Akousmatikoi, Mathematikoi, or Hyperborean? Who are YOU?

In this video we outline the basic characteristics of the different levels of involvement which a person may concern themselves with Classical Illuminism, Pythagorean Illuminism, and Ontological Mathematics.

We will also briefly address the concept of *hierarchy*, and establish whether or not Illuminism should reject it.

Classical Illuminism on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/484794330121909

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

99 Responses to Akousmatikoi, Mathematikoi, or Hyperborean? Who are YOU?

  1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Mathematikoi –
    Substantially contributed to the advancement of illuminism.

    Created a great hymnal designed for our people & culture

    Created plays (Greek Tragedies) – a great playwright

    Those who decide what is “substantial” and “great” hold the levers of power, and can deny advancements in knowledge merely by denying advancement to Mathematikoi of those discovering or creating that advancement… whether it be a single person or a council. That’s the problem with concentrating authority, as it has been throughout history. Checks and balances are needed.

    Created art” (art is entirely subjective… to the point that Piss Christ was considered “art”, and was considered “great” by some).

    The immediately above plays into the incorporation of art into STEM fields to make STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math)… in my opinion, artistic endeavors, being entirely subjective, should be split off into Artematikoi (note the Latin ‘artem’ creating the portmanteau). Their pursuits do not advance humanity scientifically (except in those instances where they are illustrating some scientific concept to be more easily grasped). Thus Artematikoi could, for instance, attain Mathematikoi status by illustrating scientific concepts, but not by, for instance, creating a landscape painting.

    Likewise, those in the mathematical and scientific pursuits would be Mathematikoi, and those in technical or skilled trades would be Arsmatikoi.

  2. Kooks – enough concern “trolling”, and get with the program. Our quest is not to be petty, retarded, and vindictive with luke-warm IQ’s.

    Having no concentrated authority leaves authority to whomever takes it, which is always the worst people, as history shows.

    We are striving for Plato’s Philosopher Kings, people of true honor and nobility, and intelligence.

    Yes, a rational system of governance and culture, etc. That is indeed the ageless battle.

  3. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    In a similar vein, you’ve addressed advancement, but not demotion. People go bad sometimes; and sometimes they hide their inner rot as they advance and it is exposed at a later date. It is on this point that checks and balances are absolutely needed, as is a Bill of Rights.

  4. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Kooks – enough concern “trolling”, and get with the program.”

    It is these exact concerns which have caused every other religion to eventually devolve into a means of controlling the populace, to hinder scientific advancement, to enslave people… as I said, I’m all for a religion based upon reason, but we must use reason in getting into a religion based upon reason.

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Having no concentrated authority leaves authority to whomever takes it, which is always the worst people, as history shows.”

    Authority is granted, not taken. Even a dictator, if no one follows what they say, is unauthoritative and thus holds no power. We give them the power, either outright or tacitly. It might take awhile for the people to stand up for themselves and revoke the authority they’ve given that dictator, but they always eventually do if that dictator is abusive.

    I’m not trying to be anti-social or a troll here, I’m attempting to divert you from making the same mistakes everyone else has made.

    We’ve been sitting around, waiting for someone to make a change, not realizing that we are that someone. So make a change, not more of the same.

    It is only when one realizes that the rights of the individual reign supreme, that ‘collective rights’ are the route to fascism, that only in protecting the rights of each individual can one have a truly free society, that one can design a religion that will endure. Doing otherwise is just rehashing what has already been tried and which has failed.

  5. All noted Kooks. All well-aware of all things and much, much more.

    Untwist your panties and contribute. 🙂

  6. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    I attempted to contribute with the suggestion that Mathematikoi be sub-divided into Mathematikoi, Artematikoi and Arsmatikoi. Do you want an artist running things, someone with no scientific knowledge whatsoever? How about an entire council of artists with no scientific knowledge whatsoever? Because unless there are strict delineations, and checks and balances, that will eventually happen.

    And people being people, their nature is to push that which they know… so we’d end up with a world full of useless pursuits such as paintings of landscapes and apples in bowls, and no scientific advancement whatsoever. Then comes the dark ages, when the knowledge rot advances to where we can no longer maintain / run the machinery which grants us our advanced lifestyles, when the knowledge, the fundamental understanding of underlying physical processes, is lost. And then come the witchcraftery and sorcery and superstition. We’re advancing toward that even now, with a significant proportion of the populace believing in unphysicalities such as CAGW.

  7. Thats a lot of twisted panties.

    Yes, we don’t want the retarded things. Check. We’re there.

    Let’s just start slow. Settle in slowly.

  8. Read all the books Kooks. All of Mike Hockney.

  9. Zelator says:

    Kooks you make valid points, but are argumentative, which is your nature. I am sure Joe knows the principles at play, as does any one trying to implement a structure. There are pros and cons but no-one knows how it will play out ultimately, but using negative entropy is the way of the old gods lol.

  10. Zelator says:

    My parents used to justify me not taking risks by saying they were looking out for me, although all it was really about was that they didn’t have the balls to do what I wanted to try. Their way was their programming not mine.

  11. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    My parents let me do pretty much anything I wanted. If I crashed and burned in so doing, my dad’s catchphrase was “What did you learn?”.

    I’d jump my motorcycle off the flood control ditches going as fast as I could, I’d race through the forest at breakneck speed, I’d tunnel through snow 10 feet deep to create a tunnel system going from house to chicken coop to barn. I’d tear apart an engine and put it back together. I’d ‘borrow’ the pickup truck at age 8 to go into town to play with my friends. I’d climb to the very top of trees on branches too thin to hold my weight alone, having to distribute my weight across a few branches, then get the tree swinging and jump to another tree.

    I learned a lot. I’m actually amazed I survived. LOL

  12. Zelator says:

    We are a monad a soul. An individuation of the One prime creator. So ultimately we are all one.
    However we live our lives in this matrix as a separation, its the only way the game works. Yes we endeavour to become whole again to find our way home, but battling with others who have no other desire other than to fuck and make money will keep us here in this shit show for ever. Realise that there are some on this planet who are not for unification, they are the enemy, and want to continue the status quo, then you will understand where Joe is coming form. We are NOT all the same. Learn this.

  13. Zelator says:

    Kooks I really admire and respect you. Please understand I get what you say. I think Joe needs you and I think so too.

  14. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    By age 10, I was a good enough driver that I knew exactly how fast I could take the curve on the road into town to just barely lift two wheels of the pickup truck. My friend tried that with his dad’s truck and, not knowing the limits of his machine, ended up skidding off the road and nearly colliding with the school custodian’s house. Object lesson: Gradually increment to find the limit of your machine, then run right below that limit. Don’t just jump right in and full-throttle it.

    My friend and I tore apart an old riding lawnmower and rebuilt the engine. We took it down to the garage in town, and not having much else to do, they balanced the engine’s crankshaft counterweight better than it was from the factory, then when we got it all put back together, we installed a pull lever that used to be a choke, but we hooked it up to override the governor. Then we put taller gears in the transmission. That thing would hit 40 MPH. Had a lot of fun tearing around the town dump on that thing. We had a wagon with a really wide wheelbase that could connect to the tow bar we put on the riding mower, and we’d give kids rides in it. If you’ve never drifted on a riding mower while towing a few kids in a wagon, you definitely have to try it. LOL

  15. Zelator says:

    Actually that sounded really patronising. Apologies Kooks. I actually completely get your concerns, I had the exact same ones. I have critiqued this Hockney agenda for many many years. I fell out with Joe over it. However my take now is that idealism is the way forward. The old empirical way of materialism, really is old hat now, due to discoveries of subtle energy and radionics and scalar technology. We need a new dynamism, a new science, a fresh look at how the universe actually works, rather than these Jesuit communist hijackers of truth for malignant nefarious reasons. I don’t agree with everything in the Hockney et al portfolio, so would not put my weight behind something I believed to be untrue. So I understand your issues completely and want to reassure you I am not taking any sides here, and value your inquiry and thought process as completely valid.

  16. Zelator says:

    Kooks I love your memories. You are a legend.

  17. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Mike Hockney’s ‘The God Equation‘…

    Pg. 3 of 198:
    “Mathematics is eternal, perfect, necessary, immutable, infallible, necessary, analytic, complete and Platonic.”

    Proofreading is important… “necessary” is repeated.

    Pg. 4 of 198:
    “It’s well known scientifically that the fundamental constants of nature are astoundingly fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The universe where everything is just right for our existence is labelled the “Goldilocks” universe. Is it just right by chance or design?”

    There is another possible explanation which was not addressed… that life evolved to coexist with the fundamental constants of nature. That if those constants had been slightly different, life would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved. Thus it’s no coincidence that this universe is a “Goldilocks” universe for the life existing in it; the universe wasn’t adapted to life, life adapted to the universe. No idea if that’s actually the case, but it’s a possibility which must be addressed. That would seem to satisfy Occam’s Razor more effectively than the assumption that the universe was designed for us to pop up billions of years later.

    Pg. 4 of 198:
    ““We already have a mathematical blueprint for how to make new universes,” Harrison observed; that blueprint being our own universe.”

    But we cannot create a new universe identical to our own within our own universe without that universe either merging with or subsuming our own universe… an object of dimensionality equal to another object, when encroaching upon that other object’s space-time, will displace that other object. Hence if, as Harrison speculates, these “superior beings” which evolved in other universes created our universe, our universe would have to be of a lower dimensional order than their universe… otherwise they’d annihilate themselves in the making of our universe. Or they were somehow able to escape their own universe to create ours in empty space… but in that dark empty void beyond the reaches of a universe, the rules are different, energy density is lower and thus invariant-mass matter isn’t meta-stable… so how they were able to escape their universe and remain alive is a question unanswered, especially if they’re in a higher-dimensionality universe, where invariant-mass matter (whatever form that would take in a higher dimension) would be even less meta-stable in a lower energy density environment.

    Pg. 4 of 198:
    “Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has suggested a way to do it using a 10kg mini black hole. Its super-dense interior would be the seed that would immediately inflate, not in our universe, but in a space-time connected to our own by the ‘umbilical cord’ of the black hole. The cord would snap when the black hole ‘evaporated’ and a new baby universe would be born.”

    As I said, not in our universe, but in a new universe of lower dimensionality than ours (which implies that if our universe was created, it was created by beings in a higher-dimensionality universe). If the new universe (which would have to be 2D or lower dimensionality) was contained within the 10kg mini black hole, when that black hole evaporated, so too would that universe, the new universe comprising the mini black hole.

