The Universe of Sufficient Reason


The most fundamental question of all is why anything should exist at all. The religiously minded assert that God has always existed and always will. They define him as all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, all-perfect, all-good, all-forgiving, all-just, all-compassionate. He is the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the original link in the chain of existence. All explanations come back, finally, to God. So, the answer to every fundamental question is simply "God". If God wills it, it happens. But is that any kind of satisfactory explanation?


Returning to the original question, why does anything exist at all? It is not because of God but for another reason. The English writer T.H. White said in The Once and Future King (about King Arthur): "Anything not forbidden is compulsory."


Nothingness, the absence of everything, a state of no content where events never take place, is the logical "zero-point energy" of the universe. It is the simplest state conceivable. It requires nothing. No effort has to be exerted to create it. It is the lowest energy state possible because it contains no energy. The energy level is eternally zero. Nothing can be more stable than nothingness because nothing ever happens to destabilize it. There is nothing to which anything ever could happen. The "path of least resistance" begins and ends here. If such a state were logically possible then it would certainly happen since it is the simplest possible system, requiring no effort, no things, nothing at all.


The great Illuminist Leibniz introduced the Principle of Sufficient Reason:


"...we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise..."


There is a prima facie sufficient reason why there should be nothing rather than something - nothing could ever be simpler, more stable and require less work than nothingness. And if there is perfect nothingness then there can never be "something" because how could something emerge from nothingness? There is nothing there from which to emerge.


So there is only one reason why existence is not eternal nothingness and infinite void - this state is forbidden. It is quite simply impossible. If it were possible then it would certainly exist and there would be no universe as we know it. It is not God who makes it impossible. It is the properties of nothingness itself. How could the statement "nothing exists" ever be demonstrated? It is impossible by definition because we exist, the world exists, the universe exists. There is no correspondence between the concept of nothingness and the real world. It is a purely hypothetical concept.


Some people might contend that these are all just word games, so let's try to think more deeply about nothingness. Would it have dimensions e.g. length, breadth and height? In other words, could an imaginary being travel backwards and forwards in nothingness? If so, nothingness is not nothingness: at the very least it has physical dimensions. It is an enormous physical space - empty, certainly - but a space nevertheless with the basic properties of space, which are not those of absolute nothingness (which would have no properties at all). Theoretically, we could divide "dimensional nothingness" into an infinite number of tiny cubic cells, each a unit long in terms of breadth, height and length (in whatever scale of measurement we choose).


If that type of dimensional nothingness doesn't work then what about nothingness without physical dimensions (i.e. such that an imaginary being couldn't travel through it)?


Now we arrive at the central teaching of Illumination, the one idea from which everything else - the whole of existence - flows.


In its most abstract form, Illumination states that just as "dimensional nothingness" can be broken down into hypothetical basic units, so can "dimensionless nothingness". In this case, the basic units are mental rather than physical, and the imaginary being could indeed travel through this nothingness, but MENTALLY RATHER THAN PHYSICALLY.


No matter how you examine the issue, you can never define any state of absolute nothingness. It is an impossible state. The concept is incoherent.


Conversely, we can easily demonstrate the existence of "something" by simply pointing to anything in the world. And even if we adopt absolute skepticism and doubt the genuine existence of everything we see around us, we are still left with Descartes' famous dictum: "I think, therefore I am." Thought, at least, exists, and that is the central irrefutable fact of existence that no one can possibly challenge.


The answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that the state of nothingness is impossible. It is not even definable.


What the universe unquestionably contains, and has always contained, is the prerequisites for thoughts, for thinking. Even if a trillion trillion years ago there wasn't a single living thing in existence in the universe, what that primordial universe certainly contained was the potential to make intelligent thinking an actuality at some point in the future.


Descartes famously divided the universe into two incompatible substances - matter (res extensa: extended substance, having dimensions and capable of being divided); and mind (res cogitans: thinking substance, having no dimensions and therefore incapable of being physically divided). This dualistic description of reality has, in one way or another, dominated human thinking ever since. The insurmountable problem it presents is how matter and mind can interact if they are entirely separate substances. For that reason, science has denied the existence of the mental universe and become entirely materialistic, contending that "mind" is some mysterious by-product of the physical world. But no scientist has ever come close to explaining how consciousness arises from atoms.  


