## Something from Nothing

What is the difference between the abstract concept of nothing versus the nothing of the mathematical ontological zero that represents the basis of reality?

This is one of the most important things, probably the most important thing of all if you want to understand what we’re trying to say and to understand reality, is the difference between abstract mathematics versus what is called ontological mathematics. Ontological means “referring to existence and the nature of being”, and so we use that term for philosophical precision, and to distinguish from ideas and mathematics which are truly “abstract”, meaning just imagined or arbitrary. This is an important concept to wrap your head around: what is real or ontological math, and what is arbitrary or imaginary math?

Do you remember the Pythagorean Equation? That equation was for calculating the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle. If you know the length of the sides of the triangle, then you can calculate the length of the hypotenuse of the triangle. This is an ontological equation. It works all the time, everywhere, and construction companies use it every day for real-world buildings and they never have to wonder if it will work correctly or not. Say someone is building a wall, but the wall needs a diagonal brace to help keep it strong. If you’re looking at the wall, the brace might go from the bottom left corner to the top right corner. That’s a diagonal, a hypotenuse, and the floor and right hand side of the wall make up the sides of the triangle. Well if you want to use a single length of lumber or steel for that diagonal, you have to know how long it is, and so you can just use the Pythagorean Equation to calculate it since you’ll already know the length and height of the wall. If some construction engineer is drawing up the plans for this wall, the worker can’t just go measure the length of the hypotenuse because the floor and sides of the wall don’t exist yet. So you calculate it ahead of time with the Pythagorean Equation, and this ontological equation will always work, because it really describes how reality works at a basic unavoidable level. The math of the Pythagorean Equation really exists, it is truly ontologically at the basis of triangular relationships in everything in nature.

So then what is abstract or imaginary math? Abstract math that doesn’t really represent reality would be, say, you losing 3 pounds in one week, and then extrapolating that loss to two more weeks ahead into the future so that you’ll have lost 9 pounds by the end of the third week. Truly wishful, imaginary thinking! Now it was totally mathematical, you used totally valid mathematics to make that prediction because you just multiplied 3 pounds by 3 weeks. But was the essence of that prediction ontological, did it really correspond to reality and take into account all of the factors that might prevent you from achieving that goal? No it wasn’t, and no it didn’t. The mathematical prediction was just imaginary, and abstract, even though the mathematical operation used to do so was perfectly valid.

So, we see that there is mathematics which truly corresponds with reality and which can never be wrong, such as the Pythagorean Equation, and we would call this “ontological” mathematics. On the other hand, there is valid mathematics but which is abstract, imaginary, and while it might work in some limited cases, like describing your weight loss for one week, the math won’t work for predicting your weight loss for the next two weeks.

Ontological mathematics can never be wrong, because it really describes the essence of reality. Abstract mathematics can be correct as far as adding and multiplying things the right way, but the results don’t necessarily correspond to what reality is actually doing or will do. This type of mathematics is what science is currently fixated upon, because most scientists haven’t yet realized that there are these two types of mathematics. They just haven’t thought about it yet. Science should orient its research methods around understanding and figuring out ontological mathematics, rather than just coming up with arbitrary equations to describe empirical data, if it truly wants to claim the position of being the method to understand reality. Illuminism seeks to understand the very basis of reality, the very fabric of existence, and its unavoidable reason for being. This difference between ontological math and abstract math therefore could not be any more important, because it is only ontological math which corresponds with fundamental reality. And so only Illuminism, not science as it currently exists, truly provides the answer as to why we’re here at all.

Here is the logical way to question the basis of reality, to distinguish between abstract nothing vs. ontological mathematical zero, and to then understand the basis of existence:

We must first realize that there has to be a basis of existence, there must be something which is the essence of existence. Whatever this something is, it has to be perfectly logical, and it has to satisfy a few basic logical requirements. So, whatever this basis is, it can’t be divided up. If you could split apart “the basis” or divide it up, then whatever you split it into would be even more basic, and so this would be a logical mistake for the thing you had believed to be the basis. So we see that the logically ultimate basis cannot be divided at all, in order to be a true logical basis. That’s one perfectly logical, totally justified requirement for whatever it is that is the basis of existence. Secondly, whatever this basis of existence is, it can’t be created nor derived from anything else. It can’t be created by something else, because if something else created it, well then whatever that “creator-thing” was would be even more basic, and so we would logically have to wonder and ask where this “creator-thing” came from. Obviously this would be another violation of whatever it is we consider as the basis. So if the basis of reality can not be created, a logical consequence is that the the basis has existed permanently.

