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.

    Science's War On Reason
    Science's War On Reason
    Science's War On Reason
    Ebook438 pages6 hours

    Science's War On Reason

    By Mike Hockney

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. “Reason” is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who “reason” with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative “logic”, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly ... with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes from thousands of years ago.

    No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat.

    A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists ... it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientists.

    Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of a reality predicated on zero and infinity, i.e. it’s an attack on mathematics, not religion.

    Scientists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition.

    No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.

    There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and anti-intellectual basis).

    Science wages war against “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation.

    Scientists are people of the senses, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science.

    Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads us: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMike Hockney
    Release dateMay 1, 2016
    ISBN9781311651884
    Science's War On Reason
    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 Science's War On Reason

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • 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

      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

      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

      Devil In The Detail

      Jun 20, 2021

      Devil In The Detail
      3 min read

    • Article

      Can Brains Be Trusted?

      Dec 6, 2021

      Can Brains Be Trusted?
      4 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

      Reassessing The Miraculous

      Nov 5, 2020

      Miracles in an Age of Disbelief Michael Grosso Anomalist Books 2020 Pb, £12, 228pp, ISBN 9781949501131 A new book about miracles might seem a throwback, conjuring up a boringly predictable debate about why God is willing to annoy rationalist material

      3 min read

    • Article

      Staring At The Shadows

      Nov 7, 2020

      Staring At The Shadows
      4 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

      Think Yourself Better: 10 Rules Of Philosophy To Live By

      Feb 4, 2023

      The thing that separates human beings from other animals is our extraordinary capacity for complex, abstract thought. This is what has given rise to our diverse cultures, our scientific achievements, our ability to envisage the future and, hopefully,

      9 min read

    • Article

      View From The Cosmos

      Dec 11, 2022

      View From The Cosmos
      10 min read

    • Article

      Two Complementary Knowledge Systems

      Apr 29, 2023

      Throughout history, humanity has depended on two basic knowledge systems: science and religion. These two sources of knowledge provide the basic organising principles by which individuals, communities and institutions function and evolve. However, ma

      2 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

      Scientists Have No Defense Against Awe

      Jun 12, 2016

      Eileen Pollack, author of The Only Woman in the Room: Why Science Is Still a Boys’ Club, hinted at the complexity of the relationship between science and the soul in a recent essay: “We need scientists who recognize the reality of this illusion we st

      5 min read

    • Article

      If You Think You’re a Genius, You’re Crazy

      Mar 9, 2017

      When John Forbes Nash, the Nobel Prize-winning mathematician, schizophrenic, and paranoid delusional, was asked how he could believe that space aliens had recruited him to save the world, he gave a simple response. “Because the ideas I had about supe

      4 min read

    • Article

      Fiction Or Fact?

      May 5, 2023

      Cast your mind back to 2008, and you may remember the imminent end of the world. According to various doomsayers, the opening of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern was set to create a black hole that would destroy the Earth and everyone on it. W

      5 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Science's War On Reason

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Science's War On Reason - Mike Hockney

      Science’s War On Reason

      by

      Mike Hockney

      Published by Hyperreality Books

      smashwords edition

      Copyright © Mike Hockney 2016

      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.

      Contents

      How Not To Think

      Science’s War On Math

      Einstein

      The Grand Book of Nature

      Bertrand Russell: The Enemy of Math

      The Unconscious

      Scientific Brutes

      The Death Illusion

      Perceiving God?

      Pneuma

      The Calculus Mystery

      Scientific Theism

      The Enemies of Reason

      The Barbarians

      Ultimate Existents

      The Enigma of Zero

      The Argument Against God’s Goodness

      Light = Life = Mind

      Pythagoras

      The Zombie Argument

      The Best Possible World

      Barbaric Physics

      The Rosenhan Experiment

      The Existence of God?

      The Language of Existence

      Eternal Life

      The Great Science Hoax

      Metamorphosis

      The Matter Mystery

      The Exam

      How Not To Think

      People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. Reason is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who reason with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative logic, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly ... with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes from thousands of years ago. Of course, Christians claim that God did deliver his message directly – via Jesus Christ. Really? Are Jesus’ rambling, incoherent, contradictory parables the thoughts of God? God help us! Where’s the philosophy, the mathematics, the science, the logic, the detailed, rational explanation of existence?

