Tractatus Logico-Mathematicus: How Mathematics Explains Reality (The Truth

Series Book 14) Free Books Download

Dr. Thomas Stark

Wittgenstein said, "Don't try and shit higher than your arse." He was the expert in the subject.Wittgenstein pulled off the greatest hoax in philosophical history. By sheer force of personality,he managed to get all the philosopher dweebs to swallow his brilliantly contrived joke toexpose the idiocy and gullibility of modern philosophers. Wittgenstein wrote, "My propositionsserve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizesthem as nonsensical... The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing exceptwhat can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to dowith philosophy..." Being the comedic genius he was – the finest humorist of his era –Wittgenstein stayed in character as an idiot savant all his adult life and never once revealed hisingenious joke to his credulous target audience.They say that Stanislavsky regardedWittgenstein as the consummate actor and based his “method” on how brilliantly Wittgenstein,a member of the super-rich elite, pulled off his lifelong act as a shambling, incoherent fan ofcowboy movies and musicals, pretending to be a serious, world-historic philosopher, andcompletely fooling British toffs such as Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell.In themovie "Being There", the character of "Chance", played by Peter Sellers, was inspired byWittgenstein.Wittgenstein’s biggest fan was Andy Kaufman, the notorious prankster andcomedian who tried never to tell a joke - as his homage to the great Austrian straight man.Kaufman wanted to pull off a ruse as big as Wittgenstein’s, resulting in many people believingKaufman faked his own death as his grandest hoax. Like Wittgenstein, Kaufman was eager toprovoke negative and confused reactions from audiences, leaving them in a state of bafflementand disorientation. One rumor was that Kaufmann styled his persona as the obnoxiously rudelounge singer Tony Clifton on Wittgenstein. At one point, Kaufmann considered basing thevillain he played in his professional wrestling act on Wittgenstein so that he could insult hisaudience in German, using cryptic Wittgensteinian utterances. At the last moment, he chose towrestle women and posture as the “Inter-Gender Wrestling Champion of the World”. His showswere especially appealing to philosophers. It would be easy to imagine Wittgenstein writing atreatise on it, entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneuticsof Postmodern Wrestling in the light of Hyperreal Language Games.”Actually, we’re only joking.Sadly, Wittgenstein wasn’t. His Tractatus is one of the most pernicious texts in modernphilosophy. It amounts to an attempt to assassinate philosophy. All serious philosophers –philosophers in the grand tradition – need to arm themselves against the irrationalismpreached by modern philosophy. It’s time to see through the con. It’s time for the rebirth ofgrand philosophy. This time, it will be centered on the ontology of mathematics, the language ofreality. The reign of manmade language - which does nothing but falsify reality - is over.Thetime for the second and final Enlightenment has come: the Age of Mathematical Rationalism.

About the AuthorHenri Poincaré est un mathématicien, physicien, philosophe et ingénieurfrançais, né le 29 avril 1854 à Nancy et mort le 17 juillet 1912 à Paris. Poincaré a réalisé destravaux d'importance majeure en optique et en calcul infinitésimal.

The Tractatus Logico-MathematicusHow Mathematics Explains RealityDr. ThomasStarkCopyright © Dr. Thomas Stark 2019All rights reserved, including the right to reproducethis book, or portions thereof in any form. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored, in any form or introduced into anyinformation storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic ormechanical without the express written permission of the author, except in the case of areviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.TheOntological Mathematics FoundationTable of ContentsThe Tractatus Logico-MathematicusTheThinking GameThe Kantian Mind ModelConceive or Perceive?How Long is a Piece of String?The Thinking TypeLanguage and RealityLinear versus Circular LogicThe Wisdom ofGödelNumbersThe New Kid on the BlockThe UniverseThe Wittgensteinian ModelKillingPhilosophyLogical HolismLogical AtomismThe Form of RealityLogical FormSame andDifferentThe LimitsLogicThe Foundation of LogicMeaningFalse ProfundityThe Say/ShowDistinctionSaying and ShowingThe Transcendental LimitsThe StartIn the Beginning Was theErrorWittgenstein: Error OneTalking Out of Your ArseThe Two ReadingsFritzMauthnerSchopenhauer versus KantThe Wittgenstein AffairThe AtomicHypothesisCorrespondence versus CoherenceSyntax and SemanticsWe Are GreeksPrimaryand Secondary PropertiesThe DMT DelusionSense and ReferenceOntological Mathematics:RecapOntological Mathematics: DimensionalismSpeed versus VelocityFrames ofReferenceLightConclusionThe Thinking GameMany of the greatest thinkers in history weren’tvery good at thinking. How is that possible? They were actually brilliant pseudo-thinkers. Theaverage person can’t tell the difference. Pseudo-profundity seems as profound as realprofundity; in fact, often much more so. The Lie casts a spell that the Truth always struggles tomatch. The Lie, remember, is accepted because it’s what people want to believe, and then theycall it the Truth. The actual Truth isn’t what people want to believe, so is shunned and left alonein the corner, unloved and unlovable. Its presence is deemed most unfortunate. After all, itfailed to be shaped in man’s image. It failed to suit man’s agenda. Man is the measure of allthings, especially the Truth. Man’s truths are always lies. Nietzsche said, “What are man’struths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors.” It would have been more accurate if he hadsaid, “What are man’s truths ultimately? Just his most entrenched lies.” Hitler understood thegame. He said, “[In] the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broadmasses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotionalnature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds theymore readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie…” The Big Lie is all-conquering.History’s pseudo-thinkers always believed their own propaganda, just like ordinarypeople. They lied to themselves as well as to everyone else. They always suffered fromconfirmation bias. They looked for anything that supported their arguments and ignored ordismissed anything that didn’t. They didn’t engage with their critics. Above all, they sufferedfrom a systemic blinkeredness which they never once questioned or sought to change.Here isthe No.1 Law of Critical Thinking. Whatever your “Big Thought” is, the thought that you believewill change the world, the thought that gets you so excited about its incredible potential (how itwill change everything), you can be sure its defining error is present immediately andfoundationally. The error is hard-wired into the idea.All Big Thoughts are wrong, except one –the correct Big Thought, the exclusive answer to existence. The correct answer to existencehas a unique property: it preceded the existence of the human race. Unlike lies, it cannot be

invented (lies are always inventions). It can only be discovered (the truth always concernsdiscovery, never invention). It is hidden in plain sight – all around us. The difficulty is one ofrecognition. Human beings are not designed for recognizing the truth. As Nietzsche said,humans have no “organs for truth”. He wrote, “We have no organ at all for knowledge, for truth:we know (or believe or imagine) precisely as much as may be useful in the interest of thehuman herd, the species: and even what is here called usefulness is in the end only a belief,something imagined and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shallone day perish.”Big Thinkers start off with their Eureka Moment, some epiphany, some flash ofinspiration, some wondrous insight, when they have the magical idea which they believe willsolve everything. The trouble is that there are as many Eureka Moments as there are BigThinkers, and all of them are different, generating contradictory Big Ideas. Which flash ofinsight is the correct one? How would you know? How could you tell? Aren’t we condemned toa relativism and subjectivism of Big Thoughts? How can we make any progress towards thesingle, exclusive truth of existence?No popular Big Thinker ever engages in the science of BigThinking. This science involves not the Big Thought itself, but what character the Big Thoughtmust have in order to be a valid candidate for the final explanation of everything. If your BigThought, no matter how popular it is with the masses, does not have certain characteristics, itis doomed to fail. It might achieve great success and popularity for you, but it will never standthe test of time, or the reality test.People who are not in the thinking game – almost all ofhumanity – have no clue how advanced thinking is done. Regardless of how complex a subjectmight seem to be, it is always born from one very simple flash of inspiration. What the BigThinkers do is take their simple, basic idea then clothe it in endless arguments, nuance andelaborate ramifications, until the original idea, which anyone could grasp, is so far distant, soheavily shielded, so impenetrably wrapped in intellectual padding, that it’s effectively lost orforgotten. Newcomers then wrestle with the monstrous product of the original idea – the theoryit generated – and are unable to get back to the original idea, the simplicity of which is oftenbreathtaking, and usually breathtakingly dumb.Theories do not fail at page 500 of the theory, orthe tenth book on the theory. They in fact fail at the originating idea. The most dangerous ideasare those that are wrong yet are taken to be indisputably right and true. Nietzsche captured theproblem perfectly when he said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” An idea can bewildly successful regardless of its truth content. Religions are based on simple ideas whichhave proved astoundingly powerful yet are all demonstrably false.Look at how potent theJewish idea of monotheism – one God is responsible for everything – has proved. In the West,paganism, with its proliferation of squabbling gods, was swept away. Yet even monotheism thensuccumbed to a type of atavistic pagan polytheism. Christianity recast one God as threepersons in one God – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The reason forthis mutation was that Christians wanted God to be humanized, to have walked amongst them(as Jesus Christ), to be capable of understanding them thanks to having gone through thehuman experience for himself. God, in these terms, became much more humanly relatable. Yetmonotheism as a Trinity was a contradiction in terms and proved deeply offensive tomonotheistic purists. Islam produced a new take on monotheism. God (Allah) was depicted asincredibly remote and Jesus Christ re-designated not as one person of God but merely as oneof God’s most esteemed prophets, inferior to the Muslim prophet Mohammed, the Last Prophet(the Seal of Prophets).The human side of Islam was provided not by God walking amongst usbut by a human being – Mohammed – being chosen by God to walk amongst us and serve ashis direct point of contact on earth.Christians regard Jesus Christ as God on earth.Mohammed is not considered by Muslims as God on earth, but, rather, as a perfect human on

