Science – The MagicK that will DESTROY Mankind

How Mainstream Science Became a Religion

13th September 2016

By Makia Freeman

Contributing writer for Wake Up World

Mainstream science — despite all its claims of objectivity, and despite the fact it attempts to lay claim to the truth — is itself a religion.

Science places itself on a pedestal and assures everyone it has dispassionately arrived at its conclusions. Meanwhile, however, it is full of assumptions, denials and limitations, and makes the serious mistake of presenting its theories as facts.

Materialism, the driving force behind mainstream science, has been shown again and again to lack the capacity to explain the world around us, especially in relation to idealism or other theories that account for the energetic nature of reality. However, the errors and assumptions of mainstream science are gladly seized upon by technocrats, who are eager to use science and technology to further their own ambitions of control. The planned New World Order has a massive technocratic aspect, and includes forcing the vaccineGMO, surveillance, geoengineeringcarbon-driven global warmingSMART (Technology)  and microchipping  agendas onto an unsuspecting public.

Yet, despite this, we remain collectively bedazzled by materialism, a religion that has induced a certain faith in us. And up until recently, it has still been difficult for society at large to accept the fact that the unseen energetic realms of our reality are actually more powerful and more primal than the material realms we can see and touch … but that is starting to change.

Back to Ancient Athens – Materialism vs. Idealism

This is certainly not the first time we have struggled with the debate of whether the world can best be described by the philosophy of materialism; the ancient Greek philosophers and scientists thought long and hard about the issue.

Materialism vs. idealism is really the philosophical battle between the ideas that matter exists independently (and that consciousness doesn’t exist or is secondary), as opposed to the idea that consciousness, thought and energy are primary (and that matter is secondary) to existence. Democritus championed the materialist viewpoint (and his ideas were taken further by Aristotle), whereas Plato proposed the idea of idealism with his famous theory of the World of Forms or World of Ideas, which posits that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality. According to Plato, our materialist reality is an inferior copy of a more perfect world. This is exactly in alignment with what various cultures, shamans, religions and spiritual traditions have been saying for millennia about the pre-eminence of energy, and the power of mind over matter.

Even many distinguished mainstream Western scientists over the last 100+ years have grasped the point that matter is not solid. Here are the very best and brightest of them alluding to the fact that energy is pre-eminent to matter:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla

The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” – Werner Heisenberg

We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense … there is no place in this new kind of physics for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.” – Albert Einstein

The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.” – Albert Einstein

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Plato also wrote that the entire universe can be explained mathematically by numbers. This exactly aligns itself with the idea that we live in a holographic universe – a kind of computer simulation with digital numbers at its foundation.

The Renaissance: Reinforcing the Left-Brain Materialist View

The Renaissance was heralded as a golden age for humanity — and in many ways it was — but it also further cemented the left-brain materialist view of the world, which can be found in the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Copernicus and Galileo famously proposed heliocentrism (the theory that the planets revolve around the Sun, which is located at the center of the Solar System) over the then-existing geocentric model (the theory that the Earth is at the center of all the celestial bodies) (Which is what the BIBLE, the Word of GOD tells us.), but as the recent rise of the flat earth movement has shown, there is a copious amount of evidence to suggest that the heliocentric theory is far from being complete and conclusive.

It was Descartes who famously claimed “I think, therefore I am” and gave birth to the falsehood that thinking, reason and logic is the base of our existence, when in fact being or consciousness is. Put simply, there is no brain to think without a consciousness that animates it.

Newton, for all the great work he did for physics, came up with a set of abstract, mathematically-based, mechanical formulae which he called “the laws of nature”. Though he was to live several centuries after Newton, genius inventor and true scientist Nikola Tesla made a very telling comment regarding the tendency of mainstream science and scientists to get stuck in a rut with their abstract mathematical theories. This statement could most definitely be applied to Einstein, who despite his brilliance in proposing the theory of relativity, worked for 3+ decades afterwards and could never come up with a more complete theory. Tesla said:

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Darwinian Eugenics and Evolution

Charles Darwin, for those of you who didn’t know, was part of an elite family who favored eugenics (selective breeding), so it is not surprising therefore that his theory of evolution emphasized the virtues of dog-eat-dog competitiveness, survival of the fittest, and might-is-right all habits and values of the psychopathic ruling class.

