Join Us on FACEBOOKVă invit să vă alăturaţi grupului Facebook Mişcarea DACIA, ce-şi propune un alt fel de a face politică!

Citiţi partea introductivă şi proiectul de Program, iar dacă vă place, veniţi cu noi !
O puteţi face clicând alături imaginea, sau acest link


Marzo 13th, 2020 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă

L wrote, “Someone was inspired tonight, but remember for every word you said there’s another you on the far side of the multiverse which said exactly the opposite words with the same conviction, and another you for all possible combinations in between.”

Remember, there’s no such thing as the multiverse. It’s a manmade fallacy that constitutes the biggest possible violation of Occam’s razor and the principle of sufficient reason. Only people that despise reason and logic believe in the Multiverse – the wet dream of the clowns that believe that existence can randomly pop out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism, to no purpose.

The Multiverse is every bit as miraculous and magical as “God”. In fact, it’s just the atheist materialist’s version of God. Instead of saying, “God (Design) is responsible” for whatever, the atheist materialist says, “The Multiverse (Randomness) is responsible”.

The atheist materialists have merely replaced God, the supposed eternal Creator, with infinite random creation out of nothing at all – an even worse idea, and totally irrational.

Randomness is just another name for irreducible CHAOS. According to irrational people, Order magically appears out of Chaos. According to rationalists, Order has always existed and only ordered things are possible.

Given a reality governed by the principle of sufficient reason (absolute rationalism), randomness is impossible since randomness, by definition, is that which lacks a sufficient reason. There has been no idea more damaging to science than the irrational assertion of empiricists that randomness exists. No one can perceive randomness. It is a non-empirical hypothesis, and any claim that anything happened randomly can automatically be reinterpreted in terms of sufficient reasons, i.e. total NON-randomness. Will you choose random (irrational) non-explanations, or rational explanations? Your choice.

Anyone who opposes the PSR is irrational. Science opposes the PSR and champions randomness. Science is irrational. Science irrationally uses mathematics, the quintessential rationalist subject, the very fact of which demonstrates that randomness is impossible.

Randomness is exactly that which is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. No mathematical formula or argument could ever be presented to explain randomness. Mathematics is entirely predicated on the PSR.

Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: posibil text care spune „SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL”

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

Novembre 20th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Dacia Iluministă

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

PSR= „For everything that exist, there is a sufficient reason for why it is thus and not otherwise”
It simply states that everything happens according to Reason and never randomly. In its simplicity is the profoundest thing of all.
We can say that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is the First Cause, or the Prime Mover. It is the origin of all mathematical motion and hence of all motion. A point move through the unit circle ad infinitum and give rise to eternal sine and cosine waves because the PSR mandate it.
So the PSR is pretty much the God Equation stated in words, or a synonymous to ontological math, mind, life and light.
The PSR *seems* simple at first glance – it is “simply” Leibniz’ principle that everything has a sufficient reason (must have a proper, rational explanation). But the *implications* are massive. The PSR is “God” (not in the conventional sense). The entire universe (all of ontological mathematics) can be derived from the PSR, and from its mathematical equivalent, Euler’s Formula.

A corollary of the PSR is Occam’s Razor (the universe takes the shortest, simplest, most economical path – beauty, simplicity, symmetry, order and reason are all indissolubly linked). Leibniz’s principles: The Sameness of Indiscernibles (no two things are identical) and the Law of Continuity (nature makes no leaps) are also necessary consequences of the PSR.

Causation and the Principle of Sufficient Reason (The God Series Book 21) by [Hockney, Mike]

In fact all laws in the universe, all mathematical equations, all ‘scientific’ equations as well (when they haven’t been butchered and misinterpreted by materialism / empiricism) come from the PSR. Some of the most notable logical principles though?

0. PSR = Euler’s Formula
“Nothing exists, or can exist, without a sufficient reason for its existence. For every fact there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. Nothing comes about arbitrarily. If you can’t state the sufficient reason for a phenomenon then you do not understand it. If something does not have a sufficient reason for its existence then it does not exist.”

