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.

    Black Holes Are Souls
    Black Holes Are Souls
    Black Holes Are Souls
    Ebook471 pages11 hours

    Black Holes Are Souls

    By Mike Hockney

    3/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Any theory – any theory at all – that begins with false assumptions will produce false results. Therefore, the most fundamental task of all is to examine and get right the assumptions that underlie a theory. How do science’s fundamental assumptions stand up to scrutiny? Science falls apart at a particular aspect of existence that can be defined exactly – at singularities. The whole logic of science collapses when singularities are encountered. This is fantastically problematic for science given that black holes are centred on singularities, photons are singularities, and the whole of the Big Bang Universe came from a Singularity.

    What, ontologically, are singularities? Descartes gave us the answer hundreds of years ago. Singularities are minds, and from that single fact, science is turned on its head. Mind does not come from matter; matter comes from mind.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMike Hockney
    Release dateMay 1, 2016
    ISBN9781310338649
    Black Holes Are Souls
    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 Black Holes Are Souls

    Related ebooks

    Astronomy & Space Sciences For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      A Hologram Shows How Space Could Pop Into Existence

      Sep 5, 2019

      I remember buying my first hologram as a college student in the mid-1980s. It showed a bed of nails. I came across it at a gallery in what was then the world’s capital of spacey trinkets, Haight Street in San Francisco. When I picked it up, the holog

      4 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

      Devil In The Detail

      Jun 20, 2021

      Devil In The Detail
      3 min read

    • Article

      Why Science Should Stay Clear of Metaphysics: Meet the philosopher who revived anti-realism.

      Sep 8, 2016

      Philosophers of science are not known for agreeing with each other—contrariness is part of the job description. But for thousands of years, from Aristotle to Thomas Kuhn, those who study what science is have roughly categorized themselves into two ba

      11 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

      Is the Universe Open-Ended?

      Jun 16, 2021

      One of my favorite albeit heavily paraphrased quotes from Albert Einstein is his assertion that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. (What he actually said, in his 1936 work “Physics and Reality,” is more l

      7 min read

    • Article

      Beauty Is Physics’ Secret Weapon: A Nobel laureate maps his path to discovery.

      Jan 14, 2016

      We recognize beauty when we see it, right? Michelangelo’s David, Machu Picchu, an ocean sunrise. Could we say the same about the cosmos itself? Frank Wilczek, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, thinks we can. And sho

      13 min read

    • Article

      Even Physicists Find the Multiverse Faintly Disturbing: It’s not the immensity or inscrutability, but that it reduces physical law to happenstance.

      Jan 12, 2017

      How do you feel about the multiverse?” The question was not out of place in our impromptu dinner-table lecture, yet it caught me completely off-guard. It’s not that I’ve never been asked about the multiverse before, but explaining a theoretical const

      14 min read

    • 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

      If We Believe in Dark Matter, Why Not Extraterrestrial Life?

      Dec 12, 2019

      Avi Loeb doesn’t need to be a muckraker. As the head of the astronomy department at Harvard University, he sits in one of the most comfortable positions in academia. Nevertheless, he has repeatedly placed himself at the center of scientific controver

      15 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

      Quantum Mechanics 101

      Dec 5, 2019

      Quantum Mechanics 101
      7 min read

    • Article

      Paradox Is Illuminating the Black Hole

      Jan 31, 2019

      An Introduction to the Black Hole Institute Fittingly, the Black Hole Initiative (BHI) was founded 100 years after Karl Schwarzschild solved Einstein’s equations for general relativity—a solution that described a black hole decades before the first a

      7 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

      Brain Game

      Feb 12, 2023

      Brain Game
      3 min read

    • Article

      A Perception Of Something

      Nov 7, 2020

      A Perception Of Something
      9 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

      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

    Related categories

    Reviews for Black Holes Are Souls

    3/5

    2 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Black Holes Are Souls - Mike Hockney

      Black Holes Are Souls

      by

      Mike Hockney

      Published by Hyperreality Books

      smashwords edition

      Copyright © Mike Hockney 2015

      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.

      Introduction

      Any theory – any theory at all – that begins with false assumptions will produce false results. Therefore, the most fundamental task of all is to examine and get right the assumptions that underlie a theory. Euclidean geometry is regarded as a masterpiece of producing axiomatic assumptions and then following through the logic of their consequences. So good was Euclidean geometry that it took thousands of years for mathematicians to realise it was wrong. Or, rather, not the full truth. And thus was born non-Euclidean geometry.