Those who insist that science is not a religion may be hard-pressed to explain why someone like Darwin chose to focus on those elements of Nature in this theory, instead of focusing on or even considering the incredible symbiosis and cooperation that is also evident in Nature – and to a greater extent than competition.

Today: The Insane and Never-Ending Search for the Smallest Particle

Fast forward to today, and it seems that science is a religion like never before. What’s happening at CERN with the Hadron Collider’s search for ever smaller and smaller particles seems like materialistic mainstream science desperately trying to justify itself and its outmoded theory, like a dog forever chasing its tail in vain.

In November 2014, a paper entitled Quantum Realism: The physical world as a virtual reality was published by Dr. Brian Whitworth Ph.D (Masters of Science in Information Systems), MA Hons (Psychology) and BSc (Maths). It contrasted the materialistic and idealistic views, which Dr. Whitworth framed as physical realism and quantum realism. When he matched these views to the data coming out of CERN, he found the quantum realism (simulation) model of reality fit the observations and facts much better. He writes:

The Higgs boson is the virtual particle created by an invisible field to explain another virtual particle created by another invisible field to explain an actual effect (neutron decay). Given dark energy and dark matter, it explains at best 4% of the mass of the universe, but the standard model needs it, so when after fifty years CERN found a million, million, million, millionth of a second signal in the possible range, physics was relieved. There is no evidence this “particle” has any effect on mass at all, but the standard model survives.

“By piling fields upon fields, the standard model now has at least 48 point particles, 24 fitted properties, 5 overlapping invisible fields and 14 virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on demand, anywhere, anytime. And it isn’t finished yet, as each new effect needs a new field, e.g. inflation needs an inflaton field. If this approach, founded on physical realism, is preferred, it isn’t because of its simplicity, as it is hard to imagine anything more complicated! Chapter 4 suggests that while the fitted calculations work, their interpretation is a mythology on a scale not seen since Ptolemy’s epicycles.”

We are Blind to The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Materialism places so much stock in what we can apprehend with our 5 senses, especially sight, since it is the dominant sense for most people. Yet, of what we know exists in the full electromagnetic spectrum, we can only see a tiny range from approximately 700 nanometers (abbreviated nm) to 400 nm, between the infrared and ultraviolet rays. As this short video clip demonstrates, if the electromagnetic spectrum were a reel of film 2,500 miles long (stretching from California to Alaska), then the band of light visible to human beings would be around 1 inch long! If these numbers are correct, that means that we only perceive 0.0000000631313% of what is really there. So why, when we are so blind, does mainstream science place so much faith in our ‘5-senses reality’ and disregard the unseen as fantasy or imagination?

Because we can not see or feel the elecromagnetic forces/weapons that they are using on us and our environment, we are either totally unaware or cannot believe they exist.  But, trust me, they are using them on us at this time.  Not only on us, but on our EARTH.  They are destroying our atmosphere, water, our land and everything on it!

Now you know why, to them that is not madness.  They believe that we are living in a hologram and they want to design it to their specifications.  They want to destroy it and build it back “better”.

Mainstream Science – Bogged Down by Fraud and Fakery

So far, I have discussed the reasons why mainstream science is ideologically or theoretically on the wrong track. I haven’t even begun to touch the ways in which science is horribly misguided and mistaken on a practical level. Sad to say, science has been totally corrupted by special interests who fund and determine the outcome of much of the research. The fraudulent scientific research of Big Pharma is rife, and has been acknowledged as untrustable by medical journal editors, professors, doctors, government officials and former Big Pharma insiders. Essentially, well-funded interests can pay for whatever “scientific result” they want for their agenda, slanting, distorting and omitting data in line with their goals. Simply put, a scientist discovering the “wrong” result will be quickly rejected and defunded.

This fake and fraudulent science, which is not true science at all but rather corporate junk science which passes under the rubric of science, is all pervasive. As Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), had to say about the pervasive fraudulent scientific research:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines … I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

For a fuller discussion of this point, please see my articles:

Happily, there are many true scientists standing outside of the fakery and putting forth alternative evidence to consider. The truth cannot be hidden forever.

Conclusion: Science is a Religion Which Requires Faith

Mainstream scientists will probably feel aghast to hear it, but the truth is that science is a religion with its own high priests – they just wear white coats rather than black gowns. It requires belief (faith) in theories (doctrine) which can never ultimately be proven (Evolution, Relativity, Big Bang) because they are full of assumptions and contradictions. There is always at least one question that can never be answered, and the constant redefinition of terms, omission of numbers and invention of new factors becomes, at a certain point, like twisting facts to suit existing theories, rather than twisting theories to suit facts (as the fictional character Sherlock Holmes liked to say.)

