## RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS SOLVED

The Riemann Hypothesis is the Most Important Unsolved Problem in Pure Mathematics (Considered the Holy Grail of Number Theory). It is of Great Interest because of its Implied Results about the Distribution of Prime Numbers.

“Our Pride is in Our Mathematics, which IS an Intimation of the Trans-Dimensional Object which is Outside of Historical Phase Space, & that Casts an Enormous Flickering Shadow Over the Human Enterprise. It is Through Mathematics, Through, First of the All, the Probability Theory, More Recently things like Fractals & Dynamic Modelling. It is Through These Things that we are Able to Give a Kind of Empirical Grounding to Our Visions. Because what we See in Our Visions is Not Hallucinations. What we See in Our Visions is the Higher Truth, & We Have Never Faced This. In Fact, this is what we Repress. Hallucinations are Devalued. The Phenomena of the Mind are Called “Subjective.” This is a Knock, when You Call Something “Subjective” it Means its Inconsequential, or it’s a Matter of Opinion. We Don’t Realize the Primacy of Mind.” - Terence McKenna

“Science Runs on Induction, which is a Very Low-Grade Form of Logic. It Means You do Something Over & Over Again & if it Happens the Same Way a Hundred Times You Have Confidence that the Hundred & First Time it will Happen the same way. Intuition doesn’t work like that. Intuition Leaves No Trail, & Most of Us are Accustomed to Thinking that Intuition as Something Feminine, Mysterious, Unexplainable, & Sort of Magical, & also I think because we Live in a Male Dominant Society, we Under-Value it. If Someone Claims Intuition, Our Position is Probably One of ‘Prove It.’ Doubt in the Face of the Assertion, You See. But there is an Interesting Thing About Intuition that I don’t Think Many People Understand, or have Bothered to Look at, which is, did You Know, I’ll Bet You Didn’t Know, Mathematics is Based on Intuition.”

“Now, Half of Mathematics Would Rise with a Screech of Horror at this Statement, but the Other Half of Mathematics Calls Itself Intuitional Mathematics. Ok, well now what is going on here? Probably if You are not a Professional Philosopher of Science You are Accustomed to Associating Mathematics with Science Rather Closely. This is Because Science, in Order to Give Itself Legitimacy, has Very Slyly Appropriated Mathematics, especially in the 20th Century, to its Purposes. But, if we Talk about what is called Pure Mathematics, which is the Great Love of Mathematicians (the other kind of Mathematics is Applied Mathematics & that’s for Engineers & Technologists, & is not what moves them to the Edge of Their Chair. But if we Think About Pure Mathematics, it is an Activity Carried On in the Mind, Based On Deductive Truth. Deductive, NOT Inductive. In Other Words, a Statement is Made. It Can Be Anything; “All Greys are None X.” This is Just a Statement. We Don’t Yet Know What this is Going to be about. All Greys are None X. “All Greens are F-Sub One.” What we are Putting in Place are a set of statements that appear non-sensical, but what we will assert is that we should seek a Relationship between them & then that will show us Something, & this is How Mathematics Really Work. It has Very Little to do with Number. It has to do with the Conceptualizing of Relationships. Conceptualizing Them. & then, Exploring Your Intuition About These Conceptions & then the Third & Very Late Stage is You Write a Formal Statement of Your Cognitive Activity Around these Assumptions. So You See, Mathematics is Entirely Intuitional. It Leaves no Track. It is Drawn from this Other Domain.

Why has it been Appropriated by Science? Well, for a Very Fundamental & Not Well-Understood Reason. Mathematics has been Appropriated by Science because Mathematics has an Uncanny Ability to Describe Nature. Completely Uncanny. Now, You May have Never Asked Yourself, “Why is Mathematics Such a Powerful Tool for the Description of Nature?” Maybe You Thought that Somebody Else can Answer this but its not a Problem. Well, I’ve Got News For You, it is a Problem. Nobody has Any Good Ideas About Why Mathematics Describes Nature, but Notice that Mathematics is an Intuitional Activity. & Intuitional Activity Describes Nature, WITHOUT the Intercession of Inductive Science. Inductive Science is a Kind of Naïve Holdover from Greek Democratian Theories, where everything is Conceived of as Clearly Conceivable & Operating According to Known Laws. But in Fact, the Deeper Structure of Nature is NOT Modelled Out of an Examination of Data Obtained by Measurement. That Isn’t How It Works these days. The Deeper Description of Nature is Achieved by Taking Weird Objects from the Frontiers of Mathematics. These Things Dreamed Up in the Confines & Depths of the Human Mind & Inside Computers & then Laying Them Over Nature & Seeing, My Gosh! There’s a One-to-One Correspondence Between, Let us say, the Multi-Dimensional Catastrophes Described by René Thom & the Dripping of a Faucet; the Turbulence in a Brook; the Voting Patterns in a Ghetto. All of these things are seen to be easily modelled by Extremely Exotic Mathematical Objects Discovered Through Intuition Within the Mind.

Well, what does this mean? Well, it means, if it means anything, & mean, before we draw the Deeper Conclusion, what is the Conclusion on the Surface, it must be that the Unaided Human Mind is More Capable of Correctly Modelling Nature than the Human Mind that Works Through the Methodological Inductive Approach Called Science. & in Fact, this is Clearly True, because the World Described by Science, a Scientific Description of this Room would say very Little about ALL the Important Things Going on in it. A Scientific Description of this room would leave out Personality, would leave out Linguistic Intent, would leave out the Uniqueness of Each of us, for Science we are merely members of the Human Species, & again, this Flattening, this Reductionism, this Betrayal of the Quintessence of the Phenomenon in a Desperate Attempt to Achieve Closure in the Modelling Process. & so then You do Achieve Closure, but the Model is Always Inadequate, & there is this sense of Frustration. We can’t get Closure with the Model unless we Tell a Lie. Unless we Deny the Complexity, the Interrelatedness, the Soulness, the Spiritness, the Mindfulness. All of these things are for Science what are called Secondary Properties. They are Epiphenomenal. They are Only an Aspect of Your Point of View, like an Iridescence on a Butterflies Wing, or something like that. In Fact, that is the Classic Reductionist Definition of Consciousness. It is an Iridescence that Appears on the Surface of Neural Processing that we Mistake for True Being. & Yet Somehow we are embedded within this Iridescence & it is from within this Iridescence that we Launch the Descriptive Models but then Deny Our Existential Validity.

So this is been an Onanistic Exercise, is one way of putting it, & there must be others. Ok, so what is the Path of Intuition in Relationship to Nature, that is Different from the Path of Science? In a Way, its Only a Shift of Emphasis. William Blake said, “Attend the Minute Particulars.” This is Very Good Advice for Science & it is Very Good Advice for Mathematics, & what I am Suggesting Here Tonight is that we have Misconstrued Mathematics & have Bought the Notion that it is a Part of Science, when Actually it Stands Ready to Empower Intuition & to Sweep Science, if not away, at least into a more proper role more befitting its extremely limited Application to the Higher Orders of Reality that we Really Care About. I Mean, Science, really is the Plumbing Level of Reality.” – Terence McKenna