    Our universe being in a “false vacuum” state implies that there is at least one lower dimensional order in which a new universe could be created, but it would necessarily be a flat 2 dimensional universe (as our universe will be once all the stars extinguish, universal energy density has fallen, invariant-mass matter is no longer meta-stable and thus dehadronizes back into energy, all the black holes coalesce then evaporate, and all that remains is maximally-entropied energy).

    Pg. 5 of 198:
    “Satan, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, known to his followers as the Creator.”

    There is nothing in any historical texts which indicate that Satan is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.

    We need to get away from theistic explanations and find the truth of how the universe came about. Our relying upon ancient goat-herders and fishermen (who were handed down stories from ancient Babylon and Sumeria) for the basis of our origin story only ensures the new religion will go the way of all other religions.

    Our origin story needs its basis in science, not in theism.

    This reliance upon souls and the ancient Hebrew Bible (much of which was taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh… a Sumerian king who was posthumously deified) doesn’t bode well for the establishment of a religion based upon facts, truth, reason and scientific reality. It’s just an evolution of the old. It’ll follow the same path as the old, eventually being used to control and predate upon the populace, rather than lifting humanity up.

    If you want to make a change, make a change. Not a rehash of what was. None of that is science-based, it is all supposition, unfalsifiable, untestable.

    We may have to just admit that we don’t know how the universe began, we may never know, but we do know what we’ve discovered as regards scientific reality. and go from there.

    This could be the first religion which admits we don’t know and we may never know, what with the genesis of our universe being outside of space-time. And wouldn’t admitting that we don’t know better hew to the Scientific Method than the suppositions and mythos we see from the group using the nom de guerre of ‘Mike Hockney’?

  18. @Kooks re: pg. 4

    Yes generally that is called the Anthropic Principle…the constants of nature are such that they are that we exist. It’s actually quite silly, and is a non-explanation really.

    But more than that, it isn’t merely that different constants would produce different life. The question is: why life in the first place? Why should life be a result of ANY settings of the constants.

    Additionally, though, when you consider the fine-structure constant, it is not actually the case that these could have been different, to simply support another type of life – if these fundamental constants where different, then you’d have the result that the universe would have crunched already, or, exponentially inflated already; stars would have crunched instantly to black holes, or, they wouldn’t have been able to form at all; etc. The fundamental constants which establish that the universe can have stars which last billions of years, which can have planets, etc., these are very finely tuned, and if they were different, then there would be no universe left at all…no matter left at all, already.

    re: pg 5

    Identifying that Satan is Jehovah is done in other writings…they usually repeat the reasoning. But it’s neither here nor there, nor central…just ranting. And when they talk about it, they’re talking about it on its own terms and on moral terms, not in terms of a belief system about it which they adhere to. Indeed, we do, and they do, discard the theistic explanation approach…definitely.

    Except there must be a single true origin explanation, not merely a story, and this explanation cannot come from empirical science, but from reason, logic, and as they identify, mathematics…which is fine given that mathematics is the actual functional engine of science in any case.

    Ontological Mathematics has no reliance on souls as such. The reliance is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and mathematics which is its expression, its language. Monads, or souls, are a result of that.

    Indeed, the Abrahamic account of things is trashed repeatedly in the books.

    Ontological Mathematics is the furthest thing from a re-hash.

    “This could be the first religion which admits we don’t know and we may never know”

    No, this is the first religion which says that we can know, and shows us how, with reason, logic, and the philosophy and mathematics, explaining what mathematics is doing in empirical science anyway, etc.


    So you’re 5 pages in. Good job! How about starting with the first, say, 10 books, and read them in order, and then give us some comments. You’re commenting too early, and not comprehending the context yet, etc.

  19. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Except there must be a single true origin explanation”

    Why must there be? We’re here, we know what we’ve discovered, we have no way of empirically sensing, interpolating, reasoning or deducing what happened before space-time, thus we have no way of truly knowing how the universe originated… we cannot just invent an origin story, that’s what every other religion has done, and it’s all wholly manufactured out of thin air.

    Conversely, admitting that we don’t know, we’ll likely never know, but we do have the Scientific Method, we’ve largely figured out how the universe in its current state works, and we celebrate that knowledge while seeking new knowledge… that hews more to the Scientific Principle.

    If the reason we’re using somehow jumps to monads as the explanation, I’m afraid I’m not buying it. If these monads existed prior to the universe attaining its current state, and they continue to exist, then we should be able to sense them.

    And a plethora of monads (from the greek monas…meaning singularity, so a plethora of singularities)? That’s just moving the one big singularity of the Big Bang to a plethora of singularities spread out over space-time (before space-time existed, somehow) which expanded.

    So the group using the nom de guerre of ‘Mike Hockney’ postulates that the universe began with an unknowable number of singularities and was created from an unknowable number of “little bangs”… and you can’t see how that’s just a rehashing of the old, while tossing in that these unknowable number of singularities are also sentient and just so happened to want to create a universe for little ol’ us?

    Show me a monad, and I’ll accept it. Until then, this is just another supposition used as a basis for writing a great number of words about an anthropomorphized universe, all by a group we know not the origin of nor the motives of.

    As you can see, I have a distaste for any form of organized religion, and the reason is that they all verge from reality into some form of untestable, unfalsifiable theism because they’ve all got a motive of controlling and predating on the populace…. for power at one time, now for money.

    Even your own words already signal this:

    “create a system of mythology and legend”

    “frequency control systems”

    “Right now, it’s being used against us, to reinforce a slave mentality within us. So we’re going to hijack that and redirect it…”

    “But you see how it’s being structured here, is, it’s saying you can have it back, being a slave.”

    That’s in regard to creating hymns for the new religion using those same enslavement ‘frequency control systems’ as current religions use.

    I don’t want to be a slave to any organized religion, not even one that hijacks the enslavement processes used by current religions and redirects them in meritocratic ways.

    A religion based upon reason, based upon scientific discovery, which has as its primary function the freeing of humanity and the protection of the rights of the individual above all else? I’m all for that.

    Of course, that requires an educated, moral and responsible populace… one cannot establish a government nor a religion based upon freedom without the individual being educated, moral and responsible. The less an individual controls themselves, the more the government or a religion must control them. Anything else devolves into slavery of one form or another, as we’re seeing occur in the US and in other countries right now due to the slackening of educational standards and the loosening of morals.

  20. Joseph E Postma says:

    “Why must there be?” [a single truth]

    Because of the problem of Cartesian substance dualism.

    “We’re here, we know what we’ve discovered, we have no way of empirically sensing, interpolating, reasoning or deducing what happened before space-time, thus we have no way of truly knowing how the universe originated… we cannot just invent an origin story, that’s what every other religion has done, and it’s all wholly manufactured out of thin air.”

    Spoken like a true sensing type! 😊
    Just because we cannot empirically know something, does not mean that we cannot rationally know it. Indeed, there are many pie-in-the-sky beliefs out there. The point of the intellectual philosophical tradition is to avoid that. Indeed, we are not inventing an origin story…we are determining the single true origin story, as I have related in an earlier video re: the circling, something vs. nothing, etc.

    “Conversely, admitting that we don’t know, we’ll likely never know, but we do have the Scientific Method, we’ve largely figured out how the universe in its current state works, and we celebrate that knowledge while seeking new knowledge… that hews more to the Scientific Principle.”

    Empiricism will never know, indeed. It is good for sensing types to admit that. But that’s their problem. Things may be known through reason. Euclid did not have to empirically measure and confirm every single relation in his Elements…they came out of pure reasoned analysis. The same can be done to explain why existence exists.

    “If the reason we’re using somehow jumps to monads as the explanation, I’m afraid I’m not buying it. If these monads existed prior to the universe attaining its current state, and they continue to exist, then we should be able to sense them.”

    Pay fucking attention! I do not fn appreciate that retarded first sentence there, Kooks. As I said, monads are NOT the explanation…they are a consequence of the explanation. Please inform yourself, read the God Series from book one. In any case…you are sensing the results of the existence of monads constantly. They are what make up existence…as a consequence of what establishes their existence.

    “And a plethora of monads (from the greek monas…meaning singularity, so a plethora of singularities)? That’s just moving the one big singularity of the Big Bang to a plethora of singularities spread out over space-time (before space-time existed, somehow) which expanded.”

    It’s called “the infinity multiplier”. You can become informed on your concerns if you read the series. I don’t want to have to write them all out here in comment form because someone has questions about every single particular which has been covered in the books already. I mean…yes…good questions! This is why I said in the earlier video that we will need to condense the material, etc. In any case…it is a mental singularity…none of them take up any space.

    “So the group using the nom de guerre of ‘Mike Hockney’ postulates that the universe began with an unknowable number of singularities and was created from an unknowable number of “little bangs”…”

    Nope…that’s not what is said, at all, whatsoever. Now, because of your state of being uninformed on the matter, you straw man it. Not good form, Kooks.

    “and you can’t see how that’s just a rehashing of the old,”

    Furthering the Straw Man. You’re not on context.

    “while tossing in that these unknowable number of singularities are also sentient and just so happened to want to create a universe for little ol’ us?”

    Not FOR us. We ARE them. They are us…it is what we are.

    “Show me a monad, and I’ll accept it. Until then, this is just another supposition used as a basis for writing a great number of words about an anthropomorphized universe, all by a group we know not the origin of nor the motives of.”

    Read the books and figure it out, then. They are pretty clear what they are about. In any case…yes…one day it will be demonstrated, just like Maxwells Equations were only reasoned out first, before someone figured out how to engineer with them.

    “As you can see, I have a distaste for any form of organized religion, and the reason is that they all verge from reality into some form of untestable, unfalsifiable theism because they’ve all got a motive of controlling and predating on the populace…. for power at one time, now for money.”

    That has certainly been true of most existing religions. Please familiarize yourself with the concepts of negative liberty vs. positive liberty…discussed at length in the series.

    “Even your own words already signal this:
    “create a system of mythology and legend”
    “frequency control systems”
    “Right now, it’s being used against us, to reinforce a slave mentality within us. So we’re going to hijack that and redirect it…”
    “But you see how it’s being structured here, is, it’s saying you can have it back, being a slave.”
    That’s in regard to creating hymns for the new religion using those same enslavement ‘frequency control systems’ as current religions use.”

