Is PI falsifiable?

On Pythagorean Illuminism and falsifiability

“You can easily get the impression that sometimes the experiments are practically impossible. And even if they are practically possible, they might take so long that, practically speaking, you could go most of your life without having to confront [the results of an] experiment. And before that, anything goes. You can make up all kinds of la-la stories, and maybe every now and then, once every fifty years or so, experiment will come along and chop things down. So, great job if you can get it, right? You can just sit around, make shit up, and you’re never checked. That’s the impression that I would get.”

-- Physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed on the difficulty of empirically falsifying theories in contemporary physics.

Hossenfelder, Sabine. Lost in Math (p. 69). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. 

Why Falsifiability

One of the greatest strengths of science is it principle of falsifiability. Falsifiability is the notion that you can perform an experiment that could potentially disprove a hypothesis (*1).

(*1) Note this does not include experiments to prove a hypothesis as true , only to disprove a hypothesis as false. This is because, unlike with rationalism (e.g. math), you can never empirically prove a hypothesis, only disprove it. Thus the "truest" hypothesis is simply that which is never invalidated, and at best can only lead to an increase in confidence as to its validity.

Think of falsification as a neutral arbiter or "terminator" that can take out any hypothesis, no matter how beautiful, symmetrical, or simply "gosh darned, it's just too beautiful not to be true" your hypothesis is. Your worst enemies will be actively trying to come up with ways to disprove your theory. It says a lot about the relative "truth" of your theory if it has withstood several experimental attempts to invalidate it   (having said all this, I oftentimes lapse into referring to experimental verification instead of falsification throughout this post).

Another benefit of falsifiability is that you can disprove a hypothesis indirectly rather than directly. Trying to disprove a theory by directly arguing from first principles can be very hard. For example, if you try to convince physicists that Einsteinian relativity is incorrect, they may respond with a highly complicated tensor formula that takes years of study to understand. Likewise, if you try to argue with Ontological Mathematicians on the same topic, they may ask tough questions like how is it that time can be slowed down in both frames of references simultaneously etc. If instead, there's a test you can do to disprove a theory indirectly without having to understand all the details, then this is a powerful arrow in your toolkit, and should be utilized as much as possible: when the going gets tough, the tough get empirical.

Ontological Mathematics and Falsifiability

In my reading of the God Series (GS) and the Truth Series (TS), I identified three empirically falsifiable predictions that directly disagree with science. Note: the vast majority of their predictions do agree with science, which they implicitly offer as proof for the validity of their theory, but I think probably has more to do with the fact that OM is more (*2) abductively derived with respect to science rather than purely deductively derived from mathematics as they claim  Granted, that's only the predictions that I detected: there may be some others I didn't quite catch (I wasn't especially trying hard to find them), as well as there probably being several more you could come up with on your own if you're willing to put in the mental effort (e.g. taking some of their more controversial claims to their logical conclusions.

(*2) Here I'm basically using abduction to mean guided deduction, or deducing with an eventual goal in mind. That is to say, I think OM is, more often than they'd like to admit, abductively deducing with an eye towards scientific agreement rather than the purely deductive "let the math do the talking" approach they want you to believe. Thus, it's not surprising that a large amount of OM "coincidentally" happens to agree with science.

I think Ontological Mathematics (OM) (or Pythagorean Illuminism (PI) in general), too often hides behind the fact that the purview of their theory, being idealistic and conceptual and not materialist and perceptual, is outside of spacetime. Thus they can correctly say that empirical methods cannot be used to validate the core of their work. While this is true as far as direct verification/falsification goes, you can oftentimes indirectly falsify a hypothesis. In the case of science, let's take quarks for example. According to QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) a quark can never be isolated or exist by itself -- it always appears in the form of triplets. However, physicists are still able to theorize about them and indirectly validate their properties by indirectly testing particles composed of quarks. So just because something is not directly testable does not mean it cannot be indirectly tested.

As a matter of fact, one "tell" (or BS smell, "BS" standing for "Belief System") of OM is that they do not actively look for more ways to indirectly falsify their theories, even acknowledging that it is an idealistic, rational system of thought. I know they have disdain for empirical methods, but I think it could actually help them more quickly discover when they're going down a rabbit hole, and prevent them from wasting effort on a dead end idea.

In this post we will examine three falsifiable claims, and see if they can help us answer the question as to the actual ontological truth of OM, rather than merely it's use as an interesting model of reality.

