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.

    How to Create the Universe
    How to Create the Universe
    How to Create the Universe
    Ebook639 pages10 hours

    How to Create the Universe

    By Mike Hockney

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This book explains how the entire universe can be created using just two ingredients: nothing at all and the principle of sufficient reason.

    This is the final book in The God Series.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMike Hockney
    Release dateMay 1, 2016
    ISBN9781311802675
    How to Create the Universe
    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 How to Create the Universe

    Related ebooks

    Mathematics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • 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

      A Perception Of Something

      Nov 7, 2020

      A Perception Of Something
      9 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

      Can Brains Be Trusted?

      Dec 6, 2021

      Can Brains Be Trusted?
      4 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

      Consciousness Mind Over Matter

      Feb 6, 2022

      Consciousness Mind Over Matter
      10 min read

    • Article

      Angst And The Empty Set

      Sep 19, 2019

      Suppose you open your handbag one day expecting to find your wallet there, but don’t. Do you literally see the absence of your wallet in your handbag? If you do, it means something important: Absences have a positive presence in your perception that

      4 min read

    • Article

      This Essentially Meaningless Conflict

      Sep 22, 2017

      MARILYNNE ROBINSON’S accomplishments are impressive by any standard: she has won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Fiction, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and the National Humanities Medal, among other honors. But perhaps a better measure o

      8 min read

    • Article

      Steven Pinker Has His Reasons

      Nov 17, 2021

      A few years ago, at the Princeton Club in Manhattan, I chanced on a memorable chat with the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker. His spouse, the philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, with whom he was tagging along, had been invited onto a panel to discuss th

      19 min read

    • Article

      The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

      Sep 9, 2020

      Most of us, most of the time, think and act as though there are facts about good and bad, right and wrong. We think the predatory behavior of Jeffrey Epstein was abhorrent, and that the political actions of Mahatma Gandhi were admirable. Moreover, we

      9 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

      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

      Angst and the Empty Set: We Can Experience Nothingness, but Does It Actually Exist?: We can experience nothingness, but does it actually exist?

      Aug 28, 2014

      Suppose you open your handbag one day expecting to find your wallet there, but don’t. Do you literally see the absence of your wallet in your handbag? If you do, it means something important: Absences have a positive presence in your perception that

      4 min read

    • Article

      Can Science Hold All The Answers?

      Oct 27, 2022

      MEASURABILITY, REPRODUCIBILITY, independent verification, accurate predictions — these are the criteria that have elevated scientific experimentation to the arbiter of truth in modern society. Besides the long and impressive history of accomplishment

      6 min read

    • Article

      A Bongard Problem

      Jun 4, 2018

      This text adopts the form of a Bongard problem, which is a kind of puzzle with two sides. In Bongard problems, the viewer is meant to decipher the singular difference between two sets of geometric forms. They have been used as a way to illustrate met

      6 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

      Perceptual Triggers

      Nov 7, 2020

      Perceptual Triggers
      20 min read

    • Article

      We Have to Talk About Doubt: How to tell the difference between scientific and conspiratorial skepticism.

      Sep 1, 2021

      What is the role of reasonable doubt in advancing science? And how should we contrast scientific doubt with the cavilling doubt of conspiracy theories which play little part in advancing understanding? Over the last year we have seen the scientific m

      5 min read

    • Article

      Brain Game

      Feb 12, 2023

      Brain Game
      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for How to Create the Universe

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      How to Create the Universe - Mike Hockney

      Introduction

      The human race has always dreamt of finding the answer to existence. The problem is that it has no idea what constitutes an answer. Will the answer be empirical, sensory, mystical, intuitive, emotional, or rational? Will it be a mysterious Super Being called God who has stayed perfectly hidden for the entire existence of the human race? Will it all come down to faith? Will there be any evidence or proof for it? But what do evidence and proof even mean?

      Evidence is something that goes hand in hand with the senses. Given that the senses are fallible, flawed, mutable, evolutionary, frequently delusional, subject to all manner of biases, convinced by dreams, mirages, hallucinations, optical and auditory illusions, and so on, who is going to rely on the unreliable witness which they constitute?

      The senses did not evolve with regard to the Truth. There is no sensory organ for truth, i.e. something that infallibly detects what is true and what is false. No one has even explained what it is that the senses are supposedly revealing to us. What is matter, for example? No one has ever defined it ontologically and epistemologically, and swathes of philosophy have been devoted to demonstrating that it’s impossible for matter – considered as something independent from minds and the ideas in minds – to exist at all. No advocate of the senses has ever refuted the immaterialist philosophies of Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley and Hegel, for example.

      When Nietzsche said, There are no facts, only interpretations, he destroyed empiricism and the reliance on the senses. There are no sensory facts, only sensory interpretations. All evidence is interpretive. Scientists talk about there being evidence for the existence of atoms. Do you have any idea what an atom is ontologically? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen a nucleus and orbiting electrons? Given Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, how can atomic matter be anything other than some vague, blurry, undefined, indefinable, hazy, statistical, indeterministic, unprovable, indeterminate speculation? Where is the solidity, the certainty, the clarity? How can fuzzy, contingent, temporal atoms be related to absolute, infallible, eternal, necessary Platonic Truth?

      You can’t even begin to contemplate discovering the answer to existence unless you have first defined what you mean by the word answer, how you are going to approach finding it, and why you should expect anyone else to agree with you.

