Table Of ContentONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS FOR
THE CURIOUS
An Introduction to Ontological Thinking
Dr. Cody Newman
Copyright © Dr. Cody Newman 2019
All rights reserved
Table of Contents
Ontological Mathematics for the Curious
The New Paradigm
Nowhere to Go
The Failure of the Scientific Method
Empty and Blind
Occam’s Razor
Decree and Abstraction
Particulars versus Universals
Conclusion
THE NEW PARADIGM
There’s a new kid on the block, a subject that can revolutionize humanity’s understanding of
reality, while being completely rational and logical, and scrupulously avoiding faith and
mysticism. It’s the long-awaited replacement for science.
Only one subject can take over from science and that is the subject that is already at the core
of science and gives it all of its power and success, namely mathematics. Science without
mathematics is unthinkable. Mathematics without science suffers from no deficiency at all.
Science is irrelevant to mathematics, while mathematics defines science. The great
mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss said, “Mathematics is the queen of the sciences.” If
mathematics is the queen, why do we need the pawns at all?
For mathematics to remove science from the picture, only one thing needs to be done:
mathematics must be assigned an ontology. Once mathematics is regarded as real and concrete,
rather than unreal and abstract, everything changes. There is simply no further need or place for
science.
You’re probably imagining that this can’t be done – that science can never be dislodged –
but aren’t you even slightly curious about whether it’s possible?
If mathematics rather than science defines reality, reality becomes a radically different thing.
Materialism is overthrown, and with materialism goes atheism, nihilism, skepticism, cynicism,
and the hatred of mind, consciousness and free will that characterizes materialist thinking.
Einstein wrote, “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility
toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.” With mathematics, which defines
the immaterialism of the mind, everything becomes soluble, and all secrets are revealed.
Mathematics is the subject par excellence for finding answers. If you want final answers, you
must turn to the only subject that can deliver them, and that is mathematics. Only a mathematical
universe has an exact answer, an exact definition, an exact formula – the formula for existence
itself. Only mathematics can sweep away all the supposed unfathomable mysteries of existence.
A mathematical universe, unlike a scientific universe, can support “God” (a Hive-Mind God,
not a monotheistic God), the soul (an eternal soul, not something created), the mind (an
autonomous frequency domain that performs Fourier mathematics), directed evolution (it’s
purposeful mind, not purposeless matter and randomness, that drives evolution), singularities,
immaterial entities, non-space and non-time, eternity and necessity, and the afterlife (only
physical bodies die; eternal minds never do).
If science is true, religion and spirituality are dead. If ontological mathematics is true,
religion and spirituality are born again, but in nothing like the terms pronounced by mainstream
religion. Mainstream religion is about Mythos – a bunch of stories told by prophets and gurus
and set down in “holy” books and “sacred” scriptures. Mathematical religion is about Logos. No
one gets to use stories. Now the medium of religion is reason, logic, and mathematics. Religion
is now all about equations, formulae, calculations, calculus, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, and
so on. A single book on elementary mathematics contains more knowledge, wisdom and truth
than all the Mythos religions inflicted on the human race put together.
What comes out at the end is not a belief system, but the ultimate knowledge system, based
on the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), the sole rational means for explaining why
everything is thus and not otherwise.
Ontological mathematics is simply the PSR turned into a complete and consistent, fully
coherent and analytic system that can address and answer any conceivable problem.
If you want the rational truth of existence, if you want to know the meaning and purpose of
life, you have nowhere to go except ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics is the
universal language that supports the sacred geometry and sacred algebra of the cosmos.
Forget everything you have been taught to think about religion and spirituality. It’s all
irrational nonsense. The rational truth is much stranger and weirder. We are all in an enormous
cosmic calculator, furiously calculating the answer to perfection, and we are all nodes in the
calculator and calculation, helping the cosmos to arrive at the right answer and become God. We
ourselves are an essential part of the answer. The universe is not complete until each of us is
individually complete.
Where would you conceal the answer to existence if you wanted no one to ever find it? You
would hide it in the subject most hated by humanity, most dreaded by humanity, most difficult
for humanity, most avoided by humanity, the one humanity believes is the most abstract and
least connected to reality. Mathematics is all of that.