The Three Empirically Falsifiable Claims

1. The Squished Astronaut Hypothesis

This is the hypothesis that says relativistic length contraction (and mass increase and time dilation) is real in both frames of reference. That is to say, while standard Einsteinian relativity says length contraction et al. is real in the moving frame (from the perspective of the "stationary" frame of reference), it's not considered as being real in the moving frame itself (from within the perspective of the moving frame). In Eulerian (or Ontological Mathematical) relativity, the length contraction in the moving frame is considered real and actual in both the non-moving frame and the moving frame. Thus, if an astronaut were accelerated to near light speed, he would physically be crushed and die.

2. Einstein Brain Transplant Hypothesis

This is the claim that if you were to transplant Einstein's (living) brain into the body of a "schoolgirl", you would not end up with Einstein's mind and personality in the recipient's body as most people would expect, but you would essentially still have the mind and personality of the schoolgirl, albeit maybe one who spoke with a German accent. In other words, the monad (or mind, or soul) is associated with the entire body not just the brain. Thus, just like if you were to get a liver transplant, you'd still essentially be "you", although perhaps with some different physical characteristics (a better functioning liver for one), replacing your brain wouldn't change "you" either, although once again perhaps giving you an associated change in mental cognition.

3. Noble Photons Hypothesis

This the claim that photons are never created or destroyed. Also, since they are outside of spacetime, they cannot interact with ordinary matter in spacetime. This is really two testable hypotheses in one, but we'll just treat it as one. I call this "noble photons" because it says photons are essentially untouchable and immutable.

Analysis of the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis

Here we won't go into great detail trying to justify or explain the reasoning behind the PI position, just mainly talk about their testable conclusions. They talk about the crushed astronaut in several places: GS6 3992, GS6 2567, GS10 4256, and GS27 725.
Here's an example from GS27:

Einstein’s theory worked only because he used Lorentz transformations – but he used them relativistically rather than absolutely. However, in the normal circumstances of our world, it’s impossible to experimentally detect any difference between the Lorentz transformations treated relativistically or absolutely. This would change if we could accelerate a spaceship to near light speed ... its astronaut would die! He’d be crushed to death by absolute length contraction. He wouldn’t, as Einstein claims, be in any position to define himself as stationary (thus suffering no length contraction).
Hockney, Mike. Psychophysics (The God Series Book 27) (Kindle Locations 772-777). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

They say this sets up an empirically testable way to distinguish which model of relativity, Einsteinian or "Eulerian", is true:

It would take an ingenious experiment to absolutely refute relativity. The matter could certainly be settled once and for all by sending an astronaut into space at near light speed. If Einstein’s right, the astronaut won’t die because he’ll be able to consider himself stationary. If absolutism is right, the astronaut will be crushed to death because he will experience actual length contraction. We don’t have the technology to perform such an experiment, and it would be morally wrong (!), but we know in principle that the two different approaches can be differentiated – if we can find a clever enough test and the right technology.

Hockney, Mike. The God Equation (The God Series Book 6) (Kindle Locations 2620-2625). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

I feel this is their strongest falsifiable experiment. They explicitly state, although I can't find the exact quote anymore (*3), that if the astronaut lives it would refute several first principles of PI. That is to say, it would refute the basic axioms and assumptions of PI i.e. it's not a minor prediction like saying the melting point of salt is such and such. It's more tantamount to physics discovering a violation of the conservation of energy, or discovering a particle that is travelling at faster than the speed of light. These are things that would rock the entire foundations of science, and call everything into question. Likewise, according to PI, if length contraction is not absolute it would have the same devastating effect on PI.

In short, it would be pretty hard to "weasel out" of the consequences if this experiment "failed".

(*3) This is a real problem with the God Series (GS). There are so many books it can be hard to find an exact quote. One could say there's a plenum of information as opposed to a vacuum of information. But since plenums and vacuums are inverse duals, that it so say in many ways they are the same in spite of being nominal opposites, it can be very challenging to find something you remember reading.

However, It's not quite as clear to me with the other two testable hypotheses (Einstein Brain Transplant and Noble Photons) if they are as "primary" as the Squished Astronaut hypothesis. Thus I can't say how "devastating" their nullification would be to the foundations of OM.
Unfortunately, we are probably decades away if not more from being able to directly test this. Obviously, you shouldn't have to resort to sending an actual human. It seems to me you should be able to accelerate a macro-molecule like a protein molecule or a polymer and test the "tension" in the molecular bonds. And you can probably get away with a fraction of the speed of light if you have sensitive enough equipment. Or possibly you could find a naturally occurring "laboratory" such as particles accelerating into a black hole.