Terence McKenna humorously put it like this: “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

Materialist science has tried to convince us that everything can be explained with solid atoms, but as various experiments have proven, only theories which account for consciousness, energy, non-locality and other phenomena make sense. Particles are probability distributions, not little hard things. Mainstream science falls well short again and again in describing and predicting our world — a holographic universe, a computer simulation which looks and feels real but which is composed of stuff which is not solid. Materialistic science is a religion – and the time is long overdue to give up the faith.

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” ~ Sir Arthur Eddington

Mathematics Rising

“The future of mathematics is more a spiritual discipline…”

I did some following up on the work of Vladimir Voevodsky and for anyone who might ask, “what’s actually going on in mathematics,” Voevodsky’s work adds, perhaps, even more to the mystery. Not that I mind. The mystery emerges from the limitless depths (or heights) of thought that are revealed in mathematical ideas or objects. It is this that continues to captivate me. And the grounding of these ideas, provided by Voevodsky’s work on foundations, reflects the intrinsic unity of these highly complex and purely abstract entities, suggesting a firm rootedness to these thoughts – an unexpected and enigmatic rootedness that calls for attention.

Voevodsky gave a general audience talk in March of 2014 at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, where he is currently Professor in the School of Mathematics. In that talk he described the history of much of his work and how he became convinced that to do the kind of mathematics he most wanted to do, he would need a reliable source to confirm the validity of the mathematical structures he builds.

As I was working on these ideas I was getting more and more uncertain about how to proceed. The mathematics of 2-theories is an example of precisely that kind of higher-dimensional mathematics that Kapranov and I had dreamed about in 1989. And I really enjoyed discovering new structures there that were not direct extensions of structures in lower “dimensions”.

But to do the work at the level of rigor and precision I felt was necessary would take an enormous amount of effort and would produce a text that would be very difficult to read. And who would ensure that I did not forget something and did not make a mistake, if even the mistakes in much more simple arguments take years to uncover?

I think it was at this moment that I largely stopped doing what is called “curiosity driven research” and started to think seriously about the future.

It soon became clear that the only real long-term solution to the problems that I encountered is to start using computers in the verification of mathematical reasoning.

Voevodsky expresses the same concern in a Quanta Magazine article by Kevin Hartnett.

“The world of mathematics is becoming very large, the complexity of mathematics is becoming very high, and there is a danger of an accumulation of mistakes,” Voevodsky said. Proofs rely on other proofs; if one contains a flaw, all others that rely on it will share the error.

So, at the heart of this discussion seems to be a quest for useful math-assistant computer programs. But both the problems mathematicians like Voevodsky face, and the computer assistant solutions he explored, highlight something intriguing about mathematics itself.

Hartnett does a nice job making the issues relevant to Voevodsky’s innovations accessible to any interested reader. He reviews Bertrand Russell’s type theory, a formalism created to circumvent the paradoxes of Cantor’s original set theory – as in the familiar paradox created by things like the set of all sets that don’t contain themselves. (If the set does contain itself then it doesn’t contain itself) This kind of problem is avoided in Russel’s type theory by making a formal distinction between collections of elements and collections of other collections. In turns out that within type theory, equivalences among sets are understood in much the same way as equivalences among spaces are understood in topology.

Spaces in topology are said to be homotopy equivalent if one can be deformed into the other without tearing either. Hartnett illustrates this using letters of the alphabet:

The letter P is of the same homotopy type as the letter O (the tail of the P can be collapsed to a point on the boundary of the letter’s upper circle), and both P and O are of the same homotopy type as the other letters of the alphabet that contain one hole — A, D, Q and R.

The same kind of equivalence can be established between a line and a point, or a disc and a point, or a coffee mug and a donut.

Given their structural resemblance, type theory handles the world of topology well. Things that are homotopy equivalent can also be said to be of the same homotopy type. But the value of the relationship between type theory and homotopic equivalences was greatly enhanced when Voevodsky learned Martin-Löf type theory (MLTT), a formal language developed by a logician for the task of checking proofs on a computer. Voevodsky saw that this computer language formalized type theory and, by virtue of type theory’s similarity to homotopy theory, it also formalized homotopy theory.