    You didn’t even listen, then. You’re quoting my words, but now using them out of context, either because you didn’t listen to the whole thing, or were too incensed at what you thought the words meant and got your panties too twisted, or, you’re doing it on purpose. I said: To use these control systems for good, for promoting being an autonomous master of your life, for developing yourself to better versions, etc.

    “I don’t want to be a slave to any organized religion, not even one that hijacks the enslavement processes used by current religions and redirects them in meritocratic ways.”

    You’re just being a cry baby now…and queuing still off of your own straw man you created earlier, and also taking my words out of context. You don’t want to be part of a culture that directs and promotes the populace to meritocratic ends? Yet you wish to be meritocratic? Your position is incoherent. People need help. Think beyond yourself.

    “A religion based upon reason, based upon scientific discovery, which has as its primary function the freeing of humanity and the protection of the rights of the individual above all else? I’m all for that.”

    That is what it is about, indeed. Thanks for the summary. We will have much better individual rights than we do now, but also a much better system of governance for the collective, because we do after-all live with others.

    “Of course, that requires an educated, moral and responsible populace… one cannot establish a government nor a religion based upon freedom without the individual being educated, moral and responsible. The less an individual controls themselves, the more the government or a religion must control them. Anything else devolves into slavery of one form or another, as we’re seeing occur in the US and in other countries right now due to the slackening of educational standards and the loosening of morals.”

    Absolutely. This is why we need a meritocratic state, protecting reason, and protecting the collective from the insanity of extreme individualism. Many countries, mine included, now have enforced pronoun usage for freakshow gender-identifiers, all for so-called “individual rights”. So, you can see how individual rights can exceed what is reasonable, then. Individual rights cannot always be above that of collective rights. Extreme individuals cannot rationally be justified in dictating terms to the collective, for weird and wonky things. But yes, absolutely: educated, responsible, intelligent, etc. How do you think we can get a populace like that without having a system to produce that kind of people? Right now we have the opposite of that.
    Indeed, Kooks, our system is for a higher consciousness of people. I am not even thinking about this being for the masses. It is for the rationalists…the INTJ and supporting personality types.

  21. Joseph E Postma says:

    The masses will follow along whatever the power structure is. Right now the masses go along with weird gender identity stuff because that the narrative from the power class…tv, advertising, school systems, etc.

    The masses will happily follow along as if nothing has changed when the power structure leadership changes to meritocracy and becoming…every body will think it’s totally normal and has always been the case that we strive to better ourselves and be our best versions, and valuing reason, truth, and beauty, above all.

  22. CD Marshall says:

    One thing I know is you leave religion alone; it is a personal experience. More wars have been fought over religion than anything else, I think. As long as they aren’t bothering you (as in killing you or harming you) leave it be.

  23. Kooks I’d really like you to read books 1-10. Or the entire God Series, actually. Please read it all. It’s not a haphazard piece of work.

    It puts attention to detail on philosophical matters to even a much greater extent than you do engineering concerns. The way you pay extreme attention to engineering matters, they do to a much greater extent with idealism, philosophy, science, religion, politics, etc.

    You are the person I was referring to when I told them that we just need a basic demonstration of the new approach of ontological mathematical physics, and then we can run with it. I get it, and there’s nothing wrong with that: you need to see it. Show me it work. We’ll get that for you kooks.

  24. Bad example re: Maxwell’s equations….these were indeed the result of experimentation.

    Better example would be Dirac discovering the antielectron purely via mathematical solution for it. The antielectron was discovered in the math! Then it was experimentally confirmed.

    That’s what we will do with the monad.

  25. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks wrote:
    “So the group using the nom de guerre of ‘Mike Hockney’ postulates that the universe began with an unknowable number of singularities and was created from an unknowable number of “little bangs”…”

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Nope…that’s not what is said, at all, whatsoever.”

    “Mike Hockney” wrote:
    An infinite collection of mathematical points with unique coordinates is nothing other than a perfect Cartesian arena, except this is cosmological and ontological rather than an abstract set of Cartesian axes drawn on a piece of paper in a school exercise book. God looked upon the Cartesian grid – extending infinitely in all directions – and saw that it was good. He now had the ideal mathematical framework in which to work. He allowed the monads to release the energy locked inside them, and instantaneously it flooded out into the Cartesian arena – in the Creation event known as the Big Bang! Every single point in infinite space exploded. The Big Bang wasn’t about the explosion of one point; it was about the explosion of ALL points.

    “Initially, all monads were perfectly symmetrical; indistinguishable from each other. To make anything happen, symmetry must be broken and “individuation” must take place i.e. things have to become unique. ”

    “We are living beings precisely because our soul is one of the dimensionless mathematical monads that comprise existence.”

    “Each monad is an eternal, indestructible information system, but because it’s a subject rather than an object, it’s an experiencing system – a life form, a SOUL. ”

    “The universe is simply one vast, evolving information organism, becoming more and more informationally perfect all the time, until it reaches divine informational perfection. ”

    That’s exactly what it says, Joe.

    Space-time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. There was no “infinite Cartesian arena”, no “infinite collection of mathematical points with unique coordinates“, so there couldn’t have been an “explosion at ALL points”.

    The timeline as best science can suss it:

    Gravitational singularity (singular, not multiple)

    The Planck Epoch: during which time began. The four fundamental interactions are symmetrized in this epoch, unified into one fundamental force. We know this because at high enough energy densities, we can reunify some of those forces (we can’t attain a high enough energy density to reunify them all).

    Grand Unification Epoch: during which gravitational force begins symmetry-breaking from the unified fundamental force (not exactly a fundamental force… it’s more a warpage of the geodesics of space-time and thus a differential of gravitational potential due to energy density differential at this point).

    Inflationary Epoch: triggered by the symmetry breaking of the strong nuclear force; rapid inflation and a quark-gluon plasma.

    Electroweak Epoch: W and Z bosons and Higgs boson symmetry break from the unified fundamental force. This is the first epoch during which invariant-mass particles can possibly be created. Before this epoch, it is nothing but energy.

    Quark Epoch: as the universe cools below 10 quadrillion degrees, electrons, quarks and neutrinos are created in large numbers. The four fundamental interactions assume their current form. Quarks and antiquarks annihilate, but due to baryogenesis, a larger number of quarks than antiquarks are left over.

    Hadron Epoch: the universe cools below a trillion degrees. Quarks hadronize into protons and neutrons. Electrons colliding with protons to form neutrons emit neutrinos. Some neutrons and neutrinos recombine into proton-electron pairs.

    Lepton Epoch: After the majority of hadrons and antihadrons annihilate, leptons and antileptons dominate the mass of the universe. As electrons and positrons collide, photons are emitted, and those create electron-positron pairs.

    Nucleosynthesis: the temperature of the universe falls below a billion degrees. Atomic nuclei form as protons and neutrons combine. It is most energetically favorable to create the simplest atoms, so hydrogen dominates the created atoms, with helium and lithium also produced in more energetic collisions.

    Photon Epoch: As the universe cools, it is filled with a plasma of atomic nuclei and electrons. This is a long period of cooling. The universe is opaque to photons at this point.

    Recombination / Decoupling: As the universe falls below 3000 degrees and its density continues to fall as it expands, ionized hydrogen, helium and lithium capture electrons (recombination). The universe becomes transparent to photons, making this the earliest epoch observable today. The photons in the universe which have up till this time been interacting with electrons and protons in an opaque photon-baryon fluid are now free to transit the universe (known as “decoupling”). By the end of this period, the universe consists of ~75% hydrogen, ~25% helium and trace amounts of lithium.

    Dark Era: the period after the formation of hydrogen, but before the first stars are formed. Although photons existed prior to this, the universe had been opaque. In this era, photons exist and are free to transit the universe, but most have interacted with matter, and there are no stars, so few photons being emitted. The universe remains in this state for nearly 1.5 million years.

    Reionization: the first stars form in the form of quasars. The intense radiation they emit very nearly turns the universe back into an ionized soup of hydrogen and helium (nearly taking it back to the Photon Epoch), but it continues expanding and cooling as those supermassive quasars burn out.

    Star and galaxy formation: gravitational acceleration amplifies the slight irregularities in the density of the primordial gas, that gas gravitationally compresses into stars. These second-generation stars are supermassive, metal deficient monsters who burn through their fuel pretty quickly and go supernova, generating the heavier atoms of the Periodic Table. It is that matter which forms the galaxies of today. These second-generation stars form blackholes around which galaxies form.

    Our solar system formation: ~8.5 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system begins forming. Our sun is a late-generation star formed of the debris from the monster second-generation stars. It is a metal-rich and smaller star, thus it burns slower than first and second generation stars.

    If you believe that an infinite number of sentient singularities somehow differentiated to create a sentient universe specifically for humans to come about right at the end of that 13.7 billion year journey because apparently these souls wanted to walk around in meatsacks, then you’re anthropomorphizing and ideating. There is no evidence of these infinite number of sentient “soul” singularities, there is no evidence that the universe is sentient, whereas we have much more evidence of the timeline outlined above.

  26. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Just what monads are we talking about?

    The Leibniz monads of Monadology from 1696, a modification of Islamic Asharite Occasionalism from the 9th century, which states that there isn’t necessarily a link between cause and effect, which states that reality and matter are inefficient as regards causes of events (because Leibniz claims that matter isn’t real, it is only perceived, an illusion) and thus all events must be caused directly by God, said God being a “simple substance” according to Liebniz, said monads being God’s thoughts, expressing themselves as God’s will?

    The same Islamic Asharite Occasionalism which states that cotton doesn’t burn because it’s exposed to flame, but because it is the Islamic God’s will that it burn? That denying this robs the Islamic God of his agency? Is that our foundation?

    The Leibniz monads with three tiers:

    1) The entelechies or ‘created monads’

    2) the entelechies or souls or monads with perception and memory

    3) spirits or rational souls

    Those monads? Or a modern variation of same?

    Even updated in modern garb, this is spiritualism from long ago. This is even worse than the warmists still believing in the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791 to bolster their ridiculous CAGW hypothesis.

    I refuse to take a step backward toward the superstition of the ancients. Most especially to form a new religion that’s supposed to have as its foundation reason and scientific truth. Most especially to the “scientific” theology of Islam.

    I suggest, before we jump feet-first into this, that we discover first who the group is who posed as “Mike Hockney”, why they wrote what they wrote, whether they actually believe it and live it, and what evidence they have that any of what they state represents in any way, shape or form testable, falsifiable, scientific reality that can be mathematically represented without flight-of-fancy anthropomorphization, spiritualism and conflation.