earth, rendered perfect through his interaction with God. The better a Muslim you are, the morelike Mohammed you are, the more like God you will be. In Christianity, a Christian seeks toemulate God (Jesus Christ), while in Islam a Muslim seeks to emulate Mohammed, a perfecthuman being, most favored by God.Catholics seek to ingest divinity via transubstantiation – theconversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ atconsecration, only the appearances of bread and wine remaining – and thus be closer to Godthough the miracle of the Catholic Mass. That’s the direct route to divinity. Others prefer theindirect route of reading holy scripture and having faith.The point to take away is that hugereligions, with vast, complex theologies and tens of millions of words written about them, candevelop out of extremely simple and usually childish ideas.What is Judaism reduced to its coreidea? – there is a Creator, and he chose the Jews as his special tribe on earth. What’s not tolike, if you’re a Jew? But why would anyone else like it? And no one else did. The Christiansand Muslims kept the idea of the Creator but got rid of the Jews as his Chosen People andassumed that identity for themselves.What is Christianity reduced to its core idea? – God lovedus so much that he himself went through the human experience and saved us from ourselvesby showing how we ought to live, and giving his life for us to placate God the Father for ouroriginal and otherwise unpardonable disobedience.What is Islam reduced to its core idea? –God loved us so much that he chose a simple, illiterate everyman (Mohammed) tocommunicate God’s will and instructions to us, hence the Koran, the infallible Word of Godtransmitted to us via a perfect human being (the Last Prophet).Every Abrahamist buys into oneof these ideas then runs with it and bases their core identity on it.More or less no time isexpended by any practicing Jew on pondering the validity of the core idea of Judaism. Thesame goes for Christianity and Islam. Abrahamists adopt whatever version of Abrahamism theywere brainwashed to believe as children, not which one makes the most sense to them.You willnot find a book written by any Jew in which the defining idea of Judaism is challenged to see ifit makes any sense. Does the idea of a Creator make much sense? Do we need a Creator?Does the idea of a Creator who is not only obsessed with this little planet earth but also with aparticular little, inconsequential tribe of earth-people living in the ancient Middle East make anysense? Hasn’t the Creator got better things to do with his time, and more important things tothink about, than the domestic dramas of human beings, and tribal vanity and narcissism?Theidea of God has been reduced by the Jews to something staggeringly mundane; human-all-too-human. It looks much more like the case that the Jewish God is a Jewish construct thanhumanity is a construct of an all-powerful Jewish Creator. However, no practicing Jew will everreach that conclusion. It’s an impossible conclusion for them, a conclusion that anyone thatbelieves in Judaism cannot, by definition, ever arrive at. To reach it is to cease to be a Jew.Theexistence of the Jewish God is not in any way proved by Judaism, but no follower of Judaismwould ever have any desire to contemplate for even one moment the disproof of the God of theJews. That is the ultimate taboo. To contemplate it is already to have become an apostate, aheretic, a blasphemer, an infidel. All the science, philosophy, mathematics, psychology,theological deconstruction, claims of rival religions, and so on, will never make the slightestdifferent to a Jew who believes in Judaism. The same goes for Christianity and Islam. Thesame goes for everything.Once a person has invested their identity in something, it’s almostimpossible to retrieve them since you are asking them to change their identity, which is more orless unthinkable to them. Only monumental disillusion with their belief system can bring peopleback from whatever identity hole they have jumped into. Yet even the biggest disappointmentsaren’t guaranteed to end a person’s faith. Look at the Jews. Their capital city of Jerusalem wasconquered by the Babylonians, the Temple of their God destroyed, and they were all marched

into slavery. To a normal person, that would signal the end of Judaism as a viable religion. Afterall, the facts on the ground had definitively refuted it: the Jewish God had been vanquished. Yetthe Jews saw things differently. They concluded not that their God was false but that they werefalse … they weren’t good enough Jews. Had they been better Jews, so they reasoned, theirGod would not have abandoned them. Thus, incredibly, they became even more fervent Jewsafter their apocalyptic defeat by the Babylonians.Later, the Greeks kicked their asses, and thenthe Romans expelled them from their “Promised” Land. Every European nation persecutedthem and, finally, in the Holocaust, six million of them were murdered by the Nazis. Thequestion has to be asked – is there anything at all, excepting their total annihilation, that wouldconvince the Jews they are wrong, that everything they believe is provably false? Their God,who once allegedly helped them all the time (Exodus, and all that), never seems to help themat all now, no matter how good they are at being Jewish. Their thesis that to be a better Jew isthe way to gain divine help has been as comprehensively refuted as their God. They weresaved in WWII only by the intervention of the communist atheists of the Soviet Union, by theglorious Red Army, not by their God who supposedly prized them above all other peoples inthe created universe and entered into a solemn and unbreakable Covenant with them.TheJews are no aberration. The rest of humanity is just as bad, but in different ways, regardingdifferent absurd beliefs.People aren’t capable of abandoning certain ideas once these havebecome sufficiently deeply embedded in them. The rightness or wrongness of the ideas isnever an issue. They are simply accepted without further debate or doubt. A believer willzealously challenge any belief bar his own, which he clings to as if it were his very life. He is100% skeptical towards all beliefs bar the one he believes in, towards which he is 100%credulous. This is confirmation bias in its purest, most dangerous and extreme form.Big Ideasgo wrong immediately. As a matter of simple logic, the objective world has only one rightanswer – the actual truth of reality. But if only one answer is right then it automatically followsthat all other answers are wrong, and, moreover, they are wrong straight away, right off the bat,right at the instant they are first conceived. If humanity were actually interested in the truth, itwould go through each defining idea, each Big Thought, in minute detail to discover where itgoes wrong. Because we know that all but one must be, and are, wrong.Most people in today’sWest believe, or are led to believe, that science has some kind of special connection to thetruth. So, what is the defining idea of science, its “Big Thought”? It’s that observing the world isthe only way to understand the world. Well, is that true?What do you use to observe the world?– your sense organs. These are known to be limited, fallible, unreliable and subject to variousbiases and delusions. The last thing they are are organs of truth and guarantors of truth, sowhy should they be the best candidates for being the supreme means to reveal the truth to us?In fact, they seem like extremely poor candidates, and Descartes, the first modern philosopher,certainly invested no confidence in them. It’s completely unknown to what extent the sensesaccurately show us the world “out there”. We may superimpose any amount of internalprocessing – stuff that comes from inside us – over what came to us from the outside, hencewe can’t disentangle the external (objective) from the internal (subjective).The fundamentalproblem for science is that nothing observed is self-explanatory. You can’t know the truth ofsomething just by the act of observing it. All you get is a bunch of data. Then you have to dosomething with the data. That secondary process is all about interpretation, notobservation.Let’s grant that your observations are 100% perfect every time. So what? Yoursubsequent interpretations might be 0% correct because you are always using a fallaciousinterpretive framework. What if your observations are wonderful but your schema forunderstanding them is woeful?In ancient times, divination, the predecessor of science, involved

close observation of the natural world. In ancient Rome, an augur was a religious official whocarefully observed natural signs, such as the behavior of birds or the state of the entrails of asacrificed sheep, and interpreted these as an indication of divine approval or disapproval for aproposed action. So, there you go … precise attention to observation of nature, yet an insaneparadigm for interpreting the observed data.Observable data, in and of itself, tells you nothingabout reality. You could apply any interpretation at all to it, no matter how lunatic. Theinterpretive paradigm is always much more important than what is observed. The interpretiveframework is never perceived. It is always the product of conceiving, an entirely differentactivity from perceiving.The scientific method starts with observation (perceiving), then rapidlychanges tack. To understand what you have observed, you have to formulate a hypothesis.Hypothesis construction is not an act that involves any observation at all. If step 1) of thescientific method concerns perceiving (observation of the external world) then step 2) concernsconceiving (formation of a hypothesis to account for the observed data), an entirely differentcognitive activity. When does science ever explain this fraught transition from perceiving toconceiving? Are these compatible exercises? If you have switched from perception toconception, are you any longer in the perception game, or have you actually left that game andstarted an entirely new and different game with very different and incompatible rules ofengagement?Science believes it is about perception but it’s actually about conception. Whatscience does is apply a perceptual constraint to the type of conception that a scientist canengage in. Where religion allows people to conceive of entities (objects of faith or mysticalinsight) that cannot be observed, hence religion is non-empirical, science demands thatscientists form concepts that in some way relate or correspond to observable entities, hencescience is empirical. The key point is that both religion and science are conceptual activities,not perceptual, though science chooses to apply a perceptual limiting factor to its conceptions.This in fact gets it nowhere. Ancient Roman augurs applied conceptions to their perceptions yettalked nonsense the whole time. What science does to be successful is apply to itsobservations mathematics, a purely conceptual subject that has nothing to do with scientificobservations and experiments. Therefore, the scientific method based on observations isfundamentally fallacious, yet not a single scientist sees through the con. They all accept themethod uncritically, because they want to and can’t imagine doing anything else. Even thoughtheoretical scientists constantly produce theories with no observable consequences, scienceproceeds as if it were some marvelously consistent subject, wholly predicated on “real-world”observations that keep it grounded in reality. They are totally deluded, as deluded as religioustypes.The part of science that works is the mathematical part, and that part has nothing to dowith observation. No ancient Roman augurs were mathematicians. Like modern scientists, theywere keen sensing types, observers and experimentalists, yet everything they said was absurd.Mathematics was lacking in their paradigm and it is mathematics, not observations, that in factlinks science to reality. If you want the simplest possible proof, remove mathematics fromscience and see for yourself what is left – nothing but the religion of materialism andempiricism, no more sophisticated than medieval alchemy and ancient augury.Science is avast, self-contradicting fraud, but try telling that to a scientist. You would get as far telling aMuslim that the Koran is a vast, self-contradicting fraud. These people don’t want to listen andwon’t listen. They are smitten, brainwashed, by the fallacious “Big Idea” around which theiridentity is now based.Scientists can’t get enough of trumpeting the value of the scientificmethod. Have you ever heard a scientist questioning the validity and logic of the scientificmethod? That would be as likely as finding a Jew questioning the validity and logic of theTorah.A quotation spuriously attributed to Voltaire says, “To learn who rules over you, simply

