{"product":{"product_id":"B07B7JB2K7","title":"Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason (The Truth Series Book 8)","price":"5.99","image_url":"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61v35FEXz8L._SL500_.jpg","url":"https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07B7JB2K7"},"comments":[{"body":"Ah, so you're changing your story: now you don't want a copy, you *want me to buy the book for you*. Yes, your \"good faith\" has been shown by dismissing something as a \"sham\" without understanding it. Absurd.\r\n\r\nYou can even read the first 15% (or whatever) of EACH book on Amazon (by clicking on the picture to the left).\r\n\r\nIf we assume 52 books of the God Series and the Truth Series, with 400 pages per book, 400\\*0.15\\*52 = 3120.\r\n\r\n3120 free pages to read on Amazon. And you want me to buy books for *you*, after all the hostility you've shown.\r\n\r\nEdit: dimensionless mathematics (the frequency domain of sine/cosine waves) is not \"mystical\", it is mathematical. Even after all this time you still don't get it. That's what ignoring 3120 pages *available for free* must do to you.\r\n\r\n[https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Scientiam-Nulla-Salus-Undermines-ebook/dp/B07B7JB2K7](https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Scientiam-Nulla-Salus-Undermines-ebook/dp/B07B7JB2K7)","subreddit_name":"INTP","author":"Illumagus"},{"body":"\u0026gt;You are wrong. ... This is wrong.  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;I gave you ... clear cut rationale as to why you are wrong. Now it's on you to come to accept that you are.  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;You have been wrong this whole time about a great many of your assumptions.  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;I recognize I'm talking to a deaf person who believes they can hear ...\r\n\r\nAsserting over and over that ontological mathematics is somehow \"wrong\" doesn't make it true. You've given no \"clear cut rationale\" for why ontological mathematics is \"wrong\" - indeed you *cannot*, because you don't understand what it is in the first place. You're \"a deaf person who believes they can hear\" when you try to reason your way around the PSR, and try to attack ontological mathematics without understanding it first.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;You will have to be shown you are wrong for you to loosen your grip on your beliefs.\r\n\r\nI don't *have* any beliefs, as I already explained. All I have is reason and ontological mathematics, which is always true. You accept this if you are *rational* and intelligent, and you reject reason/mathematics if you're *irrational*.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;The methods that you suggest (PSR is all you need) ***do not deliver*** the results  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;It does not agree with reality, and reality is the collection of truth.\r\n\r\nReality is \"the collection of truth\"? Now, you might find that in a Buddhist fortune cookie, but it doesn't actually *mean* anything. It's simply a semantic assertion that explains nothing. If we're charitable to you, it means you're equating reality and truth, but *truth* is mathematics (ontological mathematics). The PSR (Euler's Formula, ontological mathematics) delivers the precise mathematical syntax that underlies the entire universe, which is why 175+ brilliant books have been written about ontological mathematics, whereas you attempt to ridicule it on principle, without even reading about it at all. That's what trolls and dogmatic pseudo-intellectuals do.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;you start your PSR infinite loop again  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;PSR is the source of all knowledge, and that's just not it chief.\r\n\r\nAgain, a personal assertion isn't any kind of rational counter-argument. The PSR (=Euler's Formula) is the single axiom/equation that explains *everything* in the universe, including all of ontological mathematics and all of \"science\" (which has only been able to achieve *anything at all* in so far as it *uses* mathematics). \"The Scientific Method\", observations and meticulous experiments were all involved in **ALCHEMY,** which got NOWHERE because it DIDN'T USE MATHEMATICAL SYNTAX.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;When told about another human being (which you are, and have a brain, with human brain caveats, like all of us, your thinking is not flawless)... used pure reason, their answers did not match reality (Aristotle).\r\n\r\nAs I already explained, I am a *mind* (mathematical monad). And... this is the exact same arrogant assumption that I identified before: *\"you are human, therefore your thinking is inherently flawed, just like me, so I am right, and since human thinking is flawed we can never know absolute truth, everything is relative, subjective and flawed\"* which is of course complete *nonsense* \\- the PSR (Euler's Formula) and ontological mathematics ARE objective and are NEVER flawed.