Again, from Hartnett:

Voevodsky agrees that the connection is magical, though he sees the significance a little differently. To him, the real potential of type theory informed by homotopy theory is as a new foundation for mathematics that’s uniquely well-suited both to computerized verification and to studying higher-order relationships.

There is a website devoted to homotopy type theory where it is defined as follows:

Homotopy Type Theory refers to a new interpretation of Martin-Löf’s system of intensional, constructive type theory into abstract homotopy theory.  Propositional equality is interpreted as homotopy and type isomorphism as homotopy equivalence. Logical constructions in type theory then correspond to homotopy-invariant constructions on spaces, while theorems and even proofs in the logical system inherit a homotopical meaning.  As the natural logic of homotopy, constructive type theory is also related to higher category theory as it is used e.g. in the notion of a higher topos.

Voevodsky’s work is on a new foundation for mathematics and is also described there:

Univalent Foundations of Mathematics is Vladimir Voevodsky’s new program for a comprehensive, computational foundation for mathematics based on the homotopical interpretation of type theory. The type theoretic univalence axiom relates propositional equality on the universe with homotopy equivalence of small types. The program is currently being implemented with the help of the automated proof assistant Coq.  The Univalent Foundations program is closely tied to homotopy type theory and is being pursued in parallel by many of the same researchers.

In one of his talks, Voevodsky suggested that mathematics as we know it studies structures on homotopy types. And he describes a mathematics so rich in abstract complexity, “it just doesn’t fit in our heads very well. It somehow requires abilities that we don’t possess.”  Computer assistance would be expected to facilitate access to these high levels of complexity and abstraction.

But mathematics is, as I see it, the abstract expression of human understanding – the possibilities for thought, for conceptual relationships. So what is it that’s keeping us from being able to manage this level of abstraction?   Voevodsky seems to agree that it is comprehension that gives rise to mathematics. He’s quoted in a New Scientist article by Jacob Aron:

If humans do not understand a proof, then it doesn’t count as maths, says Voevodsky. “The future of mathematics is more a spiritual discipline than an applied art. One of the important functions of mathematics is the development of the human mind.”

While Aaron seems to suggest that computer companions to mathematicians could potentially know more than the mathematicians they assist, this view is without substance. It is only when the mathematician’s eye discerns something that we call it mathematics.

Mike Shulman has a few posts related to homotopy type theory on The n-Category Cafe site beginning with one entitled Homotopy Type Theory, I followed by II,  III, and IV.  There’s also one from June 2015 – What’s so HoTT about Formilization?
And here’s a link to Voevodsky’s Univalent Foundations.

Read about the mathematical components of the film (…)


By David Grandy

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Grandy, David. “Science and the Occult: Where the Twain Meet.” Quest  94.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006):13-17.

When I was in graduate school, one of my professors — an eminent historian of medieval science espoused in his lectures what one student affectionately tagged as “the Old Man River theory of scientific progress.” The professor asserted that in his research he found no evidence of social or cultural factors impinging on the development of medieval science: driven purely by intellectual thought, the science “just kept rolling along.” I suspect the professor would not have made this claim to a more sophisticated audience; although he had little patience with any attempt to explain science as nothing but a reaction to outside cultural forces, he was savvy enough to know that there is more to the story of science than just intellectual thought.

Like my professor, I enjoy science enough to see it as something truly remarkable. Perhaps, however, I am more inclined to admit that there is no clear line of demarcation between science per se and culture. Actually, this is not much of an admission: it has become a commonplace understanding among historians of science. Gone are the days that scholars of science portray it as humankind’s sole instrument of truth in a confused and superstitious world. Despite this, many people still talk as if modern science is wholly distinct from and clearly superior to such traditions as alchemy, astrology, magic, Cabala, and nineteenth century Spiritualism. These movements, so this line of thought goes, have all been repudiated by science and are therefore intellectual dead ends.

This outlook is rendered problematic by historical scholarship (most of it in the last fifty years) that indicates complex and subtle interactions between now discarded beliefs and contemporary scientific principles. This is to say that scientific theories often emerge from circumstances that later may be seen as scientifically dubious. A case in point is Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravity. The law, as presented in textbooks, consists of a straightforward factual statement (every body in the universe is attracted to every other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) and a matching mathematical equation. Given only this much, students reflexively assume that Newtonian physics is a world apart from alchemy or magic. After all, there is a conciseness and clarity to the theory that is rarely found in other domains of human experience, let alone in the murky depths of alchemy. One is surprised then to learn that Newton invested much time and energy seeking to produce the Philosopher’s Stone, the ultimate aim of alchemy. What is more, this quest cannot simply be written off as an intellectual dead end because it appears to have played into Newton’s scientific thinking, quite possibly into his theory of gravity (Westfall 1985).

