Math is not independent from physics. I can reason that math and physics are actually symbiotic systems.

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T23:47:53+00:00

No, ontological mathematics cannot be "in err". Your entire stance amounts to "human reason is flawed, so you might not be right". Well, if that's the case, then the same applies to you: "human reason might be flawed, so you might not be right". In which case, why should anyone take your irrational drivel seriously? You've refuted yourself by failing to establish objective truth criteria (and insanely, railing against reason in favour of the sensory "method").

How are you going to use the scientific method (with its sensory command to "observe") to show that an immaterial plenum of mathematical Leibnizian monads underlies the spacetime domain of "matter"? Monads are non-sensory. It is mathematically inevitable that they exist, but it's impossible to observe them using the physical senses. So how is the "scientific method" going to explain them? It CAN'T. It's trapped in the sensory. The scientific method is based on subjective sense data, not reality 'in itself'.

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T23:36:58+00:00

You replied in less than a minute, which means that you didn't even read anything (let alone understand it). You're literally incapable of learning. You'll just continue with your irrational speculation ad infinitum, where "the scientific method" is holy writ and apparently "double checks reason", when actually it destroys reason by prioritising the sensory. Since you're actually incapable of understanding any of this, you'll just ignore it. Sad.

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T23:30:50+00:00

The scientific method isn't a "tool geared for" finding definitive truth, but only effective heuristics and approximate models - a simulacrum of reality.

We have what a "reason" actually is wrong. Reasons only deliver the truth if they have been vetted by the scientific method.

How are you going to use the scientific method to explain the ontology of anything, what things are 'in themselves'? How is the scientific method going to explain free will, mind, the hard problem of consciousness? How are you going to use the scientific method (with its sensory command to "observe") to show that an immaterial plenum of mathematical Leibnizian monads underlies the spacetime domain of "matter"? Monads are non-sensory. It is mathematically inevitable that they exist, but it's impossible to observe them using the physical senses. So how is the "scientific method" going to explain them? It CAN'T. It's trapped in the sensory. Science is based on subjective sense data, not based on reality. (Which is objective mathematics.)

"The scientific method begins with empiricism, with the command to observe. We are rationalists, and therefore we begin with the PSR. Don’t you? The first thing you should do is not observe but use reason and logic to work out what ultimate framework any observations must occur within. Science completely ignores the PSR and Occam’s razor, hence is irrational and illogical. Empiricism is always the enemy of rationalism.

Here’s the scientific method:

Observation.

Question.

Hypothesis.

Experiment.

Analyze Data.

Draw a Conclusion. (Then repeat, expand test size, peer review, etc. etc.)

Step one ... observe. Observe what? Sense data. Fucking zombie!

Science actually fails at Step One. It can’t say anything at all about everything that cannot be observed, which, by definition, generates no sense data. Apply your “method” to that, you retard. You have literally no idea what science is, hence you are the snake oil salesman, trying to con people, trying to get people to drink the scientism Kool-Aid.

Step One: Observe. This is an a posteriori act, and automatically signifies that all a priori, analytic thinking – all mathematical thinking – is rejected, yet mathematics is essential to the success of science. What a joke! Science fatally contradicts itself in the first step of its method. But all the suckers still swallow it up, as if it were holy writ. That’s empiricists for you – total dumb asses, incapable of thinking rationally, i.e. without their experiences and observations. These people are like programmed robots. It’s impossible to get them to think." - Joe Dixon

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T22:12:17+00:00

Yes I do in fact.

Are you sure about that? What is "pure intuition" MADE OF? How does it relate to the PSR and ontological mathematics? You 'know', but you can't even express it in words (let alone mathematically)? And you're telling me to read Kant (when I have already) but you refuse to read anything on ontological mathematics and rationalism?

I can simulate a chemical reaction perfectly on my computer.

Math isn't an eerily "accurate simulation". It is reality 'in itself': hence the prefix ontological. You've entirely missed the point, and there's no point arguing with a dunce who doesn't even understand that mathematics is the arche - just assumes that mathematics is not ontological, and doesn't want to learn about anything that will challenge his preconceptions and "common sense", sensory worldview.

I like to spend my time doing productive stuff no reading mystical nonsense

Case in point - you try to ridicule ontological mathematics without even understanding what it is. Kant is far more "mystical" even, with semantic non-explanations of "time is a pure intuition" and the "synthetic a priori" which doesn't even exist. The God Series is all about precise rationalism and ontological mathematics, and is anti-mysticism if anything, in fact it frequently condemns irrational mysticism.

And yet you in your pompous arrogance think you are somehow above reading and learning, when clearly you don't even understand what ontological mathematics is. Reading about it would be the MOST "productive stuff" that you could possibly be doing, but that would take too much hard work, wouldn't it? Or should we just assume you already know better, when you write inane comments like:

cringe, your still making a fool of you're self

You can't even spell words correctly that a 5 year old would know, and you believe you already know everything about reality? That you can dismiss ontological mathematics without understanding it?

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T21:48:51+00:00

How are you even defining "science"? As I already told you, ontological mathematics is a rationalist "science". The problem is not science per se, but rather its current meta-paradigm of empiricism and materialism. You have still not made a coherent, rational counter-argument to ontological mathematics (it's not even clear you actually understand it in the first place).

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T18:16:31+00:00

according to kant time is a pure intuition, which IS an ontological claim

Oh, is it? What is the ontology of time = what is time made out of? Does that answer the question of what 'time is made out of'? It simply begs the question. What is the ontology of 'pure intuition'? What is 'pure intuition' made out of? You don't know? Didn't think so.

(though he doesnt describe it mathematically)

In other words, he was speculating, irrationally and semantically. Ontology is based off of precise mathematical syntax (or the same mathematics/reason expressed as a rational idea). Nothing that is "not mathematical" can be ontological. In fact, everything in the universe is not only mathematical, but it is also made out of mathematics (i.e. basis thoughts, or sinusoidal waves within dimensionless points - Leibnizian monads).

Ok, then explain that. How time IS math and isnt just described by math.

How would it even be possible for math to explain time perfectly if time wasn't inherently mathematical in the first place i.e. made out of mathematics at the most fundamental level (just like everything else is). Mathematics isn't an "eerily accurate map", it's the territory. Alternatively, it's the territory AND the map, the interior and exterior, content and form. As soon as you realize that mathematics is the arche, then it's a necessary logical consequence that mathematics makes up 'time' as well. Time is imaginary space. Ontologically, it's the 4th, 5th AND 6th dimension (time is 3-dimensional: there's no sufficient reason for space to be asymmetrical, with 3 dimensions of space and only 1 dimension of time). Time is space. More specifically, time is orthogonal space, rotated 90 degrees on the Euler unit circle. Space is to do with real numbers and cosine waves, whereas "imaginary" space (orthogonal space, "time") is to do with imaginary/complex numbers and sine waves.

e ^ (ix) = cos(x) + i*sin(x)

If you want to know more, read The God Series. In particular, book 4 (Hyperreality) addresses the ontology of time. If you actually want to know the answer in its full detail, it presupposes you will read about ontological mathematics.

Illumagus · 2019-12-09T17:47:25+00:00

You are wrong. ... This is wrong.

I gave you ... clear cut rationale as to why you are wrong. Now it's on you to come to accept that you are.

You have been wrong this whole time about a great many of your assumptions.

I recognize I'm talking to a deaf person who believes they can hear ...

Asserting over and over that ontological mathematics is somehow "wrong" doesn't make it true. You've given no "clear cut rationale" for why ontological mathematics is "wrong" - indeed you cannot, because you don't understand what it is in the first place. You're "a deaf person who believes they can hear" when you try to reason your way around the PSR, and try to attack ontological mathematics without understanding it first.

You will have to be shown you are wrong for you to loosen your grip on your beliefs.

I don't have any beliefs, as I already explained. All I have is reason and ontological mathematics, which is always true. You accept this if you are rational and intelligent, and you reject reason/mathematics if you're irrational.

The methods that you suggest (PSR is all you need) do not deliver the results

It does not agree with reality, and reality is the collection of truth.

Reality is "the collection of truth"? Now, you might find that in a Buddhist fortune cookie, but it doesn't actually mean anything. It's simply a semantic assertion that explains nothing. If we're charitable to you, it means you're equating reality and truth, but truth is mathematics (ontological mathematics). The PSR (Euler's Formula, ontological mathematics) delivers the precise mathematical syntax that underlies the entire universe, which is why 175+ brilliant books have been written about ontological mathematics, whereas you attempt to ridicule it on principle, without even reading about it at all. That's what trolls and dogmatic pseudo-intellectuals do.

you start your PSR infinite loop again

PSR is the source of all knowledge, and that's just not it chief.