So we have a completely logically “tight” set of requirements here, that are totally logically justified and totally rational. By definition, the basis of reality cannot be divided or split apart, and, it cannot have been created by something else. There are no assumptions being made here, but these are simple, totally justifiable logical requirements. What’s the answer to satisfy these requirements as the basis of reality?

Zero is the only possible logical answer. We have searched long and hard for other answers, we have looked for any other possible alternative that can satisfy and be as perfectly logical as required. For thousands of years, no one else has ever been able to provide a better answer, or even an answer at all.

Zero, when divided, results in zero, meaning that division didn’t have any effect on the zero. Zero can’t be split apart, because it is as small as you can possibly get. Zero is actually the infinitely small – you can’t get any smaller than zero, and so you can’t split it apart. So this perfectly satisfies the first requirement, and there is nothing else that is so logically perfect of an answer. Zero! Get it?

What about permanent existence, the logical requirement that zero can not have been created by anything else, if it is the true ultimate basis of existence? Well just what is zero? Here is the beauty between abstract and ontological mathematics. In the abstract, zero represents “nothing”. Nothing doesn’t require creation! Nothing doesn’t need to be created because it doesn’t represent anything. You don’t need to create nothing! No effort is required for zero to exist. However, logically, zero has to be “something”, because “something” has to be the logical indivisible basis of existence. Zero is the “something” that is perfectly indivisible. In the abstract, zero represents nothing, but logically, and ontologically, we also know that zero has to be the indivisible logical basis of existence, because it is the only thing that satisfies that requirement. So, is zero solely “nothing” in the abstract, or, is it “something” in fact?

The answer is that it is both! That is the amazing nature of zero. Zero is both abstractly nothing, and logically something. Zero is nothing and something united. Zero is ontological, meaning it truly exists, as the logical requirement for the basis of existence. Zero is “something” because it is the thing which is indivisible; zero is “nothing” also because it is the thing which is indivisible. Once you’ve identified the two essential logical requirements for the basis of existence, the only solution can be in uniting nothing with something, and the ontological mathematical zero is the only concept that can logically do it. There’s no way to get around this, and no other logical concept or answer which can be found.

In the abstract, doing mathematics on paper or just in our head, we calculate zeros that represent the absence of something. If you lost 5 pounds one excellent week, but then gained 5 pounds the next terrible week, your weight will have changed 0 pounds – nothing.  But what does this “nothing” refer to? It refers to pounds of fat, to something. Likewise, ontological zero is nothing because it is indivisible, and infinitely small, and it doesn’t require creation, however, it is also something because is the thing which is indivisible, and it is the thing which doesn’t require creation.

This concept might be initially upsetting for many people because of the need to reconcile what seems to be opposites into a single thing. However, there are many real-world tangible examples of things which contain and imply their opposites. Take good and evil, for example. Can we recognize good without being able to recognize evil? The concept of good “contains” evil, and the concept of evil “contains” good. Or another example of love and hate. The deepest love can and has, too many times to count, turned into the most scornful and vitriolic hate when that love gets violated with infidelity or any other number of issues. In this case, love literally turns into hate, and so, love really does seem to contain its opposite. Likewise, to hate one thing is to love its opposite. Ideas and concepts contain their opposite as a necessity of their existence, and concepts contain their opposites in any manner of examples we are intimately familiar with. That the nothing of zero is also the something of zero should become intuitively and logically obvious if you just think of how much you implicitly accept that logical reality in more tangible everyday aspects of your life. This logic, of concepts which necessarily contain their opposites, actually has a name, and is called “dialectical logic”, and was most clearly and fully developed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a philosopher of the late 18’th and early 19’th Centuries. Dialectical logic also goes by the name of Hegelian logic or the Hegelian Dialectic. Dialectical logic couldn’t be any more important because it is all about understanding and resolving the apparent contradictions of things containing their opposites, such as love and hate, good and evil, and the ontological zero’s nothing and something. The dialectic forms the very basis of the energy or movement of existence, and within the zero and its innate dialectic of something vs. nothing, it creates all of the activity of reality at the elementary level.

