Holenmerism and Nullibism: The Two Faces of the Holographic Universe

Holenmerism and Nullibism: The Two Faces of the Holographic Universe

Copyright © Dr. Thomas Stark 2018

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this 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 any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical without the express written permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

The Ontological Mathematics Foundation

Introduction

Knowledge is power, and secret knowledge is secret power. When the great Norse god Odin conjured up the spirit of a dead Sybil in order to learn the future, he was told of the coming disasters that would spell the doom of the gods. Well, would you know more? the Sybil taunted him, before revealing that Odin himself would die at Ragnarök, the cataclysmic twilight of the gods.

Odin became obsessed with avoiding his fate. He spoke to every wise person he could find: seers, sages, shamans, philosophers, prophets and kings. Two ravens – Hugin (Thought) and Munin (Memory) – brought him news from all over the world so that he always knew what was going on and would be forever ready to react. From his high throne of Hlidskialf in the tower of his gleaming palace in Asgard, he could see into all realms.

Odin would do anything for knowledge, no matter the cost, which is how he came to lose an eye at the Well of Knowledge. Mimir’s Well was located beneath Yggdrasil, the World Tree, near one of its three great roots. The water contained supreme wisdom and was akin to the Biblical Tree of Knowledge. The god Mimir was so wise because he only ever drank from the well, hence never imbibed false knowledge. When Odin wanted to drink too, a shocking price had to be paid. Mimir demanded that the great god sacrifice one of his eyes. Odin flinched for only a moment, then gouged out an eye and dropped it into the well. Only then, one-eyed, wounded and bloodied, was he allowed to dip his horn into the well and draw the water that imparted cosmic knowledge.

By sacrificing half of his physical vision, Odin was able to gain higher vision. He traded lower perception for the ability to perceive the non-physical. This brings to mind Plato’s analogy of the sun. Just as the physical sun illuminates the sensible world, the metaphysical sun illuminates the intelligible world.

If you want to transition from your lower self to your higher self, a sacrifice is demanded. Everything has a cost. The greatest things have the greatest cost. Most people will never pay the price, hence they never become great.

Another story said that Mimir, the Wise One, was beheaded by the enemies of the Asgardian gods. Odin had the head preserved – alive – and carried it around with him as his chief adviser. It provided him with the wisest counsel and also the most secret knowledge.

In order to learn the esoteric knowledge of the runes – the Norse writing system that revealed the secrets of magic – Odin sacrificed himself, to himself, on Yggdrasil. For nine days and nights he hung from the cosmic tree, his body almost fatally pierced by a spear. In that liminal state balanced between life and death, the god was able to learn what he could not in life. At the end of his ordeal, he was the master of the runes and returned to the land of the living as the greatest magician. His sacrifice had delivered the highest knowledge to him.

Jesus Christ similarly hung upon a tree, pierced by a spear. Was he too attempting to ascend to a higher state, made possible by his deathly experience?

The tale is told of Kvasir, a being born of the saliva of two competing groups of Norse gods, the Aesir and Vanir. Exceptionally wise, Kvasir traveled to many lands, teaching and spreading knowledge. However, he was murdered by two dwarfs, tired of his intelligence, by which they felt slighted and humiliated. They drained his blood and mixed it with honey, producing the Mead of Poetry. This imbued the drinker with the highest scholarship and wisdom, and became identified as the source of poetic inspiration. Odin contrived to steal the miraculous mead and drink his fill.

In all these ways, he became the wisest of gods, the most powerful god, and leader of the gods.

Where will you go to find knowledge? What price will you pay? What sacrifice will you make? Knowledge is not for the faint-hearted. The highest knowledge is only for the gods. Are you one of them, or do you shun all difficult challenges and remain bound to the earth as a rotting carcass like all the others?

=====

Are scientists wise? There are two concepts – nullibism (from the Latin nullibi, meaning nowhere) and holenmerism (from the Greek holos, whole + en, in + mere, measure, meaning the whole in every measure; the whole in every part) – that, if right, destroy scientific materialism. Scientists would be wise to study them, would they not? But science spends no time at all investigating these concepts. They are outside the paradigm of scientism, hence are ignored. Is it wise to ignore what you don’t understand, what doesn’t fit into your model? Is that not what the foolish do?

Nullibism and holenmerism are the technical means for explaining transcendence in relation to immanence. They explain holography, non-locality, entanglement, the mind-matter problem, singularities, the Big Bang, and a 100% rationalist, mathematical conception of reality.