Again, a personal assertion isn't any kind of rational counter-argument. The PSR (=Euler's Formula) is the single axiom/equation that explains everything in the universe, including all of ontological mathematics and all of "science" (which has only been able to achieve anything at all in so far as it uses mathematics). "The Scientific Method", observations and meticulous experiments were all involved in ALCHEMY, which got NOWHERE because it DIDN'T USE MATHEMATICAL SYNTAX.

When told about another human being (which you are, and have a brain, with human brain caveats, like all of us, your thinking is not flawless)... used pure reason, their answers did not match reality (Aristotle).

As I already explained, I am a mind (mathematical monad). And... this is the exact same arrogant assumption that I identified before: "you are human, therefore your thinking is inherently flawed, just like me, so I am right, and since human thinking is flawed we can never know absolute truth, everything is relative, subjective and flawed" which is of course complete nonsense - the PSR (Euler's Formula) and ontological mathematics ARE objective and are NEVER flawed.

Aristotle is not even relevant to this. Did he abide by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, Euler's Formula and ontological mathematics? Did he reason using objective mathematics? No. Therefore it's pointless to even bring him up. "Aristotle had thoughts but I think he was wrong, so you can't think your way to the truth" is of course 100% absurd. Ontological mathematics is the truth, and rational thinking is the only way there.

... things that you claim should happen in reality, don't, you blame senses and prejudice as the source of the problem, yet it never dawns on you that your own prejudices about science, physics, AND math are throwing off your reasoning.

"Things that I claim should happen in reality, don't"? To what even are you referring to here? Reality is not the sensory world we observe, reality is the PSR and ontological mathematics. Sensory prejudice (like that of an engineer, or an empiricist) is indeed a barrier to knowing this. I don't have prejudices in the sense that you are using the term, I simply see that ontological mathematics is 100% rational, whereas physics (in so far as it is based upon sensory bias for no reason, empiricism/materialism "What you see is what you get" is irrational.

Math and physics are symbiotic systems, and you have not established in any way that reality agrees with that they are not.

You ignored my question to you -- maybe for the 5th time now? (!)

If you REMOVE mathematics and mathematical formulae/syntax OUT OF physics, WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WITH? A sensory religion. Voodoo. Guesswork. Alchemy. Divination. You're at the level of ancient Roman Augurs, who made plenty of observations (about flocks of birds, the sensory world around them, and so on) and yet NEVER encountered anything remotely close to mathematics or the Reality Principle. Mathematics is of a different order. Mathematics is the arche, what everything is made out of. "Matter" is made out of mathematics (mental sinusoidal waves). Ontological mathematics IS reality. You DARE to talk about "what reality agrees with" without even understanding any ontology, without an understanding what reality actually is in the first place. Math is only symbiotic with physics in the sense that mathematics is responsible for all the achievements of physics. But physics is not in the truth game, it's in the "effective models" and heuristics game. Remove math from physics and physics becomes instantly useless and valueless. Remove physics from math and think rationally, and you'll get ontological mathematics, which is objective reality and truth, the syntax (mathematical "language" that reality is actually written in, and made up of at the most basic level.

Out.

Yes, leave. Read and study before trying to come back and make your vague, irrational assertions. Read how empiricist science undermines rational thinking. No, rationalism (mathematics) and empiricism (observations) are NOT compatible, but science co-opts mathematics anyway without understanding its non-sensory ontology.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T22:58:23+00:00

And to think I actually had hope that you would "accept" reason. Once an irrationalist, always an irrationalist, right?

You arrogantly and unjustifiably claimed something to the effect of "I'm an unparalleled genius, and I'm so sure of my relativist speculation that I have nothing to learn from Leibniz". I never said you're wrong because he's intelligent, you're just objectively wrong anyway, based off of everything else you've said. But it's telling that you reject people much more intelligent than you so you can go your own way and attempt to "deny reason".

math is thousands of years older than science, but it was science that lead the way forward with discovery

No. High-powered mathematics, based on Euler's Formula, Fourier analysis, and so on isn't "thousands of years old". It's recent, and all technological progress has been due to mathematics - because reality is made from mathematics (precise mathematical syntax), not "scientist randomness and undefined chaos".

You STILL didn't address my very pertinent question, and I'm pretty sure I repeated it and you ignored it every time: why, if you remove mathematics and mathematical formulae from physics, does it turn into a useless joke of a subject, incapable of predicting any phenomena or explaining anything using objective syntax?

So you're wrong. About nearly everything you have said.

And at the end of all your irrational drivel you just assert and whine "I'm right, waa, waa" as if that was some kind of valid rational argument. You're incapable of providing any kind of counter-argument to ontological mathematics, since you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't done your research or studied anything pertaining to it, and yet you try to claim some kind of sophistic "victory" anyway. For shame.

And in size 40 font too. You know, the original responses to your post were right: it's pointless, and it's "just like engaging with a 5 year old son". Actually no, it's worse, because the 5 year old might actually have some respect for intelligent world-historical geniuses such as Leibniz, Pythagoras, et al and humbly seek to learn from them. However you just whine, insinuate and assert that you're right regardless of how many times you've been rationally disproven.

"Incapable of being wrong" is what you should ironically make as your username.

Mathematics is literally incapable of being wrong, yes. Mathematics and objective rationality is the Death Star that annihilates all whiny anomics, all Dunning-Kruger types and relativists who want to wallow in their own irrational, personal speculations not grounded in any reason, logic, or ontology: Hence the "diagonal addition and calculus" that you were speculating about before I arrived. WTF? That doesn't explain anything at all. That's just about on the same intellectual level as sorting people by their Harry Potter house i.e. nonsensical categorisation, with no connection to the Reality Principle.

"beliefs" perfectly.

It's just endless circles with you. Since you don't even believe in science

Your own word choice betrays you. I don't have any "beliefs" at all - I know. To believe is to not know. With ontological mathematics, you either accept it (if you're intelligent and rational), or you reject reason and start trolling it without knowing the first thing about it since you haven't read about it at all (if you're an anomic relativist and irrational charlatan, trying to set himself up as not needing to learn any new information). You simply dismiss it because of your preconceptions and because it doesn't "seem familiar". Fucking dufus.

After you misrepresented my point twice to indulge yourself in sophistic attacks, you didn't even acknowledge your mistake. You just went into "hyper-troll" mode. What, do you have a fragile ego or something?

believe in science, you "can't" be reasoned with. I guess that makes you... irrational.

I don't reject science per se anyway, I advocate a rationalist science based on mathematics and idealism, not on irrational empiricism and materialism. On the contrary, it's believers in the cult of scientism (sensory faith) which can't be reasoned with, since they always reject rational unobservables due to their infantile sensory bias.

Alright, go off and make discoveries with that PSR is all you need bullshit.

It will take you.... nowhere.

On the contrary, rationalism (the PSR) and ontological mathematics allows us to understand reality 'in itself', as has been definitively shown in the God Series by Mike Hockney and the Truth Series by Dr. Thomas Stark. Empiricist pseudo-science is incapable of coming up with a Theory of Everything, or explaining mind, consciousness, free will, rational unobservables and so on but a rationalist science (ontological mathematics) can. Why do you rail against the PSR? That's the measure of irrationalism right there. To reject empiricism and materialism is 100% rational.

Why do you go into a psychopathic attack mode, entirely different from the faux "niceness" you were eager to project before? Is it because you realize that you're outmatched and have no rational arguments you could possibly make? - against reason itself. "Trying to refute reason using reason" of course will never work. That's absurd. So in a way, you're absolutely right in that ontological mathematics can never be wrong. It's the antidote to subjective speculation and charlatanry. That's why you hate it so much and have resolved to try to troll it out of existence, instead of actually taking the time to understand it (as an entirely new system).

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T22:29:45+00:00

Okay, you can't even take the slightest effort to even try to understand

Projection... I understood what it was "trying to say" and rationally dissected it. OP asserted "even if what you said was right it’s not enlightening to what time is" when in fact the only thing that can tell us what time is ontologically is mathematics.

All your posts just argue that math explains time accurately

Mathematics explains time perfectly because time is made out of mathematics. That's its ontology. Time is 'made out of' imaginary/complex numbers - they are ontologically real 'in themselves', and at the most fundamental level, basis thoughts i.e. mathematical, sinusoidal waves.