find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Similarly, to learn what Big Idea rules over youand defines your identity, simply reflect on which idea you never doubt, never criticize, neversubject to any critical scrutiny because you can’t conceive of criticizing it. This is the idea youtake for granted, and is invariably where you sell yourself the Lie that prevents you from everaccessing the Truth. The thing you take as “gospel” is always the mistake, except in the uniquecase where your gospel concerns the right, exclusive answer to existence.Here’s the thing. Ifyou do not spend years studying the nature that the right answer must possess in order to bethe right answer, what makes you think that the particular half-baked idea you support, whichyou uncritically assume is right, is beyond reproach and beyond challenge? When have youever seriously considered its merits in relation to those of its rivals? How many Muslims havespent as much time researching Christianity or Hinduism as they have Islam? How manyscientists have studied philosophy and carefully considered the grand philosophies of theworld’s greatest philosophical thinkers?No part of science teaching involves questioning thescientific method. You cannot even be a scientist unless you accept the scientific method. Youcan be 100% certain that scientists never once question their holy cow. Yet aren’t scientistssupposed to be engaged in falsification and verification activities? Shouldn’t Nobel laureatesbe seeking to falsify the scientific method – given that the whole of science is based on it (so ifit’s wrong so is the whole of science!) – or finding definitive verification for it? No scientist doesthat. There is not one scientific paper on the logical and rational justification of science.Science doesn’t even accept the validity of the principle of sufficient reason. This omissionautomatically renders science irrational and contrary to reason. Science is perfectly willing andhappy to claim that things happen for no reason at all.Science refuses to engage withphilosophy. It dismisses philosophy out of hand. Like any religion, it does not accept anycriticism. Any scientist who challenges science in any foundational way is immediately purgedfrom science. Given that science claims to be a subject that promotes freethinking, it’s ironicthat there is not a single freethinking scientist on earth, i.e. anyone who feels free to challengethe nostrums of scientism.Science ridicules religious people for their hostility to freethinking. Ascientist is allowed to be as freethinking as he likes towards criticizing religion … but is neverallowed to be critically freethinking towards science, which simply makes scientism a fellowreligion, resistant to all self-criticism.Scientists are allowed to take issue with details of specificscientific theories, but they are never allowed to question the framework in which science isconducted, and it would never occur to any scientist to do so. Never forget, the exact location ofyour blind spot is exactly where your core belief is found. You never see its problems anderrors.The thing you least challenge is the thing you should most challenge if you want to be agenuinely serious Big Thinker. What you should be doing is trying to demolish absolutelyeverything that anyone puts in front of you, whether you like the idea or not. It’s the idea that isthe last one standing that you should support, not some idea you were brainwashed intobelieving as a child, or you just happened to like because it suited your personalitytype.Descartes had the right idea. He used the Method of Doubt to demolish everything thatcould be doubted, until what was left was that which could not be doubted. Whether hepersonally succeeded – whether he could have doubted even further – doesn’t detract from theextraordinary value of his method. We must discover what is certain, not what we like.Therefore, the nature of certainty becomes the key issue. Here’s what British sciencepopularizer Professor Brian Cox said: “Science is not a priesthood passing down wisdom. It isthe only human pursuit that succeeds because it is uncertain. It is uncertain of itself. Itchallenges itself. There are no universal truths in science. That’s the key to its success. It’s aframework of how we currently think the world works. It is a way – as best as we can – of

interrogating nature to try and understand it.” Every part of this is a self-serving lie, but at leastCox’s ludicrous ramblings prove that no one who is looking for certainty, the absolute, theinfallible, the final answer to existence, should ever follow the scientific path.Cox is contradictedby the American science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson who said, “The good thing aboutscience is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Hmmm, no uncertainty there. Religiousconviction, in fact. This is the whole problem with science. It claims not to be about certaintybut is in fact totally convinced it is the sole path to genuine knowledge. DeGrasse Tyson said,“Philosophy can really mess you up. … I always felt like maybe there was a little too muchquestion-asking in philosophy. ... My concern here is that the philosophers believe they areactually asking deep questions about nature.” Listening to this guy is like listening to a rabbi orimam – a religious fanatic that never once doubts his belief system, and pours scorn onanything or anyone that does doubt it.The Truth is not what you want it to be. The Truth is whatit is, regardless of your feelings towards it. The Truth is 100% certain. If it weren’t, it would bean opinion, not the Truth. The Truth existed before human science, therefore human sciencecannot tell us what the Truth is unless it can explain the conditions that produced the scientificworld. It cannot. No serious thinker could ever accept science as a coherent, complete andconsistent system. It’s riddled with fallacies and contradictions. Science, ultimately, ispragmatic. It has use value but no truth value. To the extent that science intersects with truth,it’s exclusively via the mathematics it illegitimately uses (it has no logical right to use a non-empirical subject to defend and advance an empirical subject).If you want the Truth, you can’tgo to religion, philosophy or science. So where will you go? There is only one other destination,the one humanity least likes: mathematics. It’s part and parcel of the human condition that theTruth resides exactly where humanity doesn’t want it to reside. It would rather go anywhereelse than where the Truth actually lives. Everywhere else, anywhere else, is preferable. That’shumanity for you.The Kantian Mind Model“Kant’s undertaking is a new description of thehuman mind. It falls, he says, into two parts: the part which perceives and the part which thinks.The perceiving part of the mind receives the impressions conveyed by the senses, and Kantcalled these impressions ‘particulars’; the thinking part is the organ of the understanding andthe objects of the understanding he calls ‘concepts’. The application of concepts to particularsconstitutes ‘synthetic judgments’. … ‘Judgment’ is Kant’s term for ‘proposition’. [Judgments areeither analytic or synthetic.]” – R. J. HollingdaleKant’s philosophy goes wrong immediately. Hiserror resides in the dualism he introduces involving perception and conception. Straight away, aworld “out there” is indicated (something non-conceptual that provides perceptual rawmaterial), which is to be contrasted with a world “in here” – a mind that involves conception andapplies conception to perception. Kant has rejected a coherent monism and created adisjunction between mind and matter, concept and percept, which will inevitably infecteverything he says from then on. The very idea that Kant had to “cure” the problems ofphilosophy simply raised a whole new bunch of problems. It is always thus in philosophy.So,Kant’s model of reality explores two different modes: that of perceiving (sensing) and that ofconceiving (thinking). According to Kant, our cognitive activity directed at empirical realityinvolves an inextricable combination of sensory input and thinking applied to it in order tocreate understanding. Neither sensory input alone nor thinking alone allows us to comprehendreality. We have both a sensory apparatus and a thinking apparatus and they are tightlyintegrated. This raises profound difficulties from the point of view of science since Kant isasserting that thinking is at least as important as sensing for understanding our reality. Wherescience is all about observing, Kant’s system also requires us to contemplate a conceptualapparatus that cannot be observed, but which is decisive for how and what we observe. He has

thus entered the non-empirical domain, which he refers to as “transcendental”. This is beyondscience.Science’s method privileges sensing over thinking while Kant’s method in factprivileges thinking over sensing since it says that without a conceptual apparatus to framesensory data, all such data would be meaningless. The senses would yield nothing that madeany sense.Kant’s philosophy can be reduced to one sentence: “Perception without conceptionis blind; conception without perception is empty.” Concepts are forms – boxes – and perceptsare content, which populate the boxes. If there are no boxes to organize the content, thecontent is just “noise” – chaos. The boxes are the essential provider of order.Where Kantbegan with the boxes and then filled them (concepts provide the framework for percepts),science in a sense starts off with chaos – blind percepts – and then tries to construct ahypothesis that gives them some kind of box to order them.The single action that revolutionizedscience had nothing to do with observation, even though science regards observation as itsdefining activity. Instead, it was how science organized, boxed, and framed the sensory data ithad collected that proved critical. It did so using mathematics – the quintessential conceptual,rational, logical, ordering subject that deals with pure form.Where Kant made conceiving andperceiving two modes of mind, science takes the external world to be the world of sensorydata, with mathematics providing the internal world of form that we then apply to the sensorydata to convert it into a formula that we can apply in any other compatible situation.Forscience, mathematics is not real. It is just some abstraction that humans apply to sense data togive it a form and formula. Yet isn’t it much more logical to assume that the mathematics isactually “out there” in the world, providing the world’s real (not manmade) form? We don’tsupply form to the world. It supplies its own form, and what would it use other thanmathematics, the simplest possible form-giver?Scientists apply what they regard as manmademathematics to nature. Nature, they claim, is not mathematical in any way. If math is inventedand has no connection to reality, why is it the only thing that allows us to convert science intoendlessly valuable and useful formulae? How can unreality give form to reality? Scientists arecompletely unable to explain how such a process could ever work. Isn’t it much more naturaland logical to assume that the world inherently exhibits mathematical form? – i.e. the world ismathematical – and when we use mathematics to work out what is going on, we are notapplying manmade form to nature but discovering the mathematical formulae nature uses toform and order itself. We are not projecting manmade mathematical form onto nature, we arediscovering the natural mathematical form that orders reality. Mathematical form is inbuilt intonature. It is not fabricated by us. Science loathes that idea, i.e. that mathematics is true reality.It doesn’t accord with the sacred cow of observation. Reality, as mathematics, is conceptualrather than perceptual.Mathematics is traditionally thought of in terms of conception, notperception, hence in and of itself opposes the defining agenda of science – which is toperceive rather than conceive the world and to deny that ultimate reality is pure conception (i.e.doesn’t require a single observation in order to understand it). Plato held exactly the viewcondemned by science – that conception is truth while perception is falsehood and delusion.Plato was a Pythagorean. Pythagoras was the first true conceptualist when he said, “All thingsare numbers; number rules all.” That is a statement of absolute conceptualism. It does not relyon any perceptual input.Everything comes down to the tension between conception andperception, two radically different activities, one involving the intellect and the other the senseorgans.Is reality primarily about perceiving or conceiving? Are our sense organs or our reasonand logic the best way to approach the interrogation of reality?Before you could even begin toimagine that science was the best means to question reality, you would need to haveconsidered every possible angle on the conflict between conception and perception, form and