We use a slightly different terminology for Descartes' proposal about the nature of reality. What he calls extended substance, we call "dimensional substance", and what he calls thinking substance, we call "dimensionless substance". We then invoke Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. Is there any sufficient reason why dimensional substance should be privileged over dimensionless substance? i.e. is there some obvious reason why it is legitimate for scientists and materialists to dispose of the possibility of dimensionless substance? On the face of it, the only thing we can be sure of is thinking, which most people regard as non-materialistic. Conversely, is there some obvious reason why idealist thinkers should dispose of dimensional substance and deny the existence of the material world? On the face of it, everyone takes the existence of the material world for granted. It seems utterly undeniable.


We are left with a hopeless standoff. How do we proceed? This is where dialectical logic plays a decisive role. The dialectical approach treats the dimensional substance as the thesis and the dimensionless substance as the antithesis then combines them into a higher synthesis.


Thesis: dimensional substance


Antithesis: dimensionless substance 


Synthesis: dimensional/dimensionless substance


Descartes' two separate, incompatible substances have been replaced with a single substance that has two dialectical aspects: dimensional and dimensionless. This is technically called dialectical monism. Descartes' problem of how to make two different substances interact is thus overcome because now there is only one substance, but with two aspects: physical and mental, dimensional and dimensionless, which perpetually interact dialectically.


Science, up until now, has been the study of a single aspect of existence: the dimensional, physical, material aspect. The other aspect - the dimensionless, mental, immaterial aspect has remained the exclusive arena of religion and metaphysics.


The divide between science and religion arises from each side looking at only one aspect of existence, and ignoring the other. Illuminism is about reconciling the two.   


The Illuminati refer to the mental aspect of existence as the Psychocosmos and the physical aspect as the Hylocosmos. It must be emphasized that there are not two separate universes - just one universe with two radically different aspects.


Physical energy is the energy of the dimensional aspect of existence, while Psychic energy is the energy of the dimensionless aspect of existence. Because there is only one fundamental substance, one fundamental energy, physical and psychic energies are different aspects of the same thing. When energy acquires dimensions it is physical and when it loses dimensions it is psychic. The universe has an inner aspect - a "within" (which is dimensionless), and an outer aspect - a "without" (which is dimensional). Science ignores the within because it is not amenable to conventional scientific study, although its effects manifest themselves everywhere in science, and especially in psychology.


The dimensional aspect of existence is associated with the dimensions of space and time. The dimensionless aspect, since it has no dimensions, is outside of space and time. This is the key aspect to existence: an aspect outside of space and time perpetually interacting dialectically with an aspect inside space and time. All of the weird and wonderful phenomena of the universe are the products of this ultimate dichotomy.


Does this sound crazy? Then consider the evidence provided by black holes...


Black holes are objects where gravity is so strong that light itself cannot escape the gravitational pull. They are the most mysterious objects in the universe and hold the key to the nature of reality. They open the door to understanding the fundamental composition of the universe.


Their hypothetical existence was first predicted in Einstein's famous theory of General Relativity, but Einstein himself believed it was impossible for them to become real objects in the universe. The reason is that they exhibit a feature physics cannot cope with or comprehend.


Einstein's equations contain a term that involves dividing the mass of the black hole by the distance "r" from the black hole. The question is what happens when r=0? Division by zero gives a result of infinity. To physicists, it is impossible for infinity to appear in the real world, so they consider r = 0 to be the point at which physics breaks down. At r = 0, the centre of a black hole, gravity is infinite and time itself stops: all of the mass of the black hole is contained within an infinitely small point where the concept of space no longer makes any sense. The point takes up precisely no space at all. Since this point is outside space and time, it is dimensionless. The physical universe collapses into an ineffable twilight state at this point. This apparently impossible object of infinite density and infinite gravity is known as the singularity. No predictions can be made about it, or about what might emerge from it. At the singularity, physicists' understanding of nature fails completely. Therefore, they believe that there is a fatal flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory of general relativity, despite its immense success.


The one thing no physicist has ever contemplated is this: there is no flaw whatsoever. The reason why physics seems to disintegrate at r = 0 is that r = 0 is not in the physical universe. It is in the mental universe, the universe of mind that we have just described.


Physicists, so blindly and irrationally wedded to materialism, have never taken their own equations to their logical conclusion. What their equations actually point to at the limit of r = 0 is a different aspect of existence - mental rather physical, dimensionless rather than dimensional, outside of space and time. Rather than face that, physicists would prefer to futilely search for a new theory. But they have nowhere else to go. They will always run up against exactly the same problem: that the universe of dimensions, of space and time, coexists with another universe of no dimensions, outside space and time. Reality can never be comprehended if either aspect is ignored.