      Well, what else seems remarkably well supported but may be wrong, or not the full truth? How about science? How do science’s fundamental assumptions stand up to scrutiny? Much less well than those of Euclidean geometry, that’s for sure.

      Science is predicated on several assumptions, all of which are false:

      Materialism is the fundamental basis of reality. Wrong – it’s idealism.

      Empiricism is the best approach to understanding ultimate reality. Wrong – it’s rationalism.

      There is nothing outside space and time. Wrong – there’s an immaterial frequency domain outside space and time.

      Science is the best way of apprehending reality. Wrong – it’s mathematics.

      Anything for which no sensory evidence can be found does not exist. Wrong – there’s a mathematical domain of hidden variables, rational unobservables and noumenal elements that has no connection whatsoever with the sensory world of appearances.

      Reality is based on real numbers. Wrong – it’s based on complex numbers.

      Zero and infinity do not exist. Wrong – they emphatically do.

      Science falls apart at a particular aspect of existence that can be defined exactly – at singularities. The whole logic of science collapses as soon as singularities are encountered. This is fantastically problematic for science given that black holes are centred on singularities, photons are singularities, and the whole of the Big Bang Universe came from a Singularity.

      What, ontologically, are singularities? Descartes gave us the answer hundreds of years ago when he defined thinking substance as unextended. Singularities – the ultimate unextended entities – are minds, and, from that single fact, science is turned on its head. Mind does not come from matter; matter comes from mind.

      Singularities – minds – are immaterial Fourier frequency domains outside space and time. The Fourier spacetime world of matter is produced by Fourier frequency domains that are not in space and time.

      Mathematical reason can establish all of this. Science cannot. The scientific method can tell us nothing about ultimate reality because the scientific method is about the senses, but ultimate reality has nothing to do with the senses. How could it? After all, ultimate reality existed before any sense organs existed to provide sensory data. Any approach based on the senses is inherently false since the universe did not begin with the senses. There is therefore a fundamental, non-sensory reality. That reality is mathematical.

      What can the scientific method tell you about immaterial, non-sensory, frequency domains outside space and time? Nothing at all! But math can tell us everything about these singularities down to the finest detail.

      Singularities are noumenal, not phenomenal. They have no appearance. You can’t see, touch, hear, smell or taste singularities. So, what experiments could you possibly perform on them? Mathematical reason alone can tell us about singularities, and since nothing can be more fundamental than singularities, only mathematical reason can tell us about fundamental reality. Singularities (= minds) have another name, most associated with Leibniz, but going right back to Pythagoras: they are monads. And monads have a religious name – souls.

      There’s nothing mysterious about souls. They are simply mathematical singularities outside space and time. They are autonomous Fourier frequency domains. They are Leibnizian monads and Cartesian minds. They are the quintessence of ontological mathematics and the basis of everything. We can even write a precise equation for souls = singularities = minds = monads, namely, the God Equation, which is just the generalised Euler Formula, the centrepiece of mathematical analysis and fundamental to physics.

      The Big Bang Singularity from which the whole scientific world came was never anything other than a Cosmic Mind – a collective Singularity composed entirely of individual singularities. The scientific world – of spacetime matter and appearances – is 100% the product of immaterial mathematical minds with no appearance.

      What is truly astounding about science is that it has never once checked, and has no mechanism for checking, the veracity of its own assumptions. It regards such an exercise as philosophy, and it has utter contempt for philosophy. So, like Euclidean geometry, it makes the most grandiose, cosmological claims, yet can’t even prove the correctness of its own core assumptions. It doesn’t care about the stark fact that if these assumptions are false, science must be false too, or, to be more charitable, radically incomplete. It just goes right ahead regardless.

      It’s no accident that science is an empirical subject. It has no time for rationalism – for the exercise of reason. It was reason that exposed the fallacies of Euclidean geometry, and its reason that exposes the fallacies of scientific materialism. No person of reason could ever take the side of scientific empiricism against mathematical rationalism.

