Premise: “Reality is number. Number is all.” – Pythagoras
Pythagoras meant that in a Platonic sense…in fact Plato got his Platonism from the Pythagorean school, funny as that is. Basically, and simply, mathematics, i.e. number, is the unseen domain of perfect form that underlies reality. It is not a domain of reality that you can sense with your animal senses (although, it is what your animal senses, sense), rather it is a domain which you can only see with your mind, with rational reason, with consciousness, in your mind’s eye. Numbers, and the mathematics which ensue, are the hidden or “occult” domain underlying existence. It is Plato’s domain of perfect form, it is Kant’s noumenal domain, but it is knowable, not unknowable. Understanding this mathematical domain is the true source of power in the world.
This concept paradoxically comes as a horrific shock to pretty much any scientist, and in particular, most curiously, physicists. A physicist spends all of his or her time doing mathematics; figuring out the right mathematical solution to some mathematically complex problem; doing measurements to check if their mathematical solution is correct, and when they’re not, it always indicates an error of calculation was made, and so the physicist continues on to seek the correct mathematical solution. However, for some reason they are still horrified at the idea that mathematics has anything to do with, let alone be the basis of, reality.
For example, just the other day I was chatting with an astronomer at dinner, and I mentioned this idea to him, of mathematics being the basis of reality. This was his paradoxical response: “I don’t agree with that. Mathematics is only a system of logic. For example, Riemannian geometry was developed well before we had any use for it, which didn’t come until Einstein.”
I don’t understand how that was a rebuttal. It seems to me to perfectly justify the idea that mathematics forms the logical basis of reality!
Now the point on mathematical logic is a very good one. There are two basic forms or classes of logical statements: analytic, and synthetic. Synthetic logical statements are generally “observational”, such as statements about reality that are based on observation. For example, the statement that all swans are white is synthetic logic. This type of logic is not “permanent”, it is not unfalsifiable, because the moment you see a black swan then the statement is no longer true. The full term for this type of logic statement is called “a-posteriori synthetic” which basically means “after the fact (of an observation), a statement was created”.
Analytic logical statements, or “a-priori analytic” statements, are on the other hand true by definition, and are not falsifiable. They are true independent of any requirement for confirmation. For example, “all bachelors are not married” is true by definition, it is an a-priori analytic statement. Another example is 1 + 1 = 2. You might think that this is funny, but you can prove that this is true by definition:
1 + 1 = 1 + 1
Now let’s just write 1 + 1 with a new symbol that looks like 2.
Therefore 1 + 1 = 2, which means 1 + 1. All that 1 + 1 = 2 means is that 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, which is true by definition, which is not falsifiable, and which does not require confirmation, and which is true forever. From there you can generate all numbers.
In fact that’s what any mathematical statement or function looks like, and all they say is that the left hand side equals the right hand side, but simply using different symbols on either side to represent the same thing. Of course, it can get more complicated. For example, look at the Pythagorean Equation
Z2 = X2 + Y2
for the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle:
Z2 = X2 + Y2 is a little bit more complicated than 1 + 1 = 2, but it still a-priori analytic, only requiring a slightly more advanced rational intelligence to derive and define from scratch.
This puts mathematics and numbers into a very unique class of logic, and realm of existence. I can’t actually think of any other system of logic that has the size and scope that mathematics has and that stands on its own independent of human confirmation, only requiring rational understanding and discovery. The case of Riemann, and many others too of course, shows that we do not require observation to derive ontological mathematics – that is, mathematics which is the basis of reality (ontological). In fact it would be entirely safe to say that mathematics and number are the system of logic, defining the very basis of logic and rational thought itself. Mathematics is what we discover through science, and through physics – mathematics is the thing in itself, the thing we’re trying to understand when we do science. It is the mathematics of reality we are developing an understanding of, not some reality independent of the mathematical explanation; the mathematical explanation is the only thing that gives us understanding.