Today alchemy is considered an occult pursuit, and it is hard to imagine how it may have once figured into Newton’s formulation of universal gravity. What we tend to forget, however, is that while the law can be clearly and succinctly stated, it is not altogether obvious how gravity works. Most people today, following Newton, describe it as an action-at a distance force, but this introduces difficulties—at least it did for Newton. In explaining the tides, he proposed that the moon (and the sun) reaches across apparently empty space to tug on the earth. For some of his contemporaries, however, this explanation went nowhere because it afforded no understanding of the mechanism by which gravitational forces propagate. Indeed it introduced a puzzle for anyone (like René Descartes) wishing to evacuate the cosmos of non contact forces, the like of which bespoke astrological influences and alchemical sympathies and antipathies. Newton privately summed up his misgivings in this way:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever Fall into it. (Westfall 1980)

Newton later defended his law of gravity by arguing that its validity is secured by observable phenomena—one can empirically test its predictions. However, he added, no one can discover its causes—why nature behaves this way—and in this sense only is the law “occult” (Westfall 1971). This admission speaks volumes about science (or, more generally, about the human intellect—the failing is not specific to science) and permits understanding of why occult or pseudoscientific practices often flourish side by side with science. For those who want to know the why of things or the ultimate causes, scientific theories do not quite close the explanatory circle. Arthur Schopenhauer faulted science on this score, noting that investigation of its theories recalls the experience of “somebody who unexpectedly finds himself in a group whose members systematically introduce each other as a friend or cousin, as if by doing so, they have sufficiently explained themselves; the visitor, however, though expressing pleasure with each introduction, has always the unexpressed question on his lips: “But how, the deuce, did I turn up among all these people?” (Schopenhauer 1966).

Over a hundred years ago, the young H.G. Wells, full of enthusiasm for science but sensing its limitations, stated:

Science is a match that man has just got alight. He thought he was in a room in moments of devotion, a temple and that his light would be reflected from and display walls inscribed with wonderful secrets and pillars carved with philosophical systems wrought in harmony. It is a curious sensation, now that the preliminary sputter is over and the flame burns up clear, to see his hands lit and just a glimpse of himself and the patch he stands on visible, and around him, in place of all that human comfort and beauty he had anticipated darkness still.

Wells did not mean to dismiss science; throughout the first half of the 20th century he was one of its leading advocates. He did, however, appreciate that while science has the capacity to improve human life in many ways, it also, as Wells’ mentor T.H. Huxley put it, gives us a cosmos that “works through the lower nature of man, not for righteousness, but against it.” In other words, a purposeless, uncaring, accidental cosmos: That is why, in Huxley’s mind, science had the mandate of “building up an artificial world in the cosmos.” The universe was neither congenial with nor sympathetic to humankind’s interests; indeed, it had no capacity to be. As William James, a contemporary of Wells, noted at the turn of the twentieth century: “Nature has no one distinguishable ultimate tendency with which it is possible to feel a sympathy. In the vast rhythm of her processes, as the scientific mind now follows them, she appears to cancel herself.”

When combined with the earlier thought that scientific explanations fail to offer ultimate answers, this consideration—that, as physicist Steven Weinberg insisted, the universe is “pointless”—makes it unsurprising that many people today, in their search for life clarifying meaning, look away from science. Of course, some scientists portray science as having religious value—thereby one reads God’s Book of Nature—but since the Enlightenment this characterization has lost ground to the view that no human endeavor can publicly decide the question of God’s existence or purpose. Implicit in this outlook is the positivistic intuition that science concerns the logical extraction of laws and predictive consequences from verifiable sense data. That is, science is a way of putting ourselves in a situation where hypotheses can be confirmed or rejected on the basis of procedures that keep one firmly anchored to physical facts and the unbiased analysis thereof. So disciplined, science presumably makes no unwarranted inferences or metaphysical leaps.

