Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Why Math Must Replace Science
    Why Math Must Replace Science
    Why Math Must Replace Science
    Ebook470 pages12 hours

    Why Math Must Replace Science

    By Mike Hockney

    3/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The greatest catastrophe in intellectual history was to regard physics as real and mathematics as an unreal abstraction. In fact, mathematics is noumenal (true) reality, and physics is phenomenal (illusory) reality. Mathematics tells you what things are in themselves, and physics tells you how they appear to us. Mathematics is the perfect ground of existence, defined by the God Equation. It’s the source of causation, determinism and objective reality; all of the things now formally denied by physics, which claims that observable reality is indeterministically born of unreal, probabilistic wavefunctions.

    It’s time to replace the scientific method with the mathematical method. It’s time to recognize that true reality is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; unobservable, not observable; metaphysical, not physical; hidden, not manifest; rationalist, not empiricist; necessary, not contingent. Physics is literally incapable of detecting true reality since true reality is an eternal, indestructible, dimensionless mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. The Singularity is a precisely defined Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing “woo woo” about it. It's pure math.

    Physicists suffer from a disorder of the mind that causes them to believe that sensible, temporal objects have more reality than eternal, immutable Platonic mathematical objects, and to place more trust in their senses than in their reason, more trust in the scientific method of “evidence” than the mathematical method of eternal proof.

    Never forget that sensory objects are just ideas in the mind. According to quantum physics, objects are just the observable entities produced by the collapse of unreal wavefunctions, and don’t formally exist when they are not being observed. Niels Bohr, in response to Einstein, literally denied that the moon existed when it wasn’t being observed.

    The subject that comes after physics is metaphysics, and the true language of metaphysics is ontological mathematics. Physics is the phenomenal expression of noumenal mathematics.

    Mathematics has one final wonder to confer on us. It provides a complete definition of the human soul, which is, like the universe in itself, just an immaterial, dimensionless mathematical singularity defined by the God Equation. As above, so below. The soul is the microcosm and the universe the macrocosm.

    Anyone who denies that reality is 100% mathematical is simply too stupid for the truth. Truth is not a democracy. It’s not for everyone, only for humanity’s smartest individuals. As Robert Heinlein said, “Democracy can’t work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that's all there is – so democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.”

    This book comprehensively exposes the diabolical philosophical illiteracy, ignorance, bankruptcy and irrationalism of modern scientific “thinking”, most spectacularly evident in the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, the standard interpretation of which is more or less indistinguishable from insanity, yet is taught as “fact” (but is nothing but an extremist expression of empiricist philosophy).

    Ontological mathematicians are vastly more intelligent than physicists. It’s all in the math!

    “Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy.” – William Blake

    The God Series is entirely ignored by all but a handful of audacious souls with open minds. You should always be proud of yourself if you study new ideas without being told to do so by popes, priests, gurus, celebrities, “authorities”, or the mob. Scientists would never dream of reading the God Series. Yet they would all read it if Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins told them to. They are little sheep. Most people in the world belong to flocks and herds. Don't follow the crowd. Think for yourself.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMike Hockney
    Release dateMay 1, 2016
    ISBN9781311648310
    Why Math Must Replace Science
    Author

    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.

    Read more from Mike Hockney

    Related to Why Math Must Replace Science

    Related ebooks

    Mathematics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Metaphysical Baggage of Physics: Lee Smolin argues that time is more fundamental than physical laws.

      Jan 30, 2014

      An issue on time would not be complete without a conversation with Lee Smolin. High school dropout, theoretical physicist, and founding member of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, Smolin’s life and work reflect many

      7 min read

    • Article

      Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

      Nov 29, 2018

      Scientists look around the universe and see amazing structure. There are objects and processes of fantastic complexity. Every action in our universe follows exact laws of nature that are perfectly expressed in a mathematical language. These laws of n