For example, is a proton made of matter, of some little “dirt” particles? No, in fact a proton, and all matter, is a rather ethereal convergence of energy fields of the relevant mathematical properties. The energy field of the proton can’t really be separated from the mathematics describing it – the energy of the proton is fully identified by its mathematical properties. The numbers describing its energy fields are its identification, and in so fact energy, and the numbers which “describe it”, are the same thing. Numbers are energy…that’s what they represent, because that’s what they are. We’ll come back to this shortly.
In physics, studying the fundamental nature of reality, have we ever discovered anything which is not mathematical, or which violates the logic of mathematics? Have we ever had to turn to anything other than mathematics when describing reality? It has never happened, and will never happen because the logic of numbers is the only thing that is a-priori analytic, the only permanent thing with the size and scope that an existence could base itself on and exist.
Existence from Scratch
What is the ultimate dream of any thinker? It is to derive a logical justification for the existence of existence based on pure logic. For example, Leibniz asked this question: “Why does something exist rather than nothing?” Here’s how to do it:
Can a perfectly pure and logical “nothing” have the quality of existing? Just think about that rationally: can this nothing have a quality that you could call existing? Further, if nothing did exist, then it would have to be something, because it would be that which existed. “Nothing” can not have the quality of existence because if it did, then it would be something, not nothing, because it would have a quality you could label as “existing”, which is a contradiction of the term nothing. “Nothing” can’t have any qualities. Second, if nothing does exist, it reduces to something existing, to something having the quality of existence, the thing you call “nothing”, which thus negates the possibility of non-existence.
Existence must exist because non-existence, i.e. nothing, does not exist by its own definition; further, and this ends up being the true key, “nothing” reduces to existence in any case, since if it is what exists then it is the thing which exists, and hence there would be a thing you call existing. Hence, existence exists, and the logic says that it is okay for this existence to be based on what we would label “nothing” because whatever we call “nothing” must have the property of existing, since it would have an identifiable quality. This ends up being the “key”, as we will see. There is simply no logical opportunity for a true non-existence to exist.
We must now consider that because pure logic has dictated the unavoidable necessity of existence, then within these terms of pure logic, what must exist must be intangible in the material sense. That is, we cannot specifically say that giraffes must exist, or trees, or even planets or protons. We have no way of predicting something that specific, because we’re just in the land of pure a-priori analytic logic, independent of observation. All we have justified is that something must exist, but whatever it is must be physically intangible, and not materially specific, due to the nature of the logic.
Well, what is it that science tells us that underlies all of reality? It is energy! And energy is a perfectly physically intangible abstract concept. Energy is all around us and in various forms, and you can physically identify the effects that energy has, but you can not actually directly point out the energy itself nor can you even define it in and of itself. That the fundamental basis of existence is energy, which is an abstract mental concept, goes on to demonstrate that existence is itself entirely mental, simply because it can not be, nor is it, material.
In fact, the idea of logically proving that the basis of reality is material is a contradiction in terms, because there exists no a-priori reason for why material would be logical; you’d simply need to accept that on faith, or at least on an a-posteriori synthetic basis. That is not sufficient. There is however such a reason for why a mental reality would be logical – this is the only way a mentality could exist, and it can justify itself on an a-priori analytic basis, as demonstrated; it exists by its own volition of logic requiring nothing else to create it, and in fact having always existed. There is no way to justify the existence of a material universe that creates mind, but it is entirely legitimate and logically allowable to justify a fundamentally mental existence that gives rise to the existence of matter.
Now we can take an additional line of logical questioning to determine what exactly is the nature and the properties of this thing we call energy which forms the mental, abstract basis of reality. We do this by determining what have to be the rational prerequisites for the basis of existence. We’ve already determined a little bit of that nature, but we’ll see that we can go further. The basis of existence must allow for the following properties:
- The basis must be rational. If it wasn’t rational then it wouldn’t be logical, and then it wouldn’t be knowable, ever, because it could be arbitrarily anything at any time and would never have to be consistent.