As a side note, there are actually entire galaxies that right now are travelling away from us at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Indeed there are many galaxies that are travelling away from us at greater than light speed. Of course, this last statement is the giveaway that something's up: how can anything with mass travel faster than the speed of light? The materialist answer is that the fabric of space time itself is stretching and traveling faster than light speed and since this spacetime fabric is either exempt from relativity, or has no mass it's not subject to light speed limitations. So this paradox can be explained away in the materialist perspective, but I'm not sure if there's a corollary or isomorphism to the concept of the stretching of the space-time fabric in OM relativity? If OM has to consider these galaxies as actually travelling at high-speed, then the fact that they are not getting crushed would be an actual empirical test (*4).

(*4) Note: Diabolically Informative answered this for me:

Absolutely there is. Since light is the "stuff" of space and time in OM, what we are measuring is not light red-shifting according to space and time expansion, but light itself is red-shifting. This is not motion so it is not subject to the laws of relativity. Instead, what we have is a flatlining of frequency. The mechanism responsible for this phenomenon is what underlies the basis for understanding gravity, charge, etc. In short, there's a finite amount of spacetime, and the more of it you squish together in one place means the more of it stretches apart in other places. Gravity and inflation, in that sense, are deeply connected to each other and even part of the same mechanism.

Einstein Brain Transplant Hypothesis

Basically, according to the GS authors, the result of this experiment basically determines if materialism is true or false.
Here's a relevant passage: >

There’s no such thing as a brain transplant, but it’s fascinating to consider what would happen if it were possible. Imagine Einstein’s brain being transplanted into a schoolgirl whose brain had been irreparably damaged and had to be removed. According to materialists, since the brain is the mind (i.e. all mental states are just brain states) then the girl should become Einstein! She should think Einstein’s thoughts because she has Einstein’s brain, and Einstein’s brain of course automatically produces Einstein’s mental states. However, if the girl has a soul – outside space and time – and her soul can continue to link to her body then she will remain the girl she always was, except she will now be expressing her mind through Einstein’s brain rather than through her original brain. She will not be some Einsteinian genius, talking in an unexpectedly deep voice! A brain transplant would be the ultimate medical challenge, and, if performed successfully, would prove medically whether or not people have a soul! According to materialists, the brain donor should come to life in a new body. According to immaterialists, the brain recipient will be able to re-express their original self through the medium of the new brain, and will not be turned into the brain donor.

Hockney, Mike. The Holographic Soul (The God Series Book 30) (Kindle Locations 2483-2494). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

They also say a little earlier about how people can recover information lost due to brain damage:

In fact, the information was never lost since it was always held outside space and time. It was physical neurons – which enable the mental information to be expressed in the spacetime domain – that were lost. The information can be transferred to new physical neurons and everything goes back to normal
Hockney, Mike. The Holographic Soul (The God Series Book 30) (Kindle Locations 2476-2478). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

Basically what they are saying here is that the mind is a separate entity from the brain, and it's the mind that retains all state: one's memories and personality are all in "the cloud" of the soul, so to speak. To a materialist, this is a radical viewpoint, and is not what the vast majority of people would expect. I would say it's overwhelmingly and intuitively obvious to me and just about everyone else that if you insert brain B into body A, you will get person B's mind in person A's body. Of course, while believing does not equate to truth, the fact that OM goes against conventional wisdom does make it an incredibly bold stance to take on their part. I think their prediction is absolutely wrong, but at least I give them kudos for sticking to their principles and being consistent.

However, in the Truth Series (TS) they basically come to a different conclusion.