      This book provides a definitive way forward. The answer we shall provide is predicated entirely on rationality, i.e. we assert that the answer to existence must be founded on pure reason, and nothing else. We reject your feelings, your subjective experiences, your mystical intuitions, your perceptions, your beliefs, opinions, hypotheses, conjectures, sensory evidence, the stories you tell yourself (Mythos), your prophets, your popes, your sages, your Messiahs, your gurus, your shamans, your authorities, your sacred texts, your holy books, your divine scriptures, your scientific experiments (which are always falsifiable, and always in want of never-ending verification). All of it – everything humanity has told itself, all of its religions and sciences – is baloney and claptrap. It’s all contrary to reason.

      Science claims to be rational while subscribing to no rational principles whatsoever, and being predicated solely on sensory empiricism (i.e. anti-rationalism). The only reason why science works is that it uses rationalist mathematics, yet scientists regard math as unreal, abstract and manmade. In other words, according to science, we have to use a manmade construct to explain the reality that constructed man. That’s what you call circular logic. Nothing manmade can explain what preceded man.

      So, is there anything that necessarily precedes humanity? The answer is of course reason. The eternal truths of reason are exactly that... eternal. Humanity is temporal and contingent. The universe could easily get by without the human race. Mankind has no logical necessity. The eternal truths of reason, on the other hand, are absolutely fundamental and necessary. They cannot not exist.

      Given that the eternal truths of reason necessarily exist, they must be conveyed by entities that eternally exist too (assuming we are not going to buy into the notion of some transcendental Platonic domain of perfect, free-floating Forms). So, what are these entities?

      According to mainstream religion, God, or some mystical Oneness, is the eternal repository of the eternal truths of reason. According to scientific materialism, there is no eternal ontological order, and thus science claims that either reality is grounded in bottomless, infinite contingent regress (which is no answer), or that existence can randomly jump out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism (which is also no answer).

      This book is about there being only one system consistent with reason that can exist eternally, and thus convey the eternal truths of reason. That system is mathematics. Mathematics, in our system, rationally replaces what people call God. Mathematics does everything God does, but without all of the anthropomorphic elements that humanity has projected onto the eternal source of existence.

      Mathematics isn’t listening to your prayers, isn’t judging you, isn’t sending you to heaven or hell, isn’t in an emotional relationship with you, isn’t interested in your happy clappy hymns and your outstretched hands, isn’t serving any agenda of love and peace. Mathematics, in itself, has zero connection with morality and love – which is why there is no problem with the existence of evil in a mathematical universe, but there most certainly is in a universe supposedly created by an all-powerful, loving Creator, incapable of evil.

      By subscribing to mathematics, we don’t need to ask you to believe, trust or blindly accept anything we say. You either agree with reason, expressed ontologically through mathematics, or you don’t. That’s the end of it there and then. Total clarity! Of course, if you disagree with reason, you are ipso facto promoting unreason, and, given that, why would we listen to anything you say?

      Why do we disregard the claims of mainstream religion? Because they’re based on feelings, stories, mysticism, gurus, prophets and revelation. There’s no trace of reason. Why do we disregard the claims of scientific materialism? Because they’re based on the senses, and not on reason. Just ask yourself what happens when you subtract rationalist mathematics from science. What’s left? – nothing! How can a subject that defines itself empirically (via the experimental method; experiments being the means by which scientists measure sensory experiences) be 100% useless without rationalist mathematics which involves no empiricism or experiments whatsoever?

      What’s truly alarming about scientists is that they have no clue about this fatal contradiction at the heart of their subject, and they don’t care. Indeed, many practising scientists even denounce modern science for being too mathematical and insufficiently experimental. They conveniently refuse to ask themselves why science uses mathematics at all. To use mathematics presupposes that you know what it is you’re using. It’s obviously irrational to use tools you don’t understand, and have no idea why you’re using them. Science cannot be a rational subject until it defines exactly what mathematics is, and exactly what mathematics’ relation is to both science and the world (reality). Isn’t it extraordinary that science has never once addressed the ontology of mathematics? Even worse, it has no means for doing so. There is nothing in the scientific method of experiments that can analyse mathematics, which is wholly divorced from experiments.

      So, our simple is claim is this: if the universe has a rational and intelligible answer, it must be rational and intelligible. After all, how could there be a rational, intelligible answer to an irrational and unintelligible universe? That would be a category error. Equally, how could an inherently irrational and unintelligible universe ever generate any rational and intelligible things and events?

      Scientists don’t accept that the universe is rational and intelligible. Instead, they claim that it’s sensible, i.e. that we must define our relationship to it in terms of our non-rational senses, and not our rational intellect. A sensible universe cannot have an intelligible answer. That, once again, is a category error.

      Science is a duplicitous subject because it actually rides two horses at once: 1) empiricism, via observations and experiments, and 2) rationalism, via mathematics. Scientists are too stupid to realise that you cannot find a rationalist answer to an empiricist hypothesis, or vice versa. When scientists talk about a final theory of everything, they mean they believe they will be able to construct a mathematical formula that caters for all scientific situations. Yet there can’t be anything final in science given that it defines itself as being based on the principles of verification and falsification, both of which are inconsistent with anything ever reaching a definitive state.

      Science simultaneously endorses two incompatible positions: 1) that science can have a definitive end, and 2) that science cannot have a definitive end. Whatever final claim science makes will be falsifiable and in need of verification, hence it won’t be final at all. Any new experiment could falsify it at any time.