\r\n\r\nAristotle is not even relevant to this. Did he abide by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, Euler's Formula and ontological mathematics? Did he reason using objective mathematics? **No.** Therefore it's pointless to even bring him up. *\"Aristotle had thoughts but I think he was wrong, so you can't think your way to the truth\"* is of course 100% absurd. Ontological mathematics **is** the truth, and rational thinking is the only way there.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;... things that you claim should happen in reality, **don't,** you blame senses and prejudice as the source of the problem, yet it never dawns on you that your *own* prejudices about science, physics, AND math are throwing off your reasoning.\r\n\r\n\"Things that I claim should happen in reality, don't\"? To what even are you *referring to* here? Reality is not the sensory world we observe, reality is the **PSR and ontological mathematics.** Sensory prejudice (like that of an engineer, or an empiricist) is indeed a barrier to knowing this. I don't *have* prejudices in the sense that you are using the term, I simply see that ontological mathematics is 100% rational, whereas physics (in so far as it is *based* upon sensory bias for no reason, empiricism/materialism \"What you see is what you get\" is *irrational.*\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Math and physics are symbiotic systems, and you have not established in ***any way that reality agrees with*** that they are not.\r\n\r\nYou ignored my question to you -- maybe for the 5th time now? (!)\r\n\r\nIf you REMOVE mathematics and mathematical formulae/syntax OUT OF physics, WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WITH? A sensory religion. Voodoo. Guesswork. *Alchemy.* Divination. You're at the level of ancient Roman *Augurs*, who made *plenty* of observations (about flocks of birds, the sensory world around them, and so on) and yet NEVER encountered anything remotely close to mathematics or the Reality Principle. *Mathematics* is of a different order. *Mathematics* is the *arche*, what everything is *made out of.* \"Matter\" is *made out of* mathematics (mental sinusoidal waves). *Ontological mathematics* **IS** *reality.* You DARE to talk about \"what reality agrees with\" without even understanding any **ontology**, without an understanding what reality actually **is** in the first place. Math is only symbiotic with physics in the sense that **mathematics is responsible for all the achievements of physics.** But physics is not in the truth game, it's in the \"effective models\" and *heuristics* game. Remove math from physics and physics becomes instantly **useless and valueless.** Remove physics from math and think rationally, and you'll get [ontological mathematics](https://www.amazon.com/Mike-Hockney/e/B004KHR7DC), which **is** objective reality and truth, the [syntax (mathematical \"language\" that reality is actually written in, and made up of at the most basic level](https://www.amazon.com/Dr.-Thomas-Stark/e/B075J9RNJP).\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Out.\r\n\r\nYes, leave. Read and study before trying to come back and make your vague, irrational assertions. [Read how empiricist science undermines rational thinking. No, rationalism (mathematics) and empiricism (observations) are NOT compatible, but science co-opts mathematics anyway without understanding its non-sensory ontology.](https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Scientiam-Nulla-Salus-Undermines-ebook/dp/B07B7JB2K7)","subreddit_name":"mathematics","author":"Illumagus"},{"body":"**Part 4**\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;\"Faith\" has many meanings. It can simply be a synonym for \"belief.\"\r\n\r\nFaith and belief can absolutely be synonymous: they both mean the absence of knowledge i.e. accepting something without actually *knowing* it to be true. In rationalism (ontological mathematics, the PSR) there is no place for \"faith\" or \"belief\" at all! And yet you want to make it a core part of your system - that immediately casts aspersions on your degree of rationality.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;one's beliefs certainly should be consistent with reason and reality...unlike yours, apparently.\r\n\r\nIf one actually understands rational reality, you don't need ANY beliefs. It's not a matter of whether they are \"consistent\" or not, belief is not needed! No rational person would ever subscribe to \"faith\" or \"belief\". But an irrational empiricist and quasi-Buddhist would. You have no connection with reason or reality, stop projecting.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Buddhist traditions are laden with as sorts of mysticism. Scio-Buddhism, however, is\r\n\r\nCompletely the same. Pure non-mathematical and non-rational mysticism. You can speculate about \"mathematical fluids\" all you want, but we have a mathematical system based on sinusoidal waves, the PSR, and Euler's Formula, and you do not. You just speculate and mislead people with irrational sophistry.