Q. “In relation to a head transplant, which monad controls the resuscitated organism? – the originally-assigned monad or the other, newly taking-over monad? Will it remember its personal history? If it does, and is controlled by another monad, does it mean that there is a separate memory retrieval system used between the monad and the organism? As for the body, does it mean that it is being taken over by the head, which connects to the monad more strongly, as in the case of organ transplantation?”
Buer: A monad docks to a body and is connected to the body via the brain and the central nervous system, as well as to the unique DNA signature. The brain and central nervous system are the most critical portions of the body, and are directly influenced by the monad. Thus, the head that is discarded will be the monad that disconnects from the body, while the head that undergoes the transplantation operation will take over the body. Logically and biologically, this is just a logical consequence of retaining one’s personal identity and selfhood (in the ontological-mathematical sense) after losing a body part, for instance. If you were to lose your arm, you are no different identity-wise, bar the trauma of the loss. The monad still controls the body, just not the arm. Where do you draw the line? Well, wherever the monad has the most direct effect, and that is on the brain. There will, however, be residual personality traits inherited by the head coupled to the new body. Both the DNA and the rest of the body still carry a connection to their old monad, and the body’s new monad will inherit a connection to the old monad as a result of this. [Dr. TS: And thus one may envisage a kind of quantum entanglement between the two monadic systems.] > Stark, Dr. Thomas. The Book of Thought: Mind Matters (The Truth Series 6) (Kindle Locations 1440-1452). The Ontological Mathematics Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Here, they're basically saying that the monad preferentially attaches to the brain and not the body as a whole, thus if you were to put person's B brain in person A's body,  brain B would take over the entire body and you would have person B's mind in person's A body, as most people would expect. This outcome is also what they previously stated in no uncertain terms, as being the materialistic perspective.

While I actually agree with their second viewpoint, and while it's still positing the existence of a non-materialistic monad, I say pox on both your houses for being inconsistent and arbitrarily flipping with no real "mathematical" justification. It seems more likely that opinion or common sense is what guided them here. Their first position is arguably more consistent with pure idealism.

Unlike the Squished Astronaut hypothesis, where confirmation is decades off, I would say this one will be empirically verifiable within the next decade or so at most. It will probably be done much sooner with mice and rats. As a matter of fact, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't already been done with them.

Already two Italian surgeons are trying to do a human head transplant in China.

The Noble Photons Hypothesis

Here the authors claim that photons are conserved, and that since they are outside of space time they cannot interact with ordinary matter:

Scientists claim that the total number of photons is not conserved. This is absurd and contradicts the law of conservation of energy and the definition of photons. The number of photons is absolutely conserved. That is a foundational law of existence. Scientists claim that photons can be created and annihilated. This is absurd. How can you carry out a temporal process to create or destroy something that is not in time, something that does not experience time, something that is eternal and necessary?
Stark, Dr. Thomas. God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics (The Truth Series Book 10) (Kindle Locations 5348-5353). The Ontological Mathematics Foundation. Kindle Edition.

This is a case where we already have tons of empirical evidence backing up the scientific/materialistic point of view (that matter can interact with photons). According to science and observed many times routinely in everyday lab experiments, photons interact with matter and atomic process have photons being absorbed and emitted (that is to say, created and destroyed) by other non-photonic particles. Also, science says that in the first few seconds of the big bang the entire universe was composed almost entirely of photons, which then later transformed into other fundamental particles. In the book where this quote is taken from, they simply don't mention this contradiction with science or attempt to explain it away.
Unless what science considers photons are not "real" photons to PI, I don't see how this one can be easily explained away (?)

->update: 2018-11-20
They actually do offer an explanation for how science is simply misinterpreting photon interactions in "Euler’s Formula and Special Relativity: The Deep Origin of Space and Time (The Truth Series Book 1)":

According to science, photons are not conserved. They can allegedly be created and destroyed, hence their total number is constantly changing. Science is yet again completely wrong about this. This is arguably the biggest error in science. Photons are eternal and their total number is perfectly conserved, as per the law of the conservation of energy (i.e. energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and everything with ultimate existence has existed forever). When science refers to photons being created and destroyed, what it is actually referring to is the interaction between the light domain and the spacetime domain. When you switch on a light, you are not creating photons, you are merely creating an interaction between light and spacetime. When you switch off the light, you are ceasing this interaction … you are not destroying photons.

Truth Series #1, loc. 626
So, depending on if you accept their interpretation, you could conclude this is *not* in contradiction with empirical evidence.
==== end update

This is a falsifiable claim that is starkly contradicted by loads of empirical data. So on the surface at least, I would have to say PI has been empirically falsified here. Now, I don't know how central to PI the notion of "noble photons" is. Maybe it's just a minor principle, and just like a scientific finding that contradicts a prior finding but doesn't require an overall paradigm shift, this too could just be a minor issue to PI, and not requiring any big paradigm shifts. I don't know the answer to this, but since I'm in "philosopher-mode" I get to ask the questions without having to answer them.

What This All Means

As far as the empirical falsifiable tally for PI goes, it's definitely a mixed bag. Of the three falsifiable predictions, one is out and out empirically invalidated (the noble photons hypothesis), while the second one (Einstein's Brain) is a flip-flop of the worst degree, effectively negating it as a principled prediction. The third one, the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis, is still open but it's probably going to be a while before we have actual empirical verification (or falsification).

