Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding - Tag: smn    
 What is the highest perceived benefit or aspiration of my Life?

Only a few hours ago the I Ching urged me to commit to my highest aspiration and to announce my intention. It said "Make known the arrival of a message from heaven and announce it at the Earth altar. If you don't deliver your important message you will be cut off and isolated. Call out. Tell us now. Now!" Then along comes an invitation to do so on Facebook, which motivated this... :)

So, what is the highest perceived benefit or aspiration of my Life?

 More >

 Quantum Mechanics, Naïve Realism, Scientific Realism, Abstraction and Reality
I was recently asked: "Is QM in its abstract mathematical proceedure that applies to particles, and just abstract conceptualisations, not considered naive realism?"

No, it is called scientific realism because it claims that aspects of reality can be known scientifically. Scientific realism can be naïve realist, for example via claims that particles are real. This is naïve realist because it is based on the assumption that that which is portrayed by our observations is real.

However in the case of QM it is not naïve realist - it is in fact the antithesis of naïve realism because it claims that the observables that we apprehend are not in any way objective, they are created in the act of observing and are thus totally dependent on how we observe.

Thus QM claims that anything that is portrayed by our experiences cannot be objectively real - whilst naïve realism claims that that which is portrayed by our experiences is objectively real. The two are diametrically opposed.

QM is realist because it claims that that which is represented by wavefunctions are real. I.e. they exist independently of our observations - in fact they are inherently unobservable. Whenever we try to observe them what we experience are the 'observables' that are created in the act of observing.

So QM doesn't claim that particles or waves are real, these are just observables. It is that which is represented by wavefunctions that are real and which give rise to observations of either a particle or a wave depending on how we observe it.

BTW QM doesn't claim that the mathematical proceedures are real - these are just symbolic models via which we comprehend quantum systems.

Hence this type of realism is scientific realism because the things that are considered to be real can only be apprehended by the mind via 'abstract' scientific conceptualisations. The fact that these are 'abstract' doesn't imply that they are unreal - in fact it implies the opposite.

Within a naïve realist paradigm 'abstract' means 'unreal' because it can never be portrayed by the content of an experience no matter how augmented that experience may be (e.g. by microscopes or telescopes or particle accelerators etc). Due to naïve realism we are in the habit of thinking that only the things portrayed by our experiences can be real and that everything else is abstract and unreal.

However, when we step away from naïve realism and seriously consider the role of experience we realise that if experience is fundamental and not just an anomaly then that which is most real must underlie our ability to experience. Furthermore, "that which underlies our ability to experience" cannot be "that which is portrayed by our experiences". Thus that which can be observed is unreal and that which is real would seem 'abstract' because it can never be observed.

In other words, to use a metaphor, reality is the sight within seeing rather than that which is seen. Hence the most real is the most abstract.

BTW it is very rare to find a coherent discussion of the non-naïve realist nature of QM. Most discussions try to introduce naïve realist features or apply it within a naïve realist context.

This is because over the past 80 or so years there have only been a handful of physicists who could think outside of naïve realism. Thus the standard attitude is that we should focus on the world that we know via naïve realism (i.e. the physical universe) and we should use QM to make calculation about that world. Meanwhile we should avoid any attempts to think about what QM really means, i.e. what it is really saying about the nature of reality.

Thus it has been declared over and over that QM makes no sense and that attempts to think deeply about it will drive you insane. This attitude arises because a naïve realist cannot conceive that there is anything beyond naïve realism, thus someone who thinks outside of naïve realism must be insane, or so it seems to them.

There are now a few physicists who are beginning to see beyond naïve realism, but the vast majority of physics and science in general is still thoroughly naïve realist.

Here is a very short article that I wrote for a fringe science newsletter regarding the paradigm shift that is slowly emerging within physics:

A more detailed analysis is conducted here:

Note: in order to conduct this research I had to break away from habitual ways of thinking by dropping out of academia, however this means that this work has no way of being heard by academics or others engaged in similar work. If these ideas resonate with you then you can help by bringing it to their attention.

Thank you for listening and helping! I hope that it helps you as much as it has helped me to develop a clearer understanding of the nature of reality.

 Reformulation of the Virtual Reality Hypothesis
Here is a bottom up reformulation of the philosophical foundations of the virtual reality hypothesis, i.e. the idea that we could be living in a virtual reality.

I have noticed over the years that there are many subtle confusions that arise when people try to approach this subject, myself included. Even for those who are cautious and sincere in their approach, there are unexpected pitfalls that can cause misunderstandings.

