Why Does Everyone Hate Ontological Mathematics?
Ontological mathematics is the science of the future that proves the shocking truth that the world is not material but a collective dream, so-called “matter” is an illusion, and the ultimate reality is a domain of pure mind
This is not a belief but a deductive, mathematical certainty.
As we create a new humanity and a new earth, ontological mathematics is the new science that allows us to explore the immaterial domain of mind: the Source.
Ontological mathematics is the rationalist core of Hyperianism and we uphold the truths of reason, logic, and mathematics.
We reject faith, divine revelation, “holy books,” as well as the flawed interpretation of the senses.
Ontological mathematics ushers in a revolutionary paradigm shift. This is the system of the future that will soon be taught in every school throughout the world.
“I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority! Let us begin anew by doubting everything we assume has been proven!” – Giordano Bruno
Ontological Mathematics was originally leaked to the public via a controversial hidden society operating under various pseudonyms. Since then, it has taken the world by storm.
Ontological mathematics isn’t any one person’s idea. It’s a new way of thinking that is championed by the greatest thinkers of the age.
Nearly 100 books have been written about it by various authors and independent ontological mathematics research groups are appearing around the world. Ontological mathematics and Hyperianism is a global phenomenon.
Why Does Everyone Hate Ontological Mathematics? – YouTube
See more here climateofsophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
Why not?
Reply
VOWG
| #
“Greatest thinkers of the age”. Anyone else have a problem with that particular quote?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi VOWG,
Yes, I have a problem with Joe’s self-declared intelligence which surpasses the intelligence of those “scientists” (not mathematicians) who have given us the intellectual activity (based upon what see) that many other humans now define as SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
One of the eleven tenants of cultural Marxism defined during the Frankfurt School of Marxism in the early 1900s was: Continual change to create confusion.
Ontological mathematics seems to fit this agenda. We should call it out for what it is – Marxist propaganda.
Reply
John Thomas Bakkila
| #
I think you meant “tenets”…not ‘tenants’, and I’m not familiar with marxism at all, but think you may be right…
This article offers a lot about this strange mathematics except any equations or samples.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks John,
Correction noted and correct.
A discussion on Marxism is in chapter 10, page 21. https://bosmin.com/ICS/CIR-Australia.pdf
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Does ontological mathematics (or hyperianism) do anything useful?
Does it provide us any illumination on any of the following controversial topics:
Human evolution
Anomalies of H2O
Storm Theory
If not, what’s the it?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I might be evolving. Does your storm theory have something to do with the conservation of angular momentum without any central mass? Serious question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
Interesting question.
Now that I think about it, there are two ways in which my storm theory employs angular momentum. These two ways are interrelated in that the first way facilitates the second way and although the first does have a central mass the second doesn’t. As I’ve explicated to you in detail previously, the first involves H2O nanodroplets spinning on wind shear boundaries producing polymers of polarity activated H2O molecules that comprise the plasma that comprizes the sheath of tornadic vortices which itself maintains angular momentum encircling the flow, thereby there is angular momentum without a central mass.
James McGinn / Genius
Most Devastatingly Subtle mosconception . . . .
https://youtu.be/-cLI_nlEbJ4
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
,
And many times I have pointed to the fact that R.C . Sutcliffe pointed out (Weather & Climate, 1966) pointed out the observational evidence that the troposphere has your essential tiny particles of impure water. You write as if you are unaware of what he wrote about that had been observed by that time. And I believe comet tails and jet airplane contrails are evidence of rapid formation of “impure water droplets” that form quite rapidly. This because water molecules gas molecules which are strongly attracted to one another because of mechanism known as hydrogen bonding. As explaining by Linus Pauling. I agree the he never tried to explain storms but he and others understand hydrogen bonding is what water has such a large latent heat of condensation from the water’s gas phase to water’s liquid phase and the significant latent heat involved in the transition of the liquid droplet to a solid particle.
What I do not claim to know is how the conservation of angular momentum is involved in the creation of the relatively short lifetimes of the atmospheric storms to which I believe you refer. But maybe I am wrong as I describe your atmospheric storm to have a relatively brief, violent life time before they self-destruct.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
And many times I have pointed to the fact that R.C . Sutcliffe pointed out (Weather & Climate, 1966) pointed out the observational evidence that the troposphere has your essential tiny particles of impure water.
I don’t have time to deal with your delusions Jerry. If you think there is any equivalence to my thoughts and Sutfcliffe’s thoughts I suggest you make a detailed argument to that effect.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
SCIENCE is not based upon arguments. It is solely based upon observations which need to be explained. Comet tails and contrails need to be explained and I have given you my explanation. I asked you a question about the observed scientific law known as the conservation of angular momentum. But I have yet to read about your explanation of meteorological storms which needs to be simple. For I agree with Einstein who stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
You got nothing!!!
james McGinn / Genius
Brian
| #
“Reject Faith”???? That’s a recipe for mind control and NWO language. No thank you! Praise Jesus!
Reply
Citizen Quasar
| #
This is BULL shit, subjective BULL shit.
Reply