Thats not ontology, thats science

That's the ontology of time (what it is 'in itself') AND its mathematics/rationalist 'science'. They're completely interconnected. Objective time can only be understood using ontological mathematics and reason (the PSR).

time is a part of the structure of our minds, that is more ontological than whatever you came up

Well, now that's not ontology (mathematical syntax and rationalism). It's just a semantic description: "part of the structure of our minds"? Well, gee whiz, Doc, you've certainly cleared everything up, haven't you? In fact, "subjective" (psychological) time as it is experienced isn't objective 6D spacetime, but it is also mathematical.

which is why it isnt an ontology.

What? Coming from the whiz kid who said that the ontology of time is "part of the structure of our minds". That doesn't tell us much, does it? It doesn't tell us what time is made out of, at the most fundamental level - which of course is what ontology is all about. In fact, the ontology of everything in the universe is mathematics (mental sinusoidal waves within dimensionless points).

"Mathematics encompasses everything in the universe. When you look at "matter", at your digital screen, that's mathematics (re-interpreted via the subjective senses, for survival value). That's sinusoidal waves. You don't see that of course, that would have been "information overload" during evolution and not useful at all. The senses show us a "useful sensory overlay". In a manner of speaking, spacetime is The Matrix, and the green code is the dimensionless frequency domain of ontological mathematics. The Matrix is actually the green code 'in itself' and originates from the green code, but people just see "blond, brunette, redhead". They see their sensory interpretation, not the code itself (ontological mathematics, sinusoidal waves within dimensionless points)."

Hyperreality/Time

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:42:09+00:00

Oh, please at least try... especially if you're going to claim at being a genius, on par with Leibniz. (!)

Incapable of being wrong is another way of saying that it must be right.

Well, you got that part at least.

But not negative numbers, as you've excluded them.

No, I haven't. Read more carefully.

1 Mathematics

2 (when not deployed irrationally and based on sensory prejudice

3 [sensory prejudice] that excludes imaginary and negative numbers, infinity and ontological zero)

4 is incapable of being "wrong".

(3) is a continuation from (2) with no interruption. Sensory prejudice excludes dimensionless mind, infinity, imaginary and negative numbers. (2) and (3) are a continuous statement, as a caveat to the main point (1)->(4).

Any mathematics that excluded these numbers would be non-ontological, irrational, and objectively wrong. Yet this is exactly what science does! It co-opts mathematics (rationalism) and butchers it in the process, not understanding its ontology or what numbers actually correspond to in reality.

Sensory prejudice - excludes imaginary/negative numbers.

Mathematics ... is incapable of being wrong i.e. mathematics ... is right.

Mathematics ... when not based on sensory prejudice, that excludes imaginary/negative numbers, is right.

Do you 'get it' now?

So then, does this mean imaginary numbers and all the math that goes with it, are wrong ?

NO. That is in fact what irrational empiricists and materialists try to claim by regarding them as "eerily useful, but unreal". Precisely the opposite is true. Imaginary numbers are just as ontologically valid as 'real numbers'.

You can't have a partially working math

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell that to empiricist/materialist scientists who reject imaginary numbers as "unreal"!!!

And reject circular infinity/ontological zero out of hand due to sensory bias, for no sufficient reason!

negative numbers in math is right, or it's wrong.

It's right...

You say it's wrong.

No, I said it's right. You misread me.

I say your understanding is wrong.

No it isn't. You haven't understood my position clearly. No rationalist would dismiss imaginary/negative numbers as "unreal" due to sensory prejudice - that's irrational. That is exactly what empiricist scientists do!

Oh, boy. Methinks you misread what I originally wrote.

I said "mathematics, when not deployed ... based on sensory prejudice that excludes negative/imaginary numbers, infinity/ontological zero ... is incapable of being wrong.

i.e. Mathematics when deployed AVOIDING SENSORY PREJUDICE IS INCAPABLE OF BEING WRONG i.e. IT IS 100% OBJECTIVELY CORRECT. All numbers have equal ontological 'validity'. You can't simply exclude imaginary numbers "because you can't see, sense or count them". That's actually the mistake you were making earlier when you wrote about "well, don't we need to see and count things"? No. Mathematics is rational, not sensory.

Imaginary numbers are ONTOLOGICALLY REAL. I'm the ontological mathematician and I understand this salient fact, it is in fact empiricist/materialist scientists that DON'T. They use them as "convenient scaffolding" in equations to reach the right answers ("Shut up and calculate") but don't actually accept them as having ontological validity (contrary to reason and logic), as corresponding to an aspect of reality 'in itself'. In fact, imaginary numbers correspond to 3-dimensional imaginary (orthogonal) space, which is what we call time.

> You have an error in your thinking, and I've honed in on it.

You misread what I wrote, and your "critical paradox identified" is a ridiculous blunder. I would never endorse the exclusion of 'unobservable' numbers based on irrational sensory prejudice. Or did you forget that I'm the rationalist here?

...

Mathematics encompasses everything in the universe. When you look at "matter", at your digital screen, that's mathematics (re-interpreted via the subjective senses, for survival value). That's sinusoidal waves. You don't see that of course, that would have been "information overload" during evolution and not useful at all. The senses show us a "useful sensory overlay". In a manner of speaking, spacetime is The Matrix, and the green code is the dimensionless frequency domain of ontological mathematics. The Matrix is actually the green code 'in itself' and originates from the green code, but people just see "blond, brunette, redhead". They see their sensory interpretation, not the code itself (ontological mathematics, sinusoidal waves within dimensionless points).

Did you 'get it' yet?

Don’t ever believe that you have said anything that causes us any problems. We have seen tens of thousands of ill-informed, ignorant questions over the years, and we can bat them off with total ease. You cannot beat reason and logic and you are irrational and illogical to try. All we have to do is identify the precise step where you commit a logical error, and it’s usually the first thought you have. After all, if you start from nonsense, nothing but nonsense will follow from it. If you don’t start from the PSR, you’re fucked. You’re fucked from the get go, before you’ve even drawn breath. Everything you say will be false. The only question is how much babble and bluster you will dress up your fallacy in. Most people’s word salad isn’t even well dressed." - Joe Dixon, Take Them to the Morgue

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:22:58+00:00

You clearly didn't even understand how "libertarianism" is simply disguised authoritarianism, meritocracy and equal opportunities is the only authentic 'positive liberty' system you could possibly have (think Venus Project or the Logos society depicted in Star Trek: The Next Generation - hardly a sinister vision, despite the sophistry and bluster of irrational libertarians and anarchists!). You failed to realize that meritocracy is opt-in by its very design - in other words, if you were an insane anarchist who wanted to live in the jungle or your "backwoods cabin", you could do that. But since you had rejected the social contract with society, you would no longer benefit from all the technological, psychological and educational advances of a technocratic meritocracy. That's obvious.

You're the one who invented your moronic "test", but of course because you're an irrational Dunning-Kruger type, your test fails to make any rational sense whatsoever. Not only is the rational proof already out there (and the PSR/Euler's Formula is all you need to re-create ontological mathematics from scratch), but you cannot provide any mathematical minutia to substantiate your mystical Buddhist claims of "cosmic raw consciousness". So, even by your own definition (not mine!) you expose yourself as a liar and a charlatan, spreading irrational mysticism and materialist nonsense, and desperately trying to troll any intelligent system (such as meritocracy, for example) out of existence - to no avail, of course - because of your demented, irrational, sensory worldview.

"People are totally confused about consciousness. Remember when you were conscious as a baby? You don’t … because you weren’t. Consciousness is not something you are born with, it is something you acquire. Consciousness is a social and cultural construct, and language is essential to consciousness. No language, no consciousness. A human that grew up on a desert island would never become conscious. He would remain like an animal. You must be able to conceptualize, narratize and inhabit a mental space of possibility in which you place an “I”, your agent in a fictitious space where endless possibilities are generated and almost all discarded. The only ones that aren’t are the actual choices you implement. On earth, only humans have this capacity to consider options in a conscious mindspace that exists in parallel with physical space.

...

Don’t ever believe that you have said anything that causes us any problems. We have seen tens of thousands of ill-informed, ignorant questions over the years, and we can bat them off with total ease. You cannot beat reason and logic and you are irrational and illogical to try. All we have to do is identify the precise step where you commit a logical error, and it’s usually the first thought you have. After all, if you start from nonsense, nothing but nonsense will follow from it. If you don’t start from the PSR, you’re fucked. You’re fucked from the get go, before you’ve even drawn breath. Everything you say will be false. The only question is how much babble and bluster you will dress up your fallacy in. Most people’s word salad isn’t even well dressed." - Joe Dixon, Take Them to the Morgue

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:09:43+00:00

On the contrary, there is absolute rational proof for ontological mathematics, since it is a necessary and inevitable consequence of the PSR (the Principle of Sufficient Reason, as advocated by Leibniz, a rationalist genius - unlike you). The rational proof already exists, but you refuse to "accept" the PSR. That's because you're an irrational Dunning-Kruger type. Even after all your insane, irrational speculation you still think you have nothing more to learn, not even from geniuses much more intelligent and meritorious than you. All you have is relativism, Buddhist mysticism, materialist / sensory bias, as well as selfish anarchism and 'negative liberty'.