      No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat.

      A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists ... it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientific materialists and empiricists.

      Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of any reality predicated on immaterial, non-empirical, indestructible, necessary, eternal zero and infinity, i.e. atheism is an irrational position attacking mathematics, not religion!

      Scientific materialists and empiricists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the great historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition.

      No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.

      There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and anti-intellectual basis).

      Science wages war against hidden variables, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation.

      Scientists are people of the senses, not people of reason, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science.

      Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such an absurd conclusion.

      Experiments address phenomena, not noumena. Scientists are such philosophical ignoramuses that they place all of their faith in the non-existence of noumena. The only difference between scientists and followers of mainstream religion is that they irrationally swear by their senses, rather than their feelings and mystical intuitions. Scientists and religious believers alike will never accept mathematical rationalism.

      It’s not God that defines existence, but the God Equation ... a cosmic master formula arrived at exclusively through rational, logical, mathematical considerations. Nothing could be more repellent to a scientist than that reason alone can reveal the secrets of existence. Not even one sensory experiment is required.

      You are on the side of reason only if you agree that this is so. If you don’t, you are opposed to reason. You are clearly not a person of reason if you privilege your delusional human senses over your rational intellect. If you look to your senses, feelings, or mystical intuitions, how can you claim to be a supporter of reason? People of reason, by definition, use their reason. They don’t rely on things other than their reason. They don’t pray, they don’t meditate, they don’t chant, and the only experiments they perform are thought experiments conducted inside their own heads.

      The world of reason is the world of mathematics. No sensory experiments are required.

      If you are rational, you have to ask yourself a simple question – why does science use mathematics given that mathematics has nothing to do with experiments? What would science be like if scientists were banned from using mathematics? It would be more ridiculous than any religion.

      It’s not experiments but non-experimental mathematics that gives science its power. It’s science’s use of mathematics that elevates it above religion, spirituality and philosophical speculation (all of which have no mathematical content). But, in that case, who needs science? Who needs the Church of the Senses? Who needs to have faith in experiments? Why don’t we simply replace sensory science with ontological mathematics?

      People of reason do not need science. They need mathematics. Scientists, far from being on the side of reason, are waging war on reason ... on mathematics. They use mathematics, without having any ontological understanding of mathematics. Every day, they butcher mathematics in order to fit it to their irrational sensory interpretations of reality. They have a religious faith in something called matter, a miraculous, unprovable, undefined substance said to exist independently of minds and the ideas in minds. Indeed, scientists claim that minds and ideas are actually made of matter, even though not one of them has ever suggested how.

      It’s about time that science, as much as religion, was identified as an enemy of reason and rationalism. Science is the slavish worship of the irrational human senses, given a rational tinge only thanks to mathematics.

      There are five approaches you can take to understanding reality: 1) religion, 2) spirituality, 3) philosophy, 4) science, and 5) mathematics. Only mathematics reflects pure reason. Science works well purely because of its use of math, and for no other reason. Remove math from science and it’s automatically revealed for what it is: a quasi-religious faith.

      You are either on the side of reason, or you are opposed to reason. Make your choice. Only ontological mathematicians are people of reason. All others are frauds, impostors and charlatans. Scientists are some of the most irrational people you can encounter. What’s worse, they delude themselves they are promoting reason rather than opposing it. Well-known irrationalists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris absolutely oppose mathematical reality, yet proclaim themselves champions of reason.

      It’s time this farce ended. If you don’t agree that reality is made of reason (mathematics) – as Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel all asserted – you cannot be a person of reason, and you have an irrational notion of what reason actually is. Reason can never be expressed through the human senses. The human senses are not organs of reason. Science is the fallacious, irrational belief that they are.

      Scientists believe in their concrete sensory experiences. They do not believe in their feelings or mystical intuitions. They do not believe in abstract reason. They do not accept any rational, logical principles. They do not accept eternal, necessary verities. Science’s famous method makes no mention of reason, logic, rational principles, mathematics, ontology, epistemology, noumena, metaphysics. All it does is match mathematically framed hypotheses (philosophy expressed as mathematical formulae) to observed patterns. That’s the extent of its sophistication.