- The basis must be indivisible. If the basis of reality was divisible, then it wouldn’t be the basis of reality, because the thing it could be divided in to would be even more fundamental. Simple but pure a-priori logic.
- The basis must be uncreated. If it was created, then it wouldn’t be the basis, because the thing which created it would be even more fundamental and we would necessarily then need to ask of this creator’s properties, which must be rationally knowable given #1.
Property number 1 can perhaps be left out of that list since the existence of rationality is already implicit given that we are forming the second rational two statements, and that we have rationally lead ourselves up to them.
So, what is indivisible? And what doesn’t require creation? And what single thing shares in these two properties? Let’s consider the latter question. Whatever it is we might consider identifying as “nothing”, from the earlier discussion, doesn’t require creation, because it is nothing. “Nothing” doesn’t require creation…no force is required to create “nothing”. But remember, this was a very logical kind of nothing, a nothing which you could identify and therefore would actually have to exist. The logic simply trapped you in to something existing, even if the something is what you would identify as nothing!
Second, whatever this nothing is, it must be indivisible. You can’t take it apart any more than it is already diminished. So, what am I?
I am a mathematical concept. I am one of the great discoveries of all time. Think on it.
I am the number Zero.
You may have found it painful working through the logic of the above paragraphs…but now you should exhale a sigh of relief, of simplicity, because zero fulfills all the logical mumbo-jumbo we were discussing there. Do you know that this is how Leibniz discovered and developed calculus, was with this logical analysis? And of course you realize that this calculus went on to explain and describe basically all of reality? That should again tell you something about the mathematical and numeric basis of reality.
Zero has the rational, logical, a-priori properties required for it to be the basis of all of existence, permanently. We found the answer. It was the Pythagorean Society’s greatest secret, the occult, hidden but to the rational mind, basis of existence. Zero can’t be divided because it is the infinitely small, there’s nothing to divide, 0/2 = 0; and zero doesn’t require creation because it is “nothing”, no force is required for the existence of the number zero.
Now what other properties does zero have? Well, one basic logical property of zero is that zero equals zero, i.e. 0 = 0. Does that look familiar? Because 0 = 0 is the same thing as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2, which reduce to 0 = 0. All of mathematics actually reduces to the statement 0 = 0; therefore every single mathematical function there is, is based on zero. From the existence of zero, you can actually have anything you want, so long as the equation is balanced, which is of course a basic definition of any valid equation. So this seems to tell us that we can have any numbers we want, because all equations of logic and mathematics reduce to the truism of 0.
The next question is then: how many zeros should there be? Forty two? One hundred? 6×1066? Is there any possible sufficient logical reason to stop the counting of zeros at any particular value? That question is Leibniz’ “Principle of Sufficient Reason”, and the logical necessity is that there is no sufficient reason for there to be a fixed arbitrary number of zeros. If existence is one zero, if one zero can exist, then what stops any number of other zeros from also existing? The logical conditions that necessitated the first zero also apply to any number of other zeros also existing; the logical conditions didn’t specify any limit. Which means that the number of zeros is infinite. If you can have one zero it makes no difference to have an infinite number of them, since they’re “nothing” anyway.
Secondly, we can think of zero as being the infinitely small, the infinitely divided “limit” where there is nothing left to divide. Obviously, if you have the infinitely small, then it automatically implies the infinitely large.
Therefore, an infinite number of zeros must exist, and, each zero in an of itself logically contains the principle of infinity. And so zero automatically necessitates all numbers between zero and infinity and therefore necessitates all of mathematics, the entire field, because all of mathematics is simply about numbers and the representation of numbers, whose equations always reduce to zero. All of mathematics, and hence all of reality, which is mathematics, is based on the logical beauty of zero.