Imagine trying to construct a theory of existence that lacked two defining, fundamental concepts of existence. Such a theory could never work. This is the case with scientism. Why then is scientism apparently successful? The success of science is a moot point. It doesn’t, and can’t, explain life, mind, the unconscious, consciousness, free will, the cause of the Big Bang, and causation in general. It can’t even define time, space, energy, mass or matter. It can’t explain their ontology and epistemology. It can’t explain how they exist at all, what existence is, and why anything should exist in the first place. In other words, from a certain perspective, scientism is a spectacular failure, and wholly non-explanatory. It’s useful, but not true, instrumental and heuristic, not analytic and definitive. It’s a kind of pseudo-knowledge, or sophistry, and all of its success comes not from science at all but from mathematics, which science regards as abstract, unreal and manmade.

Science, before it embraced mathematics, was called natural philosophy and was not regarded as any kind of agenda-setting subject. It enjoyed none of the status it has today. Metaphysics was much more admired and influential.

Mathematics is the successful part of science. Take away mathematics from science and it would instantly cease to be successful. Why has no scientist ever accounted for that stark fact? Scientists are not people of reason, they are people of the fallible, limited, unreliable human senses. Don’t you want the actual truth rather than the sensory appearance of the truth, which is no truth at all? Then follow the path of reason and logic – rationalism rather than empiricism.

The concepts of nullibism and holenmerism are, ultimately, purely mathematical, yet that’s not sufficient to prevent these two critical concepts from being dismissed by scientists because they are incompatible with scientism’s anti-mathematical ideology of materialism and empiricism.

Nullibism and holenmerism are obscure concepts with which almost all mathematicians will not be familiar. They appear in little-read theology and philosophy, yet are defining concepts with regard to explaining the relation of mind to matter. In the absence of these two foundational concepts, it’s impossible to understand what mind actually is, and how it can interact with matter.

The first person to highlight these two vital concepts in the modern age of philosophy was in fact someone that rejected both. Henry More (1614-1687) was an English philosopher of the Cambridge Platonist school that sought to bring rationalism to Christian theology, which, in the England of the time, had become entirely faith-based and scriptural (exactly as it is in today’s USA).

The Cambridge Platonists were the Protestant equivalent of the Catholic Scholastic philosophers and theologians (of whom the most famous was Saint Thomas Aquinas). Like the Scholastics, the Cambridge Platonists believed that reason and religious faith were in harmony, and that reality was not known by physical sensation alone (in contrast with the empiricist followers of scientism). Where Catholic Scholastics were closer to Aristotle than Plato, the Cambridge Platonists were closer to Plato than Aristotle, and placed a great reliance on intuiting Plato’s intelligible forms which exist transcendentally behind and beyond the material world of everyday perception. These ideal forms define matter, so the Platonists believed, and matter is unintelligible without them. The physical senses cannot reveal these forms, so the Cambridge school rejected materialism and empiricism as a reliable route to ultimate knowledge. They opposed materialistic and mechanistic ideologies, regarding them as false and atheistic.

Henry More felt compelled to combat Descartes’ philosophy. Although he admired Descartes, he believed he saw several serious errors in the Frenchman’s philosophy, and a profound danger that it would succumb to materialism and atheism, as indeed it did.

More sought to establish the existence of extended immaterial substance, in contradiction of Descartes who proposed that only material substance is extended while immaterial substance (thinking substance) is always unextended. More rejected the Cartesian dualism of unextended mind and extended matter and instead created an alternative dualism of indivisible extended mind and divisible extended matter. More wrote, It would be easier for me to attribute matter and extension to the soul, than to attribute to an immaterial thing the capacity to move and be moved by the body.

More wasn’t troubled by the interaction of material and immaterial substances but by the interaction of unextended and extended substances. For More, mind and matter both had to be extended in order to interact. This is a proto-scientific way of thinking, whereas Descartes thought in a rationalist, mathematical manner. More, like scientists, couldn’t conceive of anything unextended. This is a foundational failing of all those that think scientifically rather than mathematically, and goes to the heart of the nullibism and holenmerism debate. More wrote, It is plain that if a thing be at all it must be extended.

More contended that all being, all that exists, is spatially extended. This led him to explicitly reject the two prevailing hypotheses concerning the relationship of mind to body (namely nullibism and holenmerism).