      17 min read

    • Article

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • Article

      A Perception Of Something

      Nov 7, 2020

      A Perception Of Something
      9 min read

    • Article

      Consciousness Mind Over Matter

      Feb 6, 2022

      Consciousness Mind Over Matter
      10 min read

    • Article

      A Clash of Perspectives on Panpsychism

      Feb 27, 2020

      In recent years the concept of panpsychism, “which entertains the possibility that all matter is imbued with consciousness,” writes Annaka Harris, has been firing up cognitive scientists who plumb the nature of consciousness. Some entertain the possi

      7 min read

    • Article

      The Forest Spirits of Today Are Computers

      Feb 27, 2020

      Years before smart homes became a thing, I replaced all the switches in our house with computerized switches. At first, it was just a way to add wall switches without pulling new wire. Over time, I got more ambitious. The system runs a timer routine

      9 min read

    • Article

      Devil In The Detail

      Jun 20, 2021

      Devil In The Detail
      3 min read

    • Article

      Is Matter Conscious?

      Apr 6, 2017

      The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will. Astronomers wonder wh

      12 min read

    • Article

      Is Matter Conscious?

      Feb 27, 2020

      The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will. Astronomers wonder wh

      12 min read

    • Article

      Brain Game

      Feb 12, 2023

      Brain Game
      3 min read

    • Article

      Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can’t tell us whether science explains everything.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Technology cannot keep pace with theoretical predictions about subatomic reality coming from physics. The same applies to our ability to observe the far reaches of the universe. Theory outstrips data and can become more extravagant with the claims it

      6 min read

    • Article

      Picasso and Einstein Got the Picture: Breakthroughs in science and art begin with an image.

      May 15, 2014

      Most of the big steps forward in science are made possible by visualization. Albert Einstein said he visualized the theory of relativity before he worked out the formula. Previous explanations of the universe made no aesthetic sense to him. He was ma

      6 min read

    • Article

      Mind Or Brain?

      Jan 23, 2024

      THAT LITTLE VOICE that’s narrating your experience as you read this—is it in your mind or in your brain? At first glance, this might seem like a stupid semantic question. But it cuts to the heart of a weighty dilemma for modern science that also has

      2 min read

    • Article

      Electrons May Very Well Be Conscious

      Dec 30, 2020

      Happy Holidays. This week we are reprinting our top stories of 2020. This article first appeared online in our Facts So Romantic blog in May, 2020. In May, the cover of New Scientist ran the headline, “Is the Universe Conscious?” Mathematician and ph

      5 min read

    • Article

      Literature Should Be Taught Like Science

      Feb 24, 2021

      In the past quarter century, enrollment in college English departments has sunk like the Pequod in Moby Dick. Meanwhile enrollment in science programs has skyrocketed. It’s understandable. Elon Musk, not Herman Melville, is the role model of the digi

      11 min read

    • Article

      Is The Universe Conscious?

      May 20, 2021

      Is The Universe Conscious?
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Big Idea: Are We Living In A Simulation?

      Aug 8, 2022

      Elon Musk thinks you don’t exist. But it’s nothing personal: he thinks he doesn’t exist either. At least, not in the normal sense of existing. Instead we are just immaterial software constructs running on a gigantic alien computer simulation. Musk ha

      4 min read

    • Article

      'Alien Megastructures' Debunked. Why Are We so Quick to Assume It's Aliens?

      Jan 5, 2018

      Humans often ascribe agency, intelligence, and intentionality to mysterious phenomena. And our tendency to do that may be rooted in our species.

      4 min read

    • Article

      What Boredom Does to You

      Oct 26, 2017

      Every emotion has a purpose—an evolutionary benefit,” says Sandi Mann, a psychologist and the author of The Upside of Downtime: Why Boredom Is Good. “I wanted to know why we have this emotion of boredom, which seems like such a negative, pointless em

      13 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Why Math Must Replace Science

    3/5

    2 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Why Math Must Replace Science - Mike Hockney

      Why Math Must Replace Science

      by

      Mike Hockney

      Published by Hyperreality Books

      smashwords edition

      Copyright © Mike Hockney 2014

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

      Quotations

      But every error is due to extraneous factors (such as emotion and education); reason itself does not err. – Gödel

      God does arithmetic. – Carl Friedrich Gauss

      The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level. – Wolfgang Pauli

      Man know thyself; then thou shalt know the Universe and God. – Pythagoras

      I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible. – Carl Friedrich Gauss

      Thus metaphysics and mathematics are, among all the sciences that belong to reason, those in which imagination has the greatest role. – Jean d’Alembert

      Reason is immortal, all else mortal. – Pythagoras

      Introduction

      Reason never errs, provided it is conducted mathematically. Mathematics is the true language of reason. Mathematics is the living, ontological expression of reason. It’s how reason actually exists in the world.