So that’s what exists, is zero, and all of the numbers that it implies, going to infinity. Numbers are the basis of reality. Reality is number. Numbers are all. How in heaven did Pythagoras already know what took two-thousand years of later logical philosophical and mathematical and scientific development to figure out? It was the most genius intuitive statement of all time by far and away, and no other statement of insight in history comes anywhere close to it. The statement was sublime.
The connection here then is that energy is number. Energy is not something separate from or merely represented by number, energy is number and number is energy. “They” are one thing. Numbers are a mental abstract concept, and recall that energy is a mental abstract concept, and they are the same thing.
Energy is what we sense of the presence and action of number; number is what we comprehend of the presence and action of energy.
So this indicates two sort of domains of reality: the number domain which is the domain of perfect form and requires rational intelligence to “sense” and act upon with the mind, which are our mental bodies; and the energy domain which is the imperfect sensory domain of “matter” which we sense and act on with our physical bodies.
The logic all converges on zero and the subsequent mathematics of number. What numbers do is quantify their own size, which is therefore the degree of energy, and zero, in and of itself, implies the ultimate boundaries of energy, which are infinite (∞), because ∞ = ∞ which is the same thing as 0 = 0.
Life from Scratch
Leibniz called these zeros, the fundamental basis units of reality, monads. The nice thing about having an infinite number of them spaced zero distance apart is that they form a plenum for reality, they can fill up a reality with no paradoxical spaces of non-existence between them. Of course this is all about calculus, and how Leibniz was lead to discover it and represent it mathematically and algebraically.
But why is some of this plenum of reality apparently alive? Why is some of it, some of these monads, self-aware, and conscious? This is the principle of mentalism, that reality is mental, and not material. We’ve already established that of course. Mentalism is the only thing which is logically justifiable because materialism can not justify itself. Materialism can not justify where matter would come from in the first place and in the second place it can not explain why matter would produce this impression of being conscious and mental. There’s no justifiable logical requirement for that! Why the heck would matter pretend, or simulate, that it is alive and mental? We simply can not come up with a logical a-priori justification for that; any “explanation” reduces to faith, such as that of emergentism.
These philosophical limitations are simply not logically acceptable, because the only way to accept them reduces to a form of faith. Whether you call it mere “acceptance” or “emergence” rather than belief doesn’t matter, it is still something you would have to accept without having a foundational logical justification. “Emergence” is a tacit admittance that science doesn’t understand how mind arises from matter, it just accepts that it happens somehow. Well, matter isn’t even matter! There’s your problem! Matter is actually energy which is actually number, and number is actually mental.
You have no way of proving that your senses actually tell you about the “material” that’s out there because all such knowledge is a-posteriori synthetic. And our understanding of matter has changed drastically over the centuries to the point today where science says that matter is truly only a sense-perception of fields of energy, which can only be described with number. So we’re already there, to the fact of mentalism, science just hasn’t caught up to its own work yet, let alone being truly philosophically informed about what it’s been doing, or being philosophically informed at all.
Mind, hence life, is an intrinsic property of zero. But now why is this? There has to be some logical reason, for the statement to be acceptable. Sure we can put it together but there must be an a-priori logical justification for having mind inherent in zero, for mentalism to be a property of zero and thus of existence. Of course that means we’re going to have to define mind, then, as well.
The answer is found in what is now called dialectical logic, enumerated and developed by another genius of history, the philosopher Hegel. Basically it says that the thing in itself contains the principle of its opposite. And that’s what we’ve been talking about the whole time now already. The concept of non-existence contained the principle of existence; non-existence reduces to existence since non-existence can not exist; the nothing that exists is the something we label as the thing existing; the ontological zero is the nothing that exists; zero automatically necessitates its opposite, infinity.