God was usually conceived as the ultimate, infinite mind standing in a defining relation to the whole world, whereas an individual, finite mind was conceived not in relation to the whole world, but only its physical body. God was the human mind writ large and made infinite, with no limits, and the human mind God writ small and made finite, with limits.

Nullibism – the central view of Descartes – was that God (hence mind) was not in space at all, i.e. the mental domain was spatially nowhere, hence you could trawl the whole of space and never encounter God or mind. Only extended, material things could be found in space. Anything unextended was immaterial, and, according to Descartes, pure thinking substance.

We might refer to minds as conceptual entities and material bodies as perceptual entities. Concepts are mathematical entities (without matter, space and time), while percepts are mathematical entities that have been conceptually supplemented with the mathematical properties of matter, space and time (which are themselves concepts). This is achieved through the manipulation of the mathematical wave property of phase, without which there could be no space, time and matter.

Reality in itself is mental and conceptual, and those concepts that exist eternally are the eternal truths of mathematics. Only mathematical concepts exist, but some can be classified in terms of being and some in terms of becoming. The former are eternal, necessary concepts and the latter temporal, contingent concepts. How do you get the former from the latter? Through bridging concepts (because there is nothing else; concepts are the full shooting match), namely the concepts of space, time and matter. These three concepts produce a new conceptual category – percepts (objects of perception; things perceived).

Percepts are simply concepts that can be perceived, and therefore can be treated as physical things. In fact, they are reified concepts, i.e. perceivable mental entities. They are made perceivable because of the properties conferred on them by mathematical phase.

Existence is exclusively mental, but some mental things can be conceptually treated as non-mental, as physical. Matter is just a mental (mathematical) concept treated as non-mental (non-mathematical) because it is perceivable. To understand reality, that’s the central fallacy and delusion that must be overcome.

Plato, who derived most of his philosophy from Pythagoras, was incredibly close to the right answer to existence. He conceived of ultimate reality as a set of transcendent, eternal, perfect, immutable, universal Forms. This is correct, with the proviso that these Forms are 100% mathematical. As Pythagoras said, All things are numbers; number rules all. Numbers are pure Forms.

According to Plato, the Demiurge – God, we might say – took a universal clay called matter and shaped it according to the Forms, thereby producing a set of physical copies of the Forms, but inferior since they were sensible rather than intelligible, temporal rather than eternal, particular rather than universal, immaterial rather than material, and imperfect rather than perfect.

In his system, Plato had to invoke two extraneous elements: the Demiurge and matter. In ontological mathematics, the Singularity – the mathematical Cosmic Mind – is the repository of all of Plato’s mathematical Forms and can also apply them through its own inbuilt agency, i.e. the Singularity of Forms is the Demiurge. This Demiurge does not have to apply these Forms to some external thing called matter. Rather, it generates the concept of matter – which has the additional property of being a percept – from itself, by manipulating phase properties, from which it can create space, time and matter and thus perceptible, empirical, sensible things. Yet they are still nothing but concepts, generated by concepts, i.e. they are mental and intelligible, and of course fully mathematical.

Plato, incredible genius though he was, could not have been expected to turn his system of Forms into an all-embracing, all-explanatory, evolving, self-optimizing mathematical organism dealing with both Being and Becoming. The mathematics of his day was not sufficient to the task.

In Plato’s philosophy, the Being aspect of reality reflects the changeless philosophy of Parmenides, while the Becoming aspect reflects Heraclitus’s philosophy of permanent change.

It’s remarkable that Pythagoras and Plato, with their theory of numbers and forms, got so close to the answer to existence thousands of years ago. Ontological mathematics perfects their system and makes it self-contained, autonomous and all-explanatory. It thus becomes equivalent to Hegel’s Absolute and his doctrine of The truth is the whole.

If we were to name the ten philosophers that are essential to understanding existence they would be: Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant and Hegel. Then they need to be subjected to the mathematics of Euler, Gauss, Fourier and Riemann. Following that, they need to be considered in the context of the meta-mathematical claims of Wittgenstein and Gödel. When all of that is done, you get ontological mathematics and modern Illuminism. It’s all in the math. This is a strictly rationalist, idealist and mathematical worldview.

Two World Theory

Plato’s two-world theory created a sharp distinction between the sensible world and the intelligible world. The latter is invisible, non-physical, and consists of Forms, which can be apprehended, intuited or conceived only by the soul (which shares in their qualities). Plato spoke of a tripartite soul comprising a reasoning part, a spirited part, and an appetitive part. Only the reasoning part – the intellect – can apprehend the Forms. The other two parts are connected with the empirical, sensible world rather than the rational, intelligible world.