1. Occam’s Razor (corollary)
“Occam’s razor is the English equivalent of the Latin lex parsimoniae — the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.” — Wikipedia
That is, if there is no sufficient reason to complicate things, keep it as simple as possible. The sufficient reason for something will also usually be the simplest reason.”
Ultimate simplicity is the tautology 0 = 0.

2. The Sameness of Indiscernibles

3. Law of Continuity

4. Infinity Multiplier
“Existentially, if one of something is possible then there’s no sufficient reason why an infinite number should not be possible: the conditions that were sufficient for one must also be sufficient for an infinite number. If one is forbidden, all are forbidden. If one is possible, an infinite number is possible because there’s no sufficient reason why any arbitrary limit should apply.”

5. Principle of Least Time
“Fermat’s Principle: ‘Light travels between two given points along the path of shortest time.'”

6. Principle of Least Action
“If something can be done with a minimal effort, what sufficient reason could there be for taking more effort than required i.e. sufficient reason always stands on the side of least action since there’s never any sufficient reason for superfluous action.”

7. The Plenitude Principle
“Everything that can happen will happen eventually. (Existence “begins” as perfect potential and evolves to perfect actualisation, and in doing so it creates God. God does not create existence.
God in fact IS existence in some sense, but requires an evolutionary process in order to actualise himself i.e. to turn all of his potential into actuality.”

8. The Perpetual Motion Principle
“Everything that exists is always in motion. A genuinely stationary state is impossible.”
Monads aren’t static, they’re dynamic – and therefore infinite monads can create spacetime / extension.
It’s impossible for you to be stationary. Even if you think right now you’re ‘sitting down’, you may be moving at 0 speed through space but at *maximum* speed through time.

9. The Plenum Principle
“Everything is filled. There are no gaps. Existence is not limited in any way. There are no boundaries between existence and something else called non-existence. Existence is all there is. Any system that leaves any possibility of any gaps (such as in any materialistic theory) is false. There can be no gaps and no leaps, except in specific mathematical situations.”

10. Principle of Monadic Spacetime
“With his monads, Leibniz considered that he had unambiguously defined existence. The fact is that there is no other entity that can do so. The Plenum Principle states that there can be no gaps in existence and the Perpetual Motion Principle states that everything that exists is always in motion. So, in the light of these principles, the question of existence becomes radically simple and one of pure mathematics. With what shape of “particle” can you unarguably and unambiguously fill all of existence, and keep it filled no matter how the particles move with respect to each other?” (Dimensionless monads.)

God Series book 3 ‘The Last Man Who Knew Everything’ by Mike Hockney goes into more detail on Leibniz, and the logical consequences of the PSR.

The Last Man Who Knew Everything (The God Series Book 3) by [Hockney, Mike]

by Alessio Cappelli and Thomas Foster – hyperians

The Principle of Sufficient Reason – PSR

Luglio 16th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Senza categoria

The first key principle that every Illuminist should become familiar with is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR states that for every fact there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise. So everything must have a sufficient reason for its existence and why it is so. The PSR should be applied to any idea you come across. Test if what is being said stands up to the PSR. The video below gives a good explanation of the PSR. It may seem obvious that everything has a sufficient reason for being so, but this philosophical thinking can often be overlooked (such as in empiricist materialist science). Sometimes the given reason for the Universe’s existence is that there are random quantum fluctuations. But what is the sufficient reason for this being so and not otherwise? Does this really explain anything at all? All these problems can be looked at in far greater detail.

In short, ALL theories and ideas should pass the test of the PSR!




Gennaio 11th, 2019 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia

Mathematics: The Cosmic Mystery

Most people are baffled or incredulous when they first come across the concept of ontological mathematics. So, before we even give a description of what ontological mathematics is, we shall address why people are likely to be initially nonplussed or even resistant and hostile to ontological mathematics.