Zero has been established as the basis of existence. But zero contains its opposite, which is infinity, and so zero, the monad, must automatically undergo a resolution to become infinity. Zero exists without creation because it represents nothing and nothing doesn’t require an outside force to create it, but this nothing is something that has to exist because it self-satisfies the rational prerequisites for existence, and so zero becomes something – the thing that exists. As there is no sufficient reason to limit the degree to which something can become from nothing, then nothing, zero, becomes infinity. The action of this resolution is mind. This is what mind is. Mind is the action of zero resolving itself to infinity. This doesn’t equate to consciousness necessarily, it only equates to an action, but this action we call mind because it represents not stasis, but dynamic. It comes in various stages of monad-development with a transition from unconscious universal mind to conscious, individualized self-aware mind.
You are a Monad, you are an individual mental entity, a unique discontinuity in the mental plenum, developing via an action of resolution to become infinity. This is what you perceive as your consciousness, and it is your consciousness, and actually there’s a whole heck of a lot of unconsciousness still operating beneath that too, supporting your consciousness.
The Monad, your particular Zero, is no less than your immortal, uncreated, hence indestructible, becoming infinite, Soul. It is becoming a God. That’s what you are, you’re a mental entity, you’re a soul, and that’s what it is already called. And for God’s sake we discovered that it has a purely logical mathematical basis for proof, based on the fundamental number, zero. The resolution of zero becoming infinite is worked out along all possible paths, and hence all possible lives and lifetimes, and your monad contains a record of all these lives it has lived and previous to that the states of basic matter that it existed in.
The uniqueness of your particular monad comes from another mathematical logical justifying principle called Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and Gödel (pronounced “gurdle”) was of course another genius of history. The Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical statement which basically says that all finite systems of logic will contain statements (we can call these statements “ideas”) that are indeterminable as true or false. What this means is that there are statements, i.e. mental ideas or propositions, which are subjective, which means that their comprehension and understanding is dependent upon the mental entity considering them. This means that there are things which monads can disagree over! The completeness of mathematics contains incompleteness as a subset!
This is the source of monadic individuality, and it is the source, and logical justification for, free will. It means that monads can be independently perceiving, and thus responding, entities within the context of an otherwise infinite objective universal plenum. At the limit of an infinite system of logic do all contradictions and ambiguities become resolved, and this is the end-state of your soul, and this is being God. When the entire universe reaches its full infinite potential reflected in an infinite number of infinitely developed monads, this is then the end of a cycle, and the only option left is to explore what it is like to do it again, differently, from scratch. The infinitely resolved monads reset themselves to zero, ∞ = ∞ gets reset to 0 = 0, and this outpouring of number is the energy which generates another Big Bang.
Relativity from Scratch
Now as far as why matter has taken the particular form that it has in this iteration, is still left for discovery. Given however that String Theory is all about avoiding the dreaded zero because physics and science has never stopped to logically consider what zero is and why it’s mathematically important, and doesn’t know how to interpret infinity, then this particular theory will not be able to find such an answer. Zero is the logical basis of reality and so therefore if you reject zero, you reject the ability to ultimately find reality. There have been some reports lately about some mathematical “jewel structure” that lies at the basis of quantum theory and particle physics, and possibly this will be a more fruitful pursuit of the mathematical grand theory of everything. Well, the grand theory of everything already exists, as it has been discussed here, based on zero and pure logic, but it is just the particulars of this iteration that still need to be worked out.
Now if reality is purely mathematical and based on numbers, then we should probably try to find an equation that describes all possible numbers. If you had an equation that describes all possible numbers, that would probably mean something, it would probably have something to say about the nature of our reality system.