      If God never errs, only one conclusion is possible: God is mathematics. God is reason. God is perfect because mathematics is perfect. To say that God created everything is to say that everything is made of mathematics. God is all-powerful because mathematics is all-powerful. There is nothing external to mathematics. Mathematics is literally everything. Mathematics is the entire universe, all that was, all that is and all that can be.

      What is the mind made of? – mathematics. What are thoughts made of? – mathematics. What are feelings, sensations, intuitions, and desires made of? – mathematics. What is free will and will to power made of? – mathematics. What is life made of? – mathematics.

      Everything in the universe can be reduced to perfect, analytic, mathematical sinusoids – sine and cosine waves. A thought, in its most basic, atomic form is just a wave. To build up complex thoughts, we simply add different waves together.

      The material world, when you strip away all of its illusory, phenomenal aspects and see it as it is in itself (noumenal reality), is nothing but mathematical waves. What does that mean? It means that matter is nothing other than thinking; matter is made of thoughts (sinusoids); matter is mental.

      Matter is a very special type of thinking: it’s collective rather than individual thinking. When you, as an individual, engage in thinking, you are relying on a set of sinusoids located within your own mind. When all of the minds of the universe think together, they are relying on all the sinusoids located within their collective mind, which is simply the universe itself. These sinusoids come together to produce subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. All the stuff of the material world is nothing but a set of collective rather than individual thoughts. Atoms are how collective thoughts express themselves in their most stable form. The Periodic Table of Chemistry is actually a list of all the stable thoughts produced by all the minds of the universe. The Periodic Table is missing one member – the zeroth member, the most important of all. The zeroth element is pure mind itself: the mathematical monad. From the zeroth element come all of the other elements. The zeroth element is dimensionless, and all the elements derived from it are dimensional. The Big Bang was a mental event, whereby a dimensionless, immaterial Singularity of pure frequency gave rise to a dimensional, material world of space and time.

      When you look at the world, you are not looking at matter per se. Rather, you are looking at the collective rather than individual thoughts of the universe. Collective thoughts, unlike individual thoughts, are objective, standardised, regimented, law-bound, predictable, scientific. All individual idiosyncrasies are stripped out. Individual thoughts are subjective, capricious unpredictable, idiosyncratic, unscientific. Yet all subjective thoughts, like all objective thoughts, are conveyed by perfect, objective sinusoids.

      Most people believe they have a body and a soul, which they conceive in Cartesian terms, i.e. they imagine a disembodied soul inside their body, which detaches itself from the body at death, and, hopefully, goes to heaven. This view is wholly wrong. Your body is as mental as your mind. The difference is that the body is an expression of the Collective Mind, not the individual mind. Your individual mind (soul) connects to a product (body) of the Collective Mind. Your mind does nothing but think, and the Collective Mind does nothing but think, but the mental output of the latter is matter, and everything that matter does in the universe is simply reflecting the laws of how the Collective Mind thinks. Those laws are exclusively mathematical and give rise to what we regard as the scientific universe (with science being phenomenal mathematics, and mathematics itself being unobservable = noumenal).

      Human beings – almost all of whom are mathematically illiterate – have no idea who and what they are, and what the universe is. The last thing they imagine themselves to be is pure math, in a universe of pure math.

      If you wished to conceal the truth, where would you wish to hide it, and indeed where could you hide it, in order to preserve the secret and mystery of existence? You’d put it in the last place anyone would ever look. That place is of course mathematics, the subject humanity hates and dreads more than any other. Not only do people not wish to contemplate mathematics, but mathematics is also purely intellectual, i.e. it cannot, in itself, be perceived, sensed, felt, tasted, touched, smelled, seen, heard or experienced. Only the effects (phenomena) of mathematics are available to us to perceive. But mathematics itself is pure causation, pure noumenon, pure existence. It’s something akin to the Cheshire Cat. We see its grin (effect), but not the cat itself (the cause). We experience the world of mathematics, but we absolutely never see that world in itself: unshielded, revealed, made manifest.