The sensible world is visible, empirical, physical, and made of material imitations of the Forms (i.e. matter stamped with Forms). It is apprehended through the body rather than the intellect, via the senses rather than reason, science and experiments rather than mathematics and proofs. The material world is therefore a conceptual illusion, an inferior sensible copy of a higher, intelligible reality. Material objects try to imitate immaterial (mental) objects. Percepts, we might say, try to imitate concepts. Percepts are concepts subjected to the corrupting concepts of matter, space and time, which make them empirical rather than rational, and conceal their conceptual, intelligible basis. Space, time and matter convert concepts that can be perceived only by the mind into concepts that can be perceived by the senses (by the body), thus creating two classes of concepts: intelligible and sensible, rational and empirical, non-sensory and sensory, mental and physical, unobservable and observable. Empirical concepts cease to be treated as concepts and are instead regarded as physical objects, as material things, as entities that exist separately from the mind and from concepts.

Accordingly, these are misinterpreted concepts. This misinterpretation – divorcing percepts (perceivable concepts) from pure concepts (mental rather than physical objects of thought) – lies at the core of a host of philosophical and scientific misunderstandings of reality. It is this misinterpretation that creates the illusion of the material universe and the false philosophy of materialism – the claim that percepts are more fundamental than concepts, and indeed are the producers of concepts. According to materialists, lifeless, mindless physical atoms produce life, mind and the ability to conceive. This is preposterous, a category mistake. The truth is that it’s living minds (monads) that use their conceptual powers to create the illusion of matter and the ability to perceive this illusion. Perception is a conceptual, mathematical process.

Form = concept. Matter (which always goes with space and time) = percept. Percepts are just empirical, sensory concepts. Think of electrons, protons, neutrons and atoms as all being instances of universal perceptual forms. They are the building blocks of the perceptual, sensible domain, but are themselves products of the mathematical, rational, intelligible domain.

Werner Heisenberg wrote, I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. This is exactly right, yet Heisenberg, being a scientific empiricist, did not understand that this means that reality is mathematical, not scientific.

Physical things are brought into contingent existence by entropy, i.e. by asymmetric phase relations. When such relations are terminated at the end of the universe, the universe returns to a state of zero entropy, i.e. a purely conceptual, intelligible, logical state – that of the Aristotelian God (matterless form; thought thinking about thought), or Hegel’s Absolute Idea, prior to its exploration of Spirit and its culmination in Absolute Spirit, which is in fact the return to the Absolute Idea (pure concept), allowing the attainment of Absolute Knowledge, which is analytic, conceptual knowledge.

A materialist universe is a universe of pure percepts. But how then, according to materialists, are concepts generated? In science, there is no link between matter (percepts) and concepts.

An idealist universe begins as a universe of pure concepts, with no percepts, i.e. it’s an exclusively intellectual, mental universe. However, concepts can generate percepts simply by furnishing the necessary concepts required for the task (namely the concepts of space, time and matter). By contrast, percepts, as understood by science (i.e. percepts which are inherently lifeless and mindless), can never under any circumstances generate concepts. You can’t get life, mind, free will and conceptual understanding out of percepts that possess none of these. Mind, life, free will and conceptual understanding are consistent only with a mental, intellectual, conceptual universe. How can you be a living mind capable of free will and consciousness if you have no conceptual capacity? That which cannot conceive cannot be free.

Intelligible Forms – i.e. concepts, based on reason and logic and expressed through mathematical waves – are the basis of everything. Eternal, necessary concepts can generate temporal, contingent concepts, both in the sense of creating temporal percepts (aka the material world) and contingent concepts that accompany such percepts and are used to explain them (as in science). All manmade languages are derived from temporal, contingent concepts. Mathematics – existence’s language – expresses eternal, necessary concepts. Everything is in fact derived from these, from the eternal basis Forms (the basis Concepts).

Teresa L. Ebert wrote, Religion, for Hegel, is a move towards the Absolute Spirit but it is bound to failure because picture-thinking prevents it from ever becoming the concept which is the only mode of ‘Absolute Knowing’. In religion, ‘reality has not as yet come to be equal to the notion or conception’ (Picture-thinking inverts the conceptual by appealing to the sensuous, the concrete empirical: the picture-thinking of religious community is not this speculative thinking; it has the content, but without its necessity…)

So, for Hegel – and he is of course right – reality can be understood only conceptually. It cannot be understood via picture thinking whether of the religious kind (emotional and mystical), or the scientific kind (sensory).