content, form and “matter”. Science doesn’t have a single thing to say about this essentialdebate. Science doesn’t do debate. Just as practicing Jews never question their Jewish faith,scientists never question their faith in empiricism. They exert no effort to challenge thecredentials of sensory empiricism. They reject rationalism (conceptualism) by faith-baseddecree, not because they have a single valid argument against rationalism. They also exert noeffort understanding why science is dependent on mathematics, the uber rationalistsubject.The war between conceptualism (thinking) and perceptualism (sensing) is the warbetween mathematics and science. Mathematics has no need of science. Science is uselesswithout mathematics. What does that tell you? What ought that to tell you? It doesn’t tellscientists a single thing. They don’t care. Like the most fanatical religious believers, they neveronce doubt the ground of their belief system. They viciously troll anyone that dares to do so.Bizarrely, although these people reject conceptualism, thinking, rationalism, logic and theontology and reality of mathematics, they nevertheless claim to be rational, and they postureas the great defenders of reason and logic. Actually, they are the champions of the limited,fallible, delusional human sense organs, which are not organs for truth and tell us not one thingabout the truth. As the likes of Pythagoras and Plato understood, the truth is purely conceptual.The sense organs are only evolutionary systems which, at best, can offer clues, often highlyambiguous ones, about the nature of reality.Carl Jung had a valuable take on conception andperception. He split each one into two. Conception was divided into thinking versus feeling.Each passed judgment on the world, but in different ways.We might describe thinking assyntactic conception and feeling as semantic conception. The reason why this proves so vital isthat the two often bleed into each other and people seek to use one to justify the other. Forexample, people of faith are essentially emotional, but then attempt to use selective thinking tobolster their feelings-based belief system.Jung also split perceiving into two – sensing andintuition – with the latter involving the collection of data without the use of the sense organs(using some other, extra-sensory means).In the same way that feelings undermine thinking,intuition undermines sensing. As feeling leads thinking away from mathematics into religiousfaith (Western religion), intuition leads sensing away from science into religious mysticism(Eastern religion).Roman Catholic Scholastic philosophy was highly rationalistic and had a highregard for mathematics. And ever since Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics, science hasbecome more and more mystical. Many scientists love Buddhism.Thinking is regarded asabstract (syntactic), while feeling is deemed concrete (semantic), hence emotion is much morepowerful than reason in the human world. People always take the concrete more seriously thanthe abstract because it is literally embodied in their response to it. There’s all the difference inthe world between thinking about being in love and actually being in love and feeling exactlywhat that means, body and soul.Sensing and ordinary intuition are both semantic since theyinvolve concrete experiences, albeit intuition is of a very different nature and is associated withmystical visions rather than direct pictures of the immediate, surrounding world. However, thereis a second type of intuition – intellectual intuition – which reveals the syntax, the form, ofsomething. Intellectual intuition usually works hand-in-hand with thinking. The most powerfulthinkers are always intuitive thinkers, not sensing thinkers or emotionalists.Instead of feelingbeing associated with judging, it is arguably better suited to perceiving. It might be calledemotional perception. It involves the perception of a signal, of any type of input, as eitherpainful or pleasurable. It doesn’t care about the form of the signal, only its content, only aboutthe concrete reaction it provokes. It has no clue about syntax.Conceive or Perceive?Philosophers were traditionally highly conceptual, always looking for the root principle – thearche – that underlay everything.Plato argued that ultimate reality was purely conceptual and

transcendent (i.e. not in space and time). He drew a crystal-clear separation betweenconception and perception, insisting that the latter always corrupted the truth (he would havedismissed scientific materialism and empiricism as much as science dismisses Platonistrationalism).Aristotle, a founding figure of empiricism, made conception immanent (embeddedin space and time).Descartes separated mind from matter, making them two separatesubstances. Matter was something that could be empirically perceived; mind was not.Spinozamade mind and matter two aspects of one substance: God (Nature).Leibniz reduced everythingto monadic minds.Hegel imagined reality as a vast conceptual organism, dialecticallyperfecting itself. As it went, it generated the perceptual world as one of its conceptual outputs(i.e. percepts are constructs of concepts).Kant divided reality into minds and the world theyexperience. Minds are conception/perception instruments. It’s the mind’s internal conceptualapparatus that imposes form on the sensory world. The world in itself either has no form at all,or, if it does have any form, we can never know about it because the structure imposed by ourown minds overrides anything in the world itself.The skeptical empiricist David Hume more orless sought to abolish conceptualism on the grounds that concepts were not perceivable. Atbest, concepts were derivatives of percepts. Hume claimed that “ideas” are what arise whenwe reflect upon our sensory impressions. Therefore, there can be no ideas without sensoryimpressions.Causation – which belongs to the conceptual and not the perceptual order – wasrejected by Hume. The self – the hidden cause of our actions – was dismissed by Hume. Allthat was left in his system was some kind of stream of perceptual experiences, with noconceptual basis.Hume was unquestionably the least rational and most dangerous philosopherin history. His entire absurd philosophy – which provides much of the underpinning of modernscience – constituted a psychotic hatred of conceptualization (even though it was itself nothingbut a bunch of self-destructing concepts). Since concepts are not percepts, Hume reasonedconceptually, they can form no part of empiricist ideology.Hume took this imagined ontologicalabsence of form, of syntax, of concepts – all unperceivable – to its logical conclusion and wasleft with nothing but a river of unconnected and unconnectable percepts. His philosophyreduced reality to all content and no form. That’s the essence of empiricism: only what you areexperiencing right now exists, and it exists only as content because that’s all you canexperience. Hume’s philosophy is the opposite of mathematics, as traditionally understood,which is regarded as pure abstract form, with no concrete content.Science more or lesscombines Hume’s empiricist philosophy with rationalist mathematics. It accepts content asreality, but content is unintelligible, so it adds abstract form, which is intelligible, and it does sovia mathematics. So, unintelligible real content is turned into an intelligible system via unrealform. That’s the magic of science for you, which no scientist ever discusses. How could anyonemake any sense of it? It’s intrinsically incoherent. You cannot use unreality to make realityintelligible. Kant had similar problems. He couldn’t locate form in the world so he located it inthe mind instead and said it projected form onto the unformed world. No one apart from usever discusses it, but the fundamental question of existence is how form exists ontologically, inthe world. It is never something unreal, merely projected onto the world (which would meanthat the world in itself was unformed, like the unformed prime matter of the ancientGreeks).The supreme irony is that Hume used concepts to construct his anti-conceptualistideology. It is nothing but a concept, a very bad and illogical one, that you can have contentwithout form, matter without form, semantics without syntax.The fact that causation cannot beperceived does not mean it does not exist and that non-causation therefore applies. After all,non-causation cannot be perceived either. Hume was in no position to deny the existence ofcausation given that he couldn’t perceive any alternative to it, but went ahead and denied its

existence anyway. That’s empiricism for you … totally irrational.Hume’s philosophy is nothingbut a set of self-refuting concepts. He believed that empirical sensory “impressions” are thesource of all knowledge, and that ideas are “images” of impressions, formed in thinking andreasoning (in conceptualism). So, without an impression, there can be no image: what has notbeen perceived cannot be known. Causation has not been perceived so cannot be known. But,in that case, how does the concept of causation exist at all? How was anyone able to formulatethe idea of conception without any impressions corresponding to causation?The fact thatpeople can refer to concepts that have no basis in percepts proves that concepts do not needpercepts, contrary to Hume’s central claim that everything necessarily originates in percepts.Moreover, Hume’s claim that impressions produce ideas itself involves a causal claim, yetcausation is exactly what he denies. What possible perceivable mechanism is there for animpression to be converted into an idea, a percept into a concept, as Hume’s system requires?As ever, we see a system failing at the very first claim it makes.Hume, one of the world’s mostesteemed philosophers, literally talked nonsense the whole time. Everything he asserted wasincoherent, as it must be when you remove form, syntax, concepts, reason and logic from anargument and from the world.Another deranged empiricist was Bishop Berkeley who claimedthat things cease to exist when they are not being perceived. This contravenes the law ofconservation of energy, the principle of continuity, causation, and the basic assertion ofobjective reality that things have persistent, objective existence, regardless of subjectiveperceptions. Yet his claims were perfectly in line with the “logic” (illogic) of empiricism.Empiricism dispenses with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, leaving onlydisconnected, incoherent nonsense: unintelligible experience of inexplicable content. Form, themeans of providing intelligibility and explanation, is absent. It is banished because, likecausation, it cannot be perceived. Only content can be perceived. (Causation could in fact bedescribed as the formative force, and since effects cannot belong to a different order ofexistence than their causes, then causation can only operate on form. Content is that whichaccompanies causal processes, not something separate from causation. Content is theempirical, observable part of the process. Form is the non-empirical, intelligible part of theprocess.)Modern empirical science continues to promote the same kind of absurdities asHume and Berkeley. Quantum physicists claim that things exist only at the point of observation,and otherwise vanish into an unreal cloud of probabilities. These people deny causation andclaim that things can happen for no reason. A probability wavefunction can suddenly collapseto such and such an observable outcome via no causal process. Scientists are perfectly happyto make such claims, to abolish the possibility of real explanation, and reduce everything to aset of casino operations (cosmic dice throws; the universal crap shoot).Modern science ispredicated on indeterminism, indeterminacy, probabilism, statistics, acausation, chance,accident, emergence, and the multiverse doctrine of “all possibilities are real somewhere”. Thisis the classic “thinking” produced by anti-conceptual empiricist perceptualists who believe thatonly percepts are real. All concepts, they say, are related to the order of unreality. Only whatyou observe is real, they say. What else could you expect from people whose methodcommences with the single instruction “Observe”? Not “think” or “reason” or “use logic”, justobserve, with your fallible sense organs.Science’s defining error is committed in the very firstthing it says, the very first time it opens its mouth to state its Big Idea. It denies that we live in aconceptual world of the mind and insists that only what we observe is real, in a perceptualworld of matter. All “hidden variables” – i.e. the conceptual apparatus necessary to preventscience degenerating into an incoherent system of indeterminism – are denied and mocked, allbecause they are not observables.This is the nature of empiricism. It is in every way hostile to

