Corrections

Last updated: 18 September 2026. This page is edited in place rather than reposted, so the link never changes.

Everything below is here because I changed my mind or my wording, in public, after the work was already out. Nothing is here because someone complained.

---

What has not changed

Worth saying first, because “under revision” can mean anything.

The structure is the same structure: five levels of matter, five of mind, and the one place where the two meet. The prediction is the same prediction. Where the argument lands on God is where it landed when I started.

No conclusion has been withdrawn. One argument for one of them has been narrowed, and that is the first entry below.

---

A note on what counts as an error here

The video course is the introductory version. It teaches the atomic model you meet at A level — a picture everybody teaching it knows is not the last word, and teaches anyway, because it is what you need in your hands before the last word will mean anything.

So two different things appear on this page, and it is worth keeping them apart.

Simplified on purpose (§1). A scaffold that takes you a long way and then stops. Not wrong to teach. Worth knowing where it ends.

Wrong, and corrected (§3). Sentences that do not say a simpler version of what I hold — they say something else, and something false. These are mine, and they are the reason this page exists.

The test I apply is whether a line says something now known to be wrong, or merely something less than the current position. Less is teaching. Wrong is an error.

---

1. Simplified on purpose: the generating operation

What I said. That a single operation builds the dimensions — take what you have, take a continuum of it (multiply by ℝ), and you have the next one up. Stated flatly in Module 5, and in the video on the number line.

What I hold now. It carries the first four crossings. It does not build the fifth, and it does not build the sixth.

What orders the levels instead. Dependence. Each level presupposes the one beneath it: no plane without lines, no time without something for it to happen to. The operation was never doing that work — over the stretch where it fits, it displays an ordering that is already there for other reasons.

Why this is a narrowing and not a collapse. The ladder is unchanged. What changed is the reason given for it, which is now smaller and load-tested rather than large and assumed. The nearest precedent is Abel–Ruffini: the general quintic has no solution by radicals, and quintics have roots all the same — Hermite reached them with elliptic modular functions. A tool failing to reach a thing is not the thing failing to exist.

Is it a simplification or an error? Both, and the split is clean. Teaching the operation first is right, and I would do it again — it is the way in, and the refined treatment is unintelligible without it. What was an error was stating it as the generating principle, flatly, with no edge marked. A scaffold should be labelled as one.

This is the largest single revision on this page, and I would rather it were the first thing you read than something you found.

---

2. Terminology

Changes of wording, not of position. In each case the old phrasing invited a picture I do not hold.

“The eleven-dimensional universe” → “the eleven.”
The old phrase suggests eleven axes of the sort you could measure along. That is not the claim. The eleven is a tally across levels of different kinds. You will hear the old phrase throughout the produced videos.

“Dimensions 7 to 11” → “1M to 5M.”
The mental levels were once numbered as a continuation of the physical ones, 7 through 11. That notation stacks the mind above the sixth and puts the human at both ends of one ladder. The current notation is 1P–5P for matter, 1M–5M for mind, with the sixth as the point they meet — five, five and one. The old numbering is superseded wherever it appears.

---

3. Wrong, and corrected

These are not simplifications. Each says something other than what I hold, and something false.

“The universe became real when conscious observers arose” → “became definite when a mind of the right kind arose.”
Three separate faults in one sentence. Consciousness, on this framework, begins much lower down than the sixth level — so as written it puts the collapse at the mosquito. Observer in the physics literature means someone looking, and the claim is about whole histories, not glances. And what is fixed is definiteness, not existence: nobody conjures a universe into being by noticing it.

“A superposition of possibilities” → “one state, not yet definite.”
Objective indefiniteness, not plurality. Not many worlds, not a shelf of universes standing alongside this one. One universe, some of whose properties are unsettled.

Consciousness is not indexed to a level.
There is no “one-dimensional consciousness” or “six-dimensional consciousness.” The ladder grades cognition, which comes in degrees. Whether there is anything it is like to be a creature is a different question with a different answer, and it does not come in degrees. Sharing an entry point does not make them one thing.

The prediction, stated at the right scope.
The position has not changed; the statement of it was careless, and the version in the earlier videos can be refuted by evidence that is actually consistent with it. That is my fault and nobody else’s.

The prediction is not that life is rare. It is not that intelligence is rare either. A galaxy full of clever creatures — remembering, planning, outwitting each other — fits this picture perfectly well.

What I claim is rare is narrower: a mind that can take its own representing as part of what it represents. That, I predict, may have happened exactly once.

Say the scope before the claim, every time, or it gets tested against the wrong thing.

The candle in the Aristotle video: form and matter the wrong way round.
In the video on Aristotle I say that when a candle burns down, the form is what changes and the matter is preserved — and that this is why it is still the same candle. That is backwards. The wax that burned is the part that left: it is in the pool, the soot and the air. What stayed is what the candle is — a thing that gives light by burning. For Aristotle a substance persists through changes of size and shape, and those are accidental properties, not its form. The same video says, a few minutes later, that the essential properties are roughly the form. So if the form had changed, there would be no candle left to be the same one.

The case where the matter stays and the thing becomes something else is the bronze sphere recast as a cube, and the video gets that one right. What it does is give the candle the sphere’s answer. The line mapping Heraclitus onto form and Parmenides onto matter carries the same reversal, and “atoms, ultimately” is not Aristotle’s either: he rejected atoms.

Scope, and why this entry is here before the video is. The video is recorded and goes out on 21 September with the error in it, and a link to this page in its description. I am not re-recording it. The course is going out as recorded and the corrections are kept here, which is the arrangement I would rather have than a course with no visible errors in it.

---

4. Production

Not arguments — facts about the recordings.

The final module’s videos call themselves “Module 7.” They are Module 8.
A module was added in front of them after they were recorded, mapping the history of philosophy onto the structure. I am not re-recording eight videos to correct a number. When you hear “Module 7” in the rational God videos, they mean the module you are watching.

Figures quoted inside videos are as-recorded.
Running time, video count, module count. All of them were right on the day and none of them are now. They will move again as the course grows. Take any number you hear inside a video as approximate and dated.

---

How to use this page

If you think something belongs here and it isn’t, tell me: hello@therationalgod.com. Several entries above exist because a reader was more careful than I was.