      Only one thing can take us into the world of mathematics – reason – yet humanity is fundamentally irrational and estranged from reason, hence alienated from the mathematical truth of existence. Most people trust their feelings (Abrahamism), intuitions (Eastern religion) or senses (science) over reason (mathematics). The history of science has been the history of revulsion for the noumenal, the unobservable, the metaphysical, yet mathematics is all of those things.

      Science has denied the existence of everything not available to the scientific method, yet mathematics falls exactly into this category. By the greatest of all ironies, science is wholly reliant on mathematics – the one thing that even in principle cannot be an object of the scientific method – and without which science would be mere alchemy and fantasy.

      Humanity has always had the answer to existence right in front of it. In fact, it’s made of it! Yet it has looked everywhere else. It has turned to religion, philosophy and science. Science is the most successful of these precisely because it has the highest mathematical content. Religion is spectacularly unsuccessful at explaining anything because it has no mathematical content at all. It’s complete Mythos – an epic, emotional story.

      All religious ideas and beliefs, are, like everything else, made of mathematical sinusoids, but we only experience the idea or belief itself, not its underlying mathematical form. This is the entire problem. Although everything is made of sinusoids, we don’t perceive sinusoids. We experience the information carried by the sinusoids, not the sinusoids themselves. We experience the information as feelings, desires, will, intuitions, beliefs, hopes, fears, sensations, and so on, i.e. we do not experience mathematics mathematically!

      Music is nothing but sound waves (made of sinusoids), but we don’t experience music as that. We experience it emotionally, as the sound of feelings. In general, we experience the world of math as experience, not as math, as content, not form.

      Following Descartes, philosophy created two rival schools: those of empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism was all about what we experience, and rationalism all about how the world must rationally be. Empiricism ended up denying that there was any rational underpinning to existence: experience was all that mattered, and if we couldn’t experience it, we couldn’t comment on it or know that it even existed. Empiricism soon evolved into science, and science is all about observations and measurements – evidence. Scientists do not accept the existence of anything that is not susceptible to the scientific method. Yet, at the heart of scientific theories is, as we have said, mathematics, and mathematics itself has nothing to do with the scientific method, and has no need of any experiences. It’s a priori (prior to experience) and analytic (true by definition, not by virtue of observing the world).

      Science contains a wholesale contradiction. It promotes the scientific method as the be-all-and-end-all, yet its engine is mathematics, which is pure rationalism and the opposite of the empiricist scientific method. Not a single scientist has ever addressed this fatal hole in the logic of science.

      Science is successful because it irrationally, and unwittingly, stumbled on the truth of the world: that everything is at root mathematical (rationalist), but is experienced non-mathematically (empirically). Science is therefore a hybrid of empiricism and rationalism. The scientific method handles the empiricist part, concerning observations and measurements on the empirical world, and the mathematical theories reflect the rationalist reality of existence.

      However, no scientist understands this. Scientists assign no ontological status to mathematics whatsoever. They have no idea what mathematics is, and they have no idea what it’s doing in an empiricist subject such as science. They use it for no other reason than that it works spectacularly well, i.e. they use it pragmatically and instrumentally, not because they assign it any logical and necessary place in their system.

      Science, as all scientists will tell you, is about the scientific method (empiricism). Not one will tell you that it’s all about mathematics (rationalism). Science is becoming more and more mathematical – M-theory is more or less nothing but math – and yet scientists still refuse to confront the issue of what mathematics is and what it’s doing in science at all.

      David Hume, the greatest empiricist philosopher of them all, would never have allowed empiricism to be based on mathematics for the blindingly obvious reason that mathematics, like causation, cannot be perceived, hence cannot be part of our experience, hence can play no part in empiricism. In fact, causation is mathematics and is indeed unobservable, hence non-empirical.