Why hasn’t humanity found the answer to existence? It’s because it has explicitly shunned
the sole subject capable of providing it. It has accepted anything other than mathematics. It has
looked everywhere other than the right place. The last place it would ever think to look is the
only place where the answer can rationally be found. Humanity has failed to find the answer to
existence because there is only one place where that answer resides, and infinite places where it
does not reside, and humanity has far preferred to explore the infinite wrong answers rather than
the one right answer.
The irony is that this is factored into the cosmic equation. How would we experience all of
the incredible wonders of existence if we went straight to the right answer and solved the puzzle
immediately, rather than circling around it for countless millennia?
We are all in the orbit of a unique Strange Attractor, the final answer to everything, upon
which all of existence will finally converge.
Gary Taubes wrote, “…chaos has its own pattern, a peculiar kind of order. This pattern is
known whimsically as a strange attractor, because the chaotic system seems to be strangely
attracted to an ideal behavior.”
The Strange Attractor is the state of a mathematically chaotic system toward which the
system trends. An attractor is called “strange” if it has a fractal structure.
Ontological mathematics is all about one system composed of myriad units – monads, which
are eternal minds comprised of mathematical sinusoidal waves – and how these relate to each
other and the whole. At the Big Bang, the whole disintegrates and each monad becomes a
fragment, a fractal. Benoit Mandelbrot said, “A fractal is a shape made of parts similar to the
whole in some way.” He coined “fractal” from the Latin frāctus, meaning “broken” or
“fractured”.
Ontological mathematics is a unique fractal system because all of the “broken” units
necessarily start off as identical, not merely similar, and all necessarily end as identical, not
merely similar.
A convergent dialectical system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis brings the fragmentary
system to a perfect, absolute unity, yet the very fact of the dialectic – involving a constant clash
of opposites as its primary driver – means that no process could be messier and more “violent”
than this one. Mathematical nature is red in tooth and claw.
Ontological mathematics is a system based on only one thing – mathematical waves
(sinusoids). The fundamental assertion of ontological mathematics is that monadic minds made
of sinusoids can explain the whole of reality, literally 100% of everything. Hard to believe?
Well, isn’t it time you discovered the incredible, wondrous, astounding properties of
mathematical waves, the entities from which existence is made? These mathematical waves are
the basis components of minds. They are the basis thoughts of eternal minds. One wave is one
simple thought and when you combine simple thoughts, you create complex thoughts, as
complex as you like, just as simple letters produce words, and words produce endless books.
You think mathematics cannot explain love? Mathematics is what love actually is. Love,
perfect love, is zero mathematical entropy, where everything is perfectly combined in a perfect
unity.
Curious? Then come inside and have your mind well and truly blown.
NOWHERE TO GO
At the moment, intelligent people have nowhere to go other than science, yet science commits
all those people who subscribe to it to perhaps the most bizarre worldview ever devised by
the human mind, a worldview rejected by 100% of humanity in past ages.
Let’s go through some of the key positions you are signing up to if you believe that science
is the only way to understand reality:
1) Existence is meaningless. Meaning appears nowhere in science. It is never once
referenced. Science believes that reality can be explained without any concept of
meaning.
2) Existence is purposeless. When the scientific worldview took over from the Aristotelian
worldview, one of the first things science did was to remove purpose. Where purpose
was essential to Aristotle’s understanding of reality, it plays no part at all in science.
According to science, nothing has a purpose, nothing is trying to achieve anything. The
fact that human beings themselves refute this – human beings are obsessed with purpose
and trying to achieve goals – is dismissed by science as an inexplicable epiphenomenon
or illusion. Humans, science says, are made of purposeless matter and are subject to the
purposeless laws of matter, hence it is impossible for humans to have purposes. Purpose
is never once referenced in science and science believes that reality can be explained
without any concept of purpose.
3) Existence is pointless. According to science, existence has no point. It just is. The universe
sprang into existence out of nothing, science tells us. Stephen Hawking said, “I think the
universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science.”
There is no point to this spontaneous, random Creation, as opposed to the designed
Creation of, for example, the theistic worldview.
4) Free will is an illusion. Humans are material objects subject to the laws of science. Matter
does not possess free will, and the laws of science do not make free choices, hence free
will is strictly impossible. You suffer from a double delusion: 1) that you are free, and
2) that you are not in fact a mindless, material, biological robot, with no say over
anything you do … that’s all handled by your matter and the laws controlling it. Science
makes no attempt to explain why nature should pointlessly generate the illusion of
freedom, given that no such thing actually exists. Also, if freedom does not exist, how
can the illusion that it does exist be created? How can a strictly unfree system produce a
simulation of its opposite, a free system? That’s a category error.