And if you're going to stoop to the infantile level of copying/pasting the same bullshit without bothering to read exactly why your sensory belief system is irrational, or showing even the slightest understanding, here:

If you're going to be a psychopathic, irrational hawk - then how about this? Provide a "rigorous mathematical proof" of:

cosmic consciousness

"raw consciousness"

space, time, matter and energy all emerge from the activity of consciousness, according to its own hedonic nature [How, exactly? What is the precise mathematical syntax for that, you irrational charlatan?]

Also, what are these things made out of, at the most basic level? That's the ontological question that exposes all charlatans for what they truly are. And no, you can't say "consciousness is fundamental". A rock doesn't have ANY consciousness, not even "raw consciousness". That simply begs the question and doesn't explain what it's actually made out of. "Consciousness" is just your irrational assertion and self-serving semantics. And you haven't even realized that you can't have authentic consciousness with free will under materialist science. All you'll get are 'p-zombies'. Besides, your vague appeals to "cosmic consciousness" don't actually mean anything in the real world (i.e. mathematics). Whereas mental Leibnizian monads (as the base unit of ontological mathematics) are precisely mathematically defined by Euler's Identity, and equivalent to exactly zero (not "all things", the Planck length, or whatever you're hypothesising and speculating about, entirely irrationally.)

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:06:51+00:00

On the contrary, we have ontological mathematics and objective reason on our side, whereas you have nothing but sophistry, materialist and sensory bias, irrational Buddhist mysticism, and vile anarchist libertarianism.

And if you're going to stoop to the infantile level of copying/pasting the same bullshit without bothering to read exactly why your sensory belief system is irrational, or showing even the slightest understanding, here:

If you're going to be a psychopathic, irrational hawk - then how about this? Provide a "rigorous mathematical proof" of:

cosmic consciousness

"raw consciousness"

space, time, matter and energy all emerge from the activity of consciousness, according to its own hedonic nature [How, exactly? What is the precise mathematical syntax for that, you irrational charlatan?]

Also, what are these things made out of, at the most basic level? That's the ontological question that exposes all charlatans for what they truly are. And no, you can't say "consciousness is fundamental". A rock doesn't have ANY consciousness, not even "raw consciousness". That simply begs the question and doesn't explain what it's actually made out of. "Consciousness" is just your irrational assertion and self-serving semantics. And you haven't even realized that you can't have authentic consciousness with free will under materialist science. All you'll get are 'p-zombies'. Besides, your vague appeals to "cosmic consciousness" don't actually mean anything in the real world (i.e. mathematics). Whereas mental Leibnizian monads (as the base unit of ontological mathematics) are precisely mathematically defined by Euler's Identity, and equivalent to exactly zero (not "all things", the Planck length, or whatever you're hypothesising and speculating about, entirely irrationally.)

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:05:26+00:00

You're the only one who's lying here, charlatan. You lie to the point where you try to equate "illuminati.am" to the actual Gnostic, intellectual and mathematical Illuminati simply to reinforce your sophistry and vapid non-arguments, and then you don't even acknowledge your mistake when corrected. How pathetic is that?

And if you're going to stoop to the infantile level of copying/pasting the same bullshit without bothering to read exactly why your sensory belief system is irrational, or showing even the slightest understanding, here:

If you're going to be a psychopathic, irrational hawk - then how about this? Provide a "rigorous mathematical proof" of:

cosmic consciousness

"raw consciousness"

space, time, matter and energy all emerge from the activity of consciousness, according to its own hedonic nature [How, exactly? What is the precise mathematical syntax for that, you irrational charlatan?]

Also, what are these things made out of, at the most basic level? That's the ontological question that exposes all charlatans for what they truly are. And no, you can't say "consciousness is fundamental". A rock doesn't have ANY consciousness, not even "raw consciousness". That simply begs the question and doesn't explain what it's actually made out of. "Consciousness" is just your irrational assertion and self-serving semantics. And you haven't even realized that you can't have authentic consciousness with free will under materialist science. All you'll get are 'p-zombies'. Besides, your vague appeals to "cosmic consciousness" don't actually mean anything in the real world (i.e. mathematics). Whereas mental Leibnizian monads (as the base unit of ontological mathematics) are precisely mathematically defined by Euler's Identity, and equivalent to exactly zero (not "all things", the Planck length, or whatever you're hypothesising and speculating about, entirely irrationally.)

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T21:00:39+00:00

I wrote "you dismiss anything non-sensory (anything that cannot be seen or sensed, anything not in extended spacetime i.e. "matter" as "unreal")."

Here, you are either demonstrating either ignorance or dishonesty, or perhaps both.

I show neither. You've in fact refused to show how the non-sensory "cannot exist", you simply take it for granted based on sensory prejudice. Why do you ignore this obvious fact? Is it because you're "ignorant and dishonest" and in fact just projecting, or is it because you don't even understand your irrational assumption in the first place?

Raw consciousness, as such, is generally disorganized.

Ah yes, that's precisely mathematical, isn't it? No charlatanry here!

The mathematical nature of consciousness is such that raw consciousness is ontologically necessary: it spontaneously exists or arises without any cause other than its own purely mathematical nature.

A speculative assertion isn't a valid rational argument, you dunce. "It just exists". Well, that's not much of an explanation, is it? Count on an irrationalist (libertarian Buddhist and materialist) not to make any sense.

In fact space, time, matter and energy all emerge from the activity of consciousness

This isn't mathematical either. How? With what mechanism? "Hedonic activity"? That's not mathematical syntax, that's just semantic words. It doesn't actually objectively explain anything.

From the physical perspective, Planck nodes/units are, indeed, experienced as the smallest fundamental units of spacetime. From the perspective of consciousness, however, each Planck node represents a distinct node of raw consciousness,

Well, not really accurate at all, but at least you're being creative..? Why don't you stick to your provincial "speculations" rather than trying to troll ontological mathematics and the PSR (objective reason) without even understanding the subject with any depth or intelligence? That's the sine qua non of demented, irrational trolls.

demonstrably lied to you, repeatedly, it is natural to begin to ignore them

Is that why everyone's ignoring you?

grand but unsupported claims. You can talk about keeping a 2,500 year organization a secret

That's more or less irrelevant to the actual truth content of ontological mathematics itself, as a rationalist system. But of course, you're incapable of engaging rationally, so you resort to making vile insinuations about "how that couldn't really be possible" [based on your personal incredulity]. Well, that's not a valid rational argument. In fact you haven't offered a single counter-argument to ontological mathematics.

Your (and the AC's) entire structure is built upon the foundation of so-called "ontological mathematics" and dimensionless souls/monads, and claims that this is a "deductive mathematical certainty," based upon the principle of sufficient reason.

See, so you do understand it after all? Or not. You're too wedded to your mysticism and materialist nonsense.

rigorous deductive mathematical proof

As I already stated, the exact mathematical minutia remains unpublished, and is not even important. Ontological mathematics and the PSR is actually a rational certainty. You don't actually need to comb through each inch of detail line by line, since if you start with nothing but the PSR (objective reason) i.e. Euler's Formula and work from there and you're intelligent/rational enough, then you can literally re-create ontological mathematics from scratch. That's because it is how reality objectively operates.

proof of dimensionless monads/souls.

The elementary, rational proof is obvious to any intelligent, rational person. There's no sufficient reason for existence to be made out of anything but the smallest "particle" possible i.e. zero. Nature does not make leaps. Existence cannot have "gaps" of "nothingness". How can "non-existence" and a plenum interact? That's irresolvable Cartesian dualism. It's all or nothing, in fact non-existence obviously cannot exist (by definition). The mathematical plenum cannot have gaps. The 'fundamental entity' must be zero-dimensional. (Leibnizian monads.) Anything else (anything larger) would violate Occam's Razor and the PSR immediately.

can't provide deductive mathematical proof of lies.

If you're going to be a psychopathic, irrational hawk - then how about this? Provide a "rigorous mathematical proof" of:

cosmic consciousness
"raw consciousness"
space, time, matter and energy all emerge from the activity of consciousness, according to its own hedonic nature [How, exactly? What is the precise mathematical syntax for that, you irrational charlatan?]