What type of person are you? It’s a fact that your personality type determines your thinking and what you will accept as the answer to existence. You will not be responsive to any answer incompatible with your personality type and the way you relate to the world. As Jung identified, the four basic types are: 1) sensing types, 2) intuitives, 3) feeling types, and 4) thinking types. Sensing and intuition are perceiving functions, while feeling and thinking are judging functions. Intuition is the opposite of sensing, and thinking is the opposite of feeling.

Sensing types are those attracted to answers based on sensory stuff (“matter”). They scoff at any reference to non-sensory stuff. They simply cannot relate to that concept. It automatically seems unreal to them, hence impossible.

Intuitives are the opposite of sensing types, so they typically regard the physical world as some kind of illusion, and are attracted to the concept of an unseen mental whole, which they often refer to as the One, or Cosmic Consciousness, or Universal Mind. Their aim is to be fully absorbed by this blissful unitary mind where all of their problems will vanish.

Feeling types are those attracted to answers that satisfy them emotionally. You cannot have a satisfying emotional relationship with matter, so science is no good to these people. Equally, cosmic consciousness is far too abstract for them. They seek the ultimate satisfying relationship, so they believe in a God of Love, unconditional love, universal love, with whom they can have the supreme loving, personal relationship.

Thinking types do not engage with any of that. They want a rational, logical explanation. They find “matter” intellectually unsatisfying (matter is more or less miraculous since scientists claim that it jumps out of non-existence, for no reason, via no mechanism, as some bizarre product of inexplicable randomness and uncertainty), cosmic consciousness unsatisfying, and an emotional God of love but no rational explanations unsatisfying.

What is the ultimate rational and logical subject? It’s mathematics. For thinking types, then, but for no other types, mathematics is what they look to for answers. Others find mathematics ridiculous. Scientists, who use mathematics all the time, have the most bizarre attitude towards it, regarding it as abstract and “unreal”. Scientists are sensing types and what is real for them is “matter”, and experiments designed to observe matter. They dismiss everything else, including mathematics.

Mystical intuitives can’t stand mathematics. They want to wallow in intuitive visions, meditative and shamanistic experiences. When did the Buddha mention mathematics? When do meditators read mathematics books? Never going to happen.

Since feeling is the opposite of thinking, feeling types especially loathe mathematics and mock any notion that mathematics is the basis of reality.

But here’s the fatal question for the sensing types, the intuitives, and the feeling types: “What is IT made of?” For sensing types, what is matter made of? Is it made of atoms, or electrons, protons and neutrons? What about quarks? What about leptons? What about super symmetric particles? What about probability wavefunctions? How about quantum loops? How about branes? How about strings? How about quantum foam, or “Planck spheres”? How many dimensions are associated with matter? Three, four, ten, eleven, twenty-six, infinite? As soon as you actually try to define matter, the concept disintegrates into gibberish, leaving nothing but extremely complex mathematics such as M-theory, so why not ditch “matter” and turn to analytic mathematics instead, with clear-cut, simple answers? Scientists are empiricists, not rationalists.

What is “cosmic consciousness” made of? What is the Tao made of? What is nirvana made of? What is the One made of? We get a resounding silence from the intuitives. They don’t care. They are not bothered about understanding the ontology and epistemology of cosmic consciousness. They just want to be one with it, to be absorbed by it. Like scientists, they are empiricists, not rationalists.

What about God? As soon as you say that God is made of something then God is rendered subject to the laws of that thing, which therefore becomes more important than God. God cannot defy the laws of whatever he is made of. God cannot perform a “miracle” if it contradicts the laws of whatever God is made of. Quite literally, as soon as you agree that God is made of something, his power vanishes because now it is the thing of which he is made that has all the power. After all, it has the power to make God!

The idea that God is not made of anything is ludicrous. In that case, he couldn’t exist! Yet whenever religious believers refer to God, they NEVER refer to what he is made of, and they would never dream of asking this question because it would destroy their faith. They are compelled to claim that God makes everything, but nothing makes God. Yet the idea that God has no substance – he is made of nothing – makes him non-existent. It’s funny when religious believers claim that God made the world out of nothing since God himself, if he is not made of something, must be made of nothing! Did God summon himself into existence from non-existence? That is the logic of the Bible. Science says the same thing with its claim that the Big Bang erupts out of nothing rather than out of an eternal mathematical Singularity.