      If theories are only as good as their assumptions, the most important task is to test those assumptions. A theory with bad assumptions will be a GIGO theory – garbage in, garbage out! Only reason and logic can perform this testing function. There’s no scientific experiment that can be conducted that can establish whether or not the fundamental assumptions of scientific materialism are true. For example, no scientific experiment can prove that matter exists, that immaterial minds do not exist, that frequency domains outside space and time do not exist, that hidden variables and rational unobservables do not exist, that complex numbers do not exist, that zero and infinity do not exist, and so on. Given this incredible range of rational elements contrary to the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism and empiricism that cannot be disproved, it’s simply staggering that science so arrogantly claims that it’s the only way to reveal true reality to us.

      Science typically dismisses everything non-scientific as silly religious or metaphysical speculation. However, as soon as the non-scientific world is defined as an ontological mathematical world, science no longer has a Straw Man to attack. It now has a deadly serious opponent that no cheap arguments can prevail against. Science has an impossible task attacking mathematics given that science itself is entirely dependent on mathematics for its own success! As soon as you realise that the hidden world that underlies empirical science is rational mathematics, your understanding of reality will be changed forever. Beneath the sensory scientific world is a non-sensory, mathematical world of reason. That’s why mathematics is at the heart of science. If you can’t get that, you will never find the answer to existence.

      Let’s be crystal clear about the nature of science. It’s the science of appearances (phenomena), not of things in themselves (noumena). Things in themselves do not have any appearance. They are intelligible, not sensible; mathematical, not scientific; metaphysical, not physical; rational, not empirical.

      Metaphysics is simply that which comes after physics, and ontological mathematics is that which comes after science. Strictly rationalist mathematical metaphysics is what you get when you go beyond science, when you transcend science.

      What lies beyond science is, of course, ultimate reality itself. What is ultimate reality? – it’s the world of singularities, of pure, analytic mathematics with absolutely no appearance and no sensory qualities or properties. It’s exactly where science cannot go, where all scientific theories come to grief.

      With one critical exception, no scientific concept applies to singularities. There are no atoms in singularities, no matter, no space, no time, no gravity, no strong and weak nuclear forces, no quarks, and no Higgs bosons. The sole exception is electromagnetism, but, in truth, this is not a scientific concept at all. It properly belongs to ontological mathematics. Only electromagnetism involves analytic mathematics, and can be 100% accommodated by singularities. A corollary is that the entire scientific world is actually born of electromagnetism = light.

      No one ever said, Let there be Light, for the simple fact that electromagnetism is eternal. The Demiurge, the Creator, would instead have said, Let there be Matter. Matter, unlike light (= mind), is temporal and mortal.

      Here’s a simple way to understand the difference between ontological mathematics and science: the former is about light, and the latter about matter (which is just broken light). Light is massless, dimensionless, unextended, spaceless, timeless, and has no appearance. You can’t see light, in the sense that if a pure light beam is fired across your visual field, but none of its light enters your eyes, you won’t see a thing. It’s said that our eyes are the windows to the soul, and this is more or less literally true. When you see, you are seeing a mental, frequency pattern, not a physical pattern! You are seeing frequency information reflected from the material world.

      Light is the mind. Light is composed of sinusoidal waves. These are the carriers of all mental information, all thoughts. Matter = broken light = broken thought. Thought is broken for a very simple reason: it’s shared by all minds. Unbroken thought belongs exclusively to individual minds. When minds share thoughts, that’s when the mathematics goes awry. That’s when symmetry breaking occurs, when asymmetry and antisymmetry appear, when non-orthogonal, out-of-phase mathematics takes place ... and all of that is what produces matter.

      In other words, a mind can think its own thoughts via pure light. When minds attempt to share thoughts, the light from one mind is out-of-phase with the light of the other minds, and this causes the light to break, i.e. breaking actually means being out of phase. A photon is made of one cosine wave and one sine wave, perfectly orthogonal to each, exactly ninety degrees out of phase. This ninety degrees separation is perfect. For our purposes, we are going to define in phase as meaning that a sine wave and matched cosine wave (i.e. they have the same amplitude and frequency) are permanently orthogonal to each other, and out of phase as whenever they are non-orthogonal to each other. That is, we define orthogonal relations as being in phase, while out of phase relates to any situation where this ninety degrees phase separation does not hold.

      Mind is defined by perfect orthogonality between cosine and sine waves. Matter is defined by non-orthogonal relations between cosine and sine waves. What could be simpler? Orthogonality reigns within individual minds (outside space and time), and non-orthogonality reigns between minds, in their shared space, which is none other than the material world of space and time. Orthogonality means the immaterial frequency domain, outside space and time. Non-orthogonality means the material spacetime domain. Fourier mathematics is all about orthogonal frequency functions versus non-orthogonal spacetime functions. It’s all in the math!