      Science had none of Hume’s logic and scruples. It did not object to referring to causation and mathematics, despite their non-empirical nature. All it cared about was success, and no one can deny that science has been remarkably successful. However, science is, logically, an incoherent mess. It’s inconsistent and incomplete because it does nothing to account for the presence of rationalist mathematics in its empiricist theories.

      This becomes of crucial importance in a specific area – things that are mathematically valid but outside the scientific method, i.e. they can’t be observed, measured or experienced. Zero, infinity, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, complex numbers and ontological sinusoids are all examples of valid mathematical entities that cannot be accommodated by science. So, are these real or not? Science, as an empiricist subject, has simply dismissed these things. Science, although it relies on mathematics, only in fact accepts a tiny, inconsistent, incomplete part of mathematics as being relevant to science – that of real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity (with a few negative numbers thrown in to account for particles with a negative charge).

      In other words, science, although it cannot define the status of mathematics, is willing to make a huge call regarding mathematics – namely, that only empirical numbers (positive real numbers, i.e. numbers that can feature on measuring instruments) have ontological significance, and the rest of mathematics is unreal.

      What if scientists are wrong? What if their view is a fallacy, transforming consistent and complete mathematics into something inconsistent and incomplete? For example, the fundamental theorem of algebra states that the field of complex numbers is algebraically closed, whereas the same is not true of the field of real numbers, which is what science relies on. Is it valid for science to be based on a system that knowingly contradicts the fundamental theorem of algebra? What are the ontological consequences of this omission? No scientist ever gives a second thought to such questions.

      Core assertions of ontological mathematics are that mathematics must be consistent, complete, defined on the algebraically closed field of complex numbers, and have a net outcome of zero (the ground state of existence). All of this is true if and only if existence is encapsulated by a single, all-powerful, all-defining mathematical formula = the God Equation (the generalised Euler Formula).

      The status of mathematics in science is nowhere more critical than in the interpretation of science’s most successful theory: quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on complex-number wavefunctions, but complex numbers are regarded as empirically unreal in science (no scientific instrument can record results in terms of imaginary numbers, hence complex numbers, which are combinations of real and imaginary numbers, are also verboten). Science then applies an utterly irrational and almost insane empiricist interpretation to quantum mechanics. It says that reality is produced only when unreal wavefunctions collapse for no reason (indeterministically), i.e. unreality somehow collapses into reality. What they ought to be saying, of course, is what ontological mathematicians say: the unreal wavefunction is not unreal at all, it’s ontologically rational and real, but empirically unobservable. It’s noumenal rather than phenomenal. It’s the thing in itself, not the appearance of the thing. In other words, noumenal existence produces phenomenal existence; rationalism underpins empiricism.

      If you reject ontological mathematical rationalism, you are automatically forced down the road of scientific empiricism, and you instantly turn the world from mathematically deterministic and intelligible into something indeterministic, unintelligible, and utterly mysterious, with no answer.

      Einstein denied that quantum mechanics was the real deal. He said, Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us closer to the secret of the ‘Old One.’ I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.

      Einstein hoped that hidden variables would be found that would restore determinism to quantum science. In fact, quantum mechanics can be made deterministic at a single stroke – by accepting the ontological reality of complex numbers, by accepting the ontological reality of all of mathematics. Ontological mathematics, it turns out, is exactly the hidden layer Einstein was seeking, but he himself was too much of an empiricist to see the obvious rational truth staring him in the face.

      If science becomes the phenomenal branch of mathematics, rather than mathematics being a weird, undefined abstraction used by scientists in an irrational way, everything automatically falls into place. Reality becomes rational rather than empirical, noumenal rather than phenomenal, intelligible rather than sensible, metaphysical rather than physical. It gets a complete, closed, analytic, eternal solution. What’s not to like?

      Science is math for dummies, for empiricists using mathematics in a perverse and illogical way. Consider how science operates. Richard Feynman summed it up perfectly when he said, In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Don’t laugh, that’s the real truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess ... and then we compare the computation results to nature, or to experiment or experience ... or compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to science.