Encyclopedia Britannica says, Hegel’s system is monistic in having a single theme: what makes the universe intelligible is to see it as the eternal cyclical process whereby Absolute Spirit comes to knowledge of itself as Spirit (1) through its own thinking, (2) through nature, and (3) through finite spirits and their self-expression in history and their self-discovery – in art, in religion, and in philosophy – as one with Absolute Spirit itself.

Philosophy, for Hegel, was the highest conceptual level of thinking. It is now plain that it is in fact ontological mathematics that fulfils this role. Everything is made of mathematics. It’s not made of philosophy, which is actually just another manmade language and misinterpretation, another dialectical misstep.

Kant wrote, Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind. In fact, concepts are full, and percepts cannot exist without concepts. Reality, in the final analysis, is intelligible, not sensible. It’s conceptual, not perceptual. It is amenable to reason and logic, not to sensory observation. You can intellectually apprehend the answer to existence. You cannot observe the answer to existence with your senses. No matter if you had perfect senses, you still wouldn’t and couldn’t perceive the answer to existence. The answer to existence is a non-sensory, invisible Form. In fact, it’s a mathematical formula – Euler’s Formula.

Kant’s entire philosophy failed because he could not conceptualize the Absolute and instead declared it unknowable. Kant’s system was based on combining the conceptual and the perceptual. That was his fundamental error. Hegel saw that the only way forward was conceptual. Science, conversely, took the view that the only way forward was perceptual.

For Plato, a physical thing exists only insofar as it participates in the Forms. Forms have being. Matter does not. Matter, when it participates in a Form, has a pseudo-being. It’s a becoming. The Forms are the cause of the physical. Nothing physical could exist without them. There could be no Becoming without eternal Being. The physical world is a shadow of the world of pure Forms, a mere inferior replication, a simulacrum. Becoming can never perfectly imitate Being until the end of the universe, when Becoming converges on the Omega Point of zero entropy.

The world of Becoming is always less real – since it is temporal and contingent – than the world of Being, which is always eternal and necessary. Yet our consciousness is tied to Becoming, hence Becoming seems much more real than Being. That’s the human tragedy right there.

The Mathematical Universe

It’s essential to get something clear in your mind. To say that the universe is mathematical is to say that it is inherently conceptual. Mathematics is about concepts, about analytic entities such as numbers, shapes, functions, equations and formulae. It is explored via reason and logic. Mathematics is an intelligible and intellectual subject. Reality is made of concepts, hence can be conceptually grasped. That’s the only way to comprehend it.

To say that the universe is scientific is to say that it is inherently perceptual. Science is about percepts, about synthetic entities such as the patterns of Nature. It is explored via experiments, using the human senses and observations. It is a sensible and empirical subject. Reality is claimed to be made of percepts, hence can only be perceptually grasped. That logically means that it is not conceptual, and is unintelligible, inexplicable, irrational, and has no possible answer.

There is only one reason why science seems to work: it cheats! It invalidly uses mathematics, and thus imports rationalism, reason, logic, and concepts into it, without which it would be as anti-intellectual as any religion.

Here are the incontestable facts: 1) science is 100% useless without mathematics, and 2) mathematics has 0% dependence on science. Mathematics can completely explain the universe conceptually, rationally and logically. It does not need to call on science for anything. Science, by contrast, cannot explain the universe perceptually in any way at all. Science is just an ever-changing bunch of conjectures, hypotheses, speculations, and theories, all of which have to be expressed in mathematics to have any credibility, yet science says that mathematics isn’t real (!).

A conceptual subject such as mathematics can explain percepts by way of concepts. A perceptual subject such as science cannot explain concepts by way of percepts. Mathematics is right and science is wrong.

Science is a fraud: it is a hybrid of conceptual mathematics and perceptual science, but reality is not a hybrid of concepts and percepts. There is no concept-percept Cartesian dualism. Existence is 100% conceptual or 100% perceptual. Either all concepts can be explained by percepts, hence are just pseudo-percepts, or all percepts can be explained by concepts, hence are just pseudo-concepts.

If existence is conceptual then it is mental, idealist and rationalist. If existence is perceptual then it is physical, materialist and empiricist.