      Light is about immortality, broken light about mortality. Light is the soul, broken light the body. Body and soul can co-exist because they are just different aspects of light: broken and intact. Only a small, low-energy band of light is capable of breaking.

      Wikipedia says, The strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces can all be understood as arising from gauge symmetries. The Higgs mechanism, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetries, is an important component in understanding the superconductivity of metals and the origin of particle masses in the standard model of particle physics. ... Without spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Standard Model of elementary particle interactions requires the existence of a number of particles. However, some particles (the W and Z bosons) would then be predicted to be massless, when, in reality, they are observed to have mass. To overcome this, spontaneous symmetry breaking is augmented by the Higgs mechanism to give these particles mass.

      Do you see that it’s all about symmetry and symmetry breaking?

      How do you convert science to ontological mathematics? It couldn’t be simpler. All you do is define a photon of light as a matched, in phase, pair of cosine and sine waves. Thus you turn the science of light into the mathematical study of analytic sinusoids. Next, you define any material particle as an out of phase pair of cosine and sine waves. Ergo, all of the different material particles, are, upon closer inspection, different only in terms of their respective phase relations. To put it crudely, an electron could involve, say, a phase shift of five degrees from orthogonality for its constituent cosine and sine waves, while a Higgs boson might involve only a one degree shift.

      The world of matter is simply where we study the out of phase relations of sines and cosines. Pure light is the immaterial Fourier frequency domain, and broken light is the material Fourier spacetime domain. Fourier mathematics is nothing other than the study of intact, orthogonal, in phase light versus broken, non-orthogonal, out of phase light. How straightforward can you get? All of science’s obfuscation and randomness disappears at a stroke. Mind is simply light, and matter is simply broken light, and thus we see exactly why we live in a world of mind and matter that can co-exist and causally interact with each other.

      When Descartes spoke of mind being unextended and matter being extended, what he should have said that mind is in phase light (which means that it’s in the unextended, immaterial, frequency domain, outside space and time), and matter is broken light that’s out of phase (which means that it’s in the extended, material, spacetime domain).

      If Descartes were alive today, he would be saying exactly that. Descartes was a genius of the highest order, and, given the math of his day, came as close as anyone could to the truth of reality.

      When light is intact (pure), it’s timeless and spaceless, i.e. immortal. When it breaks (it’s impure), it becomes associated with time and space and is rendered mortal. Everything comes down to sine and cosine waves and their phase relations. There’s nothing else!

      What is a monadic mind (a soul!)? It’s simply an autonomous, complete and consistent set of in phase sines and cosines. What is the material world? It’s made from a shared, low-energy band of light supplied by all monads. The involvement of all of the monads and their different orientations with regard to each other, leads to symmetry breaking (out of phase relations).

      What was the Big Bang? It was where a perfect set of monads – all perfectly in phase with each other (thus producing a Singularity of perfect light) – suffered a break of symmetry, leading to a tidal wave of out of phase relations, and thus the production of the material world.

      What is the Big Crunch? It’s where the perfect monadic symmetry is restored.

      What could be simpler, more elegant and more beautiful than what we have described? It’s pure, analytic mathematics. There’s no need for any ad hoc, arbitrary, non-analytic scientific waffle and moonshine.

      All we require is the Last Genius – one final great mathematician who can convert every scientific theory into terms of nothing but sines, cosines and their phase relations, and then work out how to insert active mind into every one of these theories, including Darwinism, gravity and quantum mechanics. Then humanity will know everything ... and we shall be as Gods! That’s the prize that awaits. We are just one mathematical genius away from that goal. All of the ingredients are in place for that person ... all that is required is to assemble those ingredients in the optimal way that explains every detail of life down to the minutest detail. Are you that person?! Somewhere out there, the person we are waiting for is going about their business, probably blissfully unaware of the destiny that awaits them.

      People wonder what the Illuminati are really up to. We’ll tell you ... we are engaged in the greatest computing project in history, a project to use the God Equation, expressed through countless monads, to simulate every aspect and operation of the physical world, and to insert mind into all of those operations.