These feelings types are, like scientists and mystics, empiricists, not rationalists.

The ultimate ontological question is what could serve as the ontological basis for God, cosmic consciousness and matter alike. What could realistically be proposed as the only thing from which everything could be rationally made? There is only one rational answer – the most rational thing of all, namely mathematics.

Ontological mathematics is, to put it simply, the study of mathematics taken as the basis of existence, i.e. as a real, concrete entity, present everywhere in the universe … as light, or “broken” light. Mathematics is not unreal, it is not abstract, and it is not manmade. It is none other than the eternal language of existence, of Nature, of reality. The sole reason why we live in a rational cosmos is that the cosmos is made not of “stuff”, but of a rational, intelligible language, which exists as light. If reality were not made of language, it could not be intelligible. Only languages are intelligible, and the one and only rationally intelligible language is mathematics.

The universe, despite appearances, is 100% mathematical. The easiest way to approach this idea is to treat mathematics as a two-sided coin. One side concerns mathematical rationalism, i.e. mathematical form, mathematical syntax … mathematics as map, mathematics as unseen noumenon. The other side is mathematical empiricism, i.e. mathematical content, matter, semantics … mathematics as territory, as seen phenomenon.

Rationalist mathematics is the unseen INFORMATION CARRIER. Empirical mathematics is the observed INFORMATION CARRIED. We never experience the carrier under any circumstances. We only experience the information carried.

Think of electricity. All off your gadgets are powered by it, but you never see it and you never interact with it. You interact with the information that the electrically powered gadgets deliver to you. These are impossible without electricity, but absolutely no one thinks of the operations of electricity while they are watching a YouTube video on their smartphone about cats with hats on surfboards.

Ontologically, we replace electricity with mathematics. What is powering everything, including electricity, is mathematics, but we never see it and we never interact with it as it is in itself (as noumenon). We only ever encounter it as phenomenon, as appearance, and its appearance doesn’t seem mathematical in the slightest.

When you watch a YouTube video you are in a sense watching electricity, but you have no idea that this is what you are watching. You engage with electricity as phenomenon – as sensory output – not electricity as noumenon – as the unseen entity powering all of your gadgets.

People are transfixed by appearances because that’s the level at which they actually live. That’s what their experiences are all about. They are not interested in what’s under the hood, all the unseen stuff that holds everything together. Only reason and logic – the opposite of human experiences (which concern sensory perceptions, feelings and mystical intuitions) – take us to the world of non-appearance.

People regard the world of non-appearance as unreal, hence why they regard mathematics as unreal. Here’s the cosmic joke. Whatever you imagine to be the most unreal thing of all, the least likely candidate for what existence is made of, is CERTAIN to be exactly what existence is made of. The cosmic “electricity” is inevitably the opposite of what empiricism would suggest it might be (whether God, matter, randomness, chaos, or cosmic consciousness).

The opposite of empiricism is rationalism, and the subject that defines rationalism is mathematics. Thinking people are people who think mathematically, which is to say rationally. They are right and everyone else is wrong. The other three types are empirical types, ruled by their immediate experiences, whether their sensory perceptions, emotions, or mystical intuitions. These are always taken to be real because they are presented to us without any work on our part. You simply open your eyes and the world pours in. You can’t switch off your feelings. You can’t deny the power of a mystical vision. But you have to work hard to use your reason and logic. That work creates an effect of non-immediacy, which is interpreted as non-reality.