    Because what I’ve seen thus far seems to me to be a step backward, not forward… a descent into superstition and spirituality.

  27. ashemann says:

    I haven’t got time to get into all this stuff at 63, but i have said here quite a few times over the years that there is a ”presence” among us, you cant see it you cant touch it you cant smell it, but it’s there.

  28. Zelator says:

    Ashemann, what you refer to is the Matrix. The ether the space between all the stuff, all the empty space between matter, it is the ether, the formless substrate, the quintessence, the fifth element. It is the world that has been pulled over our eyes. Unfortunately no one can be told what the matrix is,
    you have to see and discover it for yourself. This is Gnosis. This is knowledge, the ether is neither good nor bad, but ignorance of its existence has caused us to become enslaved by those who know of its existence and how to manipulate it.

    We are part of the ether just as everything else is, but having consciousness allows us to manipulate it, whilst in material form, in order to bring form from the frequency domain to the material domain by thought, subtle sound vibration so subtle that it is soundless to our senses, but it exists and is what creates the world in which we live.

    We are born Creators, that is why we are so important in the universe, we can manipulate the ether to produce things, and manipulate the laws of thermodynamics. This is why in the Movie the Matrix, we are portrayed as batteries being harvested.

  29. Zelator says:

    Kooks here is the full list of the God Series Books by Mike Hockney, in the recommended reading order. Note book 24 “The Science of Monads”.
    You will find your answer to “what are monads” in here in a deeper way, but it is discussed throughout the series, and is why it is better to read the series in order. Once you get past the first 7 you should already notice you are thinking in a different way. This is deliberate.

    For a summation of book 24 here is a clip from said book for your information:

    “If a scientific materialist were asked to sum up his belief system, he might reflect exactly what Richard Feynman, a pope of science, said: “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms – little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.”

    Scientific materialism isn’t the only type of science. Leibniz, the great German genius, was a champion of scientific idealism. The atoms in his system weren’t physical, but mental, and he named them monads. To counter Feynman’s position, a present-day Leibniz might say, “All things are made from mental atoms, which are simple mathematical substances from which all compounds are mathematically derived via the laws of ontological mathematics. Monads are expressed through constant motion, and that mental motion is what we call thinking. Pure thinking takes place in an immaterial, mathematical frequency domain outside space and time. By virtue of Fourier mathematics, frequency functions can be represented in a spacetime domain, and this domain is what is known as the physical world of matter. It is not ‘physical’ in any true sense. It’s just a certain mode of mental functionality. There is no such thing as scientific matter. There is only mind.
    A mind is a monad, and monads are all there are. Everything is an expression of monadic, mental mathematics.”

    Well, who’s right between Feynman and the modern Leibniz? Both are scientists, but Feynman is a materialist who believes in material atoms in spacetime as the basis of our reality, while the modern Leibniz is an idealist who posits mental, mathematical atoms in an immaterial frequency domain as the ground of existence. Feynman is an empiricist who believes in sensory experiments as the source of reliable evidence, while the modern Leibniz is a rationalist who advocates mathematical reason as the source of provable Truth. These are two wholly opposed worldviews, at war with each other.

    Scientific materialists imagine themselves clear thinkers opposed to believers in silly Mythos religions, but those are not their real enemies. Their true opponents are mathematical rationalists who advocate reason and intellect over the senses and experience. The Truths of reality are not sensory, contingent, empirical “truths” of fact. They are non-sensory, eternal, necessary, non-empirical truths of reason. Only one subject can capture the eternal truths of reason: ontological mathematics. Scientific materialism won’t help you one jot”.

                                            https://files.catbox.moe/t4bpmg.gif
    

    To look at this from field theory which is compatible with ontological maths, you would say that the atoms are frequencies in the frequency domain and the field is the ether. The ontological wavelength and frequency causes a particular perturbation in the field thus producing matter. Every frequency and wavelength has its own signature on the other side of the ether i.e the material plane.

    Therefore the vibration ( atomic mass number) or the ontological signature gives matter its form. This is how cymatics works.

    Cymatics are one of the most direct ways to see how matter responds to invisible vibration; while indicating the role frequencies can play in telling raw matter which shape to take.

    The God Series Books by Mike Hockney:

        The God Series Book 1 - The God Game.pdf    
    

    [ ] The God Series Book 2 – The God Factory.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 3 – The Last Man Who Knew Everything.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 4 – Hyperreality.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 5 – The God Blunder.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 6 – The God Equation.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 7 – The God Secret.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 8 – Hyperreason.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 9 – The Noosphere.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 10 – The Omega Point.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 11 – Hyper-Humanity.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 12 – All the Rest is Propaganda.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 13 – World, Overworld, Underworld, Dreamworld.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 14 – The Mathematical Universe.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 15 – The Mathmos.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 16 – Richard Dawkins, the Pope of Unreason.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 17 – Free Will and Will to Power.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 18 – Why Math Must Replace Science.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 19 – Mind and Life, Form and Content.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 20 – Magic Matter and Qualia.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 21 – Causation and the Principle of Sufficient Reason.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 22 – The Sam Harris Delusion.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 23 – Black Holes Are Souls.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 24 – The Science of Monads.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 25 – Transcendental Mathematics.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 26 – The Forbidden History of Science.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 27 – Psychophysics.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 28 – The War of the Ghosts and Machines.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 29 – Godel Versus Wittgenstein.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 30 – The Holographic Soul.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 31 – Science’s War on Reason.pdf
    [ ] The God Series Book 32 – How to Create the Universe.pdf

  30. Kooks, this is why you need to read from book 1. Actually, the God Equation book is good too, but, it does assume some background knowledge in how the theory has been developed, which you lack since you’re starting there. That description you quote is a mix of metaphor and ontological mathematics…but without the background I can understand that you perceive that this is merely being stated as something which you are supposed to assume or take at word-value. It is not. It has been previously developed, and it is assumed that you would understand the metaphor being expressed.

    I thought the God Equation would be a good start for you. Are you actually reading it? Read the whole thing. But like Z said, read the first 10 books, at least. If you’re too old for it, then PLEASE, do not comment about it then if you’re not going to engage with it on its own terms, because this is the same as climate kooks talking about thermodynamics they know nothing about it. If you are too old for it, then please, be too old for it and leave it, otherwise, inform yourself by reading the series. Z listed the order…but I think that Amazon will list the God Series in order too. Also read the related author series by Michael Faust…it’s quite good too.

    “The timeline as best science can suss it:

    Gravitational singularity (singular, not multiple)

    etc. etc.”

    The question is, which science can never answer: WHY the gravitational singularity in the first place – where did it come from, why should it exist, what are its properties, can there be others, does it have a purpose, where will it end, what happens then, etc etc etc.

    Kooks, if you do not want to have your sensing bias challenged, then don’t. Stay away from it. Are you too old for a new challenge? Too set in your ways? I get it…you’re old. But you’re not too old, are you…your mind is young. Forget your body. Go with your mind. I was hoping that this comment would garner some respect and interest for you:

    “It puts attention to detail on philosophical matters to even a much greater extent than you do engineering concerns. The way you pay extreme attention to engineering matters, they do to a much greater extent with idealism, philosophy, science, religion, politics, etc.”

    Would I lead you somewhere stupid? Would I give you something to waste your time about? Trust me. Otherwise, leave it for others then. No worries.

  31. Richard says:

    Test

  32. “I suggest, before we jump feet-first into this, that we discover first who the group is who posed as “Mike Hockney”, why they wrote what they wrote, whether they actually believe it and live it, and what evidence they have that any of what they state represents in any way, shape or form testable, falsifiable, scientific reality that can be mathematically represented without flight-of-fancy anthropomorphization, spiritualism and conflation.”

    And we’ve been doing that. Z has done that. A few others have. I have. Although, we don’t know who exactly it is…but this is fine, as I can read the content and suss it without having to personally know the author.

    And so, how are you going to do that without reading what they wrote? If you try to do that without reading what they wrote, then this is no different from climate kooks talking about thermodynamics.

    They address your concerns in the comment from the quote above. It is not about assuming God, or souls, or spirits, or anything like that. It is truly all about mathematics. But then afterwards, you may use metaphor and pre-existing concepts to elucidate what has coincidentally been said before which seems quite similar. In the end though, they always make it quite clear that these so-called spiritual systems are always predicated on something you have to have faith in. Ontological Mathematics completely dispenses with faith or pre-assumed concepts.

    Please read the books. If you’re not going to, and cannot address them on their own terms, then truly you have no place to comment on them, just as climate kooks have no place to comment on thermodynamics.

  33. Ahh…that was asheman referencing his age….not kooks. In any case…

    “you cant see it you cant touch it you cant smell it, but it’s there”

    Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: the greatest allegory in history.

  34. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    See, I’m not just a skeptic of CAGW… I’m a skeptic of everything and everyone. Everything should be investigated to determine whether it reflects reality, whether it can be tested, falsified, mathematically modeled. Everyone is pushing their own ulterior agenda and are thus suspect.

    So when someone tells me, “Just read this book or series of books which contain ‘special information’! It fully corroborates everything I state!“, that makes me especially suspicious, to I do the exact opposite, I investigate further outside those references.

    And what I’ve found about this Monadism is that it attempts to divorce mind from physical reality, that it attempts to divorce causality from physical reality, that it attempts to ascribe to the mind a sentient “soul” known as a ‘monad’, and that it is these monads which created and which ‘steer’ reality to produce any outcomes because they are really “God’s thoughts” and thus “God’s will”. That is was borne of Islamic Asharite Occasionalism, an ancient Islamic “scientific” theology, wrapped in modern verbiage and shoved out to a gullible and eagerly-mislead public.

    Thus, if this God (of the ancient Islamic Asharite Occasionalism, from which this all stems) decides that cotton shouldn’t burn when exposed to a flame, it won’t. Of course, we know it does, every single time. The logical conclusion is that the kinetic temperature of the flame sets in motion a chemical reaction which oxidizes the cotton (fire being rapid oxidation). The Monadism explanation is that the fire is “God’s will”… the God of Islam.

    I don’t need to read the books containing “special knowledge” from the group posing as “Mike Hockney” to know that this is metaphysicalism, mysticism, a stepping-away from science, an attempt to ascribe to a magical sky god (at its base, the sky god of Islam) the causality of reality. In fact, after learning what I’ve learned about this topic, I question who this group posing as “Mike Hockney” is, what their core beliefs are, and why they’re pushing this particular topic.