Mathematically, the nothing and something of zero is united and demonstrated in what is now called the “God Equation”, which you might know as Euler’s Equation:

e = cos(θ) + i*sin(θ)

This equation contains all possible numbers – positive and negative real and positive and negative imaginary numbers, and it shows that they are all balanced around zero because the average of the sin or cosine function over a wave cycle is zero.  This equation shows that zero contains everything, because “everything” balances out to zero.  And indeed we should expect this, because logically we already know that zero should contains its opposite, infinity, because zero is the infinitely small, and because dialectically, everything contains its opposite.  Zero already contains the quality of infinity because it is implicitly the infinitely small.   Zero is the perfect basis for existence because by pure logic, it contains its opposite of infinity, and there is nothing beyond infinity, and within infinity, anything can be created, as long as it all balances out to zero.  However, whatever is created has to obey Euler’s Equation because that is the only ontological equation which governs how all numbers must relate to one another.  For example, space and time exist, and you can read here how space and time perfectly obey Euler’s Equation, and how that equation explains relativity theory.  That equation is also at the heart of Quantum Mechanics, and even things like heat flow.  Once science discovers this, if science ever becomes philosophically informed, radical new discoveries and simplifications of pedagogy will ensue, and a massive transformation and Golden Age of Man will begin.

Euler’s Equation is literally the boundary condition of existence, and everything that exists can be traced back to it.  There is nothing outside of it.  It is the prototypical Ontological Equation.  It is literally the equation of your soul!  The Prime Number sequence itself is hidden somewhere within the properties of Euler’s Equation.

In summary, abstract nothing can not have the quality of existence, because if it did have such a quality, then it would have an existent quality, and any existent quality is something.  Hence, something must exist.  The only thing which can exist without requiring creation (thus not requiring a pre-existent creator), and without being divisible (thus not being reducible to something else), is the nothing represented by the ontological zero.  No effort is required to create zero.  However, zero implicitly contains its opposite, infinity, because zero means the infinitely small, and also because if one zero can exist, then it makes no difference, and there is no sufficient reason, why an infinite number of other zeros can not exist, since none of them require any effort to exist.  There is a single governing equation which describes the set of all possible numbers balancing to zero, and this is Euler’s Equation, otherwise known as the God Equation, and this equation can be found at the heart of all of fundamental physical science such as relativity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Illuminism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 28 Responses to Ontological Mathematics for the Lay Person – Part 1

1. johnmarshall says:

But zero did have to be invented. The discovery of negative numbers, or that for more complex math they were needed, it was decided that there had to be a number between the two series, and that number became zero. This was actually a world shattering discovery for science and mathematics.

2. Samm Simpson says:

Additionally, in the Torah, before the days were numbered, zero also makes an appearance. Bereshith 1:1 “In the beginning, Elohim created the heaven and the earth. The word “created” corresponds to the Hebrew verb bara – which means the creation of something from nothing.

3. “God is not a person , “it” is a self-optimizing mathematical equation that acts as a God Factory and makes Gods of all of us. You don’t have to kneel to it and worship it. You don’t have to have faith in it. It doesn’t need any prophets or holy texts. It doesn’t sentence people to hell. It doesn’t torture people or set “moral” Commandments. You can’t have a personal relationship with it. It’s pointless to pray to it. It won’t hear you and will never answer. It doesn’t bang on about “love and light” and “unconditional love”.”

Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4547-4551). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4565-4588). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

5. “What We All Are

We are uncaused, uncreated , self-solving, self-optimizing, immortal mathematical beings. That’s the way it is. Too bad if you don’t like it. Better to be on the side of the truth rather than against it. To all those who deny that we are pure mathematics, we simply say, so tell us what we are without invoking faith, revelation, mysticism, feelings, the senses or Mythos. Good luck with that.”

Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4679-4683). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

“A Word to the Unwise

To or critics, we are working from a precise, analytic, mathematical framework centred on a single, exact formula (the God Equation) that defines the whole of existence. This God Equation – the generalised Euler Formula – is the most powerful, beautiful, elegant and economic formula of mathematics. It’s at the centre of analytic mathematics and at the root of Fourier mathematics, holography, quantum mechanics and even Einstein’s theories. This is a formula of unrivalled power, comprehensiveness and integrative capacity. We are in an adamantine rational fortress. You’re not. The idea that you could out-argue us when we know exactly what we’re talking about, while: a) you do not know what we are talking about (you invariably haven’t studied our massive body of work), and, b) you don’t even know what you yourself are talking about, is simply comical. Don’t bother. You’re just making a fool of yourself.”

Hockney, Mike (2014-05-27). Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4016-4024). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

6. Samm Simpson says:

Hello Joe. I was responding to the idea of the zero and reflecting another reference point; it wasn’t a treatise of theology. Best to you!

7. Arfur Bryant says:

I can’t help thinking that the assertion of a ‘monad’ – a singularity which represents a conscious but dimensionless point which nevertheless has the ability to remember everything and is the ‘stuff’ of which the universe is made – is simply a re-iteration of what all other religions have done since Man arrived on the scene (however that happened). That is, invent something un-provable to explain what cannot otherwise be explained.

8. Except in this case it can be rationally explained, whereas all other religions have required the unexplainable via faith or mysticism.

9. Arfur Bryant says:

Arguing against a person’s belief is always somewhat fraught, Joe, but here is Hockney’s ‘rational explanation’ of ‘monads’:

[“The universe does indeed spring from nothing, but this nothing has a very precise definition: it is the mathematical zero. Nothing is not just one zero, it’s an infinite number of them. Just to be crystal clear: existence is reducible to an infinite number of zeros which are actual, real, indivisible, indestructible, immortal entities.”]

I do not find that a rational explanation; it certainly seems like faith to me.

10. That statement is a reductionist summary of a large body of work that leads up to rationally logically proving it. Some of that body of work is explained in this OP and also in the Eulerian Relativity post.

The basis of existence must be indivisible and uncreated, by logical definition. And it must have a sufficient reason for being, rather than otherwise, and there can be no limit to the conditions which justify such a basis.

11. The difference between an atheist and a believer in God is simple. The believer in God accepts the possibility of a prior nothingness. Nothingness is “all that is” minus “all that is”.

If “all that is” is represented by 1 we can illustrate this concept with the mathematical formula 1-1 = 0.

0 never changes. 0 doesn’t evolve. Nothingness then too never change states or evolve to something other than nothing.

If this 0 represents a possible state of reality, no other logical explanation can explain our existence other than something outside “all that is” interfered with 0 and introduced the very first (+) addition to it. Nothingness has to be overcome from the outside just like 0.

Denying the possibility of this “Zero state” one is free to
1) deny God,
2) go looking for something else that is infinite (time, space, etc)

Either something in our physical universe is infinite or it is not.

If it’s possible that nothing is infinite then our current existence insists that 0 had to have been overcome by the very first something being added to it. That is where God comes in.

To deny God one must logically support the notion 1-1≠0. This can be done in many ways. One way is to deny that 0 represents reality. It’s imaginary. There was never a state in our natural world that corresponds with the mathematical 0.

That is what is happening here in the first sentence.

“What is the difference between the abstract concept of nothing versus the nothing of the mathematical ontological zero that represents the basis of reality?”

Ontological 0 is not the mathematical 0 represented in 1-1. The possibility of nothingness is denied (logical hurdle one) and it seems like we’re in the clear to deny a creator.

Welcome to the shaky world of atheism.