Imagine how differently you would regard mathematics if instead of having to work out answers, you saw answers being presented to you in your mind’s eye, without any effort on your part. There are autistics who can literally see the numbers of pi in their field of vision, and just read off what they see, to thousands of decimal places. If we all had that capacity – if we interacted with mathematics immediately and effortlessly – no one would doubt the ontology of mathematics. We would all take it for granted that we lived in a mathematical universe. But evolution, faced with the choice between quality and quantity, semantics and syntax, has made us empiricists rather than rationalists, which is why the simple-minded reject mathematics as ontological. Imagine playing a video game equipped with a split screen. In one screen, you see the game. In the other screen, you see the code that is being executed each time you do anything in the game. Evolution, via natural selection, decided that a split screen reality was useless to us. What good does it do you in your day-to-day life to see the code that underlies everything? It only matters when you are interested in Absolute Truth. Evolution, certainly in its early stages, has nothing to do with Truth. It’s about survival and reproduction. Only the most highly evolved minds can start to contemplate Absolute Truth. Look around you. How many people have highly evolved minds? Most are closer to apes than gods.

Science helps evolution because it starts to deal with reality quantitatively rather than qualitatively. However, it remains stuck with empiricism rather than rationalism, which is why it will in due course be replaced by ontological mathematics, which reveals the code of existence, the “game code” that we all use.

Here’s the bottom line. We inhabit the world empirically, i.e. we experience it. But the world in itself is rational, and we don’t experience that at all. Rationalism is the opposite of empiricism.

Science, religion, philosophy and spirituality all deal with empirical “reality”. Science is the most successful of these because – drum roll – it’s the only one that uses MATHEMATICS. But science is itself mired in anti-mathematical ideology because it is an empiricist subject rather than a rationalist subject.

Ontological mathematics is what you get when you strip out all empiricist considerations from science, leaving pure mathematical rationalism.

When purely rational and logical considerations are applied to mathematics, i.e. when we deploy the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Occam’s razor to mathematics, we arrive at the “God Equation”, namely Euler’s Formula: the Mind Equation, the Soul Equation, the Life Equation, the God Equation.

The whole of reality is built on complex numbers (rather than real numbers), and revolves around sine waves and cosine waves. These are the ontological electricity – the information carriers that convey every single empirical experience, no matter what, that you encounter every moment of your life.

Mathematics is BOTH a syntactic (rational) and semantic (empirical) subject. We experience mathematics semantically, but the math we are taught at school is strictly syntactic and extremely hard. Human beings are hard-wired to find semantics real and syntax unreal, to find semantics immediate and concrete, and syntax remote and abstract. That’s exactly why most people cannot conceive that mathematics is the true basis of existence. It goes against everything their experience tells them. It is utterly counterintuitive.

Sad to say, you need to be rational and logical to “get it”. But the vast majority of people are neither rational nor logical, and actively hate these subjects. The most feared and loathed subjects on earth are philosophy, science, and mathematics, i.e. the hardest subjects. The degree to which they are hated rises as their mathematical content, hence perceived abstraction and unreality, rises. How many people say, “What does mathematics have to do with my life?” The blunt answer is that mathematics IS your life!!!

The answer to existence is none other than the very thing that humans least desire as the answer to existence, and are least capable of understanding.

You have to laugh. The cosmos has the ultimate sense of humor. Where would you hide the answer to existence to make it almost impossible for humanity to access it? You would of course choose mathematics, the No. 1 most unpopular subject on earth that ordinary people would never go anywhere near. Science is bad enough for most people, but at least it gives you pretty pictures of galaxies. Pure mathematics doesn’t even give you that. It deals with invisible singularities.

Ontological Mathematics is for the most intelligent people on earth. They are the only ones who can understand it. You have no chance of connecting with Ontological Mathematics if you are not a rational and logical person with a craving for absolute Truth.

If you’re not rational and logical, stick to God, cosmic consciousness, matter, or accident and randomness. Stick to prayer (to God), meditation (to get in touch with cosmic consciousness), or sensory experiments (to probe matter). Reason and logic will not serve you. You are not interested in them, and you do not accept their power.

To a rationalist, 1 + 1 = 2 is truer than every statement of religion, philosophy, spirituality and science put together. 1 + 1 = 2 is eternally and necessarily true. Every statement of religion, philosophy, spirituality and science is temporal and contingent. They are mired in belief, opinion and interpretation.