      Science is trapped in bizarre doublethink. Via mathematical rationalism, it can conceive of a final equation to describe everything, but via experimental empiricism, it immediately denies that science can ever reach a final state. How irrational is that? Science is always caught in two minds, reflecting the fact that it simultaneously subscribes to empiricism and rationalism, which cannot be rationally reconciled. It’s forever switching back and forth between mathematical rationalism and experimental empiricism, but never at any time refers to the absolute contradiction this entails. Neither scientists nor their audience see the problem. This means that they can enjoy the best of both worlds, and maintain two opposite positions at once. They are not troubled by the contradiction because they simply ignore the contradiction. Philosophers are concerned by contradictions. Scientists aren’t.

      Science seems much more powerful than it actually is because it uses two approaches to addressing the universe (empiricism and rationalism), even though it has established no connection between empiricism and rationalism, hence has no valid right to switch between the two at whim, to defend whatever argument it happens to be proposing at the time. Science continually switches between relying on experiments to make its case, to then making mathematical claims that have no experimental basis whatsoever.

      Nothing reveals the fundamental absurdity of science more than the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat. With this paradox, the most astonishing ontological claim is made – that unobserved reality comprises unreal, abstract mathematical probability functions. We are expected to accept that an unobserved cat in a particular, prepared apparatus is simultaneously dead, alive and in mixed dead-alive states, until we open the apparatus (perform an observation) and discover the cat to be either alive or dead, and nothing in between. There is exactly no connection between the experimental outcome, and the bizarre mathematical world said to underpin it. The whole of science is now infected by this untenable dualism. On the one hand, we are presented with experimental data. On the other hand, we are presented with the most truly astounding and insane mathematical inferences to explain the experimental results. If you truly think that unobserved cats can be alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states, you have a catastrophic problem with the reality principle. As we shall see, modern science totally contradicts the reality principle.

      Science reaches its idiotic conclusions on the basis of its philosophical Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. If it instead used rationalism and idealism (as Leibniz advocated), it would reach 100% different conclusions. For scientific empiricism and materialism to be a valid undertaking, it has to be capable of disproving its rival of scientific rationalism and idealism.

      Far from being able to accomplish this, scientists can’t even ontologically define matter (how can matter be something that dissolves into unreal (!) mathematical probability wavefunctions when no one is observing it?), so how can they possibly refute idealism? Equally, how can the scientific worship of experiments disprove that there is a rational world (of ontological mathematics) upon which no sensory experiments can be performed?

      Science can’t prove anything at all. All it can do is speculate, and then claim that its speculations are supported by the experimental evidence. Yet there is no experimental support for the deranged claim taught in every science class in the world that Schrödinger’s cat can exist in an unreal probability state until observed. No one can observe a probability state, so such a state is incompatible with empiricism and experimentalism. (Nor is a probability state compatible with rationalism and the reality principle.) Equally, unreal probability states cannot be equated to any conceivable definition of matter as an enduring, solid entity that exists unchanged whether or not we’re observing it. Therefore, science’s own claims refute its philosophical Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. Science has already disproved itself. It has already falsified the basis of its own theories!!!

      Naturally, science refuses to acknowledge this. This is because, like religion, it refuses to subject itself to philosophical scrutiny, hence the patent philosophical absurdities of science are never exposed. No scientist ever, under any circumstances, debates seriously with a critical philosopher.

      Science adopts the most extraordinary tactic. It basically makes an infinite number of wild and ridiculous claims (called hypotheses), and then says that only one test can be applied to deciding whether these claims are valid or not, namely that of matching the prediction of each hypothesis to the experimental data. No logical or rational principles are applied. No philosophical arguments are invoked. Everything stands or falls by whether or not there is apparent, provisional agreement with the hypothesis and experimental outcomes. Science dismisses absolutely all arguments unrelated to experimental outcomes. The supreme irony of course is that everything science says about the unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions of quantum mechanics – which it now relies upon – cannot in any way be detected experimentally. This is the most crucial of points. Science uses experiments to infer a reality or unreality (science can’t ontologically define either) that supposedly underlies those experiments and explains their outcomes, yet this proposed underlying world cannot itself in any way be experimentally detected, i.e. there is no experiment you can conduct to show that the claim that unreal, abstract probability wavefunctions have any role to play in our world is true, meaning that the entire basis of science is pure speculation, with zero evidence or proof. For all its bluster, science is nothing but a belief system, and thus a quasi-religion.

      Science, like religion, is about dubious inferences and interpretations (misinterpretations), derived from its unproved and unprovable philosophy. It doesn’t even admit that it has a philosophy, and that alternative philosophies would result in entirely different – and much more rational and logical – interpretations of what underlies experimental outcomes.

      Science rejects hidden variables on the basis that they are not compatible with experimentalism, yet the unreal probability wavefunctions it relies on are themselves hidden variables. Just as no experiment can reveal hidden variables (such as imaginary or complex numbers, or monadic singularities), so no experiment can reveal the existence of probability wavefunctions (indeed these probability wavefunctions have their basis in complex numbers!). In other words, science is incredibly disingenuous and inconsistent in what it regards as hidden variables. And it refuses to allow any philosophical light to be shone on its illogical claims and dubious terms of reference. No analytic philosophy is ever involved in the production of scientific papers. There is no philosophical review of scientific claims.