As already mentioned, to talk of "two universes" is convenient but technically incorrect. The true nature of existence is that it has two aspects coexisting in a single continuum. The r = 0 (dimensionless, mental) universe and the r > 0 (dimensional, physical) universe are both part of a single universe r >= 0 (r greater than or equal to zero).


If you want an equation for everything, you could choose r >= 0 because that encapsulates the true dual nature of reality; physical and mental.


There is a black hole at the centre of every galaxy. At the centre of ours is one that is four million times more massive than our sun. Such black holes are called supermassive. They are essential for galaxy formation, and hence for life itself.


Black holes shape the evolution of the universe. They are everywhere in the universe, millions upon millions of them, and in every place where they occur Einstein's equations catastrophically break down (as far as physicists are concerned).


Black holes are real objects in outer space that lie beyond current scientific understanding. A new theory beyond Einstein is required. It already exists - it is that of the Illuminati. It is that of the r = 0 universe, the inner aspect, the dimensionless reality that science chooses to ignore even though their equations point directly to it.


There are two numbers that have proved an insurmountable problem to science, two numbers that provide the limits of existence: zero and infinity. Infinity is a number without limit, while zero is an anti-number that doesn't count anything (for example we can point to three apples, but not to zero apples). Zero and infinity are two of the most obscure topics in mathematics and, because of their mysterious nature, both arrived on the scene much later than ordinary numbers such as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. It wasn't until Georg Cantor's work of the late nineteenth century that infinity became a respectable subject of study. Moreover, zero is simply the inverse of infinity, and vice versa: 1 divided by infinity = 0, and 1 divided by zero = infinity. Science will never be complete until it is able to fully incorporate zero and infinity.


Science is the theory that only Descartes' "extended" substance exists i.e. things must have dimensions before they can be "real". Illumination is the doctrine that "things" without dimensions are as real as those with dimensions. To express it mathematically, r = 0 is as real as r > 0. Science has no legitimate basis for excluding r = 0, and, indeed, r = 0 appears right at the heart of science, right at the centre of the Genesis Singularity, the Big Bang itself. Science says the Big Bang arose out of nothingness (an impossible and non-existent state) while Illumination teaches that the physical universe of dimensions (r > 0) emerged from the mental, dimensionless universe (r = 0). Something did not come from nothing but from a different aspect of something: matter from mind, dimensions from non-dimensions. Equally, dimensional matter can be transformed into dimensionless mind, and this is the process that takes place at a black hole singularity where r = 0. Which paradigm is the more logical and consistent? Which does not require something to spontaneously arise from nothing?


Scientists have never asked themselves the most basic question of all: why should dimensional entities (r > 0) be privileged over non-dimensional entities (r = 0)? What is the sufficient reason for existence to exclude dimensionless entities and be wholly based on dimensional entities? There is no such reason. It is blind, irrational prejudice that causes scientists to ignore the r = 0 universe. They suffer from "group think".


Any scientist who dared to suggest that the r = 0 dimensionless aspect of existence was as real as the r > 0 dimensional aspect would be ridiculed by his peers. This is the terrible danger of institutionalized thinking. It breeds fear; it prevents the most radical ideas from being contemplated, unless such ideas conform to the ruling paradigm.


Yet no scientist can provide any legitimate scientific or philosophical reason why dimensionless existence is not every bit as real as dimensional existence and, indeed, the Big Bang singularity itself is a dimensionless entity, as is the singularity at the centre of any black hole. Why don't scientists face the facts provided by their own most cherished theories?


Dimensionless entities can, do and must exist. 




* * * * *



Someone once asked us the following question:


"Regarding the God of Becoming: How does this process avoid appearing like a perpetual motion machine (and violating the laws of physics)? In other words, what is fuelling this grand evolutionary process? The universe can't just be evolving on its own without an outside energy source (unless it was 'wound up' with potential energy and is now unwinding - e.g. an involution/evolution process). But that would simply beg the question of how the universe was initially wound up (i.e. involuted) since that would take energy as well. And, as you know, it's cheating to say that energy comes from empty space because even quantum physics, while allowing for energy to appear from a vacuum, still has to repay this energy back soon thereafter - there is no free lunch!