    I’ll have none of it. I subscribe to scientific reality as best as science can suss it. I do not ascribe to spirits or gods any causality.

  35. Zelator says:

    Joe maybe you should give people a Myers Briggs Test before even discussing this subject. It’s not that there is a purposeful aggression against idealism, but it is actually how different types are wired, and so that is not a criticism, just an observation of the difference in the populus. Trying to change types is not worth the effort or the falling out and hurting peoples feelings. Just saying.

  36. Zelator says:

    Joe , I thinks this is the most comprehensive test for Myers Briggs, or do you have a different one?

    https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

  37. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Zelator wrote:
    “We are born Creators, that is why we are so important in the universe, we can manipulate the ether to produce things, and manipulate the laws of thermodynamics. This is why in the Movie the Matrix, we are portrayed as batteries being harvested.”

    Who says we are “so important in the universe”? Us? Yes, us. There’s no one else, as far as we can know. That’s a bit self-important and anthropogenic, isn’t it? We create our own self-importance. We are become ‘gods’.

    Yes, we can “manipulate the ether” to produce things, because the “ether”, the quantum vacuum, is a material reality, the various fields of quantum field theory. We can measure it, we can manipulate it (as a reference, Chalmers University concretizing photons from virtual photons, straight from the quantum vacuum), we can conduct experiments upon it. We can increase and decrease local quantum vacuum energy density (ie: raise and lower local temperature or local magnetic field strength).

    We cannot “manipulate the laws of thermodynamics”, we can manipulate reality within the bounds of the law of thermodynamics.

    The Matrix was a movie. Arguably, a good movie, but it was fiction… one shouldn’t base their life philosophy off fictive ideation.

    Move away from this unphysical metaphysicalism and mysticism… get back to the science.

  38. “Everything should be investigated to determine whether it reflects reality, whether it can be tested, falsified, mathematically modeled. Everyone is pushing their own ulterior agenda and are thus suspect.”

    That is what the books do, in their own right. And it is of course what Z and I have done while reading the books, etc. Agreed with this. This is why I trust the books, because they did this.

    “So when someone tells me, “Just read this book or series of books which contain ‘special information’! It fully corroborates everything I state!“, that makes me especially suspicious, to I do the exact opposite, I investigate further outside those references.”

    That’s incoherent though. You don’t learn about steam by studying ice. The best way to understand something is to do anything but read what it actually says? LOL KOOKS! lol Come on man…back to reason and reality please. The worst thing in life to do is to criticize something on terms that it doesn’t even exist on…like climate alarmists are wont to do. Kooks…come on man…that was not an intelligent thing to say.

    “And what I’ve found about this Monadism is that it attempts to divorce mind from physical reality”

    After reading a few metaphorical descriptions and a few pages. You don’t have a grasp of things here. Reference your last comment. Not a rational position. But yes, it does do this, because this is the philosophy of Idealism, and they explain fully why this position is taken. Sorry, you gotta read it.

    “that it attempts to divorce causality from physical reality”

    That is absolutely NOT what it does. Ontological Mathematics is 100% all about causation. You’re off in make-believe-about-what-you-havent-read-about land. Not a good look. That’s not how ideas are addressed.

    “that it attempts to ascribe to the mind a sentient “soul” known as a ‘monad’”

    Learn why.

    “and that it is these monads which created and which ‘steer’ reality to produce any outcomes because they are really “God’s thoughts” and thus “God’s will””

    You’re mixing up metaphor here because you lack coherent context, because you take the position that not reading something on its own terms is the best way to know it…errrrrrrr!? lol

    “That is was borne of Islamic Asharite Occasionalism, an ancient Islamic “scientific” theology, wrapped in modern verbiage and shoved out to a gullible and eagerly-mislead public.”

    Again…just because something seems similar doesn’t mean it is THE thing. Again, the approach of knowing something by referencing something else and entirely repudiated by the thing is not a good way to know the thing.

    “Thus, if this God (of the ancient Islamic Asharite Occasionalism, from which this all stems) decides that cotton shouldn’t burn when exposed to a flame, it won’t. Of course, we know it does, every single time.”

    You’re way off in la la land. Straw man red herrings, etc.

    “The Monadism explanation is that the fire is “God’s will”… the God of Islam.”

    Nope. You’re way off target. You’re making things up based on what you imagine is the context because you think that providing yourself the context by reading the context is the wrong way to get context. That’s not a good look, Kooks.

    “I don’t need to read the books containing “special knowledge” from the group posing as “Mike Hockney” to know that this is metaphysicalism, mysticism, a stepping-away from science, an attempt to ascribe to a magical sky god (at its base, the sky god of Islam) the causality of reality.”

    Stop saying stupid things. My last comment again.

    “I question who this group posing as “Mike Hockney” is, what their core beliefs are, and why they’re pushing this particular topic.”

    And the best way to provide yourself that context is to NOT read the material, right? Don’t be stupid.

    “I do not ascribe to spirits or gods any causality.”

    That’s why the books ascribe causality to mathematics…the only place where it can actually exist. But, you wouldn’t know that, given that you think that understanding something is effected best by not reading about it. Get your shit fixed Kooks.

  39. It’s likely good enough Z.

  40. Yes good point, Z. It truly is a function of personality type.

  41. Zelator says:

    Kooks I will not argue with you. You will never see It the way I see it, and that is ok. But we will always need to use metaphor and visual aids to help explain things. If you don’t see it like that, then that’s your world, not mine.

  42. Zelator says:

    Joe I have changed my email address for this blog. I only found out a few days ago, that as I hadn’t logged into it, they had deleted it. That’s ok, as I only created it for this site. My new one will be the one I use from today.

  43. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “That’s incoherent though. You don’t learn about steam by studying ice.”

    False analogy.

    A better analogy:

    Someone tells me that steam is steam because a monad, God’s thoughts, God’s will has willed it to be steam. All I must do is read this series of books which corroborates this.

    I investigate outside those books and find that steam is steam because its energy density is such that it cannot sustain the inter-molecular bonds which made it a liquid.

    Thus the claim that steam is steam because the Islamic God of Islamic Asharite Occasionalism (the foundation of the belief in these monads) wills it to be so is bunkum.

    That you’re attempting to start a religion, with its foundation in the ancient metaphysical theological beliefs of a religion, most especially the ultra-sketchy Islam, is suspect.

  44. Zelator says:

    Joe I have a post in moderation, which is addressed to you. By the way, this discussion has proved the validity of the Myers Briggs Personality type. It is quite astounding the way different types see the world.

  45. Kooks, you looked up the word “monad” and found that someone else used it once, and now think that that’s the entirety of the whole thing. Wrong. You lack context.

    You also said that your preferred way of knowing something is to read everything else but the source material. That’s just plain stupid. And so you talk about other things that aren’t the thing. This is acting like a classic climate kook.

    Up your game man.

  46. I got it Z.

    And yes…it really does make it so clear, doesn’t it…the personality type thing.

    It really makes you respect the effort that they put into that whole discussion…and nailed it.

  47. Zelator says:

    Yes they were so spot on with it. It’s so defining its surreal.

  48. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Kooks, you looked up the word “monad” and found that someone else used it once, and now think that that’s the entirety of the whole thing. Wrong. You lack context.”

    Leibniz states that the monad is a circling, is sentient, is a soul, created the universe for humans, and is God’s will… based upon the ancient Islamic Asharite Occasionalism.

    You state that the monad is a circling, is sentient, is a soul, and created the universe for humans… based upon the group using the name “Mike Hockney”.

    I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to investigate further to figure out who this group posing as “Mike Hockney” is, why they wrote what they wrote and whether they have any empirical evidence that what they state is testable, falsifiable and able to be mathematically modeled, before jumping head-first into this religion based upon the same concept from the ancient Asharite Occasionalism theology of the Islamic religion.

    As I said, I’m all for a religion based upon reason, but we must use reason in getting into a religion based upon reason.

  49. It’d not based on Islam kooks. Just because someone uses the same word doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. The monad of ontological mathematics has nothing to do with Islam. It may be however that other systems may have intuited basic truths about existence, buy put their own dross upon it.

    Again, Kooks, the best way to investigate is to go to the actual source, not to avoid it and make up other ones.

  50. The references to “God’s will” are metaphorical only…but I do understand that metaphor is difficult for sensing types.

    I would tell you to do something stupid Kooks.

  51. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “It’d not based on Islam kooks. Just because someone uses the same word doesn’t mean it’s the same thing.”

    Leibniz’s Monadism is a modification of the ancient Asharite Occasionalism theology of the Islamic religion.

    That makes me suspect that the group posing as “Mike Hockney” is actually an Islamic group, attempting to win new converts to some metaphysical ‘religion’, then incrementalize them into Islam proper.

    I’ll not be fooled, cajoled nor ridiculed into a belief system that ascribes causality to spirits, gods, souls or any such.

  52. “Leibniz’s Monadism is a modification of the ancient Asharite Occasionalism theology of the Islamic religion.”

    Kooks, ya bastard, I told you that it is not, and I explained why. You don’t know what you’re talking about and have just made up something else about it all.

    You should read about how much they trash Islam…and all other religions. If you were actually familiar with the material, you would see that it is not Islamic in any way.

    Someone would write 200 books which trash Islam and talk all about science and mathematics and Western philosophy just to secretly spread Islam while having nothing in the books that would ever make someone want to be Islamic? lol Don’t be silly.

    “I’ll not be fooled, cajoled nor ridiculed into a belief system that ascribes causality to spirits, gods, souls or any such.”

    You read a few pages of metaphor but because you’re a sensing type you take it literally. When asked to read more source material your solution is to say that the best way to find out about something is to NOT read it on its own terms, but read other things you have no justification or confirmation that it is actually about…it uses a word you find other people using and so the way that other people use that word provides the entire context for the source.

    Good grief.

    I was right in my initial assessment: materialists and sensing types can’t be part of it all.

  53. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “Kooks, ya bastard”

    Mheh, I’ve been called worse. As I said, I’ll not be fooled, cajoled nor ridiculed into a belief system that ascribes causality to spirits, gods, souls or any such.

    Joseph E Postma wrote:
    “, I told you that it is not, and I explained why.””

    It literally is. Leibniz’s Monadology is a modification of the Asharite Occasionalism theology of the Islamic religion, an attempt to remove the miracles and physical impossibilities inherent in same, an attempt to remove the God of Islam from ‘steering’ the everyday events of the universe, ascribing those events instead to these monads… in effect a bifurcation of the singular Islamic God into an infinite number of little ‘gods’ or ‘god thoughts’ or ‘souls’ which ‘steer’ reality.