      If the answer to existence isn’t sensory – and it emphatically isn’t – then the scientific method is 100% useless in explaining what reality is. That’s a rational fact. Own it!

      Science’s War On Math

      I don’t believe in mathematics. – Albert Einstein

      Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore. – Albert Einstein

      One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians. – Richard Feynman

      I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce. – Freeman John Dyson

      *****

      Science believes it’s waging a war against irrational, speculative religion and metaphysics. In fact, it’s waging a war against reason, logic and mathematics.

      Metaphysics is simply what comes after physics. It’s not religion, the supernatural or philosophical speculation that lies beyond science, but mathematics, the true expression of metaphysics. Science is all about the senses, and the temporal, contingent, observable order we perceive with them. Mathematical metaphysics, on the other hand, is about the eternal, necessary, unobservable, non-sensory order that defines existence, hence defines science.

      Science is about induction, synthesis, and truths of fact. Mathematical metaphysics is about deduction, analysis, and the eternal truths of reason. As ever, they are the opposites of each other.

      Science acknowledges no eternal, necessary, essential order, i.e. an absolute ontology. In fact, it explicitly denies it, seeing it as a disguised way of referring to either God or a Cosmic Mind, which are equally unpalatable to scientists.

      Science repudiates the principle of sufficient reason. Science has no rational and logical first principles, no formal ontology and epistemology, and is based on nothing more sophisticated than a sensory method, which necessarily says nothing about anything non-sensory. Science supports empiricism against rationalism. So how can anyone claim that science is a rational enterprise?

      To see how irrational science is, simply imagine it stripped of mathematics. What would be left? ... a religion, a Mythos. There would be nothing worth saving.

      Imagine scientists trying to work out eclipses without math. Imagine Newton’s laws without math. Imagine Einstein, Bohr, Born, Dirac, Heisenberg and Feynman trying to do science without math. Imagine relativity and quantum mechanics without math. Imagine science without calculus, matrices, waves, trigonometry, Riemann geometry, Fourier mathematics, and so on.

      Science without math dissolves into gibberish ... into divination, soothsaying and alchemy, all of which involved painstaking observations of the natural world, i.e. the method by which science swears.

      Given the indispensability of math to science, you might imagine that item number one on science’s agenda would be to define and explain math. In fact, no scientist has ever written a scientific paper on what math is, which means that science is built on something it can’t define or explain, in which case how can anyone take it seriously? As soon as you rely on things you don’t understand and can’t define, you are playing the religious Mythos game, not the rational Logos game. You are building towers with no foundations, and all such towers fall over. Science has been in a state of total rational collapse since the advent of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

      Scientists say, Look at all the success science has achieved. In fact, science hasn’t achieved any success at all. Math is 100% responsible for everything science has supposedly achieved. To see the truth of this, just take math out of any science theory, and see what’s left. Without math, there would be nothing left in science of any value.

      Science is 100% dependent on math, but math doesn’t need science. So, which is the monkey and which is the organ grinder? We simply don’t need science. Science can be wholly replaced by ontological mathematics: the true science – the mathematics – of existence.

      It’s impossible for the non-analytic, heuristic fictions of science to be validly combined with the analytic truths of mathematics. That’s why the unstable hybrid of scientific empiricism and mathematical rationalism can never be anything other than an inconsistent and incomplete approximation ... a fudge.

      Mathematical metaphysics must be complete and consistent. Such a system can avoid the logical trap of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems only by defining numbers ontologically. Any other way of defining mathematics automatically fails.

      Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) gives the scientific game away. Firstly, science is admitted to be a philosophy (natural philosophy), which means it should be subject to rational and logical scrutiny like every other branch of philosophy, yet it arrogantly and irrationally refuses to engage with philosophy, either ignoring it or actively mocking it. Secondly, mathematical principles are introduced into natural philosophy without any explanation, and with no justification other than that they seem to work, i.e. science is all about perceived success and has no connection with intellectual integrity, logical rigour and truth.