      This is indeed exactly what science is: guesses being matched to experimental results. Could any sane, rational person believe this method could ever lead to definitive Truth? It’s impossible. However, if analytic mathematics and the rationalist method associated with it, replaces the empiricist scientific method, all of this absurd guesswork is abolished, and proper answers, and precise, eternal proofs, can be provided.

      All that is required is to understand that science is phenomenal mathematics, the appearance of mathematics, mathematics as it is experienced. But mathematics is the thing in itself, reality itself that we don’t perceive or experience, but whose effects are all we ever encounter. Only reason, not our senses, can reveal mathematical truth, which is the truth of existence.

      As Pythagoras said, All things are numbers; Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and daemons; Number rules the universe".

      It’s all in the math.

      Drone’s Eye View

      A drone flies over the land. A pilot somewhere far away is remotely controlling the drone and seeing through the drone’s eyes (its cameras). The drone’s consciousness is not in the drone itself: the pilot provides the consciousness. The drone’s consciousness is therefore remote, non-local. If the drone should be blown up, the connection to its consciousness is terminated, but the consciousness itself goes on. However, it now needs to find a new drone if it wishes to fly in the world again. It needs to reincarnate – put itself in a new drone, a new body.

      Now imagine the drone as a biological body with a head, torso, arms and legs: a human body. Consciousness is not located in this body but in the cosmic Singularity – Soul World. Each time our body fails, we get a new one via reincarnation. (There’s no such thing as resurrection.)

      Bodies die. Minds don’t. Minds are immaterial, eternal, indestructible, dimensionless singularities. Minds remotely control the material world via Fourier mathematics.

      The soul is independent of the body. It’s a self-contained frequency singularity. The body is its drone, not part of the soul itself. The destruction of the body has no implications for the survival of the soul. A pilot walks away from his drone every day. Similarly, every time we go to sleep, we leave our drone behind. That’s why people can have the most extraordinary dreams, out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, intuitions, shamanistic adventures and extra sensory perception. All of these share a common root: the ability of the soul to separate itself from the body. If this weren’t true, we could never have such experiences under any circumstances. To put it another way, dreams are the proof that we have souls! Androids do not, as Philip K. Dick suggested, dream of electric sheep. Androids can’t and don’t dream at all. Only souls dream.

      Childlike

      One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have. – Einstein

      No, ontological mathematics is the most precious thing we have, and it’s advanced and adult. Ontological mathematics is reality.

      The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. – Einstein

      Of course the world is comprehensible – it’s pure math!

      *****

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

      The Truth About Science

      But it’s always seemed to me that the practice of physics is merely creating models which describe the observations that we can make on the world, and relate them together, and we have either good models or less good models, depending on how successful they are. The idea of the world ‘really existing’, and our theories somehow being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or being approximations to this reality, I think is not a very helpful one. – P. C. W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom

      This is probably the best succinct description ever provided of what science actually is. Science is about models, not about ontology. Sadly, all too few scientists understand this and they believe that science is about realism rather than simulation.

      One wants to be able to take a realistic view of the world, to talk about the world as if it is really there, even when it is not being observed. I certainly believe in a world that was here before me, and will be here after me, and I believe that you are part of it! And I believe that most physicists take this view when they are being pushed into a corner by philosophers. ... Well, I do find it helpful, the idea that there is a real world there, and that our business is to try and find out about it, and that the technique for doing that is indeed to make models and see how far we can go with them in accounting for the real world. – John Bell, A Ghost in the Atom

