World’s 1st Scientific Paper on Ontological Mathematics

The Trick

Here is the abstract for a new paper to be published soon on thermodynamics and Ontological Mathematics:

Abstract:  “A de Saussure light trap with multiple internal layers is numerically modeled with a thermal partial differential equation.  The internal conditions of the system become understood to depend entirely upon the mathematical boundary conditions at the layer surfaces.  It is found that the character and hence mathematical expression of the boundary conditions in the model must change depending on certain variable natural conditions in order to produce realistic behavior.  These changes must also be occurring in reality, and thus, the behaviour of a light trap may demonstrate an active noumenal mind governing the behaviour of physics.”

So, the device is a light trap and its behaviour is determined by the mathematical boundary conditions of the Fourier Transform solution to its real-time thermal equation.  So you have light, being trapped by matter, with thermal behaviour dependent upon the mathematical form of the boundary conditions in the Fourier Transform describing it, and the form of the equation changes in order to replicate realistic behaviour.

These are all of the ingredients one would expect to be involved in an Ontological Mathematical demonstration of mind operating behind the scenes.

In essence, Ontological Mathematics states that everything is governed by mathematical, noumenal mind.  Inserting mind into physical theories is said to be one of the tasks that occupies the Pythagorean Hyperborean Illuminati these days.  It’s an important one – explaining how the entire physical world is governed by mind is essential to strengthening the kind of evidence for Ontological Mathematics that will convince scientists.

You see, the laws of physics and the equations of physics don’t change – they’re static.  And so even if one did accept that mind is behind physics, it appears that this mind is dead (i.e. inactive) and a dead mind is no mind at all.  In order to detect mind in physics then you have to see that mind making a choice about the way reality should behave.  Typically, well, universally, we do not see that.  The laws of physics seem quite fixed and when said laws of physics are understood to reduce to mathematical tautologies, then they can be nothing but fixed.  It actually ends up being that there is simply no room for mind, because there is no opportunity or need for mind, as mind, to express itself: mind is something that makes choices, that makes changes, and so if you don’t see that happening in the laws of physics and their mathematics then what necessity is there to invoke mind?  There isn’t one, from an empiricist perspective, and that’s where modern science has reasonably found itself.  If modern empirical or mathematical science could have detected mind so easily, then it would be common knowledge already.  And so the problem is that if there is active mind at the basis of physics, then it has hidden itself behind a cloak of dead, static equations that don’t look or behave like mind at all.

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Therefore what you need to do is to figure out, or stumble upon, a scenario in which active mental physics, or, mother nature, is tricked into lifting her skirt, that is, is tricked into exposing itself in an active choice-making mode.  So, how do you trick nature into exposing itself in the act of making a choice about the way physics should behave?  If you can do that, then you’ve begun something new.

The Conditions

Inserting mind into physics is said to be one of the “holy grails” of Ontological Mathematical research.  Mike Hockney discusses the problem in the last several of his “God Series” books.  You see, the Pythagoreans are already quite convinced that mind is the basis of existence, and you will likewise become convinced of that too if you are rational and if you read Hockney’s philosophical-mathematical-scientific treatise.

The problem is that pure philosophy is unconvincing to empiricism – and why shouldn’t it be?  Humanity has benefited greatly from empiricism’s demand of “show me!”, as this has been the driver for all demonstrated technological innovation, and also, the dispelling of irrational myth, mysticism and bullshit.  “Show me(!) that it works, else stop babbling about it.”  “Yes I am sure that you are correct…is it useful?”  “That all sounds great…can you do anything with it?”  You can learn the ultimate secret of your own existence…but it doesn’t actually really do all that much for you in and of itself, unless you can do something with it.  What you get out of empiricism demanding “show me!” of the concepts of Ontological Mathematics and a mental existence will be a paradigm shift, a total phase change, in human existence and our power and control over nature.  Yes, it will be beyond and also including anything we’ve ever imagined in science fiction, but there will also be profound spiritual aspects to it as well and these will actually become the most important developments of all – in fact it will all become synonymous.

But in which conditions can we insert mind into the equations of physics?

We will never be able to insert, into the equations of physics, the behaviour of a single mind.  That will never happen.  A single mind is autonomous, spontaneous, and a first-cause, and this essentially means that it is unpredictable and therefore, practically random.  Yes there are some general features of all minds that could be programmed into a simulation, such as the drive and desire for more power, and other such things, but this would only be a plausible scenario that an actual particular mind might in theory take.  It wouldn’t be certain.  Yes, one could constrain the external conditions and the environment of the particular mind which would in turn, in theory, make the simulation more precise, but still, it would never be perfect and it would never be able to predict so-called “black swan events”.  In the limit that the external conditions were totally controlled then you arrive in an environment where a mind is totally enslaved and totally trapped and totally controlled and then uninteresting, negating the purpose of observing it, but you could still never totally predict the spontaneous behaviour of all particular minds in that system.  Think of the movies “The Island” and “The Truman Show“, or even “Jurassic Park“: “life finds a way”.

In fact you could categorize systems of government in this way: totalitarian systems seek to constrain the external conditions which a mind experiences and hence constrain the behaviour of the mind so that they’re predictable (usually, for the benefit of the people in control), or libertarian systems in which a mind can explore its external conditions and express itself freely in which case minds are unpredictable.  Taken to their limits, the totalitarian system is totally uniform and has no true freedom whatsoever and is totally predictable, while the libertarian system is complete anarchy and is totally unpredictable.  Obviously, neither limit is rational nor optimal and a functional system will be a balance of reasonably constrained freedom.  Perhaps that’s what history is all about – the ensemble of human minds dialectically solving the optimum system of reasonably constrained freedom.  Of course that optimum-point in the mathematical solution is not static and would be a function of the changing degree of the general expression of things like empathy, altruism, selfishness…and practically, even the rate of autism, for example.  What happens to the society, and what kind of government are you going to then get, if you make the members of society more autistic?  What if they become too empathetic?