We answered:


The universe IS a perpetual motion machine. No laws of physics are violated by such a concept. If the universe weren't a perpetual motion machine, it would already have stopped i.e. reached thermal death where nothing of use happens, or it would be manifestly heading in that direction (there is no indication that it is). Such a notion is in fact completely incompatible with quantum theory. The whole point of quantum theory is that the "vacuum" is a ceaseless quantum foam, supposedly capable of generating events such as the Big Bang. It is therefore nonsensical to say that the universe could ever reach a state where useful energy is unavailable. A perpetual motion machine is impossible in terms of our existing laws of thermodynamics, but it could be argued that thermodynamics is as much in need of being made fully consistent with quantum theory as general relativity theory is, in order to establish a true Grand Unified Theory.


Most science theories are incomplete. You should not view them as inviolable. No one thought that Newton would be disproved, but he was, yet 99 times out of 100 we still use Newtonian calculations because they work. Why would you expect the laws of thermodynamics to be any less susceptible to challenge than Newton's highly successful and seemingly impregnable laws? Success is not proof of absolute truth.


"Entropy" - the basis of why perpetual machines seem impossible - is an extremely complex concept, which is nowhere near being fully explained by science.


"The universe can't just be evolving on its own without an outside energy source (unless it was "wound up" with potential energy and is now unwinding - e.g. an involution/evolution process)."


There can be no energy source external to the universe (and if there were you would have to account for what that entity's energy source was, and so on to the point of absurdity). If the universe is everything (which it is) how can there be something external to it? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (and quantum tunneling which logically arises from it) amounts to a mechanism, within conventional physics, for continually recycling useful energy and defying entropy.


"But that would simply beg the question of how the universe was initially wound up (i.e. involuted) since that would take energy as well. And, as you know, it's cheating to say the energy comes from empty space because even quantum physics, while allowing for energy to appear from a vacuum, still has to repay this energy back soon thereafter - there is no free lunch!"


In that case, do you reject the idea that the Big Bang universe arises from a quantum fluctuation? In fact, most physicists say that we live in a zero-energy universe with gravitational energy being defined as negative and exactly balancing the Einsteinian mass-energy of the universe. So, if the energy of the universe is zero, what energy has to be repaid?


It's all in the mathematics and the physics.


Science is very far from providing a coherent account of the nature of the universe. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that science explains everything and is infallible. Most scientists are instrumentalists - they are interested in the practical uses of science - but many will admit they have no idea what science says about the fundamental nature of the universe.


Consider the concept of the multiverse - very popular with many scientists. Every time a quantum "decision" is required, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. Would you like to explain where the energy for all of these parallel universes comes from? Would you like to explain what physical space all of these parallel universes fit into? Would you like to explain how parallel universes interfere with each other in order to produce the interference patterns observed in twin-slit experiments?


Science has a long way to go to explain the major questions about the nature of the universe. You need to learn to cast a more skeptical eye over the claims of science.


It is worth adding a few points to this answer. Frank Tipler in The Physics of Immortality said, "According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a quantity called entropy - a physical quantity which is a measure of disorder in a system - always increases or remains the same. It can never decrease. Thus, if the amount of entropy which can be generated in the universe is finite, there must come a time in the future after which no further change is possible. If there were a temperature difference between any two parts of the universe, it would be possible to increase entropy still more, so this final state of maximum entropy would be a state of universal constant temperature. In such a situation, all the energy in the entire universe is in the form of heat; there is no more 'available' or free energy in existence. Thus all life must cease and never arise again for all future time. Hence, this uniform-temperature, constant-entropy, no-free-energy final state is called the Heat Death."


In fact, because of the existence of the r = 0 universe, Heat Death is impossible. Energy in the universe can be perpetually recycled (without any energy lost to heat) from physical (dimensional) energy to psychic (dimensionless) energy and back again. Dimensional energy and dimensionless energy are simply two aspects of the same thing. This dialectical process can never stop. The universe will always be moving forward - evolving - and will always have infinite useful energy available.


Consider the Big Bang singularity. As was described in the "Creation Myth" article, it is fully consistent with all available scientific knowledge to assert that the universe was once in a state of absolute dimensionless (mental) energy. There was no dimensional (physical) energy whatsoever. The whole of dimensional existence spewed out of a dimensionless singularity: no Big Bang scientist could dispute this. This "fact" by itself reveals that no matter what entropic state the dimensional universe reached, it would always be possible for a singularity to spew out new dimensional energy in a form that could do useful work. Black holes reveal the opposite process: dimensional energy being converted into dimensionless energy at the black hole singularity. So, Q.E.D. - the universe is indeed a perpetual motion machine.


