Mathematicians have been unable to resolve the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" Why is this the case? It's because the question relates to what math *is*, and **mathematicians don't know what math is**.

Occam's razor is a principle from philosophy. Suppose an event has two possible explanations. The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

Principia Mathematica, which consists of three volumes and over 1600 pages of esoteric, highly advanced mathematics, is an attempt by mathematicians to describe what math is.

This is the conclusion of the first volume, which is 360 pages of this gobbly-goop, and it is supposed to "prove" that 1+1=2. How many people in the history of humanity would be able to make any type of sense to this? This is the primary text for all of mathematics, and still the question: "Is mathematics discovered or invented?" remains unanswered. So obviously, this "proof", which is the basis of all mathematics, which is the basis of all of science, doesn't explain what math *is*.

My Theory Of Enlightenment asserts that the natural number system is a message and mathematics is the ongoing attempt to interpret the message. A message is designed with the intent for it to be discovered. When the message is discovered, interpretation of the information contained within the message is required (think of the movies "Contact" and "Arrival"). The interpretation process involves the rearranging of the information contained within the message to try to discover the **meaning **of the information.

Given that the initial question remains unanswered, the **meaning **of the information expressed by the number system is yet unknown. Numbers have no meaning to human consciousness. Mathematicians simply manipulate the information to discover patterns within the information and to create technology.

If the number system is a message, then there is purpose and meaning to numbers. The Theory Of Enlightenment states that the number system is the message of "Samsara". The number system is a linear expression of a cyclical process. It is expressing the same information that Hinduism did millennia ago! Samsara is a model that expresses the very purpose of life itself. The wheel/cycle of Samsara is the infinitely redundant positive feedback loop in which human consciousness is trapped.** This state is the cause of all human suffering**.

So the number system is the message and "quantity", which is created through Principia Mathematica, is the incorrect interpretation of the message. This is why the original question remains unanswered. It is also why math invariably increases in abstraction as it develops. It does this because __the initial assumption (that the number system is expressing "quantity") is incorrect!__

Further proof that mathematics is incorrect is that math produces technology and that technology:

A. Has humanity helplessly addicted to the technology via the screen.

B. Has humanity becoming ever-more reliant upon the technology.

c. **Is killing all life on the planet.**

So the conclusion that my Theory Of Enlightenment presents is that the number system is a message that has been **discovered**__,__ and mathematics is **invented. **The reason why math expresses no meaning, and has no conclusion, is due to mathematicians' assumption that the initial interpretation is correct, when it is in reality, incorrect.

The information within the message was designed with sole intent to express Samsara, with no intent, or even knowledge of, the patterns that would be recognized via the manipulation of the information within the message. Given that this message has been developed directly by the creator, to assist in breaking consciousness out of it's delusion, it is infinitely compact. The incorrect unpacking of this information will continue for infinity (hello GÃ¶del's incompleteness theorem!). Math is mathematicians chasing their tail.

Back to Occam.

Is it more likely that math is "quantity", which is explained via a process that maybe a dozen people on the entire fucking planet understands, or is it more likely that math is the ongoing attempt to interpret a message by following an incorrect initial assumption/axiom?

## Comentarios