rationalism. It’s just as opposed to rationalism as religious faith is. The basic, defining act ofempiricism is to attack conceptualism and deny the reality of concepts, which above all meansthe reality of mathematics and the reality of mind (mathematics is all about mind; science is allabout matter).The irony is that scientific empiricism is entirely dependent on mathematicalrationalism, a fact that is 100% ignored by 100% of scientists. These same people claim to beinterested in the nature of reality and in pursuing the truth. What a joke.Reality, to the extentthat it is intelligible, is 100% conceptual. Any attack on conceptualism is an attack on intelligiblereality. Scientists still haven’t worked that out. They never will.Every religion, philosophy, orscience can be reduced to its take on concepts and percepts. You don’t need to waste time onthe details of what the system says down the line. Its error concerning concepts and perceptswill be apparent immediately. Science’s error is announced in Step One of its method. Instantly,it privileges percepts over concepts, content over form, the empirical over the rational, thehuman sense organs over reason and logic.As we have seen, Kant’s philosophy went wrongstraight away too. He located concepts (forms) in the wrong place, in minds that observe theworld rather than in the world itself. He left the world in itself as formless, as pure chaos. Itwould make no sense for the world to possess form and yet for minds to project their own formonto the world rather than detect and discover the form inherent in the world. That would createa form dualism: world-form versus mind-form. How would they be compatible? How would theyinteract?Kant didn’t locate the two main framing elements of form – space and time – in theworld, but in the minds that perceive the world. You couldn’t have a world with public space andtime and also minds that project their own private space and time onto the world. That’s likeprojecting subjective dreams onto the real, objective world.In ontological mathematics, theworld and minds are not two different things. The world is literally constructed by and fromminds. Each mind can produce its own spacetime. This is the individual, subjective, privatespacetime that we encounter in our dreams. This spacetime is internal and insulated fromexternal, collective, objective spacetime. Objective spacetime is constructed from mindsworking together rather than individually.Our individual life involves the routine switchingbetween two different spacetime modes: individual (in our sleep) and collective (when we areawake). There is no other world, no world outside mind.Kant was partly right. Mind is indeedthe source of form, of concepts, of structure, of order, of organization. Minds shape the worldand are the world. Kant’s disastrous error was to imagine that there was some world beyondmind, onto which mind projected structure. All of his idealist successors – Fichte, Schelling,Hegel, Schopenhauer and Hartmann – corrected his error. Mind makes the world strictly fromitself. There is no world beyond mind.If the world is made from mind, you cannot understandthe world unless you understand the mind. Ontological mathematics is all about defining themind, establishing its ontology, epistemology and mode of operations. Scientific materialismdenies the existence of mind. That’s why it’s fundamentally unable to understand reality. That’swhy it’s so hostile to conceptualization, a mental activity, and so keen on perceptualization,which depends on external “matter”. Mind, not matter, conceives. Matter is all about beingperceived, hence sensing, not thinking, is always emphasized in materialist ideology.Mind isactive, purposeful. It does things. Matter is passive, purposeless. Things are done to it. Aboveall, it is perceived by active minds. It has no agency, no will of its own. Science denies teleologybecause it denies mind, because it believes in percepts and rejects concepts.Reality is simple.Actually, it couldn’t be simpler. It’s mandated to be maximally simple. That’s the meaning ofOccam’s razor.Reality has both form and content. How could it not? Imagine a world of purecontent with nothing to form it. That would constitute a Chaos, not a Cosmos. Now imagine aworld of pure form with no content. It would be a total abstraction. It would be a universe of

pure logic, nothing like the universe we inhabit.How do we interact with content? We perceiveit. We perceive it with our sense organs, our intuition, our feelings. These all furnish concreteexperiences, which is why they seem so real.How do we interact with form? We conceive it.Reason and logic are how we conceive, and they lead to mathematics as the ultimateconceptual subject. These, to the ordinary empirical person, seem unreal andabstract.Everywhere you look in nature, you see shape, order, pattern, organization, regularity,predictability, coherence. These all result from form. When science produces a mathematicalformula to account for an observed pattern, the formula is a statement of pure form. If you lookat a formula such as E = mc2, you are encountering something that describes content whilenot being content. The formula for energy, as we write it down, is not itself energy. The actualenergy is the content.Could you have energy without its formula? It’s impossible. Energy needsto know what rules, what laws, it follows, and that’s supplied by its form, its formula. Thismeans that energy has an inherent form.How do you establish what the inherent form ofenergy is given that you cannot perceive energy, only its effects? You must conceive energy.Energy in itself is not perceptual. Just as no one can see causation, no one can see energy.You see the results of energy. No one actually sees energy itself. Actually, energy is causation.The laws of energy are the laws of causation.Perception can never tell you what anything is initself. Perception reveals only effects, phenomena, appearances. To get underneath, you mustuse conception.Kant built conception into the mind that perceives the world. He should havebuilt it into the world itself. He didn’t do so because he was so bamboozled by Hume’s skepticalphilosophy. Kant refused to accept that anything could be known prior to any sense experience.In fact, the whole of conceptual reality – mathematical syntactic reality – can be known prior toany sense experience. Only perceptual reality cannot be known prior to sense experience.Theessential structure and form of existence must be intrinsically knowable since they mustconform with the strictest logic and reason, with the PSR and Occam’s razor.Enormousconstraints are applied to ontological form. It can’t be any old thing. It must be a very specificthing, with very specific characteristics that any rational and logical person can work out. Theydon’t need to perform a single observation. The state of zero entropy is not a state that anyhuman can perceive. But it can be perfectly conceived.Kant built mathematics into the mind,but not into the world. In ontological mathematics, mathematics is the mind, and mindconstructs everything, including the world, hence everything is mathematical. Mathematics isboth syntactic (form; the information carrier) and semantic (content; the information carried).Only the syntactic part is conventionally regarded as mathematical.Mathematics is traditionallytreated as pure abstract form with no ontology, no content, no concreteness. That is the centralfallacy of the normal human understanding – which is to say misunderstanding – ofmathematics. Only the world’s brightest people can accept that mathematics has an ontology,which means that form has an ontology. Form is not something that humans add to the world. Itis something the world possesses inherently, and it must be worked out using reason andlogic, not human observation (which cannot reveal it since ontological form is noumenal, notphenomenal).Kant placed mathematics in the mind, but not in the world. Science does thesame. In fact, mathematics is in the mind and in the world because mathematics is mind and isthe world. That’s why the world is intelligible and has an answer. That’s why we can work itout.If mind and the world were not mathematical, it would be impossible to know anythingabout the world. Pre-mathematical science had no clue what the world was like. You cannotwork out the nature of reality through observation or experience. You can only work it outmathematically. Mathematics is knowledge. Non-mathematics is non-knowledge – mereopinion, belief and interpretation.Empiricists such as Hume and Kant refused to place