      Science is a giant scam and fraud that fools almost everyone (and especially scientists themselves). It’s just a Mythos. It’s a model – a simulacrum – of reality constructed according to a certain philosophy. It’s definitely not reality itself.

      If science’s philosophy is false – and we have already demonstrated that it is – it cannot reflect reality. Just as Christians once explained everything in terms of an unseen God, and unseen angels and demons, science now relies on something even more bizarre: unseen, unreal probability functions. The use of probabilities is exceptionally cunning because scientists never have to commit themselves to specific causes, to sufficient reasons, to direct explanations. They can always say that something is probably going to happen. If it does, they claim the credit. If it doesn’t, they say that some less probable outcome has taken place (i.e. they don’t have a clue what happened). This is rather like religion where God gets praised for everything that goes right, and is never blamed for what goes wrong.

      Probability is a get-out clause when the results you get are not the ones you predicted. Reality never operates probabilistically. Reality is exactly that which is 100% certain and concrete. If this weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be real.

      Science is willing to say that our supposedly concrete world is underpinned by probabilistic unreality. Therefore, if you accept the existence of reality, you must reject science! If you accept science, you have abandoned any hope of explaining reality. Firstly, you have ipso facto rejected reality, and secondly you have made the most outrageous claim that apparent reality comes from non-reality, existence from non-existence. That makes you irrational. You subscribe to concepts that are logically impossible.

      Science has never addressed the fundamental problem raised by David Hume, namely, that it’s impossible to make any empirical connection between what we perceive and what we infer underlies those perceptions.

      We cannot perceive causation. The entire order of causation is empirically unobservable. As soon as you attempt to explain the empirical world, you have immediately ceased to rely on empiricism, hence, if you are an empiricist, you have automatically contradicted yourself. No consistent empiricist would ever try to explain his perceptions. Hume arrived at exactly this position. He was the supreme skeptic, nihilist and solipsist, and denied the possibility of any true knowledge. All he believed in was an undefined stream of perceptions and impressions onto which we projected various ideas, while having no empirical reason to believe in the validity of our projections.

      Why do scientists refuse to engage with these questions? It’s because if they did they would expose the farce that science actually is. They would show the world that science is a tower built on sand, with no solid foundations, and is incapable of providing true knowledge.

      Where Hume said that we can never know what underlies our perceived reality, science absurdly claims that we can know that probabilistic unreality underlies reality. Hume, if he had heard this, would have died laughing. Science is all about empiricism, yet repudiates empiricism with its claims about unreal, unobservable probability functions. How crazy is that?! Science is so conflicted because it’s wholly reliant on mathematics, and mathematics is the quintessential anti-empiricist subject.

      Science attempts the impossible. It seeks to arrive at the rationalist (mathematical) explanation of reality most compatible with its empiricist philosophy, and it has alighted upon unreal mathematical probability wavefunctions as the best means to achieve this. By calling mathematics unreal (non-ontological), science does not have to confront a rationalist reality entirely hidden from our empirical perceptions. Yet science cannot do without mathematics, so has to couch all of its explanations in mathematical terms. Its fundamental dilemma is to use mathematics without acknowledging the reality of mathematics (which would automatically contradict empiricism). Hume, unlike science, would never have dreamt of appealing to unreality to explain reality. It’s an inherent illogicality.

      Non-causal, unreal mathematical probabilities are how science attempts to square the circle (of the relationship between mathematical rationalism and experimental empiricism): an impossible task. Once you rationally reject these crazy unreal mathematical probabilities – designed to accommodate empiricism – you are left with non-probabilistic, mathematical realities, i.e. the stuff of monadic ontological mathematics. These support a rationalist, not empiricist, understanding of reality.

      With rationalism, the entirety of Hume’s empiricist skepticism can be ditched, but at the expense of downgrading our entire sensory reality, i.e. a rationalist does not take seriously the claims of his senses and experiences in terms of explaining reality. Reality in itself is something beyond human experience and perception, but not beyond reason, logic and intellect.

      Rationalists do not seek to make mathematics compatible with empiricism. They seek to make empiricism compatible with mathematics. This is a diametrically opposed worldview to that of science. Rationalists start with the assumption that reality is intelligible and then seek to explain it. Empiricists start with their experiences (with the sensible rather than intelligible) and discover that they can’t explain them, so ending up appealing to unreality, probability, or indeed nothing at all.

      Unless you think that reality is fundamentally intelligible, you cannot possibly arrive at an intelligible answer to it. Empiricists do not accept intelligibility. They accept sensibility, which has no connection with intelligibility. They are looking for a sensible answer, i.e. an answer they can perceive with their senses or experiments (at least in principle, if not in actuality). They certainly aren’t looking for a rational, logical and intelligible answer, beyond the reach of any experiment.

      Kant tried to reconcile empiricism and rationalism via a philosophical manoeuvre: by attempting to combine the "analytic a priori and the synthetic a posteriori". The rationalist world revolves around the analytic a priori, i.e. we can work out reality prior to experience, just by applying our analytic, a priori pure reasoning. The empirical world, on the other hand, revolves around the synthetic a posteriori, i.e. we can work out reality only after the fact, after we have experienced it and formed ideas about it. Kant believed he had found the key to blending empiricism and rationalism via his proposed "synthetic a priori" category. Thanks to its a priori nature, we can apply it with certainty before we experience the world, and thanks to its synthetic nature, it does not deal with empty analytic tautology.