Such an equation is a mathematical formula discovered by another genius of history, Leonhard Euler (Euler is pronounced “oiler”). Euler’s equation is a fundamental mathematical identity (which reduces to a simpler identity), not too dissimilar from the Pythagorean Equation, that describes how all possible numbers relate to each other. The equation is thus:
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
The equation contains both real and imaginary numbers and we haven’t talked about imaginary numbers yet, however, they come out of the same sort of logical analyses of numbers that produce geometry and the Pythagorean Equation, and they have a basic definition of being multiples of the square root of negative 1. That is, i = √-1. Such imaginary numbers are just as valid as what we call real numbers, because there is no sufficient logical reason for why a particular set or regime of numbers should be preferred over any other. They all logically have to be afforded ontological status, equally; there is no logical reason to discriminate against certain numbers.
So this equation describes how all possible numbers, negative and positive and real and imaginary, relate to each other. What is this equation going to represent, what is it going to indicate the behaviour of in what we call existence? You would think it must do something pretty important since reality is based on number, since reality is number, and this equation describes the relational behaviour of all of those numbers.
So, what’s big? It has got to be something big!
Consider first though – is there any property about reality that the equation should represent? Well what do we know about reality already: reality is based on a logical action of resolution, on some type of movement. We found that reality isn’t based on any static or stasis principle, other than its objective permanent logical basis of number and mathematics based on zero, but that the basis of reality itself must be in a state of movement, in this dialectical resolution of becoming. This is not stasis, but movement. On the one hand this is identified as mind for individual monads but on the other we have an infinite objective plenum of monads that must somehow reflect movement. And this infinite plenum is the reflection of all possible numbers. Therefore if Euler’s Equation describes all possible numbers and reality is the plenum of all possible numbers, then Euler’s equation must represent something about movement. Euler’s Equation must characterize motion. Euler’s equation has two terms, and so those two terms must reflect two types of motion: real motion, cos(Θ), and imaginary motion, i*sin(Θ). Well then what are the properties of the cosine and sine functions?
The cosine and sine function have a pretty important difference in that they are out of phase of each other by a quarter of a rotation, i.e. by 90 degrees. There’s something interesting about the sine in that it is anti-symmetric about the origin, as compared to the cosine which is symmetric. The imaginary term of Euler’s Equation represents something that behaves anti-symmetrically, while the real term is something that behaves symmetrically. Let’s look at Euler’s Equation on its complex plane unit circle:
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
So we have two terms, sort of trading off with each other as a function of Θ, and the magnitude of the vector has a constant value of 1. Well a constant is certainly interesting. Time to stop leading you on.
Euler’s Equation represents motion in the monadic number plenum. Time-motion is manifested by the imaginary set of numbers while space-motion is manifested by the real set of numbers. The symmetric cosine nature of the real space numbers indicates no particular preference for movement in the real number dimension, while the anti-symmetric sine nature of the imaginary numbers indicates a different behaviour.
The Pythagorean sum of motion between the two dimensions of movement is a constant, which we call ‘c’, which has a natural mathematical unit of 1. The angle Θ can represent velocity through space, such that
Θ = π/2 * (1- v/c)
and then the cosine and and sine terms represent motion in their particular dimension. With this argument, the cosine and sine terms over a range of real-space velocity -c ≤ v ≤ c, is a range from 0 to 180 degrees, which for cosine and sine looks like this:
So for all possible ranges of space velocity, which can go symmetrically from -c to plus c, the time velocity is always limited anti-symmetrically to the positive hemisphere. Hence the arrow of time – time always marches forward, or at the most could stop.
Motion in the real dimension is an easy one, in natural units being the fraction of motion relative to the maximum possible motion, the constant c if Θ = 0, i.e.,
cos(Θ) = v/c
The maximum rate of motion you can have in the real dimension is c, but what do we call that for the imaginary, time dimension? The most amount of motion you can experience in space is ‘c’ and this is when you experience the least (zero) time, while for the time dimension, the most time you can experience is called proper time, or “τ”, when the space velocity is zero. When your space velocity is zero then you experience the maximum rate of motion in time. So then
sin(Θ) = t/τ
Now let’s put it together:
It’s all mathematical identities from here. We have Euler’s equation, and now lets take the Pythagorean sum of the two components:
cos2(Θ) + (i*(sin(Θ))2 = cos2(Θ) – sin2(Θ)
which always has a magnitude of 1 on the unit circle in complex spacetime, and so
1 = cos2(Θ) – sin2(Θ).