      This is the typical view of most scientists. John Bell was, however, rather different from most scientists, being arguably the greatest scientific genius of the 20th century, and the scientist most interested in ontology. Unlike most scientists, he was extremely suspicious of how quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity were interpreted by the scientific establishment, and was willing to consider radically different interpretations, ones much more amenable to rationalist ontology. Tellingly, he said, ... I believe there will be theories that are better than the ones we have, in that they describe more of the universe and connect more of it up. ... I’m quite convinced that quantum theory is only a temporary expedient. ... it does not really explain things ... the founding fathers of quantum mechanics rather prided themselves on giving up the idea of explanation. They were very proud that they dealt only with phenomena: they refused to look behind the phenomena, regarding that as the price one had to pay for coming to terms with nature. And it is a fact of history that the people who took that agnostic attitude towards the real world on the microphysical level were very successful. ... But I don’t believe it will be so indefinitely. ... It seems to me possible that the continuing anxiety about what quantum mechanics means will lead to still more and more tricky experiments which will eventually find some soft spot, some point where quantum mechanics is actually wrong. ... I think it is very probable that the solution to our problems will come through the back door; some person who is not addressing himself to these difficulties with which I am concerned will probably see the light ... those of us who are somewhat fixated on these questions will not be those who see the way through. ... When I look at quantum mechanics I see that it’s a dirty theory. The formulations of quantum mechanics that you find in the books involve dividing the world into an observer and an observed, and you are not told where the division comes ... you’re not told about this division between the observer and observed ... the ambiguity is at a level of precision far beyond human capability of testing. ... When you analyse this language that the physicists have fallen into, that physics is about the results of observations – you find that on analysis it evaporates, and nothing very clear is being said.

      Why aren’t all physics students, and the general public, taught this skepticism towards the claims of physics? The way physics popularisers talk, you would imagine physics was just one enormous success story, explaining everything. Yet, when you drill down into it, it’s clear that science isn’t saying anything coherent at all. Not even the greatest scientists, such as Bell himself, can understand it, hence no scientists can. That’s because it genuinely doesn’t make any sense. It’s a poorly thought-out philosophy by people who are philosophically illiterate and, indeed, have contempt for philosophy. Science is just a hodgepodge of ad hoc ideas that have no connection with epistemology and ontology.

      Contra Experience

      This is contrary to all experience; and yet it is true. – Euler

      Only simpletons and irrationalists believe that experience trumps reason. All scientists are irrationalists. Most of them are also simpletons. Seriously, have you ever met a scientist with good general knowledge?

      Prejudice

      Prejudices are what fools use for reason. – Voltaire

      Scientists use their sensory prejudices. The religious use their emotional prejudices. The mystics use their intuitive prejudices. Only the mathematikoi use their reason.

      The Copy

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

      The Ghost in the Atom

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

      The Scientific Nightmare

      Of course Eugene Wigner has suggested that he can insert a very definite division between the observer and the observed, because he invokes the mind as a completely separate entity which is somehow coupled to the world, and he says it’s the entry into the mind of the observer that resolves the paradoxes which we’ve been discussing. So he’s bringing the idea of a non-material mind to play a prominent part in the physical world. – P. C. W. Davies, The Ghost in the Atom

      Don’t kid yourself. Everything in science is up for grabs. Science is nowhere near answering the big questions of existence. It can’t even define the questions. Independent, immaterial mind will definitely make an appearance in science in due course. This is 100% inevitable. It’s about time the great thinkers of the world started applying their time and effort to this task rather than worshipping the ineffectual scientific method (regarding the ultimate issues). This method is useful only in relation to simulations, simulacra and models of phenomena. It reveals nothing at all about noumena, and only noumena tell us about ultimate reality. There’s only one way of getting at noumena: ontological mathematics.

      Science and Mathematics

      The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. – Eugene Wigner

      Indeed! Why has science never attempted to address this unreasonable effectiveness? The whole future of science depends on the answer to this issue.

      The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. – Eugene Wigner

      We do understand it. Physics is entirely derived from ontological mathematics. It’s the phenomenal expression of noumenal mathematics. There’s no miracle, just reason.

      A possible explanation of the physicist’s use of mathematics to formulate his laws of nature is that he is a somewhat irresponsible person. As a result, when he finds a connection between two quantities which resembles a connection well-known from mathematics, he will jump at the conclusion that the connection is that discussed in mathematics simply because he does not know of any other similar connection. – Eugene Wigner

      All quantities are mathematically connected. The real problem of scientists is that they so often flee from making the right and justified mathematical connections – such as acknowledging that quantum mechanics reflects a universe of complex numbers rather than real numbers. Mathematics alone is a truly connected subject. All other subjects have no necessary connections.