mathematics in the world because that would mean that conception (rationalism) is morefundamental than perception (empiricism), and that reality can be known analytically a priori(rather than synthetically a posteriori).Rationalists are conceptualists. They accept the a priori.Empiricists are perceptualists. They reject the a priori. Rationalists say that the way tounderstand reality is through analytic conception, while empiricists say that the way tounderstand reality is through synthetic perception. Rationalists privilege mathematics overscience. Empiricists privilege science over mathematics. Although scientists use mathematicsall the time, they regard it as unreal, as mere abstraction. The basic idea of science is thatreality comprises real content and, maybe, some kind of real form, which can never be graspedin itself but only via unreal, abstract mathematics. (However, given the “logic” of empiricism, ifreal form cannot be observed, it should be invalid to refer to it at all.)Nobel laureate EugeneWigner wrote of “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”.Why is it unreasonable? In fact, it’s illogical to make such a statement. If mathematics is unreal,it cannot be used at all in the “natural” sciences since, by definition, it has nothing to do withnature, hence can’t possibly have any relevance to nature. The very fact that mathematics is soastoundingly successful in science can have only one logical explanation, namely that reality ismathematical and science is a version of mathematics (specifically mathematics subjected tothe manmade philosophy of empiricism and materialism). Mathematics captures the form ofnature because nature is mathematical. There is no other rational explanation. If nature weren’tmathematical, mathematics could say nothing about it. It would be a category error to imagineit could. After all, nothing else is “like” mathematics.The central error of science is to imaginethat science is real and mathematics is unreal, even though mathematics is “unreasonably”essential to science. Ontological mathematics ends this contradiction by recognizing the truth –that mathematics is real, and is both form and content, as it must be in order to be real.Scienceis simply a mislabeling of the empirical content of mathematics. When a scientist looks at theworld, he is not seeing a “material” world, he is seeing a mathematical world and thensystemically misinterpreting it as a material world. He doesn’t know how to “see” itmathematically because he does not understand mathematics and has no clue thatmathematics has an ontology. That thought has never occurred to him, and no “authority” hasever told him to think it. We all know how much scientists like to be told what to think by theirNobel gurus. Freethinking isn’t their style.Mathematics has a “look”. What it looks like is“matter”. Why is that so hard for scientists to understand? Science is simply the study ofphenomenal mathematics, i.e. the appearance of mathematics in spacetime. What underliesscience is noumenal mathematics, mathematics without an appearance, the mathematics ofimmaterial singularities (monads). 1 + 1 = 2.How Long is a Piece of String?Many scientistsbelieve in the existence of “strings”. Wikipedia says, “In the Standard Model of physics,elementary particles are represented for predictive utility as point particles. … Unlikeelementary particles, which are zero-dimensional or point-like by definition, strings are one-dimensional extended entities. … In string theories of particle physics, the strings are very tiny;much smaller than can be observed in today’s particle accelerators. … the strings may be open(forming a segment with two endpoints) or closed (forming a loop like a circle)…”No one canobserve these strings. They are not percepts. They are in fact concepts. The same goes forpoint-particles. Science is full of concepts yet postures as a subject wholly concerned withobservables (percepts).Science is incoherent. In many of its theories, it invokes a large numberof dimensions. Wikipedia says, “One notable feature of string theories is that these theoriesrequire extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency. In bosonic stringtheory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-

theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory,one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observedin experiments.”Once again, we are dealing with a conceptual approach, not perceptual. It’simpossible to escape conceptualism.Although strings are conceptual, science refuses to givethem a fixed, analytic conceptual form. Ontological mathematics, by contrast, gives strings thefixed, analytic, conceptual forms of sine and cosine waves.You cannot construct a coherenttheory if it is not based on fundamental units that are analytic, i.e. mathematical units. Sciencehas never grasped this. It is willing to conjure with unobservable strings and unobservabledimensions within extremely complex, non-analytic mathematical theories, but it refuses tocontemplate a simple, analytic mathematical theory … ontological mathematics, built from thePSR and reflecting Occam’s razor.Science deliberately ignores, or outright rejects, the PSRand Occam’s razor. Why? Because these are the roots of rationalism (conceptualism), whilescience – although it is staggeringly mathematical – is grounded in empiricism (perceptualism).Because of its anti-conceptual ideology, science will always reject analytic mathematics as thebasis of existence. Instead, it will wrestle with ludicrously complicated non-analyticmathematical theories, which it tries to force-fit to percepts. All the complications ariseprecisely because these theories are non-analytic and full of fudge factors and ad hocelements. They are non-analytic because they are trying to accommodate perceptualism(empiricism) rather than conceptualism (rationalism).Science will never find an answer toeverything unless it switches from non-analytic mathematics based on positive real numbers(designed to accommodate empiricism) to analytic mathematics based on all numbers: positiveand negative, real and imaginary (designed to accommodate rationalism). Reality is aboutcomplex numbers, not real numbers.The fate of science is determined by how it treatsmathematics (the conceptual world), not how it treats the observable world (the perceptualworld). Science believes it has to be led by piecemeal observations (percepts). In fact, it shouldbe led by coherent, analytic ideas (concepts).Science follows a view of truth based, firstly, oncorrespondence of mathematical theories with percepts, and, secondly, on pragmatism … if itworks then it doesn’t matter how it works, all that matters is that it works. Shut up and calculate!Theoretical science, exemplified by string theory – although not grounded in either perceptualcorrespondence or pragmatism – is intended at a deeper level to prop up correspondence andpragmatism, yet is still infected with ideas of truth relating to correspondence and pragmatism,from which it cannot escape (to become analytic).Ontological mathematics, by contrast, isdriven by coherence, not correspondence or simplistic pragmatism.Science can be regardedas a butchered, incoherent version of mathematics, intended to satisfy empiricalcorrespondence and pragmatism, while ontological mathematics is a complete and consistentversion of mathematics, flowing from a single formula (Euler’s formula), which can never beincomplete and inconsistent with regard to itself, and necessarily satisfies rationalcoherence.Science is mathematics driven by perceptualism, and therefore fails to be properlymathematical, while ontological mathematics is mathematics driven by conceptualism, andtherefore is properly, analytically mathematical.The question of the fundamental nature ofexistence becomes one of perceptual, empirical correspondence versus conceptual, rationalcoherence. The simple fact is that we can never perceive the whole of reality, and, even if wecould, we would never know what it was just by perceiving it. We would have to conceive it insome way. As soon as you do that, you have left the world of percepts and entered the world ofconcepts.In relation to the world of concepts, do you want your theory to be complete,consistent, rational, logical, analytic and coherent, or incomplete, inconsistent, irrational,illogical, non-analytic and incoherent?Once you have rejected perceptualism (and thus

correspondence and pragmatism) as the basis of understanding foundational reality, yourchoice is very simple: coherent conceptualism or incoherent conceptualism.Coherentconceptualism furnishes ontological mathematics. Incoherent conceptualism produces stringtheory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity theory, multiverse theory, and so on.Quantummechanics is a theory with multiple different interpretations, all implying radically differentontologies and epistemologies. No amount of experimentation, no number of percepts, canrefute any of these wildly different interpretations, which only serves to demonstrate howinadequate science is. Science has no conceptual principles – such as the PSR, Occam’srazor, coherence, completeness, consistency and analytic holism – with which to weigh rivalinterpretations and eliminate all that fail to meet the most rational and logical criteria. It has nointerest at all in such principles.The choice is straightforward. Do you want an incoherentscientific empiricist mathematics designed to match percepts to formulae – a system ofcorrespondence and pragmatism with high use value and practical utility for the particular typeof observable world we, as humans, inhabit; or do you want a coherent rationalist mathematicsdesigned to fit concepts into a single, unified, complete whole? This has use value and truthvalue, although the use is extracted less immediately (but much more comprehensively in duecourse). Any possible world can be explained by this system.Science is predicated on use, nottruth. There is no demand for truth ever to be extracted. Science is based on falsification andverification principles, both of which presuppose that the truth can never be definitivelyestablished.Here’s the reality. You cannot falsify the truth, and analytic a priori truth statementssuch as 1 = 1 have no synthetic a posteriori requirement to be verified.Science doesn’t careabout the truth as long as many useful heuristics are produced. Ontological mathematics ispredicated on truth. Use is then extracted from the truth.Only top-down conceptualism(ontological mathematics) can deliver truth. Bottom-up perceptualism (scientific materialismand empiricism) never can. Perceptualism and pragmatism will always be mired in issues ofverification and falsification, which are pro-use but anti-truth principles. How can you falsify thatwhich is true? How can you verify, using manmade interpretive theories and methods, thatwhich is universally, eternally and necessarily true?Thus far, humanity has been far moreinterested in use than truth. It has followed a program of piecemeal heuristics rather thanattempting to find a system that addresses universal truth from the outset. If you want to seethe difference, compare and contrast the approach of Newton, an empiricist and saint ofscience, with the approach of Leibniz, a rationalist and saint of reason and logic.Science islittered with dead theories. The truth, however, is not something that can be killed. It is trueforever. A universal solution should address all possible situations. Science, since it is rooted inthe human condition and human perception, is only ever relevant to humanity. A differentspecies, going about things in a different way, would create an entirely different science.Asystem predicated on conceptual coherence is one that is holistic, analytic and tautological. Itobeys a holenmeric, holographic principle. A system predicated on pragmatic correspondencebetween concepts and percepts is automatically species-dependent, and its progress is drivenby how the sense organs of that species evolved. For humans, they did not evolve with regardto truth but with regard to use. They are not organs for truth, but organs for use. Perhaps,somewhere in the universe, is a species that evolved with regard to the truth. If so, it wouldhave reached ontological mathematics extremely rapidly in its evolution.If humanity wishes toaccess universal truth, it has to transcend the human condition. Above all, it must transcendthe human sense organs and the particular percepts they produce.Science is all about thehuman sense organs, which is why it will always be about use and not truth. It is ascompromised in relation to the truth as the sense organs themselves are.Conceptualism based