12. To deny a creator is not to deny God. God is what we become. Existence however is permanent and uncreated, and there is no creator, or there is a creator only in so far as we are the creators, but our souls themselves are immortal and uncreated, prime-movers and first-causes. The basis of reality is not created. The basis of reality is the monad, which is an immortal uncreated indestructible soul. These are autonomous entities and no god is required to animate them.

“All that is” is not represented by 1, but by 0. Only zero can contain everything because 0 is a balance between everything.

“God is not a person , “it” is a self-optimizing mathematical equation that acts as a God Factory and makes Gods of all of us. You don’t have to kneel to it and worship it. You don’t have to have faith in it. It doesn’t need any prophets or holy texts. It doesn’t sentence people to hell. It doesn’t torture people or set “moral” Commandments. You can’t have a personal relationship with it. It’s pointless to pray to it. It won’t hear you and will never answer. It doesn’t bang on about “love and light” and “unconditional love”.”

Hockney, Mike (2014-01-05). The Mathematical Universe (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4547-4551). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

Atheists are wrong not in denying a creator (they are correct about this, there is no creator), but in denying the possibility of God. An immortal, uncreated, indivisible, free-acting entity is a Divine entity and hence a God, and this is exactly what the monad is, what our souls are. The perfection of God, however, doesn’t come at the beginning of the universe, it comes at the end, once the soul has dialectically evolved to perfection.

13. Reasoning

Most people are hopeless at reasoning.

If you believe in God , here’s a straightforward question for you – what is God made of?

Clearly, he’s not made of atoms. What, then? Clearly, he’s not made of nothing. He must be made of something and that something must be definable, i.e. it can’t be any old random, incoherent , inconsistent and unstable thing. In fact, it must be a perfect thing, an eternal thing, an absolutely stable thing. What thing is perfect, eternal and inherently stable? Well, only one thing qualifies – mathematics. God, therefore, must be made of mathematics! But, if God is made of mathematics, then it’s mathematics that’s necessary, and not God (who is in fact contingent upon mathematics). Mathematics is more important than God. Mathematics is the sine qua non. Without mathematics, nothing can exist, and all beings (monads) are mathematical, defined by mathematics, and subject to the laws and properties of mathematics. We can of course apply exactly the same reasoning to the eternal universe, and we must reach exactly the same conclusion. The universe must be made of mathematics. There is no other candidate. The idea that the universe is made of undefined chaos – a virtual vacuum or unreal wavefunction that collapses for no reason, as science claims – is ridiculous . There is a total absence of reason in how scientists understand ultimate reality. They despise reason because they are empiricists, i.e. they think their senses, experiences and experiments determine what is real and what isn’t. That’s the gospel of madness! Reason alone furnishes definitive answers. Can any scientist state what energy is, what time is, what space is, what mass is, what mind is, what consciousness is, what free will is? Science can’t explain anything at all is in any fundamental sense. Why not? Because only mathematics can define things, and science rejects the ontology of mathematics. Above all, science refuses to accept the real existence of perfect, analytic sinusoids as the ground of reality.

Hockney, Mike (2014-05-27). Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 5433-5452). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

One Mind

Many New Agers and followers of Eastern Religion aspire to One Mind, to all be part of One Mind. What, do they have some problem with their own mind? Don’t they like themselves? Why do they want to escape from themselves into a Cosmic Oneness? The game is to be yourself – a God – within a community of Gods, not to be part of some cosmic, single God or God consciousness. “God Oneness” is in fact achieved at only one point: the Omega Point, the last instant of a Cosmic Age, the point of perfect symmetry at which all monads form a single entity.

Hockney, Mike (2014-05-27). Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 5300-5304). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

14. Arfur Bryant says:

Ok, Joe,

2. If there are an infinite number of monads (immortal uncreated indestructible souls), how will they ever come together at the Omega point?