By any measure, it's certainly not a "home run" for them thus far. Indeed, if this were a scientific theory, I would say it's on pretty shaky ground, at least at far as its status as a model of ontological reality (if not still useful as an explanatory model). However, if the squished astronaut hypotheses holds up (e.g. is not falsified), in my mind this would be a revolutionary confirmation for PI (and a correspondingly devastating blow to science) and would more than make up for the other two. If Einstein's Brain Transplant held up, in it original prescription of having the schoolgirl's mind dominate, this would also be a major win for PI. But since, I very strongly doubt that will be the case, to me the ontological validity of PI resides on the outcome of the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis.

But don't hold your breath on that one either. There's a saying in Computer Science: don't bet against the Web. People are constantly predicting the end of the web e.g. due to mobile apps, siloed communities a la Facebook etc. But in the end, the Web always seems to survive and indeed prosper: it always manages to take on all comers. Likewise with science. While I wouldn't quite say never bet against science, I would say think long and hard before you bet against it (which granted PI has). Smart money would have to say that the scientific view will prevail. No, this isn't a rational argument, but it is a heuristical and practical one.

I had a discussion on YouTube vis a vis the empirical falsifiability of OM with the ontological mathematician "diabollically informitive" (@DI) that was very illuminating to me (no pun intended). BTW, I regard @DI as being very knowledgeable, patient, and helpful, and whose videos I highly recommend.

One of the things that struck me was his response to the question of how he would react if the Squished Astronaut hypothesis failed -- that is to say the astronaut lived and the basic tenets of OM proved wrong. I thought he would say something along the lines of he wouldn't believe it, or that he would try to find some sort of mitigating explanation, or, like one might hope to expect from an empiricist, ruefully concede that the theory failed and move on to the next one. But instead ,to me, he seemed surprisingly measured in his response:

I certainly think that it would change my attitude about relativity, though it wouldn't shake my certainty in the central, a priori truths that OM is based on, e.g. the PSR, deductive validity, etc. One would have to go back to the drawing board to see where the deduction went wrong and evaluate it further. For instance, if I supposed the astronaut or small ship containing live cells were sent out and returned after reaching the ultrarelativistic limit, and they were all alive, I would ask this question: would length contraction be merely relative, or is there a way to relatively length contract under light's reference frame? If the latter is only possible in an ad hoc manner and the deduction seemed right, then we have to begin knocking back some propositions and theorems until we have a better picture again and the problem is resolved.

While this is a very deliberate, thoughtful, and rational answer, keep in mind that per the God Series authors, this would be a crushing blow to the theory as it now stands. It would be kind of like a physicist discovering a bedrock of physics like conservation of energy was found to not hold, or a string theorist confronting data that authoritatively proved there are no extra "curled-up" dimensions.
Also, this made me realize that my assertion:

"One always gets the feeling it's a foregone conclusion that OM is simply too beautiful to be false among its adherents. ",

was basically answered in the affirmative, although I'm sure @DI would deny this :).

While it's certainly not good to be biased toward a theory irrespective of the facts (basically to "fall in love" with your theory), I think that if the allegiance is not to any instance of the theory, but to the class or meta-paradigms of which the theory was borne of: rationalism, idealism, mathematics, and conceptualism in the case of OM, then this is a defensible position.
I think, in the case of OM, the loyalty is to the correctness of the meta-paradigms and the associated family of possible OM theories, not to any one particular instance of the theory. Thus the rather (cavalier?) attitude to the complete empirical falsification of ones pet theory (at least the current instantiation thereof) is more understandable.

I found a quote from TS8 that summarizes this point nicely:

So, the ultimate paradigm shift is not one concerning any particular tactical paradigm. It is the one that changes the strategic Meta-Paradigm itself. This is the hardest thing of all to accomplish, which is exactly why it has never yet happened in science. Tactical paradigms all occur within the box of the Meta-Paradigm. No one thinks outside the box. No one ponders a brand new, radically different box.
Stark, Dr. Thomas. Extra Scientiam Nulla Salus: How Science Undermines Reason (The Truth Series Book 8) (Kindle Locations 5848-5851). The Ontological Mathematics Foundation. Kindle Edition.