\r\n\r\nYou don't even know what mysticism is. You dismiss rational unobservables as \"mysticism\", which means that you're actually using it as a synonym for non-sensory. But the belief that your senses show you objective, noumenal reality is in itself a kind of mysticism - empiricism and materialism - and contradicts reason.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;This “religion,” in fact, is actually held by many as not truly being a religion in the usual sense of the word, but instead is considered to be a philosophy or simply an approach to living. This “religion-which-is-not-a-religion” is Buddhism, when Buddhism is stripped of all mysticism and its reality-based essence is laid bare.\r\n\r\nAs I already said, Buddhism doesn't *have* any kind of \"core truth\". It has no connection with a rational reality.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;you might find this interesting: Why\\_Buddhism\\_Is\\_True  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;resonates with the Buddhist teaching of no-self  \r\n\u0026gt;  \r\n\u0026gt;practice of mindfulness meditation and stripped of supernatural beliefs such as reincarnation.\r\n\r\nWell, Buddhism is objectively and rationally *wrong*. As is the bizarre denial of the self, and faux \"mindfulness\" and \"meditation\" (i.e. not thinking). As for reincarnation, that is a mathematically and rationally inevitable consequence of reason and the PSR, because dimensionless minds are eternal and mathematically link to spacetime avatars (bodies). The book gets it completely the wrong way round, which is not surprising.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;You have called me dishonest, but I believe I have demonstrated\r\n\r\nLet's give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you are *not* dishonest - and that you actually believe in what you are saying - but you are still deluded by your materialist bias.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;choose to abandon dishonesty and mysticism\r\n\r\nI'm honest, non-mystical and rational. You're mystical, irrational and deny the PSR and rational unobservables.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;don't have any reason to ... hold a grudge.\r\n\r\nI won't hold a grudge either, if you accept reason rather than subscribing to irrational empiricism/materialism.\r\n\r\nSince we're sharing books now: [Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science \\[and Empiricism\\] Undermines Reason](https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Scientiam-Nulla-Salus-Undermines-ebook/dp/B07B7JB2K7)","subreddit_name":"INTP","author":"Illumagus"},{"body":"You're not even aware that all of your \"thoughts\" have already been disproven. You're at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to understanding what reality *is*, and due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you really have no idea just how wrong you are. The universe is made of mathematics (numbers, i.e. sinusoidal waves within dimensionless - mental - Leibnizian monads). Ontological mathematics and the PSR is reality 'in itself'.\r\n\r\nHow shall we describe you? Which do *you* think fits best? Ortega mediocrity, extreme-sensory autist, Dunning-Kruger type, functionary, Mandarin, nihilist (in the worst possible sense, not in the life-affirming or Nietzschian sense), charlatan, arrogant Ignoramus, Sophist, anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual, anti-Truth, irrational (rejects the PSR and objective reason), empiricist (believes in what he \"sees\", just like any simple-minded animal), when the senses evolved for *survival*, not truth - and reality 'in itself' is not sensory, it is intelligible - conceptual - dimensionless (mental) - rational - mathematical - *a priori* \\- objective for everyone in the universe.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;assume there's a divine creator for a second, why is there one\r\n\r\nThere isn't. Invalid argument.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;the set A of axioms\r\n\r\nYou can't even get past your autistic fixation with non-existent sets when discussing \"God\", how sad.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;bunch of things that exist for no reason\r\n\r\nNothing exists for no reason. Leibniz, Godel and Hegel understood reality. You've failed at the first step.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;take the creator out of the discussion and everything functions the same\r\n\r\nTake ontological mathematics (the PSR) out of the discussion and reality falls apart and can't function at all. Alternatively, reject reason in your delusional head and reality still functions the same, because reality couldn't care less about your moronic, already disproven, subjective opinions. The Truth is not a democracy.\r\n\r\nKudos to you for trying to answer, but **all of the answers you've provided have already been disproven**.