      As Wikipedia says, "Newton’s defence [against criticisms of his theory of gravity, including the accusation that he had introduced ‘occult agencies’ into science] has been adopted since by many famous physicists – he pointed out that the mathematical form of the theory had to be correct since it explained the data, and he refused to speculate further on the basic nature of gravity. The sheer number of phenomena that could be organised by the theory was so impressive that younger ‘philosophers’ soon adopted the methods and language of the Principia."

      Here we see the core claim of science: anything that apparently explains the data must be true (a claim we know to be false in Newton’s case since Newtonian physics has been superseded by Einsteinian physics, which will in due course be falsified by some new physics, and so on). The fallacy of this claim is apparent from quantum mechanics (QM) where there are around twenty radically different interpretations of what QM means, all of which agree with the available data, hence must all be true according to science, yet can’t all be true since they utterly contradict each other ontologically and epistemologically. At best, only one of these interpretations is true. At worst, none of them is true. Science has no means at all to establish any kind of truth when rival hypotheses all agree with the experimental data.

      Truth and interpretation are radically different things. Finding a suitable, interpretive, heuristic fiction – a Mythos – to describe data is a profoundly different thing from truly explaining the data. Any philosopher could tell you that, but science’s central problem is that it has contempt for philosophy, and refuses to debate with philosophers. In a proper scientific world, every hypothesis would be peer reviewed not by other scientists but by philosophers, who would challenge each and every assumption made, and inference drawn. This would filter out an enormous amount of the nonsense routinely spouted by scientists. It’s astounding how much irrational, illogical tripe is uncritically admitted to the scientific literature. It’s as if no serious review has taken place at all. So much for the claim that peer review filters out the crazy stuff. In fact, peer review should be renamed groupthink review and should be understood as the means by which scientific orthodoxy is enforced. Radical new science papers are not rejected for being manifestly wrong; they are rejected for being manifestly heretical and blasphemous as far as science’s ideology is concerned. In other words, science’s much-vaunted peer review is about as objective and interested in the Truth as the Spanish Inquisition!

      The fact that mathematics is used to explain data in science constitutes the central problem of science ... how can math be relevant to natural philosophy if nature isn’t mathematical? And if nature is mathematical, who needs science?! Newton feigned no hypotheses when it came to explaining the presence of math in science. He simply pointed out that it worked, and the rest of science has complacently followed him in this anti-intellectual, anti-Truth stance ever since.

      If science can’t explain math, how can it explain the world, given that it relies on math for all of its explanations? Extract math from the scientific method, and what value does the method have? Where does the method address itself, where does it justify and validate itself, where does it explain its use of mathematics? What possible natural connection does rationalist mathematics have with an empirical method? Isn’t it a category error to put the two together? Would any Nobel Prize winning scientist care to address why it’s not? Good luck with that!

      Have you ever seen a science paper explaining the rational validity and truth content of the scientific method? What is truth scientifically? When does any scientist ever define truth, and hence falsehood? When do scientific conferences take place to debate the nature of truth, and how we can determine what it is? When has any scientist ever explained why truth should be connected to the fallible, unreliable, delusional, evolutionary (i.e. mutable, temporary and contingent) human senses, and not to more suitable candidates, such as eternal reason and logic?

      Why is rationalist math so essential to empiricist science? How does it even make sense for rationalism (a priori analytic deduction) and empiricism (a posteriori synthetic induction) to be combined? Mathematics is the quintessential anti-experimental, non-sensory subject, so what’s it doing partnered to experimental science?

      Mainstream religion makes many mad claims. Doesn’t science make a mad claim too ... that mathematics (a subject which it can’t explain or define) can be validly united with an experimental method with which it has no connection, and, indeed, which it explicitly contradicts? It’s highly convenient for scientists that they reject philosophy because then they need give no philosophical justification for their ridiculous and inconsistent system.

      Science works because it uses mathematics. It could use the scientific method all it liked, but the exercise would be futile if mathematics were not then deployed to make sense of the experimental data.