In Ontological Mathematics terms the absolute optimal cultural/societal/governmental system is Meritocracy, but I think that there would remain a lot of room for how Merit would be judged and interpreted depending upon the state of emotional, rational, and even technological development of a society, if that society did not first have an understanding of Ontological Mathematics, as Ontological Mathematics should absolutely define how to interpret merit in the first place.

So, we can’t insert a single mind into physics to see what it does, because you can never perfectly predict what a spontaneous first cause may or may not do.  You can constrain it to make it more predictable, but it will never be perfect.  The same is true for ensembles of minds.  At best, we might be able to create a technological system that a monadic mind can link to, but at that point the system will become unpredictable as it will pursue its own interests.  This is what occurred in the movies “War Games“, “Terminator” (with its “SkyNet”), “Colossus: The Forbin Project“, and more recently in “Ex Machina“.  Perhaps we could construct a system that an advanced monadic mind could link to and communicate with us through, that we could ask questions to and things of that nature, but which didn’t also give that mind the power to take the system (and the world) over.  A modern-day Oracle!  Well…that was the basic intent in all of those movies…

The mind which we wish to insert into physics is that of the noumenal, “universal” or “consensus” mind.  This mind will be constant and will be predictable as the laws of physics are constant and the behaviour of existence generally predictable.  Traditionally as “universal” this mind would be interpreted as God, as the creator of existence and as that which created the laws of physics, etc.  Detecting that that mind exists and is secretly actively making choices about the ways that physics behaves would thus be proving the existence of God, but it probably would not be interpreted that this mind could be controlled and manipulated to produce new behaviour, if you’re thinking of that as an Omnipotent God.  Unless you believe (in the heresy?) that you are able to do such a thing to God.

In Ontological Mathematics there is no single creator God and so the mind at the basis of reality is a “consensus” construct – it’s a mental behaviour we’ve all agreed to or built together in order to produce the existence we wanted.  In this case there is no obvious reason why we wouldn’t be able to manipulate the consensus construct noumenal mind once we understood where, why, and how it was making choices.

We will not be able to find choices being made in things so fundamental like the mechanics of the diffusion equation, or the fine structure constant, the equations of gravity, etc.  The big things like that have to be totally static, or to only change imperceptibly – and some of them can’t change in any case because they’re mathematical tautologies.  The place to find choices being made are in the boundary conditions that the “big things” are bracketed by.

Anyway, the paper won’t actually have any of this sort of discussion in it, and will be for the most part purely mathematical.




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

6 Responses to World’s 1st Scientific Paper on Ontological Mathematics

  1. paul says:

    “Boundary conditions” ,as in frequency at amplitude ?

  2. Elie Saoud says:

    Read well and ReRead better my words:

    infinity is not a number,,, it is a concept and it cannot be but a dynamic one,,,
    so goes for the infinitesimally small,,,
    there is no universal suicide and there will never be one,,, if anyone believes it or in it then killing, robbing, stealing, ravaging … would be the Utmost Logical way in life because instinct would drive humanity without being judged or held accountable,,,
    if any agency or mind / human reaches ultimate knowledge it would be suicide
    this does not mean to stop knowing
    but life has a paradise, an infinite one
    where whoever wants to learn everything still finds infinite things to learn about

    the above is what my Conscious Logical Mind reached years before I met the armageddonconspiracy website and their God Series,,,

    None will Ever reach perfect knowledge
    perfect knowledge does not exit
    it is augmenting
    it is changing
    it is dynamic
    it is alive

    Science as depicted in the God Series is built upon their God Equation (Euler)
    but the true god equation is :


    where I is not a an (index) counter like that in programming, I is the self
    and any god is dead without change
    to be living, it must be in time i.e. ever changing, and this is where the +1 comes metaphorically yet ontologically in the equation,,,

    wishing 2017 be smarter than ever

  3. Lukey says:

    Hi Jo,

    Just wondering if you’ve come across this review of Hockney’s Mathematical Universe? Myself and I’m sure others would be interested to hear your thoughts on it if you don’t mind? Thanks in advance.

    Here’s the link to the review:

  4. When the reviewer writes:

    “there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason. This is basically an intuitive notion.[2] The universe could in fact be to some extent random and arbitrary”

    it indicates that he does not understand reason.

    Just as a kindergartener couldn’t criticize thermodynamics, although they might try, likewise this reviewer is not capable of comprehending and criticizing ontological mathematics, given that he either doesn’t understand or rejects reason.

    It is meaningless to criticize reason with unreason.

  5. Lukey says:

    Thanks for replying.

    I agree regarding his understanding the PRS and someone else has pointed this out to him. There are a couple of insightful responses to his review that you might find interesting. Unfortunately I’m not a mathematician hence my comments here, but I was hoping you could provide some more insight criticisms of the reviewer given your background? Here’s a list of responses you may want to look at:

    I would’ve expected someone of your calibre to already be amongst the conversation. 😉 You’ll notice Ravi and Pedro have commented there too. Hopefully if you have the time you’ll be able to respond in full, deconstructing and pointing out the holes in Smiths review.


  6. Lukey says:

    Sorry, I wrote the above comment in haste. My apologies for typos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s