Let's take the case of science. Science is really two things. It's a class (or meta-paradigm) of possible frameworks of ideas and a specific instantiation of those ideas. It's meta-paradigms are empiricism, materialism, and perceptualism. Now in the case of science, the instance of this theory: the system that includes fermions, bosons, electrons, the laws of physics as we currently understand them, quantum mechanics, relativity et. al is so successful, it's been conflated with the class or meta-paradigm. In short, science is basically materialism and materialism is basically science in the eyes of most people. I think if some of the detailed instantiation properties of science (e.g. conservation of energy) were invalidated, scientists, being roughly characterized as Meyers-Briggs ST types, would still cling to their meta-paradigms of empiricism and materialism.

Likewise, I interpret @DI's response to indicate his devotion to the principles of the meta-paradigms of his overall belief system, that of mind, idealism, conceptual etc. and not to the current instantiation of the theory. Thus you can't fault anyone too much for sticking to a dead horse (*5).

(*5) I'm not saying that OM is a dead horse just yet, just that if the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis were invalidated, at that point in time, it might be regarded as such, at least to a scientist.

Conclusion

So to answer the original question of how can empirical falsification help us understand if OM has ontological reality, to me it gets down to the outcome of the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis, or the "mind docks to the body not the brain" interpretation of the Einstein Brain Transplant Hypothesis. Unfortunately, I'm doubtful that empirical verification of the "mind docks to body not the brain" flavor of the Einstein's Brain Hypothesis, and to a lesser extent, the Squished Astronaut Hypothesis is likely to occur. This is already giving OM a pass on the Noble Photon Hypothesis, which it currently fails. In other words, I'm saying I'm skeptical that the current instantiation of OM will hold up as an actual ontological model of reality. It's very possible some other instantiation (revision), taking in to account any empirical findings discovered during falsification of its prior iteration, as well as new rational insights, may someday achieve that goal. However, since there's only one way to be right, and an infinite number of ways to be wrong, practically speaking, what are the odds of getting it right on the first go round?

I hope that someday we can achieve a TOE that not only is useful as a conceptual model, but one that actually describes the true nature of reality. My attraction to PI has always been as a highly useful explanatory model: a pragmatic (in the CS Pierce sense of the word), beautiful, Theory of Everything that like phase spaces and Hamiltonian mechanics in physics offers a rich, powerful, and insightful way to appreciate the world from a new perspective, but one that is not, at least for now, meant to be taken literally. Note, I would say the same thing about science now too (after having read GS and TS) -- a useful model not to be taken literally at least in it's current manifestation.

However, while exploring the idea of this post, I discovered some insights into the nature of OM. I now appreciate that empirical, sensory evidence, while not unimportant to OM, isn't as important overall in its grand scheme (which makes sense given that OM explicitly emphasizes concepts over percepts). In the same vein that talking about category errors, and ontologies is largely lost on scientists, talking about materialistic paradigms and concerns is similarly lost on an Ontological Mathematicians. In many ways, my analysis is holding up an idealistic framework to the mechanics of a materialist framework. That's an impedance mismatch and I realize it's unfair to judge one theory from the meta-paradigm of the other. But yet, if it's applied properly, it's one I feel can be very useful and yield unique insights.

In the end, I now realize how my current approach to OM in general is just wrong. I realize how I am trying to understand, and occasionally argue against, OM using a scientific mindset, and it's just not working. It's like a category error. My arguments are just not resonating and I seem to be talking at cross-purposes with it's practitioners. I don't need to drop science, but I do need to let go of it when trying to understand OM. I resolve to get out this zero-sum game mindset whereby the two systems are viewed as competitors with one being right and the other wrong (although the biggest propagator of this position, quite honestly, is the Truth Series itself, which sets up quite a stark "us vs them" mentality vis a vis science at every turn) (*6).

(*6) I would say the God Series does the same except with Abrahamism instead of scientism.

In fact, I'm beginning to think that OM and science are just two different approaches to the same end. Both are valuable. I found this quote from GS6 that I thought summed this up:

Science now ought to divide into two. One branch should continue with empiricism and materialism (Newtonian and Einsteinian science) and the other should adopt rationalism and idealism (Leibnizian and Eulerian science) – and the two can then form a dialectic that drives each other forward.
Hockney, Mike. The God Equation (The God Series Book 6) (Kindle Locations 2459-2468). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

While that's not exactly a kumbaya statement, it acknowledges that both are equals (perhaps practical equals if not ontological equals) and each side brings some value to the table and the ultimate synthesis will be a combination of both. As Yoda might say: "Restore balance must we all".

Update History:
2020-07-06: Add opening quote plus some minor grammatical edits.