The positivistic outlook has now worn thin. There is, as Edwin Burtt put it in his 1920s critique of logical positivism, “no escape from metaphysics.” Indeed, any escape attempt will be driven by considerations that open onto ultimately undecided issues of ontology and epistemology metaphysical considerations. Philosophically speaking, this fact blurs the line between science and the occult; historically speaking, the line has always been blurred.

Only since Newton have battle lines been drawn, for, as noted above, Newton was deeply involved in alchemy, not to mention biblical prophecy and symbolism. He believed, like Freemasons and Rosicrucian’s since, that new knowledge issues up from older, larger understandings. But despite his immersion in what we now regard as occult or pseudoscientific pursuits, he spoke in a positivistic vein, implying that he had developed a method for reading the text of nature without metaphysical interpolation. Given the explanatory success of his science and the immense prestige it brought him, many came to regard Newtonian physics as a bulwark against what Freud later called “the black tide of mud . . . of occultism” (Jung 1963). This attitude, however, did not eliminate belief in the occult. For one thing, some who developed occult systems after Newton saw themselves as scientific pioneers Ã  la Newton, and it is only in retrospect that their systems have been deemed occult. During the latter part of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century, Mesmerists conducted experiments, phrenologists subjected the human head to rigorous measurement, Spiritualists kept careful record of what occurred during seances, and all these groups invoked scientific terminology to report their findings.

What is more, many who worked in these movements had formal scientific training and a few were prominent scientists. Anton Mesmer earned his doctorate in medicine at the University of Vienna and, inspired by Newton’s law of universal gravity, sought to harness a life force, putatively filling the cosmos, for healing purposes. William Crookes (discoverer of the element thalium and inventor of the Crookes tube), Oliver Lodge (knighted for his contributions to wireless telegraphy), and Arthur Russell Wallace (who independently formulated the theory of natural selection and co-announced it with Darwin) all affirmed the essential truth of Spiritualism, though they acknowledged that the movement had its share of charlatans. In their minds, Spiritualistic principles, far from contradicting science, were a welcome corrective to its bleak materialistic orientation. Moreover, the late nineteenth century discovery of X-rays and Becquerel rays (radioactivity) was taken by some as evidence of an unseen world of spirits existing just beyond the ken of our physical senses.

For many believers, Spiritualism held forth the heady prospect of demonstrating the reality of spiritual phenomena by scientific means. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, for example, depicted Spiritualism as “infinitely the most important thing in the world” because it was “the first attempt ever made in modern times to support [religious] faith by actual provable fact.” This sentiment is not unlike that expressed two centuries earlier by Joseph Glanvill when he portrayed scientific investigation of demons and witches as “a kinde of America,” a new frontier of knowledge” (Clark 1999). Along with fellow scientists Robert Boyle and Henry More, Glanvill studied and theorized about witchcraft in the same way he did about the possibility of the vacuum, magnetic action at a distance, and the nature of light.

In the nineteenth century, perhaps no scientific theory sparked more occult thought than organic evolution. At first glance this is surprising, for organic evolution is often misconstrued as a counterweight to the idea that humankind has a divine origin. Nevertheless, the prospect of humankind’s unlimited evolutionary ascent within the cosmos fired the imagination of scientist and occultist alike. On the one hand, the evolutionary process, being blind and non teleological, does not aim for improvement or perfection, let alone anything like salvation or immortality. But on the other, theorists often could not refrain from dramatizing it. In the closing paragraph of his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin insisted that “[t]here is a grandeur in this [evolutionary] view of life,” and elsewhere he portrayed nature (i.e., natural selection) as “infinitely more sagacious than man” and “all seeing” and “infinitely wise” (Young 1985). Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” equated evolution with “the cosmic process . . . it is full of wonder, full of beauty, and, at the same time, full of pain.” The pain, however, could be blunted through the exercise of visionary evolution: thanks to Darwin, humankind could now knowingly evolve and thereby outmaneuver a great deal of unnecessary hardship and catastrophe. With this thought in mind and almost as if he were gazing into a crystal ball, H.G. Wells spelled out the promise of evolutionary biology:

We are creatures of the twilight. But it is out of our race and lineage that minds will spring, that will reach back to us in our littleness to know us better than we know ourselves, and that will reach forward fearlessly to comprehend this future that defeats our eyes.
All the world is heavy with the promise of greater things, and a day will come, one day in the unending succession of days, when beings, beings who are now latent in our thoughts and hidden in our loins, shall stand upon this earth as one stands upon a footstool, and shall laugh and reach out their hands amid the stars. (Wells 1914)