    In fact, he rejected intersubstantial causation. the belief that a human being is the true author of his or her free actuation, whence a genuine source of causality, ascribing the actions of humans to these monadal ‘souls’.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology
    “What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians.”

    https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/csrj/article/view/1720/2173
    “Occasionalism is the single greatest contribution of Islamic philosophy to the thought of the West. But its origins lie in theology.”

    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-2997-5_8
    “Towards the end of his life Leibniz wrote that “the transition from preestablished harmony to occasional causes doesn’t seem very difficult”. Nevertheless he was at pains to answer suggestions that his pre-established harmony is not essentially different from occasionalism. Two differences he points to are that occasionalism involves miracles, and that — like Cartesian interactionism — it involves physical impossibilities and causal correlations between body and mind.”

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-causation/#WhyDoesLeibRejeOcca
    “Since Leibniz seems to think that intersubstantial causation requires physical influx and physical influx is unacceptable, he concludes, logically enough, that we must reject intersubstantial causation.”

    As I said, this throws up a big red flag. That makes me suspect that the group posing as “Mike Hockney” is actually an Islamic group, attempting to win new converts to some metaphysical ‘religion’, then incrementalize them into Islam proper.

  54. “That makes me suspect that the group posing as “Mike Hockney” is actually an Islamic group, attempting to win new converts to some metaphysical ‘religion’, then incrementalize them into Islam proper.”

    Well that’s fn retarded, and for anyone who read the material, the LAST place or thing we would do is become Islamic. I mean, that conclusion is just so ridiculous, out there, and unsubstantiated. All because you looked up a word and found someone else use it, and then extrapolated pure imagination(!) from there.

    It is literally impossible that anyone who has read the material and accepts it would become Islamic. Literally impossible. Insane.

    You refuse to address the material on its own terms, and prefer to NOT read it, and use made-up arbitrary contexts for it instead. Can’t allow you to make these ridiculous, uninformed comments on it any longer Kooks.

  55. CD Marshall says:

    See I told you to leave religion be. Personal. Convictions.

  56. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    You might want to read the below, Joe… it lays out that which I’d eventually find by reading the books by the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney”, and it destroys Hockneyism.

    Contradictions, errors, handwavium and conflations abound in the Hockney texts. I’ve pointed out one such in a prior post, which you’ve moderated. All such posts are being forwarded to others via email, they know as well as I that you are silencing dissent… and that’s a worrying sign.

    You can’t just gloss over these problems in your foundational texts and plunge forward on your quest to establish a religion based upon this falsity without addressing the problems inherent in your foundational texts, your ‘Bibles’.

    https://www.integralworld.net/smith47.html

  57. Yah I’ve read that link Kooks, a long time ago. It’s really retarded. It has been covered in several of the books too, as they come back to it to make fun of it and trash how stupid it is.

    For example, take this gem:

    “there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason”

    The PSR states that there are reasons for things. To argue that there are no reasons for things is to end all science and philosophy, full stop. How fn retarded. It also debunks its own argument…if there is no reason that supports the PSR then there is no reason to support the reason that there is no reason that supports the PSR. So, what a stupid argument.

    Yes, Kooks, I said that since you continue to not talk about the material on its own terms, but are making things up about it, and your justification is that the best way to understand something is to not understand it and not read it…well, that’s far beneath you, at least I thought that it was. Like holy, man…lol. That’s not a rational argument. And then to say it reduces or leads to Islam!? Man that is so insane…so completely ludicrous. Why would I let people say stupid things that are false? You know that that doesn’t truck here. And you SHOULD know that you’re doing that.

    “All such posts are being forwarded to others via email”

    Haha. Is this going to become a personal quest for you now? lol Some very interesting colors are coming out from you here, Kooks. Don’t give anything away too obviously, now. Of course I silence dissent which is misinformed and wrong. And yours on this subject is. Why don’t we just go back to letting climate kooks take over the comment section, then?!

    Do better, Kooks.

  58. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Ok, let’s go with your Principle of Sufficient Reason, Joe.

    The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that everything requires an impetus, a cause, to exist, yet the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney” states that their purported monads are eternal, never ceasing, and therefore had no impetus to exist, there was no cause to bring about their existence.

    How do you explain this contradiction?

    [JP: It’s explained in my video series. Via something vs. nothing, and what must exist. You betray your ignorance on what you’re failing to talk about. There is sufficient reason for their existence.]

    Let’s put those words in their proper context, shall we?

    “Nevertheless, just as there is no empirical evidence that supports the notion that the empirical approach is a valid means of understanding the truth, there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason. This is basically an intuitive notion.[2]

    [2] Though Hockney describes his approach at times as intuitive, he doesn’t equate intuition with reason, because he also describes (somewhat incorrectly) the mystical or spiritual approach as intuitive. But he obviously believes that intuition is the way to truth. I don’t disagree that it frequently is, but intuition, unlike reason, can’t be easily shared or replicated by independent minds. Hence, intuitive insights are not considered validated unless they can be supported by reason.”

    [JP: The PSR states that there are reasons for things. To argue that there are no reasons for things is to end all science and philosophy, full stop. How fn retarded. It also debunks its own argument…if there is no reason that supports the PSR then there is no reason to support the reason that there is no reason that supports the PSR. So, what a stupid argument.]

    You’ll note that the statement above in response to “Mike Hockney” claiming:
    “Via [Euler’s] formula, existence can be maintained at its necessary groundstate of zero (nothing), while always being something. (Any non-zero resultant cosmic energy is forbidden. There is no sufficient reason why the cosmos should have any arbitrary energy, and why such an energy should be above the ground state.)”

    But we know the quantum vacuum has a non-zero expectation value. We can measure it, we can empirically observe its results in the Casimir Effect, in the Lamb Shift, in the fact that hydrogen doesn’t phase change at 0 K unless pressure is ~2 MPa, in the fact that Chalmers University concretized photons from virtual photons using a SQUID as a relativistic mirror.

    [JP: Hockney is referring to existence in and of itself, not space-time, which is contingent. I grant you may have been confused because the phraseology changed from “existence” to “cosmos”; nevertheless, you would understand the context if you knew what you were responding to, which you don’t.]

    If even one foundational postulate of your hypothesis is incorrect, your hypothesis is incorrect.

    [JP: Indeed. You haven’t pointed anything out yet.]

    For that matter, how does an eternal ‘information processing system’ (Hockney’s monads) reside in a “an infinite collection of mathematical points with unique coordinates” (Hockney’s words) while at the same time being dimensionless and timeless? It makes no sense whatsoever, and you, like Hockney, hand-wave it away and ridicule those expressing dismay at your having been bamboozled by an obvious attempt at rehashing Leibniz’s Monadology, which is rehash of the Asharite Occasionalism theology of the Islamic religion.

    [JP: It makes no sense to you. Because you are a sensing type, you grapple, and in fact cannot conceive, of existence beyond the sensory domain, like Plato’s Prisoner. But that’s your problem, not mine. And again, the Islam reference is ridiculous and betrays absolute lack of knowledge of what you’re talking about.]

    This reminds me of Theoria Apophasis (Ken Wheeler)’s kooky “Uncover The Missing Secrets of Magnetism” ebook… filled with contradictions, utterly unworkable, and all Ken Wheeler had as a response was profane insults… until he met me. He ran from me, ran from the forum, once I read and exposed his unscientific bafflegab for what it was.

    [JP: The Hockney people trashed Wheeler and Wilber long ago.]

  59. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    “not talk about the material on its own terms”?!

    I’ve done nothing but bring up discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions within the texts of the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney” by using quotes from those texts and juxtaposing them against scientific reality!

    [JP: You think you have. But you haven’t. Your stated position on learning something new is to NOT read the source material, but to read other things which randomly may or may not have anything to do with it…because that make sense.]

    You’ve done nothing but hand-wave it away and censor and cherry-pick which posts you’ll reply to when you think you have a valid point against what I write… but which always seems to devolve into denigration.

    [JP: You’ve said a lot of stupid things, which I had thought were beneath you.]

    Do better, Joe. I certainly don’t want, as the founder and head of my religion, someone who acts in such a manner.

    [JP: Trust me, Kooks, we don’t want you in our religion either. In fact we’ve explicitly excluded your personality type. So don’t worry!]

    If you can’t answer these questions by me except to say “Read our Bibles! They explain everything and prove me right!”, you’re no better than any other religion who does the same, referring to fundamentally-broken texts filled with contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies while claiming they prove your religious belief correct.

    [JP: Reading isn’t for everybody. Books are generally the way people communicate what they’re talking about. But you kinda wreck yourself when you state that the best way to know something is to look at other random things which you have idea if they’re even related in the first place…but maybe they are because a similar word was used.]

    And you certainly won’t be able to address the questions by those investigating your religion except to say “Read nearly 2 million words of text, filled with discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions and just believe! Come on, man! Just get with the program!”

    [JP: That’s why I made the videos. But you didn’t comprehend them either.]

    And it most certainly is a religious belief… it cannot be based upon science and reason… when exculpatory evidence is presented, you cling to your belief and refer dissenters to your fundamentally broken texts as if they are canonical gospel, just as all other religions do.

    [JP: Kooks, you’ve referred, twice, to the position that “there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason“. That means that you explicitly reject reason as being something which can explain things. And you seem to not comprehend what you’ve done here.

    The PSR states that there are reasons for things. To argue that there are no reasons for things is to end all science and philosophy, full stop. How retarded. It also debunks its own argument…if there is no reason that supports the PSR then there is no reason to support the reason that there is no reason that supports the PSR. So, what a stupid argument…but that’s the position you want to take, and you see nothing wrong with it. You can’t see what you can’t understand.

    In any case, in addition to that, or as a consequence of that, you’ve presented no exculpatory evidence at all…you’ve only demonstrated your own imagination and ability to straw man and red herring.]

  60. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joe Postma wrote:
    “[JP: It’s explained in my video series. Via something vs. nothing, and what must exist. You betray your ignorance on what you’re failing to talk about. There is sufficient reason for their existence.]”

    So they exist to make your hypothesis work that something springs full-bloom from nothing, and you have no mathematical nor empirical proof otherwise of their existence. But they can (and according to the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney”, do) exist outside of space and time, dimensionless and eternal, processing unfathomable amounts of information without energy input, with no cause for their creation except that you need them to explain your hypothesis. Is that about the long and short of it?