5) Life is an illusion. All “life” is made of dead matter, hence life is only an epiphenomenon,
illusion or miraculous “emergent” property. There is no such thing as life in itself, i.e.
substantive life. Life, such as it is, is only a peculiar and ephemeral relation between
fundamentally dead things.
6) Mind is an illusion. Science says we live in a strictly material world. There is no such
thing as mind in itself, i.e. substantive mind. Mind, such as it is, is generated by the
organization of material atoms, and when that organization breaks down, mind
disappears.
7) Humans are food reorganized. Physicist Max Tegmark said, “Imagine all the food you
have eaten in your life and consider that you are simply some of that food, rearranged.”
You are what you eat (and drink). There is nothing else. Food, it seems, is proto-
consciousness. Consciousness can be extracted from food, if food is arranged correctly.
8) All that exists is observable. The scientific method is all about observation. Scientists
regard absence of evidence as evidence of absence. If it can’t be observed, it can’t exist.
This is an article of faith for scientists. They refuse to consider the possibility of wholly
rational and logical entities – those of mathematics – that cannot be perceived but
determine everything in the observable world.
9) Everything is empirical. Science revolves around all that is available to the human senses,
or to instruments that extend the human senses. Science places no reliance on anything
that is not about the human senses or their extension. Science rejects the basis of
rationalism – the principle of sufficient reason – and has no place for Occam’s razor, the
principle of economy. In fact, science enshrines no rational and logical principles
whatsoever. These cannot be part of a paradigm based on sensory observation. Reason
and logic are not perceivable. When an animal looks at the world, it doesn’t observe
reason and logic anywhere. So, how can these be part of empirical science?
Philosophically, science may be regarded as an extreme declaration of nihilism. It says, in short,
that existence is random or spontaneous, involving some kind of eruption from nothing at all. It
says that existence is pointless, meaningless, and purposeless. Life and mind have no reality in
themselves and are strictly emergent epiphenomena of the relations of lifeless and mindless
things.
Science has been successful ever since it embraced mathematics. Prior to that, it was not
successful at all. Isaac Newton, with his seminal work Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy, may be regarded as the founder of mathematical science on the grand scale. This is
the subject has dominated the intellectual world ever since.
The devastating problem here is that although science uses mathematics for everything, it
does not define what mathematics is and explain why it should be relevant to natural philosophy.
Scientists regard mathematics as an unreal, manmade abstraction – in which case how can it have
any connection to the real, non-manmade, concrete world, regarding which it has the opposite
properties?
Moreover, the first step of the scientific method is to observe the world, yet mathematics – if
it is an unreal, manmade abstraction – is not observable, hence can have no connection with the
scientific method. But how can you have a method that culminates in mathematically expressed
theories that in themselves refute the method since mathematics is not a scientific observable?
That’s a category error, a foundational logical refutation of the scientific method.
Nobel laureate in physics Eugene Wigner wrote a paper called The Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. How can science, a subject that claims to
be rational and logical and to address observable reality, unreasonably rely on something it
regards as unreal? How does that work? How does that make any sense? It simply doesn’t.
The scientific paradigm is full of disastrous anomalies and contradictions that have been
more or less ignored for centuries because science has proved so useful and successful. No one
wants, or dares, to challenge the golden goose.
When paradigms fail, it is essential to bring about a paradigm shift to a new paradigm with
fewer and, preferably, no anomalies and contradictions. Anything that refuses to accepts its
proven flaws is a religious faith. Is science now in that category?
Can science evolve? Can a new paradigm be established that embraces the best of science
while getting rid of all the aspects of science that don’t make any rational sense? Ontological
mathematics is that new paradigm.
Science became successful when it embraced mathematics, but it adopted the bizarre attitude
that mathematics is an abstraction unreasonably and inexplicably perfectly suited to what it is
not, i.e. concrete reality.
Ontological mathematics is a rational upgrade of science. The illogical scientific claim that
an unreal subject (mathematics) can be used to describe reality is rejected and replaced by the
revolutionary idea that mathematics is not only real and concrete (i.e. ontological), it is none
other than reality itself. Mathematics is perfect for describing reality because reality is
mathematics. What could be simpler and more straightforward than that? That’s what Occam’s
razor and the principle of sufficient reason mandate.