      Physics is becoming so unbelievably complex that it is taking longer and longer to train a physicist. It is taking so long, in fact, to train a physicist to the place where he understands the nature of physical problems that he is already too old to solve them. – Eugene Wigner

      If Wigner is right, physics is now too complex to make any further progress. It needs to be radically simplified or it will stall forever. The spectacular failure to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity shows how much trouble physics is now in. Another disaster is that physicists are so brainwashed – so indoctrinated by the empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science – that, by the end of their education, they can’t think in any other way. They have become religious.

      In science, it is not speed that is the most important. It is the dedication, the commitment, the interest and the will to know something and to understand it – these are the things that come first. – Eugene Wigner

      True. The problem is that scientists only want to understand the problem in terms of their quasi-religious Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. They are dedicated to getting it wrong.

      It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too. – Eugene Wigner

      Well, study ontological mathematics!

      Meltdown

      Science suffers from a systemic problem. It keeps looting mathematics for models, functions, approaches, methods, ideas, analogies, laws, axioms, techniques, and then it has to translate or reinterpret all of this mathematical material into physical stuff. At all times, it fails to address the elephant in the room, namely, why bother with this translation of the mathematical into the physical? Why not stick with the source rather than turn to the interpretation of the source (which inevitably introduces error, inconsistency and incompleteness)? What exactly is the physical and how does it relate to mathematics, given that it’s a translation of mathematics? Who needs the translation?

      The physical world is of course the sensory world, and the central, defining claim of science is that only mathematics that can be translated into sensory descriptions can be real, and all other mathematics is abstract and unreal.

      No explanation is ever given as to why some of mathematics should be regarded as real and all the rest as unreal. The reason for this irrational attitude towards mathematics is neither mathematical nor scientific, but philosophical. Scientists are true believers in the religion of sensory empiricism, and they reject as non-existent or metaphysical anything that’s not empirical.

      The scientific method is predicated on empiricism. If you admit non-empirical entities into science, you ipso facto overthrow the scientific method, which no scientist will accept since they are all people with religious faith in their method, no matter if it opposes reason. In this regard, they are the same as Abrahamists.

      Ontological mathematics is rationalist and rejects any empiricist desire to split mathematics into two radically different categories: real (empirical) and unreal (metaphysical, abstract or non-existent). Ontological mathematics accepts as real the whole of mathematics, as defined by the God Equation, and considers any other mathematics extraneous to this as abstract. Ontological mathematics therefore stands between physics (empiricism) and pure mathematics (abstraction).

      Only mathematics defined by a single, fundamental equation can be consistent and complete. Science is inconsistent and incomplete, as is abstract mathematics. Only ontological mathematics is necessarily consistent and complete because it flows from a single, absolutely comprehensive formula.

      It’s a fundamental requirement of ontology that it be consistent and complete. Anything inconsistent and/or incomplete cannot be ontological. Science and abstract mathematics therefore both fail the ontological test.

      It’s impossible for science to address ultimate reality.

      *****

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

      Information Systems

      We receive information input from our senses and our intuitions. We process information. We output information via our thoughts, feelings, behaviour and physical actions.

      That’s all we are: information input, information processing and information output organisms. Everything else is mere detail.

      What is the essence of information? – mathematics.

      Life and Mathematics

      KB: Life isn’t compulsory. Mathematics, on the other hand, is.

      Actually, ontological mathematics is life, hence life is compulsory too. The true basis of life and mind is simply the uniform flow of structured information within autonomous units called monads. A dead, mindless universe would be one where there was no structured information, no uniform flow, no containers for that flow, capable of experiencing the flow.

      Illuminism versus Science

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

      Group Insanity

      Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. – Nietzsche

      Religions are examples of group insanity. Ditto conspiracy theories. Ditto extreme political parties such as the Tea Party. Ditto free-market capitalism. Science too is an example of mass insanity. There’s no scientist left who can qualify as a radical freethinker. They are all slavish, robotic followers of the crazy ideology of scientific empiricism and materialism, despite the fact that, in rational terms, these are provably false, even within their own parameters. Scientists ridicule religious believers for continuing

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1