at the world to understand it. He could work it all out in his mind. An empiric claims that nothing is true unless he has perceived and experienced it.

The rationalists place reason at the core of existence, while the empirics place perceptible matter at the core.

The rationalists say that all things are derived from reason itself. We live in an intelligible world precisely because it’s made of reason; if it weren’t, it would be unintelligible and there would be no such thing as reason.

The empirics say that all things are derived from particles capable, at least in principle, of sensory detection. We live, they say, in a sensible world rather than an intelligible world (which therefore raises the question of how a sensible world can be intelligible). Empirics can’t explain things. They can only make observations and then attempt to link their observations via efficient causes that they infer (using no analytic processes and no rational principles).

Empirics reject teleology. They reject the undetectable mind and soul. They reject the freedom and consciousness that go with minds and souls.

It’s not clear how empirics distinguish between life and death. What is it that changes when a body, living at one instant, is dead the next, given that the material states of the living body and corpse are more