      Kant rejected pure reason and claimed that ultimate reality (in itself) was formally unknowable. The best we could do was apply valid synthetic a priori judgments to it. This was Kant’s answer to Hume’s skepticism, and especially Hume’s critique of causation. In effect, Kant simply, by decree, hardwired causation into our perception of the world.

      For Kant, knowledge derives from a synthesis of a posteriori experiences and a priori concepts. Without our senses, we could never become aware of any object, and without our conceptual understanding of the object, we could not frame it in any intelligible terms. Since pure reason has no connection with the senses, it did not, in Kant’s terms, lead to knowledge. This means that Kant’s philosophy is merely a sophisticated (and dishonest!) version of empiricism, and repudiates formal rationalism.

      Kant famously said, Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Rationalism, for Kant, equated to thoughts without intuitions (or Form without Content), and empiricism to intuitions without concepts (or Content without Form).

      Kant conceived of some things existing as pure, unknowable content (things in themselves), and other things as pure, unknowable formative minds (also things in themselves) that projected form onto formless content, thus rendering them knowable. Anything – such as souls, the entire universe, or God – that could not have form projected onto it by minds could not be known in Kantian terms.

      Kant, unlike scientists, did not deny the existence of unknowables. He simply denied that we could say anything meaningful about them. Scientists take the further invalid step of claiming that anything that is not meaningful to us (in terms of sensory science, that is) can have no reality.

      Kant’s scheme is a variation on Aristotelian hylomorphism whereby form and content (matter) are always found together, except in the limiting cases of prime matter (formless matter) and God (matterless form). Prime matter, God and souls (minds) are Kant’s unknowable noumena. Everything else comprises phenomena, i.e. formed content (content with a form successfully projected onto it by a perceiving mind). We can’t project a form onto matter in itself, and nor can we project a form onto God, our own minds, or onto the complete universe (which we cannot perceive in its entirety).

      Kant refused to accept the rationalist position that the things of pure reason definitely exist, and exist exactly because they are the things of pure reason, i.e. they are rational things justified by reason, and not by anything else that has no connection with reason. If something has a sufficient reason, it must exist, i.e. rational essence and ontology are the same thing. Anything with a sufficient reason cannot not exist. This is the entire basis of rationalism. Anything without a sufficient reason, on the other hand, is rendered non-existent by that fact. Since science is full of hypothetical things without a sufficient reason, science cannot tell us anything about ultimate reality (i.e. rational, intelligible reality that has an answer).

      There is no such thing as scientific matter, so the whole of science is false. Reality is fundamentally mental, but mind is denied by science, so, again, the whole of science is false.

      As soon as you get rid of rational things as the root of reality, you have no option but to resort to Kant’s unknowable noumena, or some undefined God, or a mystical Oneness, or science’s crazy non-existence that randomly generates existence, for no reason, via no mechanism.

      It’s reason or bust. It’s reason or madness. It’s reason or unreason. Make your choice. Only rationalism supports reason. Everything else, including science, Hume and Kant, endorses unreason.

      Empiricism cannot prove the logical necessity of the laws it seeks to invoke to defend empiricism. In fact, it’s a category error to apply laws to empiricism since, as Hume realised, an empirical universe can have no laws. Laws appear in science purely thanks to rationalist mathematics. Remove mathematics from science, as Hume did to remain consistent in his empiricism, and all of science’s laws vanish. What’s left is nothing but a set of Mythos speculations: augury and divination. What’s left is psychology, not science.

      Science is a fraud, a con, a scam, an anti-intellectual joke, riddled with blatant contradictions and inconsistencies – all stemming from the unholy marriage between mathematics and the empirical philosophy of matter (something that no empiricist can define, yet which all empiricists take for granted and accept as holy writ). No one of intellectual integrity could view science and its relentless lies with anything but horror. Science works thanks to mathematics. Full stop.

      As soon as you go beyond scientific observations, science collapses. Its contradictions overwhelm it. Science, when it comes to cosmology, for example, is fantasy. The increasingly popular Multiverse is as bad as anything in religion. It might as well be a religion. You might as well believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. It’s laughable that scientists got rid of God in the name of reason, and then put something even more offensive to reason in God’s place. Given that they are empiricists, these people repudiate reason, so why do they still cite reason? They don’t know what the word means.

      Kant failed to reconcile empiricism and rationalism, and science equally failed. Kant resorted to using minds to project rational form onto formless empirical things through nothing other than Kantian decree (by faculties, categories, a priori intuitions, synthetic a priori judgments, and so on... none of these has any rational necessity). Science stole mathematical rationalism to underpin irrationalist empiricism. It never gave any logical justification for this irrational larceny. It simply said, It works. As Nietzsche pointed out so devastatingly, Success has always been the greatest liar.

      Science is taken much more seriously than religion because it’s much more successful than religion, not because it’s much more logical and rational than religion. People are persuaded by it just as they are persuaded by success in every walk of life. Science literally has zero truth content. How can it given that it rejects mind and is predicated on a non-existent called matter?

      Hume didn’t bother trying to combine rationalism and empiricism. Given his philosophy of empiricist skepticism, he regarded it as impossible. Hume saw no valid link at all between rationalism and empiricism.

      So, what is the answer?