People believe what they want to believe, what their personality type allows them to believe. Mathematics is a system of knowledge, not of belief, and that’s why humanity does not believe in a mathematical universe. Humanity believes in the false “truth”, and refuses to know the actual Truth.

The most mysterious thing in the universe is mathematics, yet it is also the most knowable thing. It is mysterious only because we are empirical beings rather than rational beings. That’s the human tragedy right there.


People are lazy and stupid. That’s why they reject hard, non-immediate answers to existence, and accept simplistic solutions based on immediate feelings, perceptions and intuitions. What are you going to do – pray, meditate, observe … or learn Fourier mathematics? Always follow the path of least resistance. Never put yourself to any trouble. Worship appearances, and never try to get beyond the surface of things. Do you seriously imagine that the answer to existence will present itself to you on a plate? Do you seriously imagine that prayer will reveal it to you, or meditation, or observation? Wake up! Stop being so fucking dumb.

Here’s the news. The universe is either rational or it’s irrational. If it’s rational, mathematics, the quintessence of rationalism, is its answer. If the universe is not rational, any irrational answer is as good as any other irrational answer, so believe whatever you like, which is what you already do … because you’re empirical, i.e. irrational. The very things in which you most trust – your personal experiences – are the very things that stop you from accessing the Truth. It’s the cosmic Catch-22. The Truth lies in reason and logic, BEYOND your experiences, yet all you do is worship your experiences. They are YOUR TRUTH (i.e. your self-delusions).…

Rugăciunea şi Meditaţia

Novembre 30th, 2018 No Comments   Posted in Mişcarea Dacia
„Rugăciunea nu te va ajuta niciodată. Nu este nimeni acolo să vă asculte.
Meditația nu vă va ajuta niciodată. Nu vă spune nimic. Nu oferă nicio Cunoaștere. Dacă s-ar fi întâmplat, cei mai inteligenți oameni din lume ar fi cei mai buni meditatori. Nu există meditatori în rândurile hiper-inteligenților. Dacă Meditația este atât de bună, unde sunt realizările ei pentru a rivaliza cu cele ale științei și matematicii? Nu există niciuna. Omenirea nu a profitat cu nimic din miliardele de ore pe care oamenii slabi le-au risipit în Meditație. Dacă același timp și efort s-ar fi depus pentru filosofie, știință și matematică, așa cum s-a depus în Rugăciune și Meditație, noi am trăi în paradis de acum. Rugăciunea și Meditația sunt lipsite de valoare și inutile. Acestea au fost respinse datorită incontestabilului fapt că nu au reușit să schimbe condiția umană, în ciuda unei cantități enorme de timp uman dedicat. Ele există pentru a deturna umanitatea de pe calea Adevărului, care este exclusiv Calea Rațiunii. Principiul Suficientei Raţiuni / Motivări (PSR) = Adevărul.
Rugăciunea nu se referă la PSR şi nici Meditația.
Sunt inamicii RAŢIUNII!!!”

Lucas Ice
November 30, 2017 at 9:49 PM ·
The Illuminated Pleb
November 12 at 10:02am
Prayer will NEVER help you. There is no one there to listen.
Meditation will NEVER help you. It tells you nothing. It provides no knowledge. If it did, the most intelligent people in the world would be the best meditators. No meditators feature amongst the ranks of the hyper-intelligent. If meditation is so good, where are its achievements to rival those of science and mathematics? There aren’t any. Humanity has profited not one jot from the billions of hours that weak-minded humans have wasted on meditation. If the same time and effort went into philosophy, science, and mathematics as has gone into prayer and meditation, we would be living in paradise by now. Prayer and meditation are worthless and pointless. They have been refuted by the incontestable fact that they have failed to change the human condition despite a simply mind-boggling amount of human time lavished on them. They exist in order to deflect humanity from the path of Truth, which is exclusively the path of Reason. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) = the Truth. Prayer is not about the PSR, and neither is meditation. They are the outright ENEMIES of reason.