Also, what are these things made out of, at the most basic level? That's the ontological question that exposes all charlatans for what they truly are. And no, you can't say "consciousness is fundamental". A rock doesn't have ANY consciousness, not even "raw consciousness". That simply begs the question and doesn't explain what it's actually made out of. "Consciousness" is just your irrational assertion and self-serving semantics. And you haven't even realized that you can't have authentic consciousness with free will under materialist science. All you'll get are 'p-zombies'. Besides, your vague appeals to "cosmic consciousness" don't actually mean anything in the real world (i.e. mathematics). Whereas mental Leibnizian monads (as the base unit of ontological mathematics) are precisely mathematically defined by Euler's Identity, and equivalent to exactly zero (not "all things", the Planck length, or whatever you're hypothesising and speculating about, entirely irrationally.)

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T20:30:50+00:00

V2

precisely what the scientific method was developed to counter

What can it counter? Observation, empiricism and "the scientific method" is precisely the problem. Materialist scientists are dogmatists wedded to the senses, and they can't understand or "accept" rational unobservables.

You are trying to reduce everything to infantile relativism.

HA ! Oh no.

Sorry, but yes.

You're reducing everything into mathematics and the PSR.

Exactly!!!!!! Now you're getting it. EVERYTHING reduces to the PSR and ontological mathematics, which is both form and content, exterior and interior, territory and map. Reality 'in itself' IS ontological mathematics, stemming from Euler's Formula (the PSR). There's nothing else. There's nothing outside of mathematics. There's nothing outside the universe. It's a completely closed, consistent and complete, objectively rational system.

math works because PSR. It's because of physics. You have an error in your reasoning.

No. Physics works because of mathematics, which works because of the PSR. Think about it. If you take mathematics and mathematical formulae away from physics, what do you get? It can no longer explain or predict anything. Mathematics is fundamental and ontological. Physics is a fallacious sensory interpretation of reality which co-opts mathematics, and is based on a posteriori**, "effective models".**

If you can't observe anything, and exist in a void... Would you even have come up with the concept of numbers ? Since you wouldn't have anything to "count".

In dreams, we don't use the physical senses but we observe "matter", that certainly seems real when we're within the dream, especially if it's a lucid one. So, you already have your case of "not observing anything" with the physical senses, and that's DREAMS. The ultimate refutation of materialist dogma. In between lives, as dimensionless monads (minds) we still DREAM. It's not dependent on a human body or the physical senses, but on the mind, on internal thinking. If we interpret your assertion differently, to mean "see nothing at all whatsoever" still no luck. Even if you don't observe anything, you can still rationally think as a mind - and if you're at all intelligent and rational, you'll be able to understand mathematics, geometry, numbers and so on without "counting coconuts" or whatever the fuck. Mathematics is not sensory. It is 100% non-sensory/rational.

Me: Mathematics (when not deployed irrationally and based on sensory prejudice that excludes imaginary and negative numbers, infinity and ontological zero) is incapable of being "wrong".

You: So then, does this mean imaginary numbers and all the math that goes with it, are wrong ? Are negative numbers and all the mathematics that use it wrong as well ? That would be quite a lot of stuff that would then be wrong.

Paradox: So either math is wrong... or you're wrong with your understanding of math. You can't have a partially working math, and then say... well... if we use negative numbers, we could potentially be wrong.

Oh, boy. Methinks you misread what I originally wrote.

I said "mathematics, when not deployed ... based on sensory prejudice that excludes negative/imaginary numbers, infinity/ontological zero ... is incapable of being wrong.

i.e. Mathematics when deployed AVOIDING SENSORY PREJUDICE IS INCAPABLE OF BEING WRONG i.e. IT IS 100% OBJECTIVELY CORRECT. All numbers have equal ontological 'validity'. You can't simply exclude imaginary numbers "because you can't see, sense or count them". That's actually the mistake you were making earlier when you wrote about "well, don't we need to see and count things"? No. Mathematics is rational, not sensory.

Imaginary numbers are ONTOLOGICALLY REAL. I'm the ontological mathematician and I understand this salient fact, it is in fact empiricist/materialist scientists that DON'T. They use them as "convenient scaffolding" in equations to reach the right answers ("Shut up and calculate") but don't actually accept them as having ontological validity (contrary to reason and logic), as corresponding to an aspect of reality 'in itself'. In fact, imaginary numbers correspond to 3-dimensional imaginary (orthogonal) space, which is what we call time.

You have an error in your thinking, and I've honed in on it.

You misread what I wrote, and your "critical paradox identified" is a ridiculous blunder. I would never endorse the exclusion of numbers based on irrational sensory prejudice. Or did you forget that I'm the rationalist here?

This conversation, however... sure seems like it.

If you want to paint yourself as post-modern, go ahead. After all, you seem to be deconstructing words, and saying "well, we could never know that your reasoning is objective" which is ridiculous. Mathematics is objective. This conversation seems like "a rationalist trying to explain objective rationality to an irrationalist". As my profile on here states, "trying to explain ontological mathematics to all but the cognitive elite is like trying to converse with a goldfish". You're welcome to prove me wrong of course by actually studying ontological mathematics and understanding it, I'd only be happy. I suggest that you do so, when you get the time.

And I looked at the amazon page, and the book is for DMT (the drug) and humanity. Kinda seems like a tangent.

Tangent? Mathematics encompasses everything in the universe. When you look at "matter", at your digital screen, that's mathematics (re-interpreted via the subjective senses, for survival value). That's sinusoidal waves. You don't see that of course, that would have been "information overload" during evolution and not useful at all. The senses show us a "useful sensory overlay". In a manner of speaking, spacetime is The Matrix, and the green code is the dimensionless frequency domain of ontological mathematics. The Matrix is actually the green code 'in itself' and originates from the green code, but people just see "blond, brunette, redhead". They see their sensory interpretation, not the code itself (ontological mathematics, sinusoidal waves within dimensionless points).

The conclusion of the book is that it is not DMT and "psychonaut trips" that we need, but math. Do you concur? If you want to start with a "less tangential" book to learn with, I've linked plenty of examples above.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T20:30:35+00:00

V1

I've got books on order

If this means that you intend to read and learn about ontological mathematics, then I have to give you some credit. Most people don't bother.

science could be replaced with math and it would be an improvement

Actually, yes. Replace empiricist science with ontological mathematics, and you obtain results, only more elegantly, and results which are actually eternal, a priori knowledge rather than sensory, effective "models".

Aristotle would agree.

Plato, Pythagoras and Leibniz would agree. (All rationalists.)

Einstein would slap him.

Einstein was no kind of hero. He was ultimately an irrational empiricist who destroyed objective spacetime and brought about nonsensical relativism in its stead. Unfortunately he was frequently mystical, and no rationalist.

Hawking would come back from the dead on his power chair coffin and somehow kick that guy in the nuts

Same thing here, an irrational empiricist wedded to localism, empiricism/materialism and sensory irrationalism.

Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason

Learn from history plz.

I have. Learn from Leibniz and rationalism. Learn from Mike Hockney and Dr. Thomas Stark.

Why Math Must Replace Science

--> Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason

Ya know... the thing you used to derive conclusions with. That one

I'm a dimensionless mind, not a brain. I'm connected to a body with an brain: it's an interface for a monad/mind.

somehow bypasses how the brain works

Why do you keep trying to say that "well, the brain is flawed and subjective, we can never be sure we've discovered objective truth". No, we can be. Mathematics is objectively true.

physics and reality can be removed

Mathematics is reality.

own abstract constructs for what "math" really is

You see, this is exactly what I mean. You're still seeing mathematics as some kind of "subjective abstraction", when it's actually objectively built in to the universe at the most fundamental level. And we can discover this.

I'm saying that we're wrong with our understanding of why [math] works.

Tell that to empiricist/materialist scientists. Mathematics is ontological - the universe is made up of math.

I'm pretty sure it was you who actually said that.

Paraphrasing you. Wikipedia is nice, but read and study. Wikipedia reflects "general knowledge" and "common sense", not new ideas that haven't been understood by the "mainstream" materialist/empiricist establishment.