Either mathematics explains science, or science explains mathematics. Which is it? Which explains which? Which is dependent on which? Not only can science not explain mathematics, it regards mathematics as an unreal abstraction. That’s a fatal error. Nothing unreal can be relied upon to explain reality. That’s a category mistake, a flagrant abuse of reason, a total meltdown of logic. It is literally insane. It subverts objective reality and the reality principle, and renders reality inexplicable since how could any explanation of reality cite unreality?

Science is obliged to call mathematics an unreal, manmade abstraction because if this is not the case then it automatically follows that the converse is true: mathematics is real and it is science that is the unreal, manmade abstraction. That, in fact, is exactly the case. Science is humanity’s fundamental misinterpretation of reality, its pseudo version of mathematics fit for the delusional human senses.

As ontological mathematics shows, science is just pseudo-mathematics, mathematics subject to the fallacious, manmade ideology of empiricism and materialism.

Whether you like it or not, this is unquestionably an exclusively mathematical universe, and science is just a very dubious means that sensing types have invented to pretend that reality is empirical rather than rational, perceptual rather than conceptual, sensible rather than intelligible, physical rather than mental.

Science is built on a systematic and systemic error that you can build an explicable universe from percepts rather than concepts. Such a thing is a logical impossibility. Logic applies to eternal, necessary, infallible concepts, not to temporal, contingent, fallible human percepts.

Nietzsche wrote, What, ultimately, are man’s truths? Merely his irrefutable errors. Religion and science are man’s supposed irrefutable truths. But both are entirely refutable – by mathematics. Mathematics is the truth. Everything else is false.

=====

All objects are perceptual. All subjects are conceptual. A subject creates a dreamworld by generating percepts – the objects, the matter, of the dream. A subject creates percepts mathematically – conceptually – by adding the concepts of space and time. Objects under the conceptual framing of space and time become material things – physical stuff – and are perceived as external to the subject, as other.

The concepts of space and time are exactly what allow subjects to relate to objects – material things – out there. Subjects then imagine that out there is conceptually different from in here. Out there is the domain of the object while in here is the domain of the subject, yet this is an illusion since out there is just a conceptual projection of in here, not something genuinely external to it. Our dreamworlds are entirely the constructs of our minds. We might experience them as out there, but they are in fact all in here, and this demonstrated by the fact that they vanish as soon as our dream ends, i.e. they plainly had no objective reality.

Exactly the same is true of what we experience as the persistent, objective universe of matter. In this case, the objective universe is the projection of all minds, not a single mind (as with a subjective dreamworld). To be clear, when all minds working in mathematical conjunction add the concepts of space and time via the manipulation of wave phase, they create a spacetime universe full of material objects, which is then regarded as non-mind, as other. All monadic minds working together conceive of an external universe via the precise mechanism of applying the concepts of space and time to their own content. A monad’s contents are sinusoidal waves: basis thoughts, the alphabet of thought. Waves belonging to a specific energy band can be collectively projected to produce what we all experience as the universe.

The critical point is that the universe we perceive is one that we first mentally conceive. Mind creates matter, not the other way around. Matter is a mental concept. It is not a thing-in-itself, independent of mind, as Kant believed, and as science takes as a gospel fact.

As soon as you understand that matter is brought into existence via mental conception and projection, via the mathematical framing concepts of space and time, you grasp that the universe is simply our collective thought. It is absolutely not a thing with its own thing laws – the supposed laws of science. In fact, it is a mental holographic projection from a Cosmic Mind formed by all monads, and its laws are all purely conceptual, which is to say mathematical.

All percepts – observable things – are simply wavefunctions framed by space and time. Space and time are the mathematical concepts we require to make things seem out there, in the universe of otherness. This universe seems like a non-mental, external place of stuff, but, in fact, all of the stuff is purely mental and conceptual, and is just a projection of internal mental content.

We create an external projection – a universe – by conceiving of space and time! As soon as we have conceived it we can then perceive it. As soon as we do, we imagine it as something our minds are observing rather than something they have created, and which they are maintaining via their thoughts. In other words, we are subject to a spectacular perceptual delusion, whereby we see inner mental content as out there.

There is nothing out there. Everything is in here – in the Cosmic Mind (objectively), and in individual minds (subjectively). Once you comprehend that, it automatically follows that we exist in a mathematical universe of mind (a conceptual universe), not a scientific universe of matter (a perceptual universe).

This is a rational, not an empirical universe, which is exactly why it has a rational and logical answer. If it were perceptual, it couldn’t have