    [JP: Nope, that’s not it at all. It’s completely backwards, for one thing, and the evidence exists as logic, which you can’t comprehend because you can only comprehend your senses, not reason.]

    Joe Postma wrote:
    “[JP: Kooks, you’ve referred, twice, to the position that “there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason“.”

    I most certainly have not espoused the position that there is no rational argument that supports the principle of sufficient reason.

    [JP: Liar. Bald faced liar. First, you referenced a website which took that position, which I pointed out by quoting. Second, you then found that exact excerpt and quoted an even longer passage of it, in support of your comments and position. Kooks, you’ve fell right off your game here.]

    I’m the guy, if you’ll remember who’s been stating all along that every action requires an impetus as regards energy flow… if energy needs an impetus to merely flow, how much more does something need an impetus to exist?

    [JP: And here you run straight into infinite regress, by positing that something requires an impetus to exist. You are so far out of your element and don’t know what you’re even supposed to be talking about. I explained in the videos what the reason is for the existence of a circling, and that it requires no impetus besides eternal logical fact.]

    It is the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney” who claim that their purported monads violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason in those monads being outside of space and time, dimensionless and eternal, and thus without cause for their creation.

    [JP: First, that’s a Straw Man…they nowhere posit that the Principle of Sufficient Reason can be violated. Second, indeed, they have to have no cause, otherwise you run into infinite regress, which you don’t realize is a problem, much like you don’t realize that rejecting the PSR is a problem. Your position has been thoroughly incoherent from the beginning…starting with the “the best way to understand something is to not understand it but read about other things which you’re not sure are related”…lol.]

    Joe Postma wrote:
    “[JP: The PSR states that there are reasons for things. To argue that there are no reasons for things is to end all science and philosophy, full stop. How fn retarded.”

    It is the anonymous group posing as “Mike Hockney” who purports that their ‘monads’ have always existed and thus have no cause, violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

    [JP: That’s right, they have no cause, and there IS sufficient reason for that, obeying the PSR…as has been explained in my videos. You prefer infinite regress….sad.]

    And as you state, “To argue that there are no reasons for things is to end all science and philosophy, full stop. How fn retarded.”

    [JP: Correct. So stop doing that.]

    Or are you claiming that “the cause” which created these monads is that you, 13.7 billion years after these intelligent monad souls supposedly created an intelligent universe just for little ol’ us, need them to explain your metaphysicalism, and therefore your need for them to exist traveled back to the beginning of the eternity they’ve purportedly existed to retrocausally cause their creation?

    [JP: That’s how scientific materialism uses its retarded anthropic principles. That’s not our stuff. An no…that is not, in any way whatsoever, how the philosophy proceeds.]

    Because that makes as much sense as the rest of it. LOL

    [JP: You’re no longer in a position here Kooks to determine what makes sense or not. Your points have been thoroughly insubstantial, and unrelated. So it goes. Another one bites the dust.]

  61. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Joe Postma wrote:
    “[JP: Trust me, Kooks, we don’t want you in our religion either. In fact we’ve explicitly excluded your personality type. So don’t worry!]”

    Translation:
    “You can’t play! You keep pointing out how I’m cheating!” LOL

    [JP: Oh no, we had that determined a long time ago. It’s because sensing types are literally retarded. Gross. We’ve known that for a long time.]

    Joe Postma also wrote:
    “You are the person I was referring to when I told them that we just need a basic demonstration of the new approach of ontological mathematical physics, and then we can run with it.”

    [JP: Yes, I see that was a mistake now. We simply need to have zero tolerance for morons. I thought people like you could at least come to do engineering. But I see that you would just be retarded and say retarded shit and take the position that the best way to understand something is to read other things which may or may not have to actually do with the source material you’re supposed to understand. We can’t have that level (or lack thereof) of consciousness with us. Besides…we can easily do our own engineering…I see it was a mistake to allow any lower consciousness personality types in.]

    Now I know why Spock always tended to piss the rest of the crew off with his logic. LOL

    [JP: You wish…LOL Well…a sensing autist would identify as that kind of person, who pisses everyone off with logic which is neither here nor there. I guess you didn’t notice that pretty much every single time, the autistic logic of Spock was refuted by Kirk.]

  62. CD Marshall says:

    Guys, please knock it off already. Both of you are stellar intellects this is a base caveman pissing contest. Urine stinks no matter who is pissing more.

    I like coming here I don’t want that to change.

  63. CD Marshall says:

    Kooks,
    I respect your right to disagree, but Joe has every right to his belief system this is bordering on religious persecution. Although it’s a philosophy…So philosophy persecution. If you disagree don’t contribute to those posts just focus on the science. Joe is offering his thoughts on his blog.

  64. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t agree with everyone on everything, and I know they don’t agree with me on everything. Part of being an adult is accepting that and moving on.

  65. CD Marshall says:

    I’m done now. Cheers to the both of you. 😘

  66. Zelator says:

    I agree with you CD, and maybe Joe believes he has take this website to its conclusion, and sees his new ideas as a progression, a sort of solution to what we all here have discovered and fought against over the years?

    Yes it has progressed from AGW to Covid, to anti-marxism.

    If you have supported him thus far, you have a trust in a man who has gained your recognition and wants to take it to the next step.

    I don’t know if this is true or a fact, as I have never spoken to Joe, so I don’t know his endeavours.

    However, all I will say, is if you have trusted him this far, then he deserves to be respected and listened to in his next phase. You don’t need to agree, but it’s his website, so listen or go elsewhere.

    As I said, I have no idea what Joe’s thoughts are, but all I do know, is that based on what he has fought against here, he has best intentions in mind.

    Whether you agree with that, is your prerogative, but at the end of the day, Joe has provided this forum at his expense and time. He can just as easily walk away, abandon the site and what then?

    You can always set up your own discussion site. Just saying.

    Cheers Z

  67. ashemann says:

    Its called ”climate of sophistry” and not ”the twighlight zone” for a good reason, y’all havent forgotten that reason have you.

  68. Zelator says:

    Yes but “reason” suggests that flogging a dead horse is pointless. Some here like you obviously don’t get that. You said you were too old to listen to Joe’s new ideas, so then if you want the same old shit, just re-read all the old posts.

  69. Joseph E Postma says:

    It’s all good guys no worries.

    Onward and upward.

  70. Zelator says:

    Why don’t you set up the “Old Timers Guide to Climate Alarmism” website, and talk about the same old shit till you drop dead? I’m sure you will get some takers lol.

  71. ashemann says:

    It’s age that is keeping me from verbally tearing you a second asshole son, let it go and move on.

  72. MP says:

    Bring a healthy mix in recent topic subjects and the “problem” is solved

  73. Zelator says:

    Well I hope he heard it lol

  74. Ashe is a good guy I think there was a miscommunication.

    Onwards and upwards.

  75. Here’s a discussion on infinite regress vs sufficient reason for a prime creator. The term God is used given the historical context, but elsewhere Liebniz, and certainly in the Ontological Mathematics books, and in my videos, “God” is explained as the circling, something as nothing, etc; it of course is not the Abrahamic god:

    The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason, Leibniz wrote, “… now we … make use of the great … principle that nothing takes place without a sufficient reason; in other words, that nothing occurs for which it would be impossible for someone who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason adequate to determine why the thing is as it is and not otherwise. This principle having been stated, the first question which we have a right to ask will be, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ … Further, assuming that things must exist, it must be possible to give a reason why they should exist as they do and not otherwise. “Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things. … Although the present motion … arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which … is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God.” So, for Leibniz, there is something rather than nothing because there is something that has necessary (and thus eternal) existence, hence nothing is impossible. Leibniz called this thing “God”. It’s the base of existence. It’s that which prevents infinite regress. It’s that which has the reason for existence within itself. Of course, the thing that has the reason for existence within itself is actually the principle of sufficient reason itself. Isn’t that the best God? In On the Ultimate Origination of the Universe, Leibniz wrote, “Besides the World, that is, besides the aggregate of finite things, there is some dominant unit… [that] not only rules the world, [but] also makes or creates it. It is superior to the world and, so to speak, beyond the world, and is therefore the ultimate reason for things. Neither in any single thing, nor in the total aggregate and series of things, can the sufficient reason for their existence be discovered. Let us suppose a book … to have existed eternally, one edition having always been copied from the preceding: it is evident then that, although you can account for the present copy by reference to a past copy which it reproduces, yet, however far back you go … you can never arrive at a complete [explanation], since you always will have to ask why at all times these books have existed, that is, why there have been any books at all and why this book in particular. What is true concerning these books is equally true concerning the diverse states of the world, for here too the following state is in some way a copy of the preceding one (although changed according to certain laws). However far you turn back … you will never discover in any or all of these states the full reason why there is a world rather than nothing, nor why it is such as it is. “You may well suppose the world to be eternal; yet what you thus posit is nothing but the succession of its states, and you will not find the sufficient reason in any one of them, nor will you get any nearer to accounting rationally for the world by taking any number of them together: the reason must therefore be sought elsewhere. Things eternal may have no cause of existence, yet a reason for their existence must be conceived. Such a reason is, for immutable things, their very necessity or essence; while in the series of changing things, even though this series itself may be supposed a priori to be eternal, this reason would consist in the very prevailing of inclinations. For in this case reasons do not necessitate (that is, operate with absolute or metaphysical necessity, so that the contrary would imply contradiction), but only incline. Hence it is evident that even by supposing the world to be eternal, the recourse to an ultimate cause of the universe beyond this world, that is, to God, cannot be avoided.” For Leibniz, God has necessary existence. His essence is to exist. He cannot not exist. Now, really, this is a comprehensive explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. All that needs to be established is that something has eternal and necessary existence, and, ipso facto, that means that non-existence is impossible. The very fact of existence entails that something has necessary existence. However, it is of course better to give a very detailed explanation of what constitutes essential existence: eternal and necessary existence. Leibniz said that “God” has this nature, but he didn’t delve deeply into what comprises God. Leibniz wrote, “The reasons [sufficient, full, complete] for the world are therefore concealed in some entity outside the world. … Thus we must pass from the physical or hypothetical necessity, which determines the later states of the world by the earlier, to something endowed with absolute or metaphysical necessity, for which no [physical] reason can be given. For the actually existing world is necessary only physically or hypothetically, but not absolutely or metaphysically. … Since therefore the ultimate root of the world must be something which exists of metaphysical necessity, and since furthermore the reason for any existent can be only another existent, it follows that a unique entity must exist of metaphysical necessity, that is, there is a being whose essence implies existence. Hence there exists a being which is different from the plurality of beings, that is, from the world; for it has been granted and proved that the world does not exist of metaphysical necessity.” Science refuses to accept that something beyond the world explains the world, i.e., metaphysics explains physics, the eternal and necessary explains the temporal and contingent. That’s why science appeals instead to the irrationalism of randomness. It refuses to accept that there is something beyond science that is more fundamental than science. What is more foundational than scientific empiricism is in fact mathematical rationalism, determined by the PSR (“God”). The PSR is simply the rationalist label for God, and, indeed, constitutes the rationalist God.