      For Kant, formless matter and matterless form were both noumenal, hence unknowable, while all formed matter was phenomenal, hence knowable. In fact, there is no such thing as formless matter, and no such thing as matterless form, so Kant’s scheme is bogus. Dual-aspect entities are what actually exist. All form is necessarily accompanied by content (matter, we might say), and all content is accompanied by form. You can’t get one without the other, no more than you can get a coin with only one side. The formed side of reality is its rational aspect, which we interrogate via reason, logic and mathematics. The content side of reality is its empirical aspect, which we interrogate via our senses, feelings, desires, and intuitions.

      It’s not a case of uniting rationalism and empiricism, as Kant attempted. They are already united, but as opposite sides of a single ontological coin. You can’t get from one to the other, just as no amount of staring at a tail will show you what a head looks like, and vice versa.

      Science is the attempt to work out what a head is like by examining the patterns associated with tails. It can’t be done.

      Abstract mathematics is all about form and no content. Science is all about content, viewed through the prism of the subset of mathematics deemed compatible with the Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism (and ignoring all the rest of mathematics).

      Ontological mathematics is all about form and content. All mathematical forms are waves, and every mathematical wave has a particular experiential quality associated with it (i.e. a qualis; plural = qualia). To put it another way, all quantities are associated with qualities, and vice versa. This is the link science has always failed to make. Because qualities cannot be measured, and quantities can, science – which is all about the measurement of quantities – ignores the entire qualitative universe. Also, the quantities science measures are those concerned with phenomena and not noumena, so it equally ignores the entire noumenal quantitative universe (of mental frequencies outside space and time). In other words, science deals only with phenomenal quantities, and rejects everything else. It rejects all qualia and all noumena, i.e. the stuff of mind, religion, spirituality and mathematical rationalism.

      There are four aspects of reality you have to consider:

      1) noumenal quantities.

      2) noumenal qualities.

      3) phenomenal quantities.

      4) phenomenal qualities.

      Pure rationalism deals with noumenal (unobservable) quantities, and derives phenomenal quantities from them. Science deals with phenomenal quantities only, and denies noumenal quantities (which it would regard as hidden variables). Empiricism deals only with phenomenal qualities. These are in turn derived from noumenal qualities (qualities in themselves), which no one can ever directly access in any meaningful way.

      Kant believed that we have an inbuilt conceptual mental apparatus for making sense of the world. Science believes that we can make sense of the world by underpinning it with unreal, abstract mathematical probabilities. Ontological mathematics says that we can make sense of the world only by identifying those rational entities whose existence is eternally rationally necessary, and from which everything else is derived. These are the foundational notes of reality, and the world we encounter corresponds to how the notes are played.

      Science disregards eternal necessity and is a purely heuristic undertaking...

      Heuristic (from the ancient Greek heuriskein to discover): gaining knowledge by intelligent guesswork rather than by following a preestablished formula, theory or program; based on experimentation, or trial-and-error methods; using experience to learn and improve; using rules of thumb; relating to a usually speculative formulation that serves as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem; educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student; using or obtained by exploration of possibilities rather than by following set rules; in computing, denoting a rule of thumb for solving a problem without the exhaustive application of an algorithm.

      Since science is heuristic rather than rational and logical, it does not invoke any formal principles. It’s all about suck it and see. You cannot answer the question of what is ultimate existence via heuristics.

      Science glosses over the fact that it’s doing something technically illegal: mixing rationalism and empiricism. The brilliance of science’s stratagem of ignoring philosophy is that it never has to justify any of its absurd ontology and epistemology. Science never addresses any arguments it doesn’t like. Scientists don’t refer to the likes of Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, all of whom delivered fatal blows to the ideology of scientism.

      Religions refuse to take on their critics, and so does science. The only reason why science isn’t regarded as a quasi-religion is that its ideology is so unclear, so confusing – especially to scientists themselves – so complex, so intricate, and so intermixed with bewildering mathematics that virtually no one can gain any real insight into one is going on and what is being claimed. Moreover, you need to be an expert in the scientific ideology to even be in the game, so that rules out anyone who doesn’t have high-level scientific literacy.

      Religious types can’t put any dents in science because they don’t understand science. Only philosophers, mathematicians and scientists themselves are equipped to challenge science’s claims, but almost no philosophers, mathematicians and scientists are in any way motivated to challenge science since they themselves are on board with science’s ideology. Indeed, it was people exactly like them who put the ideology in place to begin with.

      The only people who could dent science’s self-confidence are precisely those people who have no interest at all in denting science’s self-confidence. It’s Catch-22. Science is subject to immense, unstoppable conformism and groupthink. Heretics, blasphemers, apostates, infidels and freethinkers are all marginalised, ridiculed and excluded from science. No one who challenges scientific orthodoxy receives any scientific funding. Anyone who casts doubt on science is labelled a crank. These are all the characteristics of a religion, not of a rational, open-minded discipline that objectively questions itself, and seeks to perfect itself.

      There are no critics in science, only true believers. There is no such thing as a scientist who does not subscribe to empiricism and materialism. It’s impossible to find any science that addresses rationalism and idealism. Science can’t refute rationalism and idealism, it simply doesn’t entertain them at all. Leibniz was the last scientist to support rationalism and idealism, and he has been largely removed from the history of science. Nothing to do with Leibniz is taught in any science class on earth.

      Yet for all of its complexity, science reduces to the most simplistic basis. Scientists actually have only one card to play: experimental evidence. However, experimental evidence is moonshine without mathematics, and science has never once explained what it is that experiments are revealing to us as far as ontology and epistemology are concerned.