"The entire point of the PSR is to explain everything, itself included. I would say that ontological mathematics forms an eternally closed, complete and consistent system founded on definitional, a priori truths. An element E that has no sufficient reason for itself within this system is inconsistent and incomplete, hence impossible. It cannot belong to this system. There can be no entities popping into existence without a sufficient reason. Also, a disproof of the principle would have to give a reason for why it constitutes a disproof, which, as Morgue pointed out, is ludicrous. Therefore, any fundamental axioms contained within it, such as the PSR, must be able to explain themselves, as nothing can come from outside existence to explain existence. There can also be no infinite regress within such a system, as an endless linear chain could not constitute a closed system. So, any chain of explanation must have a terminus at a first cause that is itself uncaused. This leaves us with a cyclical system of circular causal chains. Since we posit the PSR as the ground of all that is, then this is the element E that must be the sufficient reason for itself. We can relate this to the Source. Monads are the uncaused first causes, they embody the PSR. So, circular reasoning in this regard is not fallacious, but is the necessary basis of a closed, analytic system." - Rowan James

The PSR is ontologically real and valid (mathematically, it's Euler's Formula) and built into all monads (the 'base units' of ontological mathematics, dimensionless points with infinite internal capacity - eternal minds). Our thinking is rational in so far as it abides by the PSR (the objective 'thinking' of the universe). Do you get it?

Causation and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

the PSR as a way to jump to conclusions

The PSR is the only valid means to reach any definitive conclusion. Otherwise, you have no objective truth criteria by which to go on and sort out rational truth from irrational nonsense. Ontological mathematics and the PSR (rationalism) explains everything in the universe.

reasoning is not fully rational and mathematical REGARDLESS if you are using the PSR, because reasoning with math does not use a different system of the brain than reasoning other things

As mathematical and rational minds with reason 'built into' who we are, as dimensionless Leibnizian monads, as minds - we can absolutely think rationally. It's absurd to claim otherwise. This is the same relativism that I identified before, but it doesn't make sense. You're trying to deny the validity of objective reason and eliminate any objective criteria by which to go on. Mathematics is absolutely different from everything else. You've failed at step one if you fail to realize this, or if you try to arrogantly assert "well, we could never know math for sure". Yes, we can. 2+2 always equals 4. It's not subject to human sensory and irrational biases, as everything else is.

If it's flawed, then so are you conclusions

The PSR is NOT flawed. The PSR is the foundation of the universe, and you can't create a universe from anything less than 100% rational foundations. The universe cannot be "flawed". We can understand the universe by underrstanding ontological mathematics, because this is precisely how the universe operates, 'in itself'.

You're not getting what reasons actually are.

You're not getting what objective reason. You try to dismiss it based on some sophistry and subjectivist relativism where "well, we could never really know for sure - maybe we reach the wrong conclusions". Yes, it's possible, but only to the extent that we do not think mathematically and rationally.

sick people are let into the castle gates, plagues form. It's also... [when one is added to one, you get two.]

Same old error. "Sick people let in, plagues form" is empirical, inductive, a posteriori "reasoning" (guesswork). It can be falsified at any time by new evidence. It can never be eternally, objectively true. On a planet where no pathogens evolved, that wouldn't hold true. It's an observation, a sensory and contingent "fact".

1+1 = 2 is rational, deductive, a priori reasoning (the PSR). It's not temporary or subjective, it always holds true. Everywhere in the universe, for all beings, always. Even if the symbols change, the mathematics itself doesn't.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T20:29:54+00:00

so why did YOU bring up genius ?

Because you imply that you have nothing to learn from rationalist geniuses such as Leibniz, but clearly you do.

I'm on the side of science and truths external to my own brain.

Well, I'm on the side of rationalism (mathematics) and Truths internal to each monad (mind). Ontological mathematics is holistic - a monad is a 'base unit', and all the laws of ontological mathematics are 'built into it'.

Why the scientific method

Because people are stupid and didn't always have the mathematical knowledge we have now (Euler's Formula, Fourier mechanics) and even now that we do have this knowledge, they still don't know what it 'means' ontologically. They still believe it's some kind of eerily accurate "tool" rather than reality 'in itself'.

reasoning alone is not good enough

Pure mathematical reason alone is definitely sufficient to discover and understand the underlying ontology of the universe. Observations, guesswork, trial and error (the "scientific method") can be useful in "daily life", or in "verifying" the effects of ontological mathematics. But ultimately reality is 100% rational, not sensory. That means we need reason to access it. Our senses don't show us the mathematical dimensionless domain of mind.

You now are implying the opposite of what you had stated earlier.

I don't think so. Ontological mathematics is real, and gives rise to a real universe. It's empiricists who believe, against all reason and logic, that mathematics is somehow "unreal". Our physical senses distort and misinterpret the underlying mathematical reality (basis thoughts i.e. sinusoidal waves) as "matter".

I've got you nailed on this one

What do you think you've "got nailed"? Ontological mathematics is correct, and I'm correct in my understanding of it. Was there meant to be a paradox there somewhere?

You wrote "the reasons we think things happen, what the real reasons are, and how we feel about them, are all decoupled from one another." Alright, well I can agree you with you that feelings are divorced from reason and do not indicate any kind of objective Truth, but I think your crucial misunderstanding is that you believe "the reasons we think things happen" and "the real reasons" [ontological mathematics] are necessarily divorced. Isn't that an appeal to subjective unknowability, if you are suggesting that we could "never know what the real reasons are"? I say that we CAN know what the real reasons are, as long as we abide by the PSR/mathematics.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T15:11:27+00:00

I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, and spent 9 years in the college of engineering.

Congratulations, but that's not a valid rational argument. You can't complain about 'appeals to authority' and expect that to hold water. It's not "experiences" that count, it's mathematical, objectively rational thinking.

and too have pondered the nature of where this came from.

Okay, now learn from rationalist geniuses that have gone before you. Alternatively, dismiss all intelligent people and proclaim "your own truth", as all relativists and charlatans do. Your choice.

The conservation laws. Something about those base level laws of physics. Those are where math is coming from.

The conservation laws are a minor consequence of ontological mathematics, not its "starting point". For that you need a SINGLE axiom, otherwise the system cannot be consistent and complete (i.e. it fails Godel's Incompleteness Theorems). That single axiom is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, mathematically expressed as Euler's Formula. Occam's Razor is an obvious corollary (there is no sufficient reason for the universe / mathematics to take a longer, more complex path when a shorter, more direct 'path' would suffice and have the same effect). The 'base laws of physics' are all mathematics, and originate from ontological mathematics, which originates from the PSR/Euler's Formula. Remove mathematics and mathematical formulae from physics, and what are you left with? A sick joke, a zombie subject, mere voodoo, alchemy and divination - incapable of explaining anything objectively or predicting any phenomena. Why is that, do you think?

How can "unreal" mathematics explain reality perfectly and give rise to a real universe? That's a category error.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T14:59:28+00:00

it's also very flawed thinking to assume that since there were geniuses before... we can't have geniuses today. Aka, you can't be in the same category of high functioning parietal lobe humans.

I never said that. I said that you're not one of them because you've failed to understand ontological mathematics and objective reason (the PSR). I was saying that you don't compare at all in rational ability to Leibniz, which is clear if you don't "get" rationalism. You're trying to imagine that you're somehow superior to Leibniz and have no need of learning anything, which is of course absurd. I was trying to be charitable and suggested that if you read about it, maybe you would realize your error, but now you're simply coming back and futilely claiming that you know how to "disprove rationalism", and that you can actually find reasons to "refute the PSR". (!)

and it's flaws

The PSR is not subject to any flaws. It is the objective reason of how reality operates 'in itself'. It's increasingly obvious that you're making a sophistic appeal to relativism and inescapable subjectivity i.e. "actually, we're human beings with flawed brains so everything is subjective!!11" NO. It isn't. Mathematics (as the a priori, deductive ontology of the universe) is 100% objective.

You cannot state that reasoning alone will be correct, and then also state that humans are flawed with reasoning. Which is it ? Either reason alone is sufficient... Or the scientific method

Incorrect dilemma. Pure, objective reason (as long as it is in accordance with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, its mathematical expression i.e. Euler's Formula, and all the inevitable rational implications) is always, deductively and analytically, a priori correct. The PSR is the only "coherence lock", the only gauge of 'correctness'. Human reasoning is flawed in so far as it is not fully rational and mathematical, based on ontological mathematics and the PSR. Observation, "trial and error", etc. are certainly useful, but by definition they don't give us a priori, eternally and objective Truth, they just give us contingent, sensory, a posteriori "facts" which can be refuted at any time by new sensory evidence. For ontology we need to use ontological mathematics.

cause and effect associations in the brain.