on reason and logic is an entirely different undertaking from conceptualism led byperceptualism, as it is in science. In science, concepts are not produced to deliver internalcoherence but, rather, external correspondence. Science always subordinates concepts,reason and logic to percepts, thus destroying their coherence. Percepts are always privilegedover concepts. Concepts are distorted to fit percepts, as opposed to percepts being understoodin relation to coherent, integrated concepts.Everything about the empiricist worldview isopposed to the rationalist worldview. The extraordinary thing is that empiricists lay claim tobeing rational. Emphatically, they are not. They are irrationalists, making incoherent claims. Theonly reason they are not laughed off the stage is that their pragmatism has produced a systemwith high use value. This blinds the masses to the fundamental lack of truth of science.Manysimple-minded individuals believe that use value implies truth value. To give an example of howabsurd this is, Christianity has high use value for its followers, but no truth value at all.Quantum mechanics is extremely useful but not a single scientist on earth claims to know whatit means about the truth of reality. There are many conflicting interpretations, all in agreementwith the results of experiments (with percepts), but which have no conceptual agreement witheach other.Lack of theoretical coherence should worry scientists. It never does. Coherence isnot their thing. They are all about correspondence.'= '= '=The two “useful idiots” (i.e. pointlesspseudo-intellectuals) Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris got stuck on the definition of truth whenthey first debated with each other. What was the problem? Harris adopted the standardcorrespondent definition of truth used by science, where everything has to be tied to empiricalobservations, while Peterson adopted a “pragmatic” standard of truth suitable for religion.Religion is claimed to be useful (it’s supposedly valuable for us to believe religious claims), andtherefore pragmatically “true”, because it is allegedly life-enhancing. A scientist cannot acceptany such psychological rather than physical definition of truth, so the Harris-Peterson debatewas over before it even began. Imagine a rationalist with a standard of truth based oncoherence trying to get any sense out of those two!The Thinking TypeWhat type of person areyou?What type of thinker are you?Are you attracted to truth, reason, logic, coherence, theabsolute, the infallible, the eternal, the necessary, the analytic a priori, the complete, theconsistent, the compatible, the whole, the holistic, the deductive, the conceptual, the rational,the mathematical? Or are you attracted to use, the pragmatic, the temporal, the contingent, therelative, the fallible, the correspondent, the synthetic a posteriori, the incomplete, theinconsistent, the parts, the piecemeal, the perceptual, the empirical, the inductive, theverifiable, the falsifiable, the scientific?These are radically different and incompatible ways ofinteracting with and viewing reality. You cannot be on the side of both. You must choosebetween them.Empiricists and rationalists always talk past each other. They have no commonground. They are looking for different things. Rationalists are obsessed with truth. Empiricistsare obsessed with use. Rationalists are obsessed with coherence. Empiricists are obsessedwith correspondence.A rationalist seeks a coherent way to understand the relation betweenconcept and percept and finds it in the concept of dual-aspect monism. On one side of the coinstands concept, rationalism, map, form, signifier, syntax, coherence, the analytic a priori, thedeductive, the information carrier. On the other side stands percept, empiricism, territory,content, matter, signified, semantics, correspondence, the synthetic a posteriori, the inductive,the information carried.Form and content can never be separated. They are always partners,always the opposite side of the same coin.Plato and Aristotle separated form and content.They both imagined matterless form and formless matter. Descartes, in a manner of speaking,separated immaterial form and matter by separating immaterial mind and matter. Kantseparated form and content (matter). He envisaged a formless world in itself, separate from

minds. Minds projected form onto it.In Descartes’ system, form, as shape, was associated withmatter, and thinking with mind. Kant, in a bold move, separated formative capacity fromCartesian matter and placed it in mind, leaving matter as formless (and unextended since itwasn’t in space, given that mind projected space onto it). Hegel realized that this meant thatKantian matter was redundant. It had no properties other than being a mysterious screen,outside space and time (i.e. it was a singularity, yet not a mental one), onto which mindprojected space, time, causation and phenomenal appearance. Why does mind need adimensionless external screen, with no other properties, for its projections? Why not aninternal screen, a screen it constructs itself, for its projections?What is a dream if not aninternal movie? The mind creates the dreamworld and projects content onto it. If a sleepingmind can create an internal world, why can’t the collection of all minds also create its owninternal world, which is none other than the objective world? In which case, a formless externalworld is redundant. Mind is all.All that exists are minds and their constructs (projections). Thereis no mysterious, formless, unknowable, external world.As for science, it gets rid of mind andlocates form in the material universe, although it has no way to say what this form is, and only“unreal” mathematics seems to capture it. Or it claims that mind is a construct of matter andthat mind then extracts reality from unreal, abstract probability wavefunctions via empiricalobservation. This is where quantum mysticism leads. The world is claimed to be the product of“consciousness”, but, according to science, consciousness, a mental attribute, can only begrounded in matter. Talk about circular logic.Science is based on linking concepts to percepts,not via a dual-aspect monism (a position based on overall, unitary coherence), but by simpledualistic correspondence. You simply see a “fact” out there, and then you invent some conceptto correspond to it. You are making up these concepts piecemeal. They have no coherencebuilt into them, hence are systemically incomplete and inconsistent. All manmade languagesare of this same nature. They are driven by correspondence, not coherence, and their use andmeaning are correspondent, not coherent.The use of manmade language encourages acorrespondent and pragmatic attitude to truth, undermining coherence. Natural language –mathematics – is, by contrast, all about coherence, which is why it seems so strange to people.Numbers are coherent; words are correspondent and pragmatic.Manmade languagesnecessarily falsify reality by applying correspondence and pragmatism to a reality that isactually coherent. Science is also correspondent and pragmatic, hence automatically falsifiesreality. Science is superior to manmade language, religion and philosophy because, unlikethem, it uses mathematics. By doing so, it inherits mathematical coherence, albeit in a highlydistorted way.Ontological mathematics is all about removing correspondent mathematics fromcoherent mathematics. When Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are properly understood, whatthey signify is that any attempt to build mathematics on correspondent grounds is doomed tofail. It will automatically lead to incompleteness and/or inconsistency. It will inevitably produceincoherence and fatal fallacies.Mathematics, as Wittgenstein understood but Gödel didn’t, mustbe strictly tautological, which is to say coherent and holistic. A coherent, holistic, tautologicalsystem can never produce incompleteness and inconsistency.Wittgenstein and Gödel weretalking at cross-purposes when they addressed mathematics. Wittgenstein adopted a stancebased on coherence, while Gödel’s work was based on correspondence. If, for example, yousay that mathematics is based on axioms then, in order for mathematics to be coherent, theremust in fact be only one master axiom, from which everything else is derived. To create amathematical system based on multiple independent axioms – which is what Gödel’s workaddressed – is to invoke a correspondent rather than coherent version of mathematics. Eachindependent axiom corresponds to its own limited domain of applicability and then, when you

try to fit the different axioms together into a single coherent system (complete and consistent),you cannot do so because they are inherently incoherent. That is what Gödel actually proved.His work said nothing at all about coherent mathematics, which is to say tautologicalmathematics.

The Book of Mind: Seeking Gnosis (The Truth Series 5), What Is Mathematics?: The GreatestDetective Story Never Told (The Truth Series Book 17), Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: HowScience Undermines Reason (The Truth Series Book 8), The Language of Reality: The Answerto Existence (The Truth Series Book 4), Hive-Mind Dreaming: The Amazing World of CollectiveDreaming (The Truth Series Book 15), Base Reality: Ultimate Existence (The Truth SeriesBook 16), Ontological Mathematics for the Curious: An Introduction to Ontological Thinking,Euler’s Formula and Special Relativity: The Deep Origin of Space and Time (The Truth SeriesBook 1), Lucid Waking: The Answer to the Problem of Consciousness, The Birth of OntologicalMathematics: The Origin of the Ultimate Intellectual Revolution, The Mandarin Effect: TheCrisis of Meaning

Brad Gumm, “A Book That Will One Day Change The World Into A Beacon Of Enlightenment.The book you are currently looking at is a book written by the Pythagorean Illuminati. It is abook about ontological mathematics. The Illuminati have written many books under manydifferent pseudonyms (i.e. the pseudonyms of: Mike Hockney, Adam Weishaupt, Michael Faust,Brother Abaris, Brother Cato, Brother Spartacus, Dr. Thomas Stark, Joe Dixon, Tom Strabo,Mark Romel, Ranty McRanterson, and Jack Tanner), and all of these books revolve around theontology of mathematics and what, precisely, that ontology means for the human race. Each ofthe Illuminati's books are absolutely superb and absolutely unique. You can't find theinformation contained within them ANYWHERE else.If the names Mike Hockney, AdamWeishaupt, Michael Faust, Brother Abaris, Brother Cato, Brother Spartacus, Dr. Thomas Stark,Joe Dixon, Ranty McRanterson, Mark Romel, Tom Strabo, and Jack Tanner are unfamiliar toyou, then you are missing out on a whole universe of knowledge my friend (in fact, if you havenever heard of these authors, you are completely missing out on the only True knowledgearound). You see, this small group of authors (who combined have written around one hundredfull books in about ten years, which comes out to be approximately ten full books a year!) forma single communication cell of the most amazing secret society to ever exist: The PythagoreanIlluminati. It is the Pythagorean Illuminati who have revealed the Truth of reality to humanity viatheir release of ontological mathematics, i.e. the mathematics of existence, and it is ontologicalmathematics that will one day change our world into a beacon of human Enlightenment.Thebooks written by the Pythagorean Illuminati have improved my mind, and hence my life, inmore ways than I can count. They have inspired me to strengthen my soul and become abetter person. They have made me want to learn as much as I possibly can about ontologicalmathematics, and they have made me want to share what I have learned with the entire world.Nowadays, I strive to study mathematics and write about Pythagorean Illuminism as much as Ipossibly can. For this reason, I am constantly reading and rereading the Illuminati's books,looking for information pertinent to whatever aspect of ontological mathematics I am studyingor writing about at that time.As I read, study, and scour the books of the Pythagorean Illuminati,