      Scientists can ontologically define neither matter nor energy. All that science does is attach measurements to arbitrary labels. Atom is just a label. As soon as you drill down into the modern concept of atom, it’s impossible to understand what is being asserted. All of a sudden, we’re in the land of unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunctions, arbitrary wavefunction collapse, intrinsic uncertainty, and so on. When the average, simple minded person contemplates an atom, they either imagine a hard, little object, such as the ancient Greek Atomists believed in, or miniature solar systems with electrons as planets whizzing around a nucleus as the sun. But, given quantum mechanics, both of these pictures are absurd, so the whole atomic theory is a fantasy. In the end, atoms are just heuristics disguising the fact that the whole of atomic theory is an arbitrary mathematical scheme, which has no ontological and epistemological basis.

      Atoms are pseudo-mathematical functions force-fitted to experimental data. All mathematical hidden variables are necessarily excluded, but in what way has science ever proved that mathematical hidden variables do not exist? This is why it’s critical to define what mathematics is ontologically.

      Science should have to explain why, in its illogical opinion, there are two types of mathematics: 1) a full, rational mathematics based on every mathematical component required to provide mathematical completeness and consistency, and 2) a partial, empirical mathematics, which is both inconsistent and incomplete, but eliminates all hidden variables. Science refuses to engage in any such exercise. It knows it would destroy itself if it asked too searchingly what mathematics actually is and why science uses it. Mathematics is the ultimate taboo for scientists.

      How To Build A Universe

      To build a rational universe, we require only two ingredients: 1) nothing at all, and 2) reason. In fact, given that we are going to define nothing at all purely in terms of reason, we are left with just reason to explain the whole of rational existence. This, of course, makes perfect rational sense. How could we explain a hypothetical irrational universe via reason? Alternatively, how could we explain a hypothetical rational universe by using anything other than reason? Nothing irrational can be invoked to explain a rational universe because that would instantly render the universe irrational.

      So, a rational universe – which automatically means an intelligible universe – must be explained solely using reason. No other factor can intrude since any other factor would make the universe irrational and unintelligible.

      We now come to a second consideration: that of the Cartesian interaction problem. When Descartes defined matter as extended and mind as unextended, he appeared to leave nothing in common between the two substances by which they could interact. Exactly the same considerations apply to reason and unreason. There is no conceivable way in which reason can interact with unreason. Reason and unreason cannot co-exist in the same universe. You cannot have rational things in one place and irrational things in another place. Rational things cannot move amongst irrational things. This means that either everything is rational, or everything is irrational.

      The universe is 100% rational or 100% irrational. It can’t be a bit rational and a lot irrational, or a lot rational and a little irrational. It’s a zero-sum game. It’s all or nothing.

      If the universe is 100% rational, it automatically has a rational answer. Anyone who is rational enough can work it out. There’s no mysterious veil drawn over the universe. There’s no irrational stumbling block that defies rational understanding.

      If the universe is 100% irrational then it automatically has no answer at all. Mathematics would be useless. Experiments would give different results every time. Chaos would reign. There would be no possibility of order, pattern and organisation. There could be no atoms, no bodies, no moons, no planets, no stars, no galaxies. In fact, there couldn’t even be a universe. An irrational universe would wipe itself out through its own irrationality. It would be riven by fatal contradictions. It would be explosively unstable.

      In summary, if you agree that the universe has an answer – that we can explain existence – then you agree that the universe is 100% rational, hence is literally made of reason. A universe made of reason has a rational explanation, an answer. No other type of universe does.

      Hegel famously said, The real is rational, and the rational is real. By extension, the unreal isn’t rational, and the irrational isn’t real.

      Hegel’s philosophy reflects panlogism. Wikipedia says, In philosophy, panlogism is a Hegelian doctrine that holds that the universe is the act or realization of Logos. According to the doctrine of panlogism, logic and ontology are the same study. For Hegel, the universe was a giant rational organism, dialectically evolving to a state of consciousness of itself. It literally works out how to rationally comprehend itself, to find the answer to what it is.

      How could an irrational universe ever reach a rational understanding of itself? When people use sub-optimal reason to understand the universe, they arrive at sub-optimal answers such as God, or the Oneness, or Spirit, or atoms, or whatever. No one ever concludes that irrationality – something that has no possible explanation – is the basis of existence. Everyone, no matter what they believe, subscribes to some version of order being at the base of everything. Why not go the whole way and put pure order – reason itself – at the foundation of existence?

      *****

      Are you ready to begin? In front of your disbelieving eyes, we are going to use reason alone to account for the entirety of existence. We shall create a 100% rational universe that explains everything you encounter in the world.

      Step One: Nothingness

      Our first task is to rationally define nothing at all. Only then can we start to define what something is.

      Nothing at all has no properties of any kind. It has no mass, energy, speed, extension, dimensionality, location density, weight, colour, smell, taste, sound, appearance, qualia, consciousness, unconsciousness, or anything else. Is there anything helpful we can utilise that meets this definition? There’s only one possible answer: the static mathematical point. This is nothing, zero, void, blankness, emptiness. It is nothing and it does nothing. It has no effects, no consequences. It’s as if it’s not there at all, and indeed, it isn’t there at all. This is pure zero, abstract zero, unreal zero, non-ontological zero.