      *****

      The famous book of mathematical Principles of natural Philosophy marked the epoch of a great revolution in physics. The method followed by its illustrious author Sir Newton ... spread the light of mathematics on a science which up to then had remained in the darkness of conjectures and hypotheses. – French mathematical physicist Alexis Clairaut (1747)

      Clairaut’s quote highlights the central fact of science – which all modern scientists ignore – that without mathematics science would be in darkness, based on nothing but wild guesses. Therefore, mathematics itself should be the primary concern of science. Science must explain mathematics before it can explain anything else, but science doesn’t explain mathematics at all. In fact, it typically regards math as an unreal, manmade abstraction, which makes it incomprehensible how it can account in any way for the natural world.

      As Clairaut pointed out, it’s only when mathematical principles are applied to natural philosophy (science) that science becomes a meaningful subject. Aristotelian science, for example, was painfully lacking in mathematics, and full of dubious philosophical and religious principles. Aristotelian science wasn’t overthrown by the scientific method, it was overthrown by science becoming enormously more mathematical. So, why don’t we now overthrow science, leaving nothing but pure, ontological mathematics? Can anyone doubt that this is the inevitable trajectory in which science is heading? M-theory has almost no connection with experimental science, and is ferociously mathematical. When M-theory inevitably fails, perhaps scientists will then adopt true M-theory, i.e. Mathematics itself. M should stand for mathematics, and nothing else.

      When has any scientist attempted to explain the relationship between mathematics and nature, especially if the assumption is made that mathematics is non-ontological, hence has nothing to do with nature? Is it acceptable for scientists to churn out scientific theories if they can’t even explain what science is, and why it’s configured as it is? The thing most in need of scientific justification is science itself. Science uses an unfalsifiable falsification principle and an unverifiable verification principle. What a mess!

      "A more recent assessment has been that while acceptance of Newton’s theories was not immediate, by the end of a century after publication in 1687, ‘no one could deny that’ (out of the Principia) ‘a science had emerged that, at least in certain respects, so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar of science generally.’" – Wikipedia

      It was purely the application of mathematics to science that made science so formidable. Without mathematics, science, such as it was in pre-Enlightenment times, was a humble branch of philosophy ... the one dealing with observable nature rather than unobservable supernature (metaphysics). Mathematics removed it from mere philosophy, and gave it a wholly different character.

      Science has always involved observations of nature, and simple experiments, so it’s not these that elevate science above philosophy ... it’s mathematics alone.

      The question is immediately invited of why we don’t view science in reverse, i.e. why don’t we start with mathematics (rather than observations) as the basis of reality, and then apply observational and experimental scientific principles to it, to allow us to establish exactly what kind of mathematics we are dealing with in nature. As it turns out, the mathematics of nature is the mathematics of sinusoids ... of energy waves.

      *****

      Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight. – Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

      Identity statements are inherently tautological: they are the most extreme cases of tautology. So, Goethe is absolutely right. Mathematics is identity and tautology, and that’s exactly what’s required for a complete and consistent, infallible system. As soon as any version of math is allowed to stray from identity and tautology, it can no longer be infallible. It slides into incompleteness and inconsistency.

      Math is not infallible per se. Only tautological, ontological mathematics is infallible. People need to realise that there is no such subject as unqualified mathematics. All manner of different types of mathematics are possible, and all but one will be fallible, inconsistent and incomplete. Only ontological mathematics is infallible. Only it is true.

      E. P. Wigner wrote, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.

      Isn’t about time that science tried to understand it? How can scientists claim to understand reality if they can’t understand why mathematics is so necessary to the success of science?

      *****

      Mathematics is the only good metaphysics. – William Thomson Baron Kelvin

      Exactly so. Mathematics is metaphysics ... the subject beyond physics, which provides the base for physics.

      If there is a God, he’s a great mathematician. – Paul Dirac

      God is mathematics.

      The laws of Nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God. – Euclid

      The laws of ontological mathematics are the laws of Nature. Math is Nature. Mathematical sinusoids are the thoughts of Nature, of existence itself.