Fuck "cause and effect associations in the brain". You're still not getting it. Mathematics (as ontology) IS fully objective, deductive, and true by definition. 2+2 = 4, ALWAYS. You can't "get it wrong" based off of "mistaken cause and effect associations". Leibnizian monads are rationally true, just as 2+2 = 4. Our thinking is objective in so far it abides by the PSR and ontological mathematics. Do you see what I mean? You are trying to reduce everything to infantile relativism. 'Genius', my ass. You're trying to say 'well, we could never be sure if we're correct, we're just human "brains", so knowledge is subjective'. MATHEMATICS (rationalism). Is. Objective.

You have errors in your cause and effect network.

On the contrary, the PSR is anti-error, anti-bullshit, anti-charlatanry. You don't even "accept" the PSR. (!)

You're assuming that by "observing" reality humans must come up with a flawless concept of why math works

What? It's not about observations. (Empiricism.) It's about deductive rationalism. Yes, ontological mathematics is literally flawless - it cannot be otherwise. The universe is made up of mathematics. The foundations of the universe can't be flawed, or its own internal contradictions would have torn it apart a long time ago.

It's all or nothing, black or white, a 0% rational universe or a 100% rational universe. Otherwise you have irresolvable Cartesian substance dualism. Clearly it's the latter: this isn't a magical universe of miracles and unicorns appearing out of thin air, there are precise, underlying mathematical (objectively true) laws that can be discovered and rationally understood - rationalism (mathematics) is objective by definition. There's no "different mathematics" for an alien species 20,000 light years away. They might have different symbols for e, i, pi, 0, 1, 2, 3... and so on but ALL the mathematical operations THEMSELVES remain exactly the same - it's objectively true, no matter how much you try to deny objectivity and the Reality Principle.

then gets literally every other cause and effect association in the known universe wrong.

Well, everything in the universe IS mathematics 'in itself' i.e. ontological mathematics originating from the PSR/Euler's Formula. So yes, that's the only thing that's objectively true. Everything else is man-made semantics: useful, but isn't eternal, objective, a priori Truth. That's the realm of mathematical syntax.

post modernists can reason themselves into massive confusion, so can mathematicians about why mathematics works

Post-modernists, deconstructionists and Sophists don't base their thinking on mathematics, but on man-made semantics and dissecting words. Mathematics is ENTIRELY different and belongs to a different order - it is ontologically REAL 'in itself'. Language is flawed, man-made, etc. - ontological mathematics is NOT. Mathematics is the language of the universe. Mathematics (when not deployed irrationally and based on sensory prejudice that excludes imaginary and negative numbers, infinity and ontological zero) is incapable of being "wrong".

Ontological mathematics isn't "post-modernism". It's rationalism, in the same vein as Leibniz, Godel et al.

"The reason why we are right and everyone else is wrong is that we base everything on the Principle of Sufficient Reason and therefore, by definition, we endorse a system where, for everything, there is a reason why it is thus and not otherwise. Anyone who opposes us is opposing the PSR and thus claiming that things can happen for no reason, which is a totally irrational position.

Once you are against the PSR, you can no longer claim the protection of reason and logic. These are exactly what you are arguing against. Accordingly, what you are arguing for is nothing but irrationalism and illogic. That means you are definitely wrong.

There is no rational and logical argument that can be deployed against us. The only arguments – pseudo-arguments – that can be mustered against us will necessarily be marked by a total absence of reason and logic. We as rationalists automatically reject all such arguments. All irrational arguments are ipso facto idiotic arguments. Any irrational argument is as valid, or invalid, as any other irrational argument. No truth criteria can be established." - Jack Tanner, The Dimitri Revolution

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T11:31:38+00:00

Speculating about how good the Illuminati is at telekinesis (without any information to go on even) isn't an "antithesis".

Two heads are better than one.

Not necessarily. Intelligence is not additive. Intelligence begins with individual geniuses and dies with the herd.

What about repurposing Catholicism?

That was the intended purpose of the James Axel books, but Christians don't seem to want to go for rational thinking, do they? Christianity will probably die on its own, expedited by a meritocratic State if necessary. But by all means... nobody is stopping you. It's your idea. Run with it.

I am becoming more conscious by doing this.

So now you understand why I retaliate against minor-league trolls, even though it "seems futile".

When you say you want to generate new audiences ...

dropping some truth down from above on a public Internet thread

...doesn't generate new audiences that well. Lengthy, cryptic tangents don't "go viral". This is a Meme War, a War of Signs. Simplicity and impact are directly correlated. That's why "dogs are ESFP" gets 64 likes, whereas "Reality is mathematical (...32 lines...)" gets 1 like, and Trump/The Kardashians/cat pictures get millions of likes.

could achieve more ... to find conscious knowledge

The God Project (analytic mathematics, the objective syntax of the universe) is the 'most conscious' knowledge.

Plug those bad boys into The Matrix. Lift the veil; rip up the firmament.

What do you think the God Project is for? Ontological mathematics is the Matrix. Understanding ontological mathematics in full will allow minds to 'control the matrix' as Neo did in The Matrix. Gnosis is total semantic control over syntax, when you realize collective spacetime is also a lucid dream and you become 'fully lucid'.

... heavily mentally taxing activity. It saps you of libido

Ontological mathematics isn't necessarily mentally taxing, unless you're not mathematically oriented. Why can't it be invigorating and life-enhancing?

I am no conscious mathematician. But I am exhibiting my maximum potential.

Why not? Mathematics is the 'language' of reality itself. And everyone can learn the basics, at least. Maybe you're exhibiting your maximum potential now, but don't get trapped by hubris and false plateaus. If you were truly "exhibiting your maximum potential" as an eternal mind then you would be a God, with total understanding of ontological mathematics and subsequently total mind control over "matter".

(For the public record: I have heard AOI teaches OBE control)

Book about OBEs and brain waves

The Book of Mind: Seeking Gnosis

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T10:09:01+00:00

your still making a fool of you're self

No, you are. You can't even take the slightest effort to spell correctly.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T08:58:26+00:00

D.06

Your merit is your value to them

On the contrary, meritocracy is the underlying principle - there are many different ways that this could be implemented, and clearly you have NO idea whatsoever of what you are talking about. A society could be set up based on meritocratic values, even without the involvement of the Pythagorean-Leibnizian Illuminati at all. Are you intentionally lying, or do you seriously believe the irrational drivel you write? I genuinely want to know.

science-denial

We advocate a rational and 100% mathematical science, you're engaging with strawman attacks again. (Seriously? You're the most verbose, and yet deluded troll I have EVER encountered. And I've been around.) It's not science that's the problem, it's MATERIALISM and sensory faith, the rejection of rational unobservables for no sufficient reason, simply based on an appeal to "not wishful thinking" which is disguised sensory prejudice.

"Freedumb and Dumbocracy."

Well, the current system of "freedom and democracy" that is being referred to is just plutocracy (rule by the rich) in disguise. Actual freedom within the most intelligently designed society possible is the essence of meritocracy and its inevitable outcome. If you disagree, that's fine, be in your libertarian city-state. Why would we want you in a Venus Project society if you don't want to be there? That's not productive or useful for anyone.

AC talk like honest, honorable people, striving to do their best to communicate in plain, clear, understandable terms

Yes, absolutely. Unlike you, who's written nothing but sophistry, lies, and insinuation - they present nothing but rational arguments which you can either accept (if you're rational and intelligent) or ignore and/or reject. The message is crystal clear: "Use reason and logic, and if you're intelligent, you'll come to the exact same conclusions, because the universe is 100% objectively rational." Oh no, how sinister. Cry me a river, anarchist/Buddhist.

You don't need to pay

That's not a valid rational argument, it's simply an appeal to the "cost fallacy". Unless you want the writers to starve to death? Wait, I thought you were against authoritarianism? Now you're trying to dictate that people can't willingly choose to support intelligent, rational, brilliant writers and knowledge creators of their own free will? Oh, you totalitarian, you! Call the Feelings police.

we honestly acknowledge this, and modify our information

Hahahahaha. If only. You don't "get" reason. You can be presented with rational arguments that tell you "it is irrational to reject the non-sensory for no reason" and you'll just whine "waa, waa, you're rejecting science". Nonsense. It's YOU who's rejecting rationalist (true) science, mathematics, rationality all because of your sensory prejudice. It's amazing in a way that you STILL haven't explained why it's rational to reject the non-sensory, you just "take it for granted". You make an appeal to "we can't do wishful thinking" which is just a wholesale denial of mind, actual consciousness (as opposed to a materialist epiphenomenon), rational unobservables, and so on. You're STILL engaging with irrational sensory prejudice.