In science, “matter” is real, while mathematics, which is used to describe matter, is unreal. In
ontological mathematics, “matter” is the appearance of mathematical information, i.e. all matter,
if you could drill down far enough, would simply be discovered to be composed of mathematical
basis entities.
Ontological mathematics asserts that mathematical waves – sinusoids – are the ground of all
existence, and the true basis of matter. Sinusoids are the ontological mathematical counterpart of
scientific “strings”. Adam Mann wrote, “String theory is an attempt to unite the two pillars of
20th century physics – quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity – with an
overarching framework that can explain all of physical reality. It tries to do so by positing that
particles are actually one-dimensional, string-like entities whose vibrations determine the
particles’ properties, such as their mass and charge. This counterintuitive idea was first
developed in the 1960s and ‘70s… The topic remained marginal for many years…”
Ontological mathematics, currently a “marginal” topic, asserts that if “stings” were properly
understood by scientists, they would in fact be reduced to nothing but basis sine and cosine
waves, hence the whole of science would reduce to sinusoidal mathematics, aka ontological
mathematics. Ontological mathematics is strictly the mathematics of sinusoidal waves defined as
the fiber and fabric of existence, from which everything else is made, and through which
everything communicates.
Ontological mathematics is, in effect, string theory (a non-analytic scientific theory)
converted into an analytic mathematical theory.
Mathematics has radically different properties from science. Science is an empirical subject,
while mathematics is rational. Science is a perceptual subject, while mathematics is conceptual.
Science relies on the human senses, while mathematics relies on reason and logic. They are two
drastically different activities, which makes it all the more remarkable that mathematics stands at
the core of science as its indispensable engine.
No scientist has ever explained this, and it forms no part of the scientific enterprise to
attempt a rational and logical explanation of this foundational contradiction. Science is a use
system, not a truth system. Ontological mathematics is both a use and truth system.
Rationalism and Empiricism
Immanuel Kant attempted a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism when he said, “Concepts
without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind.” He believed that concepts
were pure abstractions that made sense only when tied to percepts. Otherwise, they were
“empty” and would give rise to hopeless abstractions if used in isolation. As for percepts, they
were meaningless (“blind”) on their own. Only when tied to concepts did they become
meaningful. An animal looks at the world and perceives just the same as a human does (more or
less), but an animal has absolutely no understanding of what it’s looking at. If it looks at the
moon, it has no concept, no understanding, that the moon is an object hundreds of thousands of
miles away from the earth. For an animal, the moon is just another object in its visual field.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Science adopts a similar approach to Kant. It says that mathematics (pure conceptualism) is,
on its own, an unreal, manmade abstraction, an “empty” subject. Equally, matter (that which is
perceived, the object of pure perceptualism) is “meaningless” on its own. It’s only when
described mathematically (conceptually) that the theory of matter (perceptualism) becomes
scientific and useful.
However, in both cases, Kantian philosophy and scientific materialism, we are confronted by
an impossible dualism. How can unreal concepts interact with, and explain, real percepts? All
Kantians and scientists ignore this foundational problem. Ontological mathematicians do not.
Einstein said, “At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring
minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is
independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason,
then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?
“In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this:- As far as the laws of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
This is to commit a category error, to perpetrate a form of Cartesian substance dualism.
Einstein is basically positing two versions of mathematics: a “blurry” one that deals with reality,
and a clear one that deals with unreality. How can you get blurry mathematics? How can blurry
mathematics interact with clear mathematics? Where would they overlap? What would their
common rules be? How can two such different things coexist? What would be the sufficient
reason?
Einstein was no philosopher. Many of his ideas were absurd, especially regarding the true
nature of mathematics. There is only one mathematics, the mathematics of reality, and it is
always crystal clear. It is science that is “blurry”, imprecise and uncertain. Science suffers from
these defects exactly because it rejects clear mathematics in order to believe in an intrinsically
inexplicable substance called “matter”. Try to define matter without using mathematics and you
will not be able to say anything coherent. What is matter in itself, free of any human
observation? No scientist could even begin to hazard a guess. It’s not even a definable problem.
“Matter” is simply a manmade heuristic slotted into mathematical formulae to account for
empirical observations. It is precisely this use of an undefined and undefinable heuristic that
leads to blurry, imprecise, uncertain science.
Ontological mathematics analytically reduces the whole of reality to precise sinusoids
contained within precise monads. There are no vague terms, no undefinables, no heuristics.
Clarity is total.