      If we can have one nothingness, i.e. one mathematical point, we can have an infinite number. Nothing can prevent nothing. Where one static point is possible, infinite static points are possible. But all we are doing is multiplying nothing. We are merely creating infinite nothingness.

      This is the ground state of reality. Anyone who wants to explain the reality we observe must explain why there is more than just this infinite nothingness. What sufficient reason is there for more than simple nothing?

      Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. Mathematically, this equates to asking what could be legitimately, rationally added to nothing at all, without violating the principle of sufficient reason, i.e. without creating an arbitrary add on to nothing that we could never justify.

      If nothing is the ground state of reality then anything we add to nothing cannot violate this ground state, i.e. whatever we add must itself be some version of nothing at all, while of course not being nothing at all (because then we could never have something).

      Only one thing can be added to static points without defying the principle of sufficient reason. That thing is motion. If nothing = non-existence = static mathematical points, then something = existence = moving mathematical points. Existence, in other words, is rational, mathematical motion.

      But why should a mathematical point move? The answer, naturally, is the principle of sufficient reason itself. If it is possible for a point to move, and there is no sufficient reason for it not to move, then it must move. The only thing that would stop a point from moving is if it violated the zero ground state of the universe.

      The principle of sufficient reason does not allow any particular state to be arbitrarily privileged over any other state that satisfies exactly the same conditions. Thus, there is no sufficient reason for a static universe of absolute nothingness if a dynamic universe of somethingness can just as readily satisfy exactly the same requirement for the universe never to exceed a ground state energy of precisely zero forever.

      There is nothing special about absolute nothingness. It is no more fundamental than any other state that necessarily obeys the compulsory ground state energy of zero of the universe.

      Every state that satisfies the ground state energy of the universe will and must exist since there is nothing to prevent it. Moreover it will exist necessarily and eternally. Every such state is part of the permanent fibre and fabric of existence. This is the framework of the universe, the inherent superstructure and substructure. Everything hangs on this. It fills up existence. There are no gaps at all.

      In Leibniz’s system, true substances were metaphysical points which, so Leibniz said, were both real and exact, while physical points were real but not exact, and mathematical points were exact but not real.

      In modern ontological mathematics, static mathematical points are exact but unreal, while moving mathematical points serve as the basis for both metaphysical points (concerned with minds) and physical points (concerned with matter).

      Existence: Certain or Uncertain?

      Science claims that reality is shrouded in some sort of inherent uncertainty or indeterminacy, supposedly arising from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Let’s apply the problem of Cartesian substance dualism to uncertainty. How can uncertainty interact with certainty? They have zero in common. Ergo, either the whole of reality is totally uncertain, or the whole of reality is totally certain. Look around. Do you see uncertainty, indeterminacy, fuzziness, haziness, blurriness?

      According to science, the macroscopic world is more or less deterministic and certain, while the microscopic world is said to be indeterministic and uncertain. How is that possible? It automatically raises the dilemma of how certainty can interact with uncertainty, determinism with indeterminism, or how one can possibly originate in the other. Science never bothers to address these fundamental issues.

      We can abolish all of this alleged uncertainty by appealing to mathematics and zero/infinity mathematical monads.

      Science’s absurd claim that the fundamental basis of existence is shrouded in uncertainty, indeterminacy, indeterminism, acausation, statistics and probability is entirely refuted by a rational, rather than empirical, analysis of ontology. It’s impossible for energy to be borrowed from some mysterious temporal twilight zone and then rapidly repaid, as science crazily suggests. Science doesn’t even propose any mechanism for this borrowing. It’s imagined to take place as if by magic. Once the miracle happens, scientists nod sagely and say, Ah, the uncertainty explains it. They might as well refer to God – an equally ridiculous non-explanation that pretends to make sense of things but never rises above the purest nonsense.

      Science puts in an enormous effort to explain nothing at all. If you think uncertainty is an explanation, you plainly don’t know what an explanation is. Uncertainty is what you refer to when you are seeking to hide the gulf in your knowledge, and have no clue what the explanation is.

      Existence, in its fundamental aspect, is the most precise and perfect thing you can possibly get. It is absolutely analytic. It has no uncertainty whatsoever. Only mathematics can provide the perfect, precise, unbreakable, absolutely stable, complete and consistent foundations of eternal existence. Any other foundations would instantly destroy themselves, especially any foundations built on uncertainty. Have you ever seen a house with uncertain foundations? If a house would fall over without stable, certain foundations, think how much more rapidly the universe itself would collapse without such foundations. Indeed, it would never stand at all.

      It’s not a question of why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, every state exactly equal to nothing cannot not exist. Even the state of infinite static points can be considered as a special kind of existence, one with absolutely no consequences and no effects, hence which sits permanently in the background, making no difference to anything. It is the state of nothing = nothing, while all other states are something = nothing. These are all mathematical states. They cannot be any other types of state.

      The arche, the ultimate substance of existence, is pure, analytic math, exactly equal to zero at all time. Naive religious types have called it God, or the Oneness, or the Spirit, or cosmic consciousness, or Will. Empiricists and materialists have rubbished all of that and opted for something much worse... non-existence that randomly and miraculously creates existence for no reason, and via no mechanism.

      If you want to avoid all of these crazy ideas, you have nowhere to go but math. Only math can provide a rational, logical explanation of existence. Everything else is moonshine and Mythos.

      The Flowing Point

      How do mathematical points move in order to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason? The following considerations must all be taken into account:

      1) No valid state must be privileged

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1