"There's that word 'axiom' again," Zac said. "You never explained that to me. What's an axiom?"

"Axioms are things we accept as being true as a basis for further argument and reasoning. 'I think, therefore I am' is an axiom because I can safely assume that statement is true. Axioms are self-evident truths.

Another example of an axiom is, 'a straight line segment can be drawn from any given point to any other'. Pick any two points on a piece of paper, and a straight line will connect the two. This is a self-evident truth. I don't think anyone would dispute that, except-"

"Except you?" Zac teased.

I chuckled. "Well, that brings up an interesting question about the level of truth at which we are operating. I can certainly accept that statement as an axiom: 'a straight line segment can be drawn from any given point to any other'. In our world, that is self-evident and true and a very useful axiom. That axiom is a foundation in geometry, which allows us to do tons of practical things, like building bridges and making GPS systems. We use geometry in everything, and it's very reliable.

But we've also just established, from first principles, that the three dimensions of space do not exist at a fundamental level. There is no 'here' and 'there' to draw a line between, because the separation between two points is an illusion. The extra dimensions of space and time emerge from a lower dimension where everything is the same one thing.

So if you accept that statement as an axiomatic fundamental truth, then you'll be led astray when discovering the actual fundamental truths of the universe. It's like an AI bot in Minecraft saying, 'a straight line segment can be drawn from any given point to any other.' From their perspective, that is true in the world they are observing. But that axiom will also lead them astray when figuring out their fundamental theory of physics. Their equations will wrongly assume the existence of three-dimensional space as an axiom. We know, of course, that space is an illusion in computer games, and everything emerges from the lower dimension of the codebase.

So, you see, the most dangerous thing you can do is label something an axiom when it isn't one. As soon as you accept something as an axiom, you won't even think to challenge it because it just is. As I said, the scientific community is completely delusional about their dogmatic belief in materialism because they've unconsciously treated the statement 'the observer and the observed are separate variables' as an axiom. That statement should not be an axiom. It may seem self-evident that there is a material, separate world 'out there,' but you cannot defend that statement from first principles. It's like that quote from the beginning of The Big Short-"

"Was that the movie about the GFC?" Zac asked. "Where a naked Margot Robbie explained complex financial mumbo jumbo in a bathtub?"

"Yeah. It's a great movie about the delusion and collective madness and fucked up institutional structures and incentives that caused a global financial crisis. At the beginning of the movie, they attribute a quote to Mark Twain: 'It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.'

As I said, axioms cause problems because they seem obviously true. Most people don't waste their time challenging obvious truths. It's quite ludicrous to me that the physics community has been stuck for nearly half a century, but very few people are questioning the false axiom that the observer exists as a separate variable to the observed. I'm no physicist, but obviously something deep down in their logic tree is wrong if they have two entire branches of physics — relativity and quantum mechanics — that are accurate in isolation but are fundamentally incompatible. I mean, that's just problem-solving 101, right? Check your assumptions. It's so incredibly basic.

Actually, relativity is an excellent example of how axioms can get you into trouble. Einstein's special theory of relativity only relies on two postulates, with 'postulate' pretty much being an interchangeable word for 'axiom'. The first is that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame. The second is that the speed of light remains the same for all observers, regardless of how fast the observer, or the light source, is moving through space. From those two postulates, he got special relativity — a huge breakthrough theory from a small number of assumptions."

"But special relativity is wrong, isn't it?" Zac said. "Einstein is wrong."

"Yes. Technically, Einstein is wrong because his postulates are true at a superficial level, but fundamentally false. Special relativity is so beautiful because it uses a deductive process, and remember — deduction gives us certainty. You could write the argument like this..."

Postulate 1: The laws of physics remain the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Postulate 2: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.

"As soon as you invalidate one of Einstein's postulates, you invalidate the entire argument. When Einstein asserts that the speed of light remains the same for all observers, he is assuming the fundamental existence of space and time. Speed is the distance traveled in a discrete period of time. If space and time don't fundamentally exist, then neither does speed.

Using a deductive process from first principles, we know that space and time don't fundamentally exist. Therefore, Einstein's second premise is false, which renders his argument unsound. Hence, using deduction, we know for sure that Einstein is right at a superficial level and wrong at a fundamental level. It's like he's right at the level of truth in which our physical world operates, but still fundamentally wrong at the deeper, lower-dimensional level of truth."