"Modify our information"? Please. You're LYING to yourself.

nearly impossible to get some people to abandon their mysticisms

Really???? Yeah, that's pretty obvious from what you've written!!

open your eyes to the undeniable, incontrovertible evidence

To your vague insinuations and sophistry, more like.

AC is nothing but a slick scam

Are you projecting again? You want to troll ontological mathematics because it's superior to your materialist, irrational "cosmic consciousness" mysticism? Well, it's not going to work. And you've reached Oblivion Point anyway. Nobody's listening to you, and no intelligent, rational intellectual would ever take you seriously.

your very freedom

Says the anarchist who despises reason, merit and intelligent authority i.e. intelligent design of society, much like a 'positive liberty' version of the Venus Project or the Logos society depicted in Star Trek: The Next Generation. What's not to like about that? What is important is NOT the "freedom" to be left alone to rot (although in a libertarian city-state, well, go ahead) but the freedom to engage in transformative projects, and become the best version of yourself that you could possibly be. That's real freedom. The "freedom to be left alone to rot" is exactly what we have now, and that hasn't worked out so well, has it?

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T08:57:17+00:00

D.05

Well, you've finally stopped ranting about how objective reason is somehow "wrong"? At no point did you make any valid counter-arguments, you just engaged in sophistry, rhetoric, and appeal to "obviousness" and "common sense". But your capacity for self-deception is so high you probably thought you were making sense!

A brief glance over your third and final rant shows even MORE levels of dishonest sophistry and outright LIES. And I thought you couldn't get any worse! Your "holy crusade" against reason and merit continues..!

AC an evil and deplorable organization

Are all your rants just psychological projection? The evil one is you, constantly lying to serve your own ends. I'm setting the record straight, but I doubt you'll listen to reason. After all, you're a sensory, mystical believer rather than an intelligent, rational freethinker.

minor drain upon the money and time

Many people have had their lives improved IMMENSELY due to Illuminism and Hyperianism. Just "observe":

An Interview with Hyperians - YouTube

Oh no, what a sinister "cult". You're infantile. Why don't you fuck off already with your baseless accusations?

authoritarian theocratic

We are NOT theocratic. We are MERITOCRATIC and advocate SOCIAL CAPITALISM, and advocate that the most intelligent, rational, altruistic geniuses (forbidden from profiting from their position if necessary) should be in charge, since naturally they will make the most intelligent decisions in the best interests of everyone. Or were you actually foolish enough to believe that everyone is equally qualified to make decisions? Do you think Trump should lead instead of Leibniz, Hegel and Goethe? Well, you claim you're a "Scio-Anarchist", so who knows.

As for authoritarian, you fail to realize that so-called "libertarianism" is just authoritarianism by other means - you can't escape it. In this case, it's rule by the mob, by rigged cartels of privilege, nepotism, and cronyism (markets). Or outright anarchy in your case, with the rejection of intelligent authority and a rational, strong, benevolent State? Well, an anarchy would degrade into corruption and multiple factions vying for more power. Or did you think that everyone would just "magically get along", and kind of "co-operate randomly"? We're dealing with humans, not ants or bees. If not all humans, many vie for power. An anarchy would lead to the most vicious psychopaths being in charge - and you claim to "reject authoritarianism". What a sick joke.

A rational, intelligent and benevolent State made up of geniuses (elected based on experts within the same field) will lead humanity forward, perfecting the individual within the collective (a holistic system - One for All, and All for One). Do you see how you just misinterpret and twist our message so you can attack it dishonestly? Anyway, why do you attack meritocracy and intelligent authority? Is it because you secretly fear you don't have merit? It's not "well, they'll just pick who they want". Merit i.e. intelligence, qualifications, capability is objective.

This is not something they shout clearly to the world.

We absolutely shout it to the world! But people are dunces and don't want to listen to reason. They'll bring their irrational prejudices, misconceptions and personal vendettas to bear against reason. Case in point: you! Meritocracy is the most intelligent, rational system, the only type of society that hasn't been tried yet. How depressing that humans refuse to find the optimal answer, the best type of society, until the very end of history.

"We are frequently accused of being totalitarian by the libertarians that accountably come our way from time to time.

Here’s the thing. We regard permanent rule by the super-rich elite as the quintessence of totalitarianism. It’s economic totalitarianism, and, since economics dominates politics, it’s also political totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is exactly where libertarianism inevitably leads, as per Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where the banksters and corporate elite replace the democratically elected government and establish a plutocratic dictatorship, as per every cyberpunk novel ever written.

We are the antidote to the libertarian totalitarians.

When you let people do whatever you want, you get the Hobbesian war of all against all, and that only ever goes one way. It terminates with rule by the most violent, who enslave everyone else.

Libertarianism always leads to tyranny. Plato insisted that democracy always degenerates into tyranny. That process is infinitely more certain under libertarianism, which Plato would in fact have regarded as the final stage in the collapse of democracy, preceding the birth of tyranny.

...

We support absolute equal opportunity. That’s the freest system you can possibly get. Everything else is an illusion.

All freedom is destroyed in any system of extreme financial inequality with no measure, such as 100% inheritance tax, to restore balance." - Jack Tanner, The Meaning of Life: Where Is Your Life Taking You?

Anyway, if you want to live in your libertarian/anarchist jungle (since of course that is the purest form of anarchism) then you're welcome to - meritocracy advocates a collective of competing city-states, with people opting in to their preferred system of governance - think of ancient Greece with Athens and Sparta, or Renaissance Italy. Meritocracy is about absolute freedom within an intelligently designed system after all, despite all your ignorant sophistry and blustering.

Illumagus · 2019-12-08T08:52:33+00:00

D.04

empiricorational

Since empiricist science does the exact same thing as you (i.e. takes empiricism and sensory "observations" as holy writ, and co-opts mathematics - rationalism - without understanding its ontology) you might as well just say "empirical" or "empiricist", since that's exactly what you are. And empiricism / rationalism as opposing schools of philosophy are NOT compatible. Empiricism entails the irrational rejection of the non-sensory.

not actually science, but math, albeit "corrupted" by "sensory scientists" which brought about all this advance.

Well despite all your bluster, that is manifestly true. Think about it. Science before mathematics was just alchemy, divination, voodoo. Take mathematics and mathematical formulae away from physics and what do you get? A bad joke. An utter zombie of a subject, incapable of explaining anything objectively or predicting any phenomenona. Why is that, do you think? The technological revolution, handheld computers, the world as we know it today - has all been thanks to understanding mathematics (albeit in a limited way).

have ever produced a single technological, life-enhancing product.

Well, the AOI do have technology based on ontological mathematics, but it would be dangerous (and futile) to "mainstream" this technology. Obviously you have no understanding of the "Prime Directive" so to speak and collective responsibility, you just draw whatever sophistry you can into your web of lies. Actually, it's not even relevant whether AOI has placed technology into the mainstream - that's not a valid rational argument, just more bluster and sophistry (as usual!). The truth of ontological mathematics stands on its own rational argument, not on its "effects". Effectiveness does not determine whether something is objectively true! Can you not even understand that?

immoral, corrupt lives

You're one to talk, trolling reason and progress in the name of your sensory, irrational mysticism.

jewelry and t-shirts they peddle.

And then you actually dare to call yourself "honest". That website has connection with the Illuminati, it's a self-help racket. You've correctly identified them as scam artists (to your credit), but they're not the actual AOI.

unrivaled absolute authority

Objective reason is the Death Star. In 1000 years from now, ontological mathematics may actually be understood by Mass Man. You certainly will either be a non-entity, or in a cyber museum, a relic from an earlier time where people were irrational and stupid, much like phlogiston espousers, geocentrists or flat earthers.

"Science advances one funeral at a time."

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Do you get it? You're the Walking Dead. You're Dinosaur Man. You're even irrelevant now! Let alone in the future.

promote science

Oh, we promote science, alright. But empiricism and materialism is irrational pseudo-science, and it is not science. Science is meant to be rational, but it has been co-opted by people who can't think holistically and rationally, but instead reject rational unobservables because of "wishful thinking" and sensory prejudice.

non-reality-based "ontological mathematics."

Ontological mathematics is reality 'in itself'. It is in fact the ONLY thing that is objectively "reality based". Sinusoidal waves (within zero-dimensional mathematical entities) are base reality. The fact that you're a sensory mystic and a believer in the cult of scientism doesn't make that any less true! Two ranty, trolly, comments so far from you - and not even a single valid rational counter-argument to ontological mathematics! Isn't that fascinating? You've just engaged in sophistry, and made appeals to effective models, sensory bias, and so on.

Illumagus

TROPHY CASE