Holenmerism and Nullibism: The Two Faces of the Holographic Universe

How do you put mind into science? You have to use two concepts called "holenmerism" and "nullibism". These are very old ideas, familiar to philosophers for many hundreds of years. Yet science knows nothing about them. They have dropped off the intellectual radar even though they are the answer to existence. If you want to understand existence, you will have to learn what these two concepts mean. This book will provide you with everything you need to transform how you think about the world around you. You will discover that ideas that were mainstream until the rise of scientific empiricism and materialism a few hundred years ago were right all along, and were describing none other than ontological holography.

No one in the ancient or medieval world would have found quantum nonlocality, quantum entanglement or quantum tunneling in any way surprising or weird. It's only scientists - clueless about holenmerism and nullibism - that find quantum mechanics "weird". It's weird only if you're a materialist and empiricist. Until a few hundred years ago, virtually no one subscribed to the worldview promoted by scientism. Even today, it's a minority viewpoint, supported by an extremist group of free will deniers. It's time to return science to the path it would have followed if scientists had supported Leibniz rather than Newton. Leibniz was right all along. The science he endorsed was scientific rationalism and idealism, not scientific empiricism and materialism. Leibniz's science is all about mind, not matter.

The "success" of science is a moot point. It doesn't, and can't, explain life, mind, the unconscious, consciousness, free will, the cause of the Big Bang, and causation in general. It can't even define matter, time, space, energy, mass or matter. It can't explain their ontology and epistemology. It can't explain how they exist at all, what existence is, and why anything should exist at all. In other words, from a certain perspective, scientism is a spectacular failure, and wholly non-explanatory. It's useful, but not true, instrumental and heuristic, but not analytic and definitive. It's a kind of pseudo-knowledge, or sophistry, and all of its "success" comes not from science at all but from mathematics, which science regards as abstract, unreal and manmade.

Science, before it embraced mathematics, was called "natural philosophy" and was not regarded as any kind of agenda-setting subject. It enjoyed none of the status it has today. Metaphysics was much more admired and influential.

Mathematics is the successful part of science. Take away mathematics from science and it would instantly cease to be successful. Why has no scientist ever accounted for that stark fact? Scientists are not people of reason, they are people of the fallible, limited, unreliable human senses. Don't you want the actual truth rather than the sensory appearance of the truth, which is no truth at all? Then follow the path of reason and logic - rationalism rather than empiricism.