      The vast majority of members of the Illuminati work on that project (the God Project). The God Series is a tiny initiative designed to provide a written account of the thinking behind the God Project. With it, we can get new recruits up to speed much more quickly with what the God Project is all about. It’s nothing less than an enterprise to illuminate the whole world, and to make everyone an Illuminatus. Our task is nothing less than to reveal the Mind of God!

      Compare Illuminism with Abrahamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and scientific materialism. Which one do you seriously think is capable of providing the answer to everything, and enlightening the entire human race? There’s only one show in town.

      The Illuminati are the Knights of Camelot, the Knights of the Holy Grail, who will one day deliver humanity from hell. Are you for us or against us? Are you for the light or for the darkness?

      *****

      The scientific method assumes the truth of scientific materialism and empiricism, hence is incapable of proving the truth of these assumptions.

      The scientific method cannot be applied to anything that is incompatible with the scientific method. Scientism, which is what the vast number of scientists subscribe to, is the fallacy that anything that is not amenable to the scientific method is false, wrong or non-existent. The truth is that a) the scientific method cannot say anything at all about that which is incompatible with the scientific method, and b) the scientific method cannot prove the falsehood of anything that is incompatible with the scientific method.

      It’s a simple, unarguable fact that no scientific concepts – such as mass, matter and gravity, space and time – can have any meaning at all in relation to singularities. The only things that are compatible with singularities are analytic mathematical entities equal to zero. Isn’t that self-evident? Why has science never grasped this simple fact? It’s because science isn’t rational.

      Science operates by way of trying to match Feynman guesses to experimental results. That’s the opposite of rationalism. Rationalism uses analytic first principles. Science has no such principles, and contemptuously dismisses all such principles as philosophy.

      Science is a joke of a subject. No intellectual would ever take it seriously. True intellectuals are nothing like science’s great hero, Richard Feynman. They don’t go around celebrating guessing.

      Science is full of guessers ... and guessers are charlatans.

      The Breakdown

      Physics breaks down at division by zero. If you can ontologically define zero and give it an equation, no breakdown occurs. Zero is outside the empiricist and materialist paradigm of science, but not the rationalist and idealist paradigm of mathematics.

      When it comes to ultimate reality, science makes fallacious claims about everything, and this all flows from science’s inability to understand zero. All of science’s ludicrous, irrational claims about indeterminism, acausation, randomness, chance, accident, probability and statistics can all be traced back to the single fact that science rejects zero as an ontological entity, as something that can be both something and nothing simultaneously.

      The status of zero is of critical importance because it’s the number formally associated with mind, and as soon as you accept zero as real, you accept mind as real, and as soon as mind is real, materialism – on which science is based – is false.

      The difference between science and ontological mathematics is that the latter is derived entirely from definable zeros = monads, minds, souls, the basic units of ontological mathematics, while the former is what you get when you can assign no ontological meaning to zero, a step mandated by materialist ideology.

      In other words, the basis of reality comes down to whether or not zero can be meaningfully defined. Ontological mathematics says that zero is defined by the God Equation (generalised Euler Formula), and the whole of reality results from that. Science, which cannot define zero, and rejects zero as a real thing, is, ipso facto, forced to say that things randomly pop out of undefined nothing for no reason!

      A rational person would never accept science over ontological mathematics. Science is bottomless contingency. Ontological mathematics has a necessary foundation – zero. It all comes down to your understanding of zero, nothing, the monad, the singularity, the mind, the soul. Which side of the fence are you on?

      What could be more obvious than that nothing, zero, the singularity – the exact thing that science, a materialist ideology, cannot define or understand – is the thing that stands outside that ideology and is formally denied by that ideology, namely the mind, the soul!

      Science denies that anything is outside its ideology. It says that anything not in principle susceptible to the scientific method does not exist. It denies that there’s anything immaterial. Yet the singularity exists and isn’t part of science, but is at the end of all scientific processes, and all scientific process emerge from it, and then, in due course, converge on it and return to it.

      The singularity – the ghost in the materialist machine – the thing that materialism can’t explain, is, obviously, the mind! It does exist, but it shouldn’t if materialism is true.

      All non-scientific explanations of ultimate reality concern some kind of Absolute. The Absolute is invariably concerned with Nothing, the Void, zero, God, the mind. The Absolute is where ultimate meaning resides. Yet science rejects both the Absolute and meaning.

