The State of the Monad

The State of the Monad: A five-year Retrospective on Ontological Mathematics.

The world is operating as intended. It was created as a shithouse that's full of paradox, suffering, and contradiction. Its purpose is for you to get sick of it so you go out and find what real freedom and understanding is. You're not supposed to fix the world, you're supposed to transcend it

-- Anonymous YouTube comment

Hi everyone. I'd just thought I'd post an update on this channel, since it's about five years old now, and I'm planning once again to write a few more articles.

The state of the monad

Well, honestly I can't say this series has been a huge success, at least in terms of readership: my biggest "hit" Ontological Mathematics as a Linux Distribution to date has had 136 views. But it was all worth it to me and I hope to (slowly) continue adding to it. My target audience has always been one person: me when I first started learning about OM. Then, like now, there is very little independent information on OM, and esp. any info in the middle, that is to say that is not either overly-fawning or overly-trolling.

Here's a few short things I learned about writing on OM over the years:

1. Keep it short and simple.

   • People seem to like the basic ideas, not detailed parsing of esoteric topics. My post on the PSR is a good example of overdoing it.

2. Be positive not critical.

   • No one likes having their ideas challenged.
   • Two of my posts: on the PSR and Is PI Falsifiable? challenge some of their ideas. However, in order to fulfill my mission of being an honest broker, I will continue to ask questions as I see fit.

3. Tip: If you're going to argue against them, use their own words against them, if possible.

   • I wouldn't want to take these guys on from first principles. While they would probably deny it, over the course of hundreds of books and multiple authors, they occasionally say some contradictory things.
   • Forget about arguing from an empirical, scientific point of view as well.
4. Be assertive and not wishy-washy.
   • Take a cue from Mike Hockney and just say shit unapologetically. I think in a lot of my write-ups I'm either too polite, too nerdy (overly technical e.g. "it's Euler's identity not Euler's Equation") , or simply trying to have it both ways (if you think something is full of shit, just say it).
5. Only talk about OM as much as possible.
   • Not everyone has the same background as you, so topics like computer science, and even mathematical areas like Category theory are probably not that appealing to an OM audience.
   • Don't talk about yourself at length. No one gives a shit.
6. OM never goes out of style.
   • One nice thing about writing on OM is it doesn't become irrelevant in six months like writing about technology. I have another blog where I wrote some articles on Software development, and let me tell you, they haven't held up well. Whereas the articles on this blog are as relevant today as they were five years ago
7. Don't forget about videos.
   • I don't know about you, but I seem to go to be getting more info on technical issues from YouTube these days.
   • I have a couple of videos, but I prefer text, as it's actually easier to express yourself since you can review and edit as necessary.

So I will strive to do more of the above going forward.

Random Thoughts

1. In the six or so years of studying OM, I have never had an interaction with a live human being about OM. I've only mentioned it in passing to two other people, neither of whom showed the slightest interest. Not surprisingly, most people are not interested in "transcendent mathematical idealism". As far as online goes, I think I've had a total of about three text interchanges.

   Think about that. Learning the most insightful and interesting system you've learned in your life, but not being able to talk about it with anyone.

   In noumenal space, no one can hear you scream.

   Of course, Meyers-Briggs explains why. Also, now that I think about it, as a programmer I have the same issue -- no one, outside of work perhaps, is interested in anything technical, so nothing new here, sadly.

2. I'm sick of (in my own mind since I have no one to talk to about it), debating whether OM is "true" or not. It used to be important to me, and I vacillated between being skeptical, and being a true believer. All I care about now is that it's totally, and insanely fucking useful. I don't give a shit if it's wrong -- it's mind-blowingly insightful, and has changed my life, whether it's "true" or not.

3. On the topic of "truthiness" I would say it's most likely to be correct at the class level (the core principles: PSR, monads, EE, flowing points), but wrong at the instance level (e.g. their notion of 6-d space-time: 3d of space and 3d of time, Eulerian relativity [vs. Einsteinian relativity]). The most solid thing to me, amazingly, is the monad -- the fact that a zero can have waves (energy and information) inside, but be zero on the outside. It's actually not some mysterious thing -- you see it everyday, for example waves on a rope. I tried to do an entire video on this once, but didn't complete it. But once you get this you just can't see how it can be any other way for the basis of the universe.
4. Is the CTMU compatible with OM? What do they think of Christopher Langan? To me they seem compatible: OM would be an instance to CTMU's class. However, they probably think he's full of shit. Unfortunately, CTMU is so dense and esoteric, I can't say if they're compatible.