I’m constantly left in pure amazement at the sheer quality of their work. I’ve said this manytimes before, but I’m going to say it again because it simply can’t be said enough: Themembers of the Pythagorean Illuminati writing team are the best teachers on the planet. Thisgroup of geniuses has single-handedly taken THE subject that defines reality becauseit is reality, i.e. ontological mathematics, and presented it in a way that is very accessible andunderstandable to the entirety of the human race.Let me explain what I mean by this so youcan truly appreciate the magnitude of the Pythagorean Illuminati’s amazing accomplishment.As I have already said, ontological mathematics is the mathematics of existence. Every singlething in the universe is made out of ontological mathematics, and this most definitely includesyour mind and thoughts. You, me, the universe, and absolutely everything else in it, includinghigher, more evolved minds (i.e. “angels”, “goddesses”, and “gods”), are all entirely made out ofontological mathematics because you, me, the universe, and absolutely everything else in it,including higher minds, are ontological mathematics.Ontological mathematics is themathematics of reality, hence it perfectly defines and explains reality to anyone with a strongenough understanding of it. The problem, as you can imagine, is that ontological mathematics,like all versions of mathematics, is a very difficult subject for human beings to properly grasp,and it takes a lot of work and practice to build up a strong understanding of it.The naturaldifficulty involved in the human ability to properly study and understand reality/ontologicalmathematics is needlessly compounded by the fact that humanity has been brainwashed intothinking of reality in either monetary terms, insane story book religious terms, or insanenihilistic, atheistic, pointless, and empirical scientific materialist terms. This inability of thehuman race to think rationally, logically, and mathematically about reality is a HUGE problem.It is a huge problem that MUST be rectified before humanity will be able to make any Trueprogress within the mathematical Cosmos, i.e. the Mathmos.Story time religions and nihilisticscience (along with their good buddy free market capitalism) have ruined the minds and soulsof humanity. Materialism and religions based on stories have made the VAST majority ofhuman beings unable to think clearly, rationally, logically, and mathematically about reality.Being that reality is 100% rational, logical, and mathematical, you can see that, thanks to theidiotic actions of irrational and insane scientific materialism, predatory capitalism, and storytime religions, humanity is in an extremely rough situation in terms of its ability to comprehendand understand reality itself. This is a deadly situation for a conscious species to arrive at, andit must be remedied immediately.This is why the work of the Pythagorean Illuminati is soimpressive and important: it has the ability to heal the reader’s mind and allows the reader tothink clearly, sanely, logically, and rationally about reality for the first time in their lives. You see,every human being on planet Earth, outside of the members of the Illuminati, is suffering fromsome form, or, more likely, multiple forms, of brainwashing. All of our minds have beendamaged in one way or another by the very society that we were born into. We have all beensubjected to brainwashing since day one from our “elders”, our families, our parents, ourgrandparents, our peers, our friends, our communities, our schools, our religions, our stinkingrich and idiotic “leaders”, our politicians, our priests, our popes, our imams, our rabbis, ourgurus, our mentors, our teachers, our businesses and corporations, our dysfunctional“economic” system, our media outlets, the wealthy, and so on and on. In other words, we haveall had our ability to think sanely, clearly, logically, and critically destroyed by the corruptpowers that be since the day we were born.Well, I’m extremely relieved to say that thePythagorean Illuminati have figured out how to break through all of the extreme brainwashingcurrently infecting our minds. I’m not joking in the least when I say that if you truly want to becured of the toxic thinking that has been crammed into you for your entire life by the old world,

then simply read the entire set of books written by the Pythagorean Illuminati (i.e. all of thebooks written by Hockney, Weishaupt, Faust, Abaris, Cato, Spartacus, Stark, Dixon,McRanterson, Romel, Strabo, and Tanner) and think deeply about what they are saying. If youare able to do this, then I guarantee you that all of the garbage currently cluttering andobscuring your thinking will be burnt away by the hyperrational fire contained within the bookswritten by the Illuminati, and you will at last see reality for what it Truly is: a VAST ocean ofPure Light.”

Daniel Groover, “5 Stars for the Books of the Truth/God Series Part II. Mind-blowing!. The GodSeries Part I: See https://amzn.to/2Mq7PjQSome authors are forced to change their pen-namedue to circumstances brought about by their prolific writings and the changes that they bringabout in the men that read the words. The Truth series is known in some closed circles as theGod Series Part II. To even more closed circles the second multi-volume work of Mike Hockneywas code-named: The Soul Camera. Under a new pseudonym the brilliant Senior Member ofthe Illuminati, Mike Hockney writes as Dr. Thomas Stark. His work encompasses the FourGospels of the Illuminati, the coded foundations for the God Series: The ArmageddonConspiracy, Prohibition A, The Millionaire's Death Club, and The Last Bling King. From this 4novels more coded than the Grail Legend itself, he springs into a sweeping Ontological GrandUnified Theory of Everything in the 32 Volume God Series, writing these under the pen nameMike Hockney. At this conclusion of this great body of work, he was tasked by the Illuminati towrite a second work, to explain the intricacies of the Picture formed by the Ontological Soul ofMathematics. This work was coded: The Soul Camera. When it came to fruition it was underthe second pen name, Dr. Thomas Stark as the Truth Series.Whoever Mike Hockney aka Dr.Thomas Stark is in real life is neither here nor there. The True identity of a Illuminus can neverbe revealed until 80 years after their passage across the river Styx. Who was this intellectualgiant in a past iteration of a manifestation of his Monad? Some say Leibniz, some sayPythagoras, possibly even BOTH! The great body of work that I am outlining here is quitepossibly the most enlightened piece of Literature on Mathematical Ontology to be created inthe 21st Century thus far. To be able to write 50 books in 8 years is a feat that even StephenKing was unable to do! Former Illuminati Grand-master Robert A. Heinlein took roughly 50years to write around 50 books. Gnosis is something that this author knows firsthand. Andwhen you read these books, know you are being invited to join a Society of Gods, by someonewho has achieved Gnosis themselves.I close this review with a quote from the name sake ofthe Pseudonym for Dr. Thomas Stark from the Gospel of Saint Thomas. This verse will apply toall readers of his works in the various stages of understanding...."The one who seeks shouldnot cease seeking until he finds.And when he finds, he will be dismayed.And when he isdismayed, he will be astonished.And he will be king over the All.”Buy this book! For theinformation contained therein is ultimately priceless!”

RK (MK), “Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Andy Kaufman of Philosophy.. It is astonishing how farpure charisma will get you in this benighted world, even within academia.This brilliant bookperforms the coup de grace on Wittgenstein's sophistry. Dr. Thomas Stark offers a thoroughanalysis and critique of Wittgenstein's errors, and provides the means to correct them. What ismathematics and what does it have to do with the nature of reality? The answer to this allimportant question, and so much more, are found within. Read this book. Expand your mind.Knowledge is power.”

Adrian Kessler, “A Must-Read. This book is absolutely necessary reading to help one dispelthe myths of scientism in our present day and age. Rather than grappling with ultimate reality,most mainstream scientists (and philosophers) have resorted to playing elaborate languagegames that hardly ever come close to an consistent and complete explanation of the universe.They are stuck in a hyperreality of their own making. Do not join these ignoramuses. Join theShining Ones. Get this book. Read it. Read it again, along with the others; then share the Lightof Reason and help us bring about the Second (and Final) Enlightenment.”

MP, “A Great Book that takes you beyond human language. It is now obvious that Dr ThomasStark is the most profound and complete philosopher of our time.Not only did he internalizedcompletely the work of the great writer Mike Hockney, but he goes beyond the simple and purelogic of Ontological Mathematics and shows us the great fallacies of modern times.Not only didhe succeed in showing hard and cold the fallacies of Wittgenstein theory, but he did all of thisin a beautiful and accessible manner.It is not hard to understand ontological mathematics... it isthe most obvious truth in the world.That is, if you can understand the concepts presented herefrom above and beyond your human nature.After all, the Big Bang happened before we wereformed as human and it is inevitable that we will turn to dust before the Big Crunch... Thenshouldn't we learn to understand our True Form before the tide turns?The Waves spoke to me.They said : numbers rule all.”

The book by Dr. Thomas Stark has a rating of 5 out of 4.8. 13 people have provided feedback.

TITLE PAGE Copyright Copyright THE THINKING GAME THE KANTIAN MIND MODELCONCEIVE OR PERCEIVE? HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING? THE THINKING TYPELANGUAGE AND REALITY LINEAR VERSUS CIRCULAR LOGIC THE WISDOM OF GÖDELNUMBERS THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK THE UNIVERSE THE WITTGENSTEINIANMODEL KILLING PHILOSOPHY LOGICAL HOLISM LOGICAL ATOMISM THE FORM OFREALITY LOGICAL FORM SAME AND DIFFERENT THE LIMITS LOGIC THE FOUNDATIONOF LOGIC MEANING FALSE PROFUNDITY THE SAY/SHOW DISTINCTION SAYING ANDSHOWING THE TRANSCENDENTAL LIMITS THE START IN THE BEGINNING WAS THEERROR WITTGENSTEIN: ERROR ONE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE THE TWOREADINGS FRITZ MAUTHNER SCHOPENHAUER VERSUS KANT THE WITTGENSTEINAFFAIR THE ATOMIC HYPOTHESIS CORRESPONDENCE VERSUS COHERENCE SYNTAXAND SEMANTICS WE ARE GREEKS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROPERTIES THE DMTDELUSION SENSE AND REFERENCE ONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS: RECAPONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS: DIMENSIONALISM SPEED VERSUS VELOCITY FRAMESOF REFERENCE LIGHT CONCLUSION

Language: EnglishFile size: 2775 KBText-to-Speech: EnabledEnhanced typesetting: EnabledX-Ray: Not EnabledWord Wise: Not EnabledPrint length: 326 pagesLending: EnabledSimultaneous device usage: Up to 4 simultaneous devices, per publisher limitsScreen Reader: SupportedX-Ray for textbooks: EnabledPaperback: 182 pagesItem Weight: 9.6 ouncesDimensions: 6 x 0.42 x 9 inches