      The Absolute is the Singularity. When its mathematical symmetry breaks, involution takes places: the highest descends into the lowest. Afterwards, evolution takes place – the lowest ascends to the highest, thus restoring symmetry. The Absolute is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning of the series and the end, the point of initial divergence and final convergence. Thanks to the Absolute, all theories involving it have a necessary base. Without the Absolute – as occurs with science – there is no scope for anything other than infinite contingent regress, and thus no conceivable explanation of reality.

      Where all systems other than science make the Absolute – a real, eternal, necessary thing – the foundation of everything else, science, lacking an Absolute, is forced to say that existence literally jumps out of non-existence for no reason at all. The world creates itself randomly, and, self-evidently, a random process can possess no meaning.

      In other words, no system is more predicated on magic and miracles than science!

      Science is a disgrace: pure irrationalism, anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism. Such is science’s entirely unnecessary and bizarre hatred of mind and meaning, it has literally posited a reality where the principle of sufficient reason is wholly rejected, and things happen spontaneously and miraculously, with no explanation at all. Science will never explain reality because it has no means to do so. It rejects God as an explanation (religion), it rejects the principle of sufficient reason (mathematics and rationalism), and it rejects any Cosmic Mind (mysticism). So, what’s left to it?

      Science is predicated on the scientific method, which is about empiricism and the senses. But since the beginning and end of the universe are not empirical, sensory events, and cannot be probed in any way by the scientific method, science either has to invoke an anti-scientific explanation for science, involving explanations provided by one of its deadly rivals, or it must do what no other system of explanation would ever dream of do – simply claim that things happen randomly, for no reason, and that this somehow constitutes explanation. In fact, it’s total non-explanation.

      No scientist will ever be capable of explaining why things happen randomly for no reason given that the entire concept is fundamentally preposterous and irrational. It was one of the most sacrosanct principles of ancient Greece that you could never get something from nothing (i.e. from absolute nothingness = non-existence). This is exactly what science denies. It claims that non-existence is somehow unstable, yet it offers no explanation for this and it’s irrational nonsense in any case since unstable non-existence cannot be non-existence, given that it contains the existent property of instability – and this instability allegedly allows whole universes to erupt from nothing. This formally constitutes a system of self-performing magic. It has no conceivable meaning since things happen in it for no conceivable reason. This, incredibly, is what science loves. What it despises is anything that hints at God, the soul, design, reason, mind, purpose or meaning ... that hints at any point to anything.

      Science is pure skepticism and nihilism. Nothing could be more skeptical than the denial that anything happens for any reason. Equally, nothing could be more nihilistic than the claim that we live in a meaningless, purposeless, pointless universe where everything ultimately happens randomly for no reason.

      What is atheism? Atheism = skepticism + nihilism + empiricism + materialism + randomism + indeterminism + acausation + probability + statistics + chance + accident + anti-rationalism + anti-mind + anti-teleology. This is exactly the same set of ingredients that form the basis of the ruling scientific paradigm.

      Ironically, science and atheism both claim that we live in a universe of miracles – of things happening randomly, out of nothing, for no reason. No genuine skeptic would ever accept such a ludicrous, irrational conclusion! What’s better, what’s more likely – a miraculous universe of infinite contingent regress, as science claims, or a rational, necessary, deterministic universe where everything that happens has a reason why it is thus and not otherwise? That’s your choice. No sane, rational person would ever opt for the scientific non-explanation.

      Science, amazingly, is actually a worse system of explanation than mainstream religion. Mainstream religion can be saved by abandoning all of its idiotic Mythos claims and replacing those with the adamantine Logos of ontological mathematics. Science cannot be saved, unless it entirely abandons its defining empiricism and materialism ... and then it wouldn’t be science any more. This is exactly why science must be replaced by ontological mathematics.

      Nothing, Infinity, and Transcendence

      Science can’t handle nothing and infinity, the two defining numbers of a singularity. This is exactly where the scientific paradigm dies. This is where scientific materialism gives way to two possible immaterial options, namely: 1) idealism – the rule of mind, or 2) randomness and chaos (existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason). Science dogmatically and ideologically refuses to accept the existence of autonomous mind, so adopts the irrational second option.

      A singularity is also where scientific empiricism gives way to two possible unempirical options, namely: 1) unobservable rationalism – the rule of the unobservable principle of sufficient reason, or 2) unobservable randomness and chaos (existence jumping out of non-existence for no reason). Again, science opts for the second choice.

