Gnothi Seauton

[Gnothi Seauton @_FromTheRose99]

Where is your mind located? How does it interact with your body? When your body dies, does your mind die too, or does it have an afterlife?

That's the mystery of existence.
If humanity cannot answer these questions once and for all then it has no understanding of reality. The answer is not going to be something obvious. It will require some great conceptual leap, hitherto unforeseen by almost all of humanity.

The ancients believed that a person was a reflection of the cosmos. A person had a body and a soul, and so did the cosmos.

Is that a silly Mythos, or can it be intellectually defended?

The rational link between the ancient wisdom and modern knowledge is none other than holography.
Holography is what allows scientific materialism to be replaced by mathematical idealism. Holography allows the soul, rather than matter, to be considered the source of reality. Mental atoms with atomic mass zero replace material atoms with atomic mass greater than zero as the basis of the world.

Individual souls control individual bodies, and the collection of all souls controls the collective body - the cosmos. All of this is the inevitable consequence of ontological Fourier mathematics.

The unprecedented intellectual leap that humanity must make is to conceive of reality as mathematical rather than religious, spiritual, philosophical, metaphysical or physical (scientific). Pythagoras understood this 2,500 years ago. He was at least 2,500 years ahead of his time (!).

Over 300 years ago, Leibniz, with his Monadology, adopted a holographic model of reality, whereby dimensionless monads created the illusion of the dimensional material world. He was ignored. So it goes. Humanity's greatest geniuses are always painfully far ahead of the game. That's exactly why they're the greatest geniuses.

For science, mind doesn't exist at all in any real sense. Mind, says science, is an inexplicable epiphenomenon of matter, and wouldn't and couldn't exist without matter.

Religious and spiritual people equate their mind to their soul, and believe it will go on to enjoy a life after this one. Most of them naively imagine that their mind (soul) is located in their body (in the brain), and that it departs on death, leaving the body behind to turn to dust. This implies that the soul is capable of going on a journey through physical spacetime to some unspecified, mystical destination.

All souls are in fact permanently located in the same place, all crammed together in a purely mathematical domain, forever beyond the reach of empirical science. Far from being dependent on matter, souls are actually the authors - the creators - of matter, i.e. matter couldn't exist without souls. It wasn't "God" that created the material universe out of nothing. Souls created the world out of their own collective energy, and they did so mathematically, using holography. The "Big Bang" was the instant when the spacetime universe of matter was projected from the immaterial Singularity of mathematical souls (monads). Before material existence came neither "God", non- existence nor randomness, but the mental existence of immortal, indestructible, uncreated, uncaused, necessary mathematical singularities = souls. These are the prime movers. They are the origin of all things in our world. The so-called scientific world is their mathematical, holographic construct, their spacetime Matrix.

Bodies move from one place to another. Souls don't. They never go on any journeys, especially not physical journeys through spacetime. Your soul is emphatically not in your body. It's not in spacetime at all. Your soul resides in an immaterial, dimensionless, mathematical Singularity, outside space and time, along with the souls of everyone else. They are all denizens of Soul World. Soul World is a mathematical frequency domain, not a scientific spacetime domain. Dimensionless souls can't leave it under any circumstances. No soul ever inhabits a body in dimensional spacetime.

- Mike Hockney

[Gnothi Seauton @_FromTheRose99]

@BuryTomorrow93 @BLKNOIZ good shit bro!!

[Gnothi Seauton @_FromTheRose99]

[The Free Lunch]

A free lunch universe is impossible. Energy can be neither created or destroyed. The free lunch universe, however, doubly violates this law by creating two types of energy out of nothing; positive and negative energy. It then fallaciously denies that it has created energy out of nothing by asserting that the positive energy is exactly cancelled by negative energy, so that there is no net energy. But of course there is a vast amount of negative net energy created out of nothing and also a vast amount of positive net energy created out of nothing, so to say there is no violation of the conservation of energy is merely to play an accountant’s trick.

The law of conservation of energy is no such thing if you can produce as much energy as you like, whenever you like, provided that you can offset it by another vast amount of energy with the opposite sign. This is the sort of nonsense that the worshippers of scientism routinely spout.

[God and the Law of the Conservation of Energy]

God cannot create anything out of nothing, hence the Bible is provably false. For God to create the universe out of nothing would be to violate the inescapable law of conservation of energy. This law, by itself, shows that Abrahamism is a lie, a manmade construction. No one who accepts the conservation of energy could ever be a Christian, Jew or Muslim.

In Eastern religion, the divine element creates the universe out of itself, via transforming itself, hence does not violate the law of conservation of energy. It cannot be refuted on that basis.

That which fundamentally exists has always existed, and could not not exist. Its existence is necessary. Its non-existence would be a contradiction in terms, hence a logical impossibility.

[Science and the Law of the Conservation of Energy]

By exactly the same logic that applies to Abrahamism, science cannot create a universe out of nothing at all, as it absurdly claims.

Science tries to use an accounting dodge to get round the law of conservation of energy. With a straight face, it claims that "free-lunch" universes can be constructed, provided a universe's positive energy is exactly balanced by its negative energy. By this reckoning, infinite universes could be constructed every instant of every day ... the worst possible violation of both Occam’s razor and energy conservation, hence a spectacularly irrational claim (of the type of which science is now full because of its rejection of rationalism).

The notion of creating positive and negative energy out of nothing is to violate the law of conservation of energy twice over, once with respect to the positive component, which is summoned out of nothing, and one with respect to the negative component, which is also summoned out of nothing in order to exactly offset the positive component. Energy in these terms is not conserved at all. Rather, it is balanced, an entirely different concept.

Energy, in these terms, is endlessly creatable out of nothing, for no reason, via no mechanism. This is the absurd level of non-explanation at which science has arrived, and which it states as if delivering great truths rather than irrational gibberish. If science were a rationalist undertaking, it would not make these demented claims. Sadly, it is an empiricist undertaking and empiricism typically adopts the e ex exact opposite positions from those of rationalism. In fact, empiricism denies the very existence of the order of reality relied upon by rationalist arguments. That’s how opposed to rationalism it is.

There are not two laws in competition with each other, i.e. a law of conservation of energy versus a law of balance of energy. There is only one law, the law of conservation of energy. The other proposed law is bogus, and reflective of modern scientific anti-logic. The former is a valid mathematical law, the latter an invalid scientific "law".

- Dr. Thomas Stark

[Gnothi Seauton @_FromTheRose99]

Ontics Versus Physics

Physics deals with phenomena only. Ontics deals with both phenomena and noumena.

Physics deals with particulars only. Ontics deals with both particulars and universals.

Physics deals with territory only. Ontics deals with both the territory and the map.

[Gnothi Seauton @_FromTheRose99]

The superior realm is the immaterial world, not accessible to the body's senses, but known by intellect or intellectual intuition.

- Mike Hockney (Ontics)