5. They make some outrageous claims in their books, that if true, would go a long to removing any doubt in a lot of people's mind. Some of the super-secret tech they claim to have are:

   • An actual holy grail ("something that even the most senior members of the Illuminati hesitate to use")
   • A soul camera (later exposed as Kirlian photography) -- a camera that captured the purity of your soul/mind.
   • Senior Illuminati who are able to take over the mind of junior Illuminati during initiation ceremonies.
   • An actual person somewhere who is actually a higher level being who can transcend space and time etc., who is occupying a human body.

   If any one of these were true, and they could prove it, that would more quickly convince people than all the hundreds of books written. If they actually have these things, why not film then and offer up proof?

   I'm not holding my breath.

6. I'm tired of the condescending attitude toward anyone who doesn't agree with them politically: i.e. Trumpanzees. One of the few comments I did get suggested that anyone who doesn't like meritocracy doesn't fully understand OM. No, I think I understand it as well as anyone (at least among the general readership). Where's your "proof" that meritocracy follows from OM? I seriously don't care what your political philosophy is if I discuss OM with you -- it's irrelevant. Here's an idea, why don't you fuck off.
7. I think the way they treated Diabolically Informative was shameful.
8. I think the way they've treated all of the prior members was shameful, including the three trolls or whatever they were called.
9. I noticed how in the GS they mostly bashed Christians (Abrahamism), and in the TS and later they mostly go after scientists. This is probably because they realize scientists are at least capable of understanding their work, and are the one who are mostly reading their works. So they need to deconstruct them. I'm ok with this. Besides bashing Abrahamism is child's play, compared to Science.
10. God Series 10 is probably the most powerful book in the GS. It goes into the most detail and talks about 6-d space. I can't remember all the details now, but just remember thinking they made GS 10 special because ten is the number of the tetrad.
11. I know it may not seem like it sometimes, but I more or less agree with about 90% of what they say.
12. My head is idealistic, but my gut is materialistic. Just as it should be. Double book accounting.
13. I may be moving to a new a locale in the coming months. It's actually very comforting in uncertain times to know your world-view (OM and Science) will still be there, no matter what. Yes, kind of a religious overtone but something I never really had before I learned OM.
14. The most common conflation of all is the equals sign: a=b. It can mean equivalence, equality, or identity.

Equivalency is the weakest form of "sameness", and identity is the strongest form.

Lets say you have 20 one-dollar bills. An equivalent amount is two ten-dollar bills or four five-dollar bills. However, if you need to get food from a vending machine that only accepts one dollar bills, four five-dollar bills isn't of much use: equivalency isn't good enough. You need at least equality: 20 new one-dollar bills is equal to 20 old one-dollar bills.

A dollar bill is identical to another dollar bill only if it has the same serial number. That is to say a dollar bill is only identical to itself -- a tautology and the strongest form of sameness.

The Lisp programming language actually has three levels of equality operator: eq, eql, and equal that roughly correspond to these distinctions: 'eq' is the strongest comparison, and 'equal' is the loosest.

You can seriously mislead yourself if you confuse "=" for identity, when it actually means equivalence, and vice versa. The internet meme that says the sum of all positive integers adds to -1/12 is a good example. During the derivation of this formula, very loose equivalency substitutions are made. In a proof that has equivalence, equality, and identity substitutions, the lowest form dominates, and "taints" the entire conclusion to its level. That is to say, one equivalence substitution among many identity substitutions, drops the entire conclusion down to mere equivalence.

When most people see "the sum of all positive integers = -1/12", they assume an equality, or identity relation. But in fact, it's an equivalence relation at best. The "=" sign in this case means "can be roughly thought of being somewhat similar to -1/12 under certain special circumstances", a far cry from "is the same as" relation that most people unconsciously prescribe. This is misdirection for smart people. Even highly educated are susceptible to illusions. Of course the words "fallacy" and "illusion" never applies to smart people's fallacies or illusions. They get called "theories" or "paradoxes" instead.

Let's examine the relation PSR=reality. Does the equals sign denote an equivalence, equality, or identity relation?

Some say it's an equivalence: a heuristic. OM says it's an identity: a law.