      Mathematics may be defined as the economy of counting. There is no problem in the whole of mathematics which cannot be solved by direct counting. – Ernst Mach

      Mathematics is all about ontological numbers (sinusoids), and their relations and interactions. Sinusoids are energy-in-itself, information-in-itself, thought-in-itself, and life-in-itself. All the things that manifest themselves in the observable world – energy, information, mind and life – must all be present in prototype form in the fundamental constituents of existence. Otherwise, we would be making the claim that properties – such as mind and life – can miraculously and magically emerge from things in which they have no precedent. Science makes exactly this irrational, illogical claim when it insists that mind and life temporarily emerge from mindless, lifeless material atoms, and then vanish again as soon as the material atoms are mysteriously no longer organised in quite the right way (at death).

      When in the 18th century Euler discovered those formulas which today still delight the mathematical phantasy, he seriously stated that his pencil was more clever than himself. This impression that mathematical structures can include a kind of self-determination concerns me at this time. ... Mathematics and Philosophy attack the world’s problems in different ways. Only by their complementary action do they give the right direction. – E. Kaehler

      This manifests the classic error of Cartesian dualism. The universe is either mathematical or philosophical. It can’t be both. Either philosophy is a branch of mathematics, or mathematics is a branch of philosophy. The same argument holds for mathematics versus religion, spirituality and science.

      It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention. – P. W. Bridgman

      This is the falsest statement ever made (!), and goes to the heart of humanity’s strange reluctance to accept mathematics as reality. It’s the merest truism, evident at once to any rational person, that mathematics is the only language not invented by humans, hence is the authentic language of Nature. What’s for sure is that unsophisticated observers will always fail to understand what math is.

      The Way begets one; one begets two; two begets three; three begets the myriad creatures. – Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching

      Existence is all about counting, about numbers. The Way, which begets one, is the zero/infinity Singularity. The Way is monadic Math.

      The essence of mathematics is not to make simple things complicated, but to make complicated things simple. – S. Gudder

      Exactly so! What could be simpler than a universe of mathematical points (nothings), directed by the principle of sufficient reason alone?

      *****

      One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers. – Heinrich Hertz

      The world is ruled by intelligent mathematical minds. We ourselves are those monadic minds. We, the discoverers of math, are math (which is why we were able to discover it). All of the wisdom of math is available to each and every one of us.

      *****

      The role of science must always be to clarify, to understand, to predict. And that means the development of explanatory theories must remain the final goal of all scientific endeavours. It must simplify, not mystify. – Dr Stuart Clark

      But science doesn’t explain anything. It models phenomena using its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism, then explains those phenomena with regard to that model (just as all religions explain the world according to their particular God-based model of reality). Science, like religion, does not explain its model. It does not define or prove the existence of matter, and it fails to disprove the existence of non-sensory, non-empirical hidden variables and rational unobservables.

      If you can’t explain everything, you can’t explain anything. All you can do is account for things via a highly dubious model (interpretation; Mythos) you have constructed according to your current, temporal, contingent, provisional, limited understanding.

      Science’s model leaves out mind, life, consciousness, the unconscious, free will, the origin of the universe, necessity and eternity, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, meaning, teleology and mathematics. When all of that is omitted, what you are left with is the claim that we live in a pointless, meaningless, purposeless universe that randomly summoned itself into existence from non-existence, for no reason, without any mechanism, and where free will, consciousness, causation, determinism, and so on, are all empty and inexplicable epiphenomena. That’s exactly what science insists is the absolute Truth of existence. Are you buying it? If you are, you’re a nutcase! You’re worse than the most egregious person of religious faith in the world. Your explanations are even crazier than theirs!

      *****

      The highest form of pure thought is in mathematics. – Plato

      Mathematics is pure thought. Mathematical sinusoids are thoughts in themselves, thoughts stripped of all appearances. As such, they are also life-in-itself, since life and mind are the same thing. To say, I think, therefore I am, is equivalent to saying, I am alive because I am thinking, or, equivalently, I am thinking because I am alive.

      Heisenberg

      "From these experiments it is seen that both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time – the two concepts are too different. ...

      "The solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead us to form – the one of the particles, the other of the waves – are both incomplete and have only the validity of analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases. ... Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language.

      "It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately,

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1