    -David Sinclair

  76. MP says:

    Infinite is in math a strange concept

    Since infinite + infinite = infinite

    And infinite x infinite = infinite

    But what is half infinite ?

  77. MP says:

    Anyhow

    I think that in this philosophical domain there are no absolute proofs.

    The circling being net zero in itself, when sin and cosine are seen as opposites is the only explanation that gives some rest

    Since all other explanations give questions such as what is behind that, before that, next to it, etc

  78. Something as net nothing via the circling necessitated by movement really is the only explanation.

  79. J Cuttance says:

    That was a great set-to Joe/kooks. It took me a couple of days to get through. Two heavyweights in an intellectual cage fight calling each other fkn retards. It had everything.

  80. MP says:

    @ JP

    Well, the dark matter hypothesis tries to solve the same reducing to net zero paradigm in its own way

    Not very convincing so far tho

  81. Joseph E Postma says:

    Actually in The God Equation book Kooks referenced which I was hoping he would actually read and consider, they do directly demonstrate how the equations of ontological mathematics posit another kind of particle or matter which would not be detectable by traditional means. They basically hint that they have it answered. They’re not going to give it away though I guess.

  82. More good stiff…but basically what I’ve said in the videos:

    “If you want the basic answer of why there is something rather than nothing, it’s this – some thing, or things, exist by their essence, i.e., they have eternal and necessary existence. They are uncreated, uncaused and cannot not exist. Traditionally, “God” has been assigned this role. If something’s essence is to exist then it will always exist and so non-existence is automatically impossible. Of course, stating that something has eternal and necessary existence is one thing. Proving it convincingly is something quite different. In our books, we have highlighted the truly indisputable fact that the “something” that exists eternally and necessarily is not different from nothing but actually is nothing, existing in a certain way: “structured nothingness”. In other words, “nothing” is the base state, the state which “exists” by default. Nothing is nothing, requires nothing and nothing can prevent nothing, and so nothing has compulsory, mandatory existence. It can’t be stopped. Of course, if “nothing” were “nothing at all”, this nothing that permanently “exists” would in fact be functionally identical to non-existence. Because of the limitations of language, to say that non-existence exists seems silly, but we could of course attempt a more helpful definition of “existence”. Let’s define existence in terms of the eternal and necessary, and with one other quality: having effects, or not. So, we can imagine “non-existence” as a state that exists eternally and necessarily but has no effects at all. Nothing happens … ever. A state of existence with no consequences is functionally the same as non-existence. “Existence”, by contrast, would then be a state that exists eternally and necessarily, and with continuous effects, consequences, and happenings. We can actually combine these two states without any contradiction. One state (“non-existence”) exists without any consequences and so can sit alongside another state (existence proper with unbroken consequences) without interfering with it. They don’t get in each other’s way at all. We have previously modeled this state of affairs exactly. Existence with no consequences (aka non-existence) is an infinite set of mathematical points, each with absolutely no properties. These infinite static points all sit on top of each other. These points – which are of course totally dimensionless – occupy no “space”. They are “nowhere” and they are nothing, and they do nothing. This is therefore a perfect model of non-existence (existence without consequences, in terms of the language we have adopted), and this is the base, the default state, of “existence”! The problem then becomes – how do you get anything to actually happen? How do you get existence with consequences? How can we get proper existence to sit on top of “non-existence”; how do we get points that do something to sit on top of points that do nothing, bearing in mind that the points that do something, must, like the points that do nothing, require nothing, and nothing must be able to prevent them? Nothing arbitrary must be attached to them because then we would have to provide an explanation of that arbitrariness. Remember that the original question was why is there something rather than nothing. Logic inevitably showed that something could exist only if it were a certain type of nothing, what we are calling “structured nothing”, as opposed to nothing with no structure at all. Something can exist provided that it is net nothing, as opposed to nothing at all. The question why is there something rather than nothing becomes why is there net nothing rather than nothing at all. The only thing that can be done to static points to change them from nothing at all to something else is to apply motion.”

    David Sinclair

  83. Last bit, same source:

    How can points move in anything other than an inexplicable arbitrary way, bearing in mind that we must achieve net zero (because any non-net-zero value would immediately require something and anything that requires something can be stopped). If reality needed a non-zero activation energy, how could it ever acquire that energy? From where? From what? Reality would always stick with the compulsory ground state of nothing, which requires nothing, and cannot be prevented. Points in motion with a net-zero result, avoiding all arbitrariness, and having eternal and necessary existence, are so constrained that only one base template can accommodate them: Euler unit circles, reflecting Euler’s formula and sinusoidal waves. That is the only way to have something that is also nothing (net nothing). Of course, the necessity of avoiding arbitrariness and reaching analytic net zero implies that all of this can only come about by an existential principle of absolute, perfect structure, namely the principle of sufficient reason. This PSR must be eternal and necessary. It never didn’t exist. It always existed as sinusoidal waves, arranged monadically, as eternal and necessary monadic minds. To put it another way, the PSR is that which is commonly known as “God”, and it exists not as one superbeing but as a collection of myriad monadic minds. “God” is a collection of minds, not one mind. And that’s exactly why reality is so strange. No one is in charge, but countless competing minds dream of being in charge and each tries to achieve power over all other minds (i.e., each sees itself as God). The PSR is what exists eternally and necessarily and we can say that it exists as: 1) static mathematical points with no consequences (non-existence), and 2) moving mathematical points with consequences (proper existence; net-zero something = nothing).

  84. So that’s the type of philosophical you get from these books. Actually, this discussion is the end of their analysis…they spend the early books developing it, etc.

  85. MP says:

    @ Joseph E Postma says:
    2022/08/05 at 6:50 PM

    That would be in the realm of infinite – infinite = 0

  86. Zelator says:

    Book 1 “The God Game”:

    This is the opening paragraphs of book One:

    The Illuminati:

    THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the cosmology, philosophy, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a senior member, working under the pseudonym of “Mike Hockney”.

    The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism).

    Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    The Illuminati formally began as Pythagoras’s mystery school revolving around the secrets of mathematics. Pythagoras elevated mathematics to a religion and asserted that everything was fundamentally mathematical and could only be explained mathematically.

    To this day, Illumination is grounded entirely in mathematics. It is therefore the world’s only rational religion, and is entirely compatible with science. Indeed, science is but a subset of mathematics and hence of Illumination. Illuminism asserts that mathematics is not science’s tool; on the contrary, science is mathematics’ tool, a way of exploring what we call “ontological” mathematics, the
    mathematics of existence.

    Illuminism is knowledge-based and rejects all “holy” scriptures, prophets, revelations and faith. It is future-oriented, rational, philosophical, scientific, mathematical and dialectical.

    Welcome to the religion of light – Illumination.

    Note it mentions Hockney is a senior member working under the pseudonym of “Mike Hockney”. They are open and up front about that, nothing there to deceive just truth. A lot of authors use pen names.

    It says it is ” Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam”. There in black and white, nothing hidden there either.

    Joe “The God Equation” book 6, in the series’ introduction doesn’t mention these facts, and that’s why I believe it is important that new readers start from book one, and know from the first pages who they are dealing with.

    Cheers Z

  87. Zelator says:

    Joe, which Sinclair book was the above from?

  88. Zelator says:

    MP as you have access to the Chan boards etc, could you ask if there is anything available on the “Book of Love” by the Cathars. I believe it has something to do with the Spear of Destiny and the secret of blood that the Nazis so wanted to know to make their Supermen from. The Spear I believe was a metaphor and not a real spear but a enlightenment vis the pineal gland. I have a lot of info on this and how Heinrich Himmler also knew it was not the real Spear. As evidenced by the design of his Wewelsberg complex – the symbolic seat or center of SS power – near Paderborn in Westphalia, Himmler believed the Spear was something far more profound. If it’s sensitive, Joe can give you my email address. Hopefully in a way that is not broadcast on here though lol.

  89. Zelator says:

    Its also involved in the Cain destiny. again a metaphor. Enlightenment and how to achieve it etc The Cathars believed they could become as Angels. They took their knowledge to the grave, they were burned at the stake, but realised this was a better way to go than live a lie , they went to their graves with the song still in them.

  90. Zelator says:

    I have a lot of information for the right people, but I wont post it on here, as it shouldn’t be in the domain of minds of negative people. I trust very few people with my information as it has taken me a long time to gather decipher and promulgate. What we don’t want is another Hyperian situation where people abuse sacred knowledge for monetary gain. Ego patting and ultimately brain damaged interpretations because on personality type, sexual orientation, political leaning and a myriad of other sad sick mind fucks. If you have a point to make Joe can give you my address, other than MP and of course Joe at this time I wont be giving it to anyone else.

  91. Zelator says:

    We are now in the Wasteland. Only a Holy Grail can redeem the situation. The finest knights are called. The greatest Amazonians have been summoned. Who are the world-historic figures who will step forward?

    The Mission – Wasteland:

  92. Zelator says:

    SPEAR OF DESTINY – Never Take Me Alive:

  93. MP says:

    @ Zelator

    The chan/kun boards have a certain reputation for for outsiders, but nothing is what it seems

    Anons have developed certain skill sets, and one of them is to provoke, just to provoke. The provoking as being the reason in itself

    The bulk of people on the chans are Christians disguised as gay frogs who love tits, to avoid a religious war provoked by the DS media. Religious war or infighting vs gay frogs is just silly

    So i don’t think the answer to your question lays there

    Think it is well explained by Jordan Peterson in this 5 year old interview with Joe Rogan

  94. Zelator says:

    Ok thanks MP. I have the basis anyway, just wanted confirmation from other sources. Anything useful takes loads of decoding as you know, so it wont be freely available. Thanks for your time my friend. Appreciated.

  95. Z – Without the mob, there is no circus.

  96. Zelator says:

    Ah the new one – thanks Joe

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s