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;There is no one system ... considering that we can't actually prove the universe exists at all under Cartesian skepticism\r\n\r\nThere must be 'one system', one Theory of Everything with which to understand reality. The universe is one system, completely interconnected and holographic. Pretending that \"the universe may or may not exist\" is defeatist, anti-rational and fails at the first hurdle. The universe *exists*. Non-existence rationally cannot exist.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;\"Mind\" as far as language goes, appears to be an idea separate of the brain that encompasses the actions that go on in the head by normal physical laws.\r\n\r\nMy God, could you get any more autistic? It's not about semantic language, it's about what 'mind' *is*. Cartesian mind (unextended, 0-dimensional frequency domain) is the counterpart to Cartesian matter (extended, 6-dimensional spacetime domain) To dismiss mind as \"nonexistent\" because you can't \"see\" or sense it, is anti-rational.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;As per above, the head\r\n\r\nYou're objectively wrong, mind is nowhere with regards to spacetime, it is in the dimensionless mathematical Singularity, the infinite plenum of Leibnizian monads.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Mind \\*is\\* matter\r\n\r\nObjectively wrong. Read: [How Science \\[Empiricism\\] Undermines Reason](https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Scientiam-Nulla-Salus-Undermines-ebook/dp/B07B7JB2K7). Otherwise get lost, because it's moronic to attack a position without studying it, or knowing the first thing about it.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Existence is just the state of being included in the set of \"things that exist\"\r\n\r\nStupid answer. I asked what existence is MADE FROM. WHAT IS THE ARCHE? You didn't even understand the fucking question, it's entirely beyond you. You state \"existence is the set of things that exist\" as if that fucking meant something, when it just begs the question. Existence is actually made from reason (mathematics).\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;There is no free will, just the illusion of it. Sure I may act as if I have free will, as I am incentivised to do so, but none of these decisions were made by rules that defied normal material logic in the\r\n\r\nWhat so, I'm being trolled right now by a collection of random atoms, by arrangements of food, by a pre-programmed robot? Who fucking knew. I CHOSE to respond to you. I had the choice: I could CHOOSE to ignore you (which is what you deserve) or respond (even though your IQ barely escapes single digits, so you won't understand anything I write). Empiricist, materialist, \"illusory free will\", braindead. Determinism applies to temporal objects within dimensional spacetime: monadic minds are uncaused causes outside of spacetime, in the dimensionless (non-sensory) Singularity, and therefore have total free will. [Book you need to read](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00R1Z3PIG)\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;They are just models of reality that are the most accurate that we have that we hope to discard into a single, more accurate model.\r\n\r\nYou're not interested in reality, just useful models. Just empirical accuracy (but never eternal Truth) - mathematics. The single, 100% accurate model is mental, ontological mathematics. Because you're a braindead empiricist, you'll never grasp that salient fact. Science advances one funeral at a time.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;No reason, just that we can only observe\r\n\r\nYou're so much like an animal, that \"just observes\". It's like a cockroach decided to incarnate into human form but still doesn't have a fucking clue what knowledge is, and he just \"crawls around and observes\". There's something rather than nothing, \"for no reason\". That's a non-answer, evasion and begs the question.\r\n\r\nGiven that you can't understand anything else I don't expect you to understand Godel either, you'll just misinterpret him with your empiricist/materialist/sensory/irrational bias. He was a rationalist in the Leibnizian vein, and you can't even understand his thoughts, my thoughts, or the thoughts of ontological mathematics. They're literally beyond you, since you're a \"no reason, just observing\" cockroach pretending to be human.\r\n\r\n\u0026gt;Accepting that there can be no reason is perfectly valid\r\n\r\nThen why are mathematical laws - Euler's Formula, any scientific formula you can think of (that hasn't been butchered by materialism) *always* correct? *If there was \"no reason\" then this would be a 0% rational universe, which means it would be a permanent LSD trip of magic and miracles, not a rational universe governed by mathematical laws.* Or you were going to say: \"For no reason (grunts)\", right? Get fucking lost.","subreddit_name":"INTP","author":"Illumagus"}]}