      In other words, scientific materialism and empiricism is actually scientific materialism and empiricism plus immaterial, unobservable randomness, chaos, accident, chance, indeterminism, acausation, probability and statistics, erupting from non-existence, i.e. this is a wholly self-contradictory system. It’s an irrational ideology, and is formally impossible.

      Ontological mathematics resolves all of science’s irrationalism at a stroke since it’s actually defined by immaterial monadic singularities, the very things that destroy the logic of science. Ontological mathematics is what transcends science, what lies beyond, behind and beneath science, giving it the designed foundations that make it rational rather than irrational. If you do not underpin science with ontological mathematics, you end up with the irrational farce that constitutes modern science – the most fallacious explanation of reality at which the human mind has ever arrived, even lass rational than Mythos religion.

      All scientists are irrational, anti-Logos and anti-intellectual. Science is the most egregious pseudoscience of them all, and the greatest enemy reason has ever confronted. Science is predicated on miracles and infinite contingent regress. You are much more likely to arrive at the Truth of existence via religious Mythos than via science. Roman Catholic Scholasticism was astoundingly close to the Truth, but misidentified its objective as God rather than the God Equation (the defining formula for ontological mathematics). All of the arguments deployed by the Scholastics were wonderfully rational, unlike the dismal, randomist, contingent, non-explanations of science.

      Electromagnetic Minds

      The archetypes are as it were the hidden foundations of the conscious mind, or, to use another comparison, the roots which the psyche has sunk not only in the earth in the narrower sense but in the world in general. ... The archetype possesses a fundamental duality: it is both psychic and nonpsychic, both ‘spirit’ and ‘body’, for the archetype is the essential precondition of all psychophysical events. – Jung

      "In later years Jung revised and broadened the concept of archetypes even further, conceiving of them as psycho-physical patterns existing in the universe, given specific expression by human consciousness and culture. Jung proposed that the archetype had a dual nature: it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He called this non-psychic aspect of the archetype the ‘psychoid’ archetype.

      "He illustrated this by drawing on the analogy of the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of the spectrum which is visible to us corresponds to the conscious aspects of the archetype. The invisible infrared end of the spectrum corresponds to the unconscious biological aspects of the archetype that merges with its chemical and physical conditions. He suggested that not only do the archetypal structures govern the behaviour of all living organisms, but that they were contiguous with structures controlling the behaviour of inorganic matter as well.

      "The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a bridge to matter in general. Jung used the term unus mundus to describe the unitary reality which he believed underlay all manifest phenomena. He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus, organizing not only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world.

      It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing Jung’s concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler. Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an objective order which transcends both the human mind and the external world. – Wikipedia

      The Electromagnetic World

      (Diagram courtesy of Wikipedia)

      A Jungian archetype has two components: physical (psychoid) and mental (psychic).

      There is no material component as such. Matter is an aspect of mind, i.e. it’s simply low-energy, sluggish mind. It’s not separate from mind. This is how Jung solves the mind-body problem.

      Just as the ‘psychic infra-red,’ the biological instinctual psyche, gradually passes over into the physiology of the organism and thus merges with its chemical and physical conditions, so the ‘psychic ultra-violet,’ the archetype, describes a field which exhibits none of the peculiarities of the physiological and yet, in the last analysis, can no longer be regarded as psychic, although it manifests itself psychically. But physiological processes behave in the same way, without on that account being declared psychic. ... We must apply this argument logically to the archetypes as well. ...the position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic sphere, analogous to the position of physiological instinct, which is immediately rooted in the stuff of the organism and, with its psychoid nature, forms the bridge to matter in general. – Jung

      Mind and matter exist on a continuum. They are two aspects of a common factor, a tertium quid (third thing), which Jung couldn’t identify, but which we have – it’s ontological mathematics!

      "The original structural components of the psyche are of no less surprising a uniformity than are those of the visible body. The archetypes are, so to speak, organs of the prerational psyche. They are eternally inherited forms and ideas which have at first no specific content. Their specific content only appears in the course of the individual’s life, when personal experience is taken up in precisely these form." – Jung

      Archetypes resemble Platonic Forms, but have to be made particular – concrete – in our minds. For example, Father is a Form, but our own father, or some father figure, will provide a visualizable instance of that Form. Everyone will have their own unique way of envisaging the Father Form. It’s a Universal, yet is

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1