15. Excellent questions Aurfur.

The Source, the “One”

Never forget, the ultimate ontological entity – the source of all existence – is the Singularity. What is the Singularity? It’s the frequency domain defined by the generalised Euler Formula, which in turn defines the whole of ontological mathematics . The Singularity is made of countless individual singularities , each an individual frequency domain. Frequency is what constitutes mind and its operations. The Singularity is a cosmic system of unceasing vibration, conveying eternal energy and information, which are expressed internally and externally. Every individual frequency domain is a mind, a subject – a soul. The spacetime domain derived from the Singularity via Fourier mathematics is the external, objective world, subjectively experienced by souls. The Singularity is immaterial and dimensionless, hence is often regarded as “nothing”, as “void”, as “non-being”, as the “mystical Oneness”, as the source of “Oceanic feelings”, as “God in himself”. The Singularity is transcendent and immanent. Religion has never been able to define the collective Singularity and the individual singularity (the soul). Mathematics alone can accomplish this. The basic units of ontology are monads, which are composed of countless frequencies. These monads are self-contained energy/ information systems. Everything is about energy and information, and these are the quintessence of ontological mathematics. This is a mathematical universe. It’s 100% mathematical. And it’s all grounded in the mathematical Singularity. Everything starts and ends with the singularity – the dimensionless point. What could be simpler? – you take infinite points and you create a universe from them through Fourier mathematics , which can convert dimensionless frequency functions into dimensional spacetime functions. The mystery of existence is over. Math is the answer. It’s all about dimensionless and dimensional existence. Science has never accepted dimensionless existence, and religion has never explained dimensionless existence, approaching it through Mythos rather than Logos. Mathematics is about the Singularity outside space and time, and the material world inside space and time. You can’t have a material world without first having an immaterial Singularity. You can’t have 1D-lines, circles or waves without first having 0D-points. It all starts with the point – dimensionless and immaterial – “nothing”! That is the message of Leibniz’s Monadology. The “new science” must abandon the scientific method as its defining element and adopt Leibnizian mathematical rationalism.

Hockney, Mike (2014-05-27). Richard Dawkins: The Pope of Unreason (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 6919-6945). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

The monad is made of Euler’s Formula, ei*phi = cos(phi) + i*sin(phi). Euler’s formula is made up of positive and negative, real and imaginary, numbers all balancing upon zero as in the Euler Unit Circle (which also describes spacetime and derives relativity theory on an a-priori rational basis, and it is also the basis of quantum mechanics). These numbers are waves (cosines and sines) and are actually energy. Science has no explanation for what energy (which is all mass is) actually is – it has never even attempted to explain what energy is, as philosophically inept as it is. Energy is the waves of the numbers of Euler’s Formula. Numbers = energy. All numbers = Euler’s Formula. Euler’s Formula = the monad, the soul.

Monads dialectically evolve from potential to actualization in a cosmic cycle. As more and more monads reach their individual Omega Points, via a “morphic resonance” the process is accelerated for all other monads as they tune in to the Omega Point archetype as it becomes a stronger and stronger signal in the frequency domain. At some point a “hundredth monkey” phase-state-change occurs where all monads get locked into this frequency, and then the universal Omega Point across all monads is achieved. This is a state of perfect universal symmetry, a grand universal boson with nothing left to actualize or change, save for a universal fermionic operation to re-individuate all monads. This occurs in the frequency domain and so is instantaneous, and it appears to us as the hyperinflationary period of space-time expansion at the beginning of the universe.

16. Arfur Bryant says:

The math is way beyond me. Euler’s equation might seem beautiful to a mathematician but it seems to me to be an abstract pice of art which has no relevance, since it assumes one universal constant and one imaginary number. To my – admittedly materialistic – view, this is a cop-out. However I can not dismiss your views as I do not comprehend the advanced math.

I will say that the idea of the Illuminati inventing another type of God to satisfy their desire to have the only true religion smacks of conspiracy to me. The idea of a singularity being made up of countless other singularities is illogical. The idea of a dimensionless piece of energy which has a soul and a memory and will come together at the Omega Point (even though there are in infinite number of these monads) really does test my objectivity. But I can’t dismiss it, other than it just sounds far-fetched.