Given the ease with which it could be dramatized, evolutionary biology attracted occultists. The most notorious was Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who co founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Her books, Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888), blended religion (particularly Hinduism), contemporary science, and mythology into a seamless whole and opened up unsuspected vistas on the past and future. She spoke of cosmic cycles and the evolutionary ascent of “seven root races,” the fifth of which is the human race. The whole process, she emphasized, was governed by the law of karma and therefore was not, as many scientists believed, random or mindless. Curiously, Blavatsky seems not to have expected most educated people to embrace her outlook, even after giving it a scientific gloss. Occult understanding, she declared, is reserved for the few, and most scientists—Darwin himself—failed to grasp the cosmic and spiritual import of the evolutionary drama. They saw the outer, naturalistic shell of that process but ironically missed its rich inner vibrancy–life itself.

Rudolf Steiner, an erstwhile Theosophist who went on to found Anthroposophy, similarly posited an evolutionary drama of cosmic proportions. His cosmology, like Blavatsky’s, is complex, even dizzying, and reiterates ancient motifs now deemed occult or superstitious. Betraying a Pythagorean fondness for certain basic numbers, Steiner talked of the seven states of consciousness, the seven life kingdoms or conditions, the four elements, the three creative functions, the ten cabalistic sephiroth, the nine angelic orders, and so on. These orders, kingdoms, functions, and elements are linked to the planets or zodiacal constellations in a vast system of evolving consciousness. Like many other occultists at the turn of the twentieth century, Steiner felt that he was pulling back the curtain on materialistic science so that all could see its spiritual context.

Given its propensity to stretch the mind and summon up hope of improved if not fully transfigured living circumstances, science finds common cause with the occult. And while science may seek to distance itself from the occult, the gap between the two will never be clearly defined. To be sure, science may be delineated by its emphasis on objectivity, empirical data, and mathematics, but these characteristics merely mark a distinctive approach to nature: they do not decide what nature ultimately is or what it means. Answering these questions entails interpretative passage beyond secure scientific understandings, and here, in the realm of interpretation, science and the occult often reestablish contact.

A contemporary case in point is quantum physics. In the last century, probably no scientific development has sparked greater occult interest than quantum physics, but it is not because quantum physics explicitly points toward occult agencies or influences. It is because quantum physics, while affording incredibly accurate predictions about atomic phenomena, challenges traditional scientific assumptions about physical reality and thereby clears a space for renewed debate about a whole spectrum of issues: the nature of light, extrasensory perception, human free will, God’s omniscience, and so on. Some of these issues will be deemed occult by scientific purists, but even they cannot escape the charge that their worldview is, at some level, interpretative or metaphysical. Albert Einstein understood this principle better than most: “physical [scientific] concepts,” he wrote, “are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.” As long as the world remains open to pluralistic interpretation, science and the occult will enjoy uneasy companionship.

Throughout history scientific theories have been proven wrong over and over again, and yet the world continues to accept and embrace them and continue on as if nothing has changed.  They continue to teach debunked theories in our school demanding they be accepted as fact.  The ignorant masses are lead along by their noses, afraid to accept they have been fooled an unable to sort through the lies to find the truth.