Physicist Paul Davies states that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states, "roughly speaking, that all physical quantities are intrinsically a bit uncertain and can undergo rapid spontaneous fluctuations. For example, energy can suddenly appear from nowhere in empty space so long as it fades away again quickly. By briefly "borrowing" energy out of the blue, a subatomic particle can, for example, leap out of a trap - a process that underlies the phenomenon of alpha radioactivity. The Heisenberg principle is a rule for payback on the energy loan: the shorter the loan, the more the energy on offer."


Look at the statements: 1) "…energy can suddenly appear from nowhere in empty space so long as it fades away again quickly." And 2) "By briefly 'borrowing' energy out of the blue…"

Does this sound like science or mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus? In our version of reality, we would say, 1) "…dimensionless energy can be transformed into dimensional energy and back again, and that process can occur over brief durations on a hyper-microscopic scale or over much longer time scales on a macroscopic scale (as in the case of Big Bang and black hole singularities); there is no question of anything appearing from nowhere in empty space." And 2) "Processes requiring dimensional energy are able to tap into an infinite reservoir of dimensionless energy on a hyper-microscopic scale and use if for a brief duration; there is no question of anything being miraculously borrowed out of the blue…"


Which version do you think sounds more plausible, more like real science?


Heisenberg's famous uncertainty relations are a mathematical description of the interaction between the r > 0 universe (within space and time) and the r = 0 universe (outside space and time). They have nothing to do with particles and energy popping into existence "out of the blue" (whatever that means), "out of thin air", "out of the future", "out of the past", "out of nothing" or anything else that scientists fancifully say to explain phenomena for which they have no viable conceptual model. There is nothing "spooky" going on. There is just dimensional and dimensionless energy existing in an existential continuum.


In mathematics, a perfect point is zero-dimensional (i.e. dimensionless). It has no height, width or length), a straight line has one dimension (length), a square has two dimensions (length and breadth), and a cube has three dimensions (length, breadth and height). Our world comprises objects that are spatially extended in three dimensions, and that has led scientists to conclude that the whole of reality is dimensional. They have forgotten where it all begins: the point with no dimensions.


The point is at the origin of all things. All dimensional objects can, finally, be reduced to a dimensionless point. This is a fundamental tenet of Illuminism.





* * * * *



We have only touched on the "r = 0" universe, but we hope we have succeeded in demonstrating its revolutionary implications and how it overthrows, in a perfectly rational, scientific and philosophical way, the prevailing scientific paradigm based on absolute materialism.


Our next article will delve into the subject much more deeply, with reference to quantum mechanics, general relativity, religion and philosophy. We appreciate that this is highly complex material. Hopefully, if you don't "get it" all, you will nevertheless get enough to let you see the big picture, if not all the detail.


Our purpose at this stage is to demonstrate that if the r > 0 dimensional universe of conventional science - the arena of space and time - were the true and exclusive nature of reality then atheism would be the only possible response since there is no scope at all within that universe for an immortal soul, a heaven or a God.


These things are possible for one reason only: the r = 0 universe, which is not located in space and time.


There is no spooky "other dimension" where God and souls reside, as the Abrahamists would have you believe. There is only the r >= 0 universe, divided into two aspects in a single continuum: mental/ dimensionless (r = 0) and physical/ dimensional (r > 0). There is nothing else.


This is the Illuminati's "cosmology". You will not find any other religion that provides such a precise, scientifically compatible cosmology. We say that any religion that does not provide a detailed cosmology is false and based on nothing but moonshine. You will never hear the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, or any imam describing their cosmology: they have nothing to offer other than the absurd assertion that God created the world out of nothing in six days and rested on the seventh (because he was tired, poor "man"). Faith in nonsense and wishful thinking will save no one. Only knowledge works.


Science = knowledge of the dimensional (r > 0) universe.


Gnosticism = knowledge of the dimensionless (r = 0) universe.


Gnosis = absolute knowledge of the r >= 0 universe.


Join the path towards the light! Step into the light of Illumination: an ancient religion that continually dialectically renews itself.


A new religion for a New World Order.