Today the one concept which is treated with great respect by millions of intelligent people is MATTER.

Many have lost confidence in the venerable religions, and —even more— the brutal secular ideologies which caused so much bloodshed and destruction in the 20th century.

(Religion still dominates in the Middle East and parts of the Far East, but this is probably a consequence of their poverty, and lack of awareness of the full extent of modern scientific insights. Also there is another factor:  that Rich Western Oil Corporations have flattered the religious leaders of the Middle East with insincere  respect.)

Mary Midgley wrote a late book, Science as Salvation (1992) which pinned-down the main area of philosophy which was crying-out-for clarification as … Matter.

It is a lucid, book, which introduces the dimension of contrasting female v. male conceptualisations of matter.

The Classical Greeks realised that there must be an atom, a tiny object which was the building block of everything material. Unfortunately Midgley’s understanding of maths was not up to letting her see how the mathematisation of matter had become conceptually awkward.   Given that the scientific method consisted of deconstructing (spatially) tinier and tinier objects identified by physics… it left scientists with an embarrassing brick wall: how to conceptualise the final constituents of matter?  What would the final minute objects which were the basis of matter look like? We could call them “super-atoms”.

Most scientists who dabbled in philosophy were all more or less agreed on the mantra <<Physical reality is mathematical!>>.

This meant that the final super-atom must be a mathematical object.

But it couldn’t be.  Mathematic objects were/are strictly defined and absolutely, rigidly, paralysingly, timeless… But the super-atoms which are/were the basis of everything physical are obviously in a state we could only call very active.  In the case of the biosphere they were dramatically active, and in the capacity of the human brain to try to rationally analyse the architecture of the universe, they evidently generated massively sophisticated activity.  The dry, rigid, timeless objects of maths couldn’t somehow generate such activity.  

It was as if the physicists were trying to impose a timeless jacket onto what was clearly an intrinsically moving, changing, diversifying… whoknowswhat.

The answer must be —could only be— that we need a new kind of abstract object based, not on static tallies, but on jumping-random tallies.

Since the nature of mass is the centra dilemma of today’s intelligent class, it can hardly waved-away as if it doesn’t matter> Matter must rest on something.

Whatever could that basis consist of?

This new logos is “Anti-Maths” or, if you prefer, “Actimaths”. It was first muted by the present author in 2000, in his book After Descartes.  And during the last twenty-six years quite a lot of progress has been made. A rigorous, disciplined, second abstract logos has been born… which, incidentally, at last makes sense of the physicality of the universe.  A premier scientific research programme has been sketched-out. This physicality is the inevitable by-product of the axioms of Actimaths which are needed to allow the existence of sentient, intelligent beings… i.e. us.

At last we can understand in an outline way why there is a universe.  But this is a thought which is too bright for some typically jaded theorists. It is WE who unconsciously impose the axioms needed to create consciousness onto a vast jumping-random substratum. The physical universe “out there” is just the by-product (counterweight) of these axioms.

COMMENTs:  email per4group@gmail.com  CHRISTOPHER ORMELL around 1^st July 2026