I also remain sceptical that this course of mankind’s progress (along with the universe’s ontological progress) should be realised now, by Mike Hockney, when there have obviously been great minds considering it for centuries. Why did the Illuminati movement not reach a pinnacle decades or even centuries ago? If the progress is toward the Omega Point, it seems strange that the current (and here I agree with Hockney) dumbing-down of mankind should have occurred in spite of what should be greater reasoining ability. I suppose I am slightly suspicious that Hockey is making money out of his books at this stage in mankind’s development…

So I wish you all the best with it. Thanks for giving me something else to think about! 🙂

Kind regards,

Arfur

17. paul says:

I have a ‘lay person’ question.can we visualize euler’s formula as a flat disc,an example being say circumference of the equator of a sphere, to an orbit and even the edge of the solar system revolving around a point such as the sun?
Paul

18. Yes sure it is kind of like that.

19. “abstract nothing can not have the quality of existence, because if it did have such a quality, then it would have an existent quality, and any existent quality is something.”

In the physical world that which lacks the property of existence cannot be said to exist. If non-existence is a property of something in existence, existence is a meaningless string of letters.

The world is made up of everything that is not nothing.

There is 1 world.

0 represents the beginning and end. It is not the center.

world – world = nothingness

Just like you cannot hold -1 apple in your hand because -1 apple lacks the quality of existence, you cannot claim 0 is the middle of the – and + worlds. One exists and the other doesn’t. This puts 0 right at the beginning and right at the end of everything in existence, not the center.

20. paul says:

I think I “get it”..joe, the ‘kind of’ thing is tricky, somewhat like mirrors,prisms, colour ‘refraction’ as goathe coined it in ‘the theory of colours’
So pure ontological mathermatics is noumena , to “see” with mind from within?….therefore ‘visualizing’ from the inside of a sphere, zero contains all numbers unlike the atheist and abrahamic veiw that states math is outside of us and god is outside of us, which is absolutly ridiculous other wise we would never even know what an apple is.

21. paul says:

Holy shit joe !!!!!!!!!!!
Somewhere between” yes sure it is kind of like that” and o.s.l’s apples “it” popped out in a string of intuitive flashes.like looking for the lost tv remote, as soon as you take a step back from looking it pops out right under your nose…I thought eurler’s formula was a wonderful thing…now I see its bueaty.
I certainly have some revision to do .., who would’ve thought math could be so exhilarating!!! The final frontier! …”Let us calculate!”

Brilliant work joe,very helpful and inspiring.

Paul.cxi

22. The beginning and end of existence can be said to be its center. Only zero can both be nothing and something hence only it can be the basis of existence, balancing + and -, represented by Euler’s Formula.

23. Exactly correct re: your noumena comment Paul. That is exactly it, all of it.

24. Awesome Paul! 🙂

25. paul says:

awsome?…mind in overdrive!,”mindgasm!”.

so, to elaborate somewhat on noumena,mathermatics and intuition…
(true story)your driving on a multilane freeway aproaching a large van in the middle lane into a large radius bend,as you pull across to the outside lane, the straight line ‘point to point’where you want to go , the van blocks your vision.all of a sudden the driver instantly becomes conciously aware of the formula’s and calculations it is doing(no,’the matrix’ does not turn into physical reality).
It’s all there!,in the subconcious mind, at times the two sides of the mind work in perfect(ing) harmony and awareness…yet in phenonenal”reality”the driver must continue in the radius of the curve to continue moving forward to that “point”..so phenonena could be generally be discribed as the ‘curve’ and ‘point to point’ as the noumena….?

26. That’s a neat way to describe it.

Indeed, mind is primary – existence is a mental phenomenon. Mind is the basis of reality, but mind is not always conscious; unconscious mind precedes conscious mind and then self aware mind. Mind Becomes self aware and then hyper aware – we all become God.

27. J Griffiths says:

Excellent page on illuminism and ontological maths keep up the good work Its hard geting the message across but your doing a great job. I find most people don’t want math to be reality after all there lives have revolved around mythos or senses. I also introduce Fibonace and the golden ratio before I hit them with 0 and infinity after all they get see the Beauty in math then. Regards Jase