just to demonstrate that, and then substituting for cos and sin
1 = (v/c)2 – (t/τ)2
moving to an infinitesimal in time,
1 = (v/c)2 – (dt/dτ)2,
and then multiplying through by c2dτ2,
c2dτ2 = v2dτ2 – c2dt2
which is typically denoted as
dS2 = dX2 – c2dt2
which is the Minkowski Spacetime Metric.
Now if we take the complex congugate of Euler’s equation, then:
|eiΘ|2 = (cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)) * (cos(Θ) – i*sin(Θ))
1 = cos2(Θ) + sin2(Θ)
1 = (v/c)2 + (t/τ)2
and then rearranging for t,
t/τ = √(1 – (v/c)2)
and the usual thing is to denote
γ = 1/√(1 – (v/c)2)
t = τ/γ
which is Lorentz time dilation. Length contraction is trivially
ct = cτ/γ
l’ = L0/γ
Note however that the fundamental equation
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
is the space-time equation, and it is just as well to work on problems of space-time in that form, since that’s the fundamental form. From it you can calculate differentials and therefore derive a general relativistic theory based on Euler’s equation. Once you have that, you just consider that Euler’s Equation is found at the heart of quantum mechanics, and thus you can unite a general relativistic theory with quantum mechanics.
Religion from Scratch
So what are your options?
1. Have faith, believing in a creator God, which cares, angrily, about silly little things you might do with your body or desire for knowledge, as if this is going to ruin the whole universe, and he might send you for infinite torture in hell for infinity for arbitrary reasons. You can’t answer what this God actually is or what created it but you sure as heck need to feel guilty about yourself and ask for approval.
2. Mind doesn’t exist and is just some magical “emergent” (which is a non-term, a fancy word for “faith” that fools scientists) epiphenomenon of matter that magically creates the illusion of conscious self-awareness and free will for no real good damned explainable reason at all. Why matter should clump together and create the illusion of mind is because of “emergence”. It’s just like Brawndo: it’s what matter needs. But mind doesn’t really exist. Neither does matter for that matter but we ignore that…we just carefully maintain the cognitive dissonance for the sake of our career. Where are the laws of physics stored? Not in mathematics because that would be horrific! (for some unknown reason…) They’re just magically there…somehow independent of mathematics. Hedonism is the most that matter can ever get out of itself…stupid retarded lowest-common-denominator entertainment. Really this is the stupidest idea of all time…this is stupider than #1; it’s anti-intellectual and anti-rational in every way imaginable.
3. Mind does exist but you’re supposed to seek non-existence. You should disengage completely with life and the world because the minutest risk of suffering is such an unbearable, frightening, and horrific concept it just makes you want to hide in a monastery forever. It’s just not the way you were raised after-all! The possibility of experiencing “good” and possibly even “pleasure” or personal satisfaction or personal development is soooo not worth the slightest risk if something uncomfortable might happen while pursuing and developing those. So just shut down completely. Hide. Seek nothing.
4. Mind does exist and it has a perfectly logical and mathematical basis to prove it; you have a soul which has a basis in mental reality as a mathematical logical fact that is permanent and indestructible, which naturally develops itself into Godhood, because that’s logically what it does. You are a logically provable mathematical entity called a monad, which is an ontological zero. Rational intelligence is the mark of a highly developed and developing soul and this is something that any soul can pursue to make itself better and closer to being God. The struggle of a conscious mind and existence itself is not in “good vs. evil”, but in smart vs. stupid. Smart souls are good, stupid souls are bad. The best way to understand reality is via mathematics…and we can prove it. A religion based on logic and especially mathematics, the most logical subject of all, the Queen of the sciences.