We easily conceptualize a world made of matter, with the universe as its container. We can touch it, see it, and measure it. But should we trust our senses? A philosophical idealist would argue that the universe is made of thought. But how do we even begin to conceptualize the intangible?

One of my earliest memories is a serious explanation of how “1 + 3 = 4,” delivered as if it were the most profound statement ever made. I didn’t understand it at the time, but this was my first encounter with Pythagorean numerology. That experience led me to study Pythagorean philosophy as a young adult, where I felt more at home than in Christianity or Buddhism. Unfortunately, the resources available on Pythagorean philosophy at the time were rather slim, mostly focusing on superficial subjects like numerology and other symbolism. When Donald Hoffman published The Case Against Reality in 2019, I was intrigued—a mathematical view of the universe was gaining traction in the mainstream! Hoffman’s argument that reality is a mental construct and that our senses are not designed to perceive it accurately resonated with me, and I appreciated his use of mathematics to describe his theory.

Imagine the universe not as a vast cosmic ocean filled with celestial bodies, but as an intricate tapestry woven from threads of pure thought. Each thread is a mathematical entity, and the pattern they form together is the reality we perceive.

Now consider our senses as a set of virtual reality goggles. We’ve worn these goggles our entire lives, believing that the world is truly made of matter. Hoffman’s work suggests that if we could remove these goggles, we would see a reality far different from what we assume—perhaps a kaleidoscope of mathematical patterns instead of the familiar world of objects and spaces. But is this base mathematical reality even perceptual at all? Perhaps we need to approach it through conceptual thinking and reason, rather than relying on our limiting goggles.

Hoffman uses graph theory to model consciousness as networks of interacting “conscious agents” and employs geometric algebra to represent the structure and dynamics of conscious experience. His approach allows him to describe these complex relationships rigorously. However, he acknowledges that every scientific theory requires assumptions or appeals to miracles. His chief assumption is that conscious experiences simply happen. His theory does not explain how they happen or what they are made of.

Picture these conscious agents as musicians in a vast cosmic orchestra. Each one plays its unique instrument—its thoughts and experiences—contributing to the grand symphony of reality. Hoffman’s theory describes the sheet music and the arrangement of the orchestra but neglects to explain where the music itself comes from or what it’s made of.

Can we push this mathematical universe idea further? What if we explain these conscious agents as souls, thinking the universe into existence by producing mathematical sinusoidal waves, and conscious experience as our perception of the interference patterns produced by these souls? A fully rational approach would not allow for any assumptions—no miracles. There must be a sufficient reason for everything. By reasoning from first principles about what the soul and thought must be, we can understand the universe with certainty rather than through theories.

Envision each soul as a unique quantum computer, constantly performing calculations that generate waves of thought. These waves ripple out, intersecting and interfering with waves from other souls. The resulting interference pattern makes up the fabric of reality itself, and our conscious experience is our interpretation of this pattern. Like a hologram, each point in this pattern contains information about the whole.

To truly understand reality’s nature, we may need to transcend our senses and our current scientific paradigm. Can we pair empirical science with pure reason to build a system of knowledge from first principles? Imagine scaling a mountain of understanding: empirical science provides the tools and equipment for the climb, while reason serves as our map and compass. Reason can reveal the nature of things, and science can help us apply that knowledge. Together, they can guide us to the summit, where we might finally see the true landscape of reality—unobscured by our sensory limitations.