Newton’s Law of Gravity Proven Wrong: Einstein May Be Next …

Newton’s “Law of Gravity” has been in question since the research on black holes started showing much more progress, with the first-ever picture of a black hole. But now it has been declared wrong and Einstein’s hypothesis to be the best explanation of how gravity works.
Since our childhood, we have been studying the “Law of Gravity” proposed by Sir Isaac Newton which has now been claimed WRONG by the scientist. It has been more than 300 years since the theory of universal gravitation has been published. It was published in 1687 in the book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica written by Sir Isaac Newton.
Newton’s “Law of Gravity” has been declared wrong; however, scientists prefer to continue with Einstein’s theory of “General Relativity” still showing suspicion in his theory too.
Talking about the new results and discoveries, Andrea Ghez from the University of California said, “Einstein is right, at least for now. We can entirely discard Newton’s law of gravity. Our observations are consistent with Einstein’s theory of general relativity.”
Newton’s “Law of Gravity” has been in question since the research on black holes started showing much more progress, with the first-ever picture of a black hole. But now it has been declared wrong and Einstein’s hypothesis to be the best explanation of how gravity works.
Any theory to be considered the law in physics should be applicable everywhere in the universe to be truly considered which came out to be the limitation of law of gravity when it came to the black hole, stated the California professor.
According to the theory of General Relativity, proposed by Sir Albert Einstein, gravity results from how mass warps space and time. Greater the object’s mass, stronger its gravitational pull. This describes gravity not as a force, but as a result of the curvature of space-time caused by the uneven distribution of mass.
Whereas, Newton’s “law of Universal Gravitation” states gravity as a force. The law further states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force (gravity) which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres.
We all have heard of the story of how Newton came up with the idea of gravity. An apple fell on his head while he was sitting under the tree which gave him something to think upon, i.e. how did the apple fall? From there the discovery of gravity started which stated gravity being a force due to which any two bodies in the universe attract each other. The law of universal gravitation came into existence in 1687. Since then it has been the explanation of gravity and gravitational force and has been taught in the entire world which now has been scientifically disproved. Even though it is only one law that has been disproved, but due to this single law, every aspect of gravitation and the related concept are going to take a new course which can be the beginning of a new era in the field of physics.

May 22, 2021
Not everything that is true can be proven. This discovery transformed infinity, changed the course of a world war and led to the modern computer. This video is sponsored by Brilliant.  Special thanks to Prof. Asaf Karagila for consultation on set theory and specific rewrites, to Prof. Alex Kontorovich for reviews of earlier drafts, Prof. Toby ‘Qubit’ Cubitt for the help with the spectral gap, to Henry Reich for the helpful feedback and comments on the video. ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ References: Dunham, W. (2013, July). A Note on the Origin of the Twin Prime Conjecture. In Notices of the International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 63-65). International Press of Boston. — Conway, J. (1970). The game of life. Scientific American, 223(4), 4. — Churchill, A., Biderman, S., Herrick, A. (2019). Magic: The Gathering is Turing Complete. ArXiv. — Gaifman, H. (2006). Naming and Diagonalization, from Cantor to Godel to Kleene. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 14(5), 709-728. — Lénárt, I. (2010). Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky–in General Education?(Hyperbolic Geometry as Part of the Mathematics Curriculum). In Proceedings of Bridges 2010: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture (pp. 223-230). Tessellations Publishing. — Attribution of Poincare’s quote, The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 1991. — Gödel, K. (1992). On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems. Courier Corporation. —


Mathematics and Occultism – Anthroposophy

Episode Nine: Mathematical Occultism and Occult Mathematics Overview: Mathematics as a mental discipline.
Training in thought-control. Mathematics as a system of occult development. Sense-free thinking. Alchemical Mathematics. Discussion Topics: The Seven Stages of Mathematical Mental Development:
1. Concentration 2. Memory 3. Imagination 4. Reason 5. Intuition 6. Discrimination 7. Victory Exercising the mind through problem-solving sharpens the Sword on the Magician’s table. Studying mathematical theories grows new brain cells into organized stuctures for higher cognition. Where to begin: Symbolic Logic & Set Theory. Mathematics was used by the Pythagorean Brotherhood as a means to an end, but was not the goal itself. The true goal: to develop mental perception of the spiritual world. Sense-free thinking and how the intellect becomes clairvoyant. Mathematics takes us up to the treshhold of the spiritual world, but no farther. Mathematics is a means of occult education, where we use the same style of mathematical thinking to cognize the spiritual world. Mathematical alchemy encodes thought-forms into our astral body which allow us to grow organs of super-sensible perception. Plant alchemy & the mathematics of life: fractals. Mineral alchemy & geometric structure. Developing sense-free thinking through mathematical theories. Mathematical structures as worlds of thought-forms. Dimensionality and the spiritual worlds. Developing fourth-dimensional awareness. Mathematical concentration: definitions, examples, theorems. Mathematical meditation: free association, visualization of geometric objects, visualization of analytical constructions.

Math & Mysticism ·

Thus, the history of mathematics is also a history of mysticism, of symbolism, of gestures toward something more fundamental. 5.1.2 The same could be said of religious practice. 5.1.3 We have now positioned mathematics as a technology of symbolic incantation, whose implementation rests on faith.   (To read the full article: CLICK HERE)
Math Magician | Dexter's Laboratory Wiki | FANDOM powered ...
The Secret Enneagram of Gurdjieff and its relationship to ...