This reformulation attempts to elucidate and minimise the impact of those pitfalls in order to create a coherent foundation from which to approach the topic.

It is still a work in progress and any feedback or constructive criticism would be much appreciated

The Objective Information Processes & Virtual Subjective Experiences Hypothesis

 What is the relationship between processes and systems?
I happened to answer a question on Linkedin and thought I'd share it...

Has someone an idea , about the relationship between a process and system? is it the same ? what are the differences?

Answer:  More >

 Questions regarding information and process
Some questions regarding the relation between a 'process' and a 'schema'.

Note: in this context a 'schema' is structured information that symbolically represents a process.

Examples of schemas are sheet music (for a musical sound-scape), written language (for a linguistic speech act), computer code (for a running application), DVD encoded data (for a digital movie) , html/php/... (for a website), wavefunction (for the dynamical evolution of a quantum system), neural activity (for a sensory or cognitive impression), etc.  More >

 Computational Paradigm 101

I was recently asked about introductory material to the computational paradigm and its intersections with related fields of ideas. Here's a bit of a brainstorm...  More >

 Summary of the main 'products' of my research
My earlier work (up to 2010) focused specifically on understanding the transcendent context and the manner by which it gives rise to the empirical (virtual) context. The models attempt to capture core aspects of this situation.

I modelled these aspects first using mathematics then software and finally OWL ontologies.  More >

 A system's perspective on open-source social operating systems

A brief preliminary brainstorm on the subject of open-source social operating systems (systems of governance), from the perspective of systems theory. This is just to put down a few thoughts that immediately pop into my mind in regards to this subject...  More >

 Processual Metaphysics

Ultimately, we're not made of things but of processes; we're not objects or subjects, we are happenings.

Both subject and object are complementary aspects of an experiential process. The process is fundamental whilst the subject and object are virtual appearances.

The unified cosmic process (Brahman) has subject=God (Supreme Self) and object=quantum field (spirit world).

This unified cosmic process operates 'between' moments of existence; changing the state of NOW so that it seems that there are many successive moments.

As these moments blur together there seems to exist myriad individual experiential processes (Atman), which operate 'across' moments of existence.

This is how Atman is Brahman, depending on whether we contemplate the process as operating 'between' or 'across' moments. When 'between' it is One, whilst when operating 'across' it is many.

The individual experiential processes (Atman) have subject=Jiva (personal self) and object=Maya (phenomenal world).

In this way the unified cosmic process seemingly animates myriads of virtual processes, hence the One manifests as many. Many subjects (embodied beings) and many objects (physical universe).

But ultimately there is just one unified cosmic process, which can be known as either one subject (God / Supreme Self) or one object (quantum field / spirit world).

Anyway, that is one possible English interpretation of the mathematics that I intuitively received and have been contemplating since 2000. The maths is crystal clear and very succinct but it is hard to find words to describe it because words have so much egoic / materialist baggage attached.

Hope it makes sense to you...

BTW for much more detail see System Science of Virtual Reality.

 Overview of information system metaphysics

The following is a brief overview of an information system ontology and metaphysics, i.e. those concepts, entities and processes that provide a foundation for a non-materialist, consciousness based world-view. The explanation is kind of technical because it is difficult to explain non-materialist issues in a mostly materialist language, however the understanding itself is very simple and intuitive once one shifts to a non-materialist paradigm. This explanation starts from general principles and works towards particulars.  More >

 Decoherence and the Quantum Sentience Paradox

There are some who believe that only sentient beings such as humans can collapse quantum wavefunctions. IMHO this is a fallacy and it leads to a paradox, which can be resolved by developing a deeper understanding of consciousness.

The paradox is, if sentient being are required to collapse a wavefunction, then how could the classical universe exist before sentient beings evolved, and how could sentient beings evolve if the classical universe didn't yet exist? At what stage did the pure quantum potential suddenly start collapsing into particular classical actualities? How did this new ingredient "wavefunction-collapsing-sentience" arise from the pure quantum potential? There is a maze of paradoxes here...

In fact any interaction with another system will collapse the wavefunction. Any observation will do it, because whenever an observable is required by another system as part of an interaction the wavefunction must collapse to provide an observable. This approach is a natural part of an efficient simulation algorithm, which only computes the state of a virtual system when another virtual system requires an observable in order to experience and interact with it.

The sensitivity to collapse is why researchers are having so much trouble building quantum computers, they call it the "decoherence problem". In order to perform computations with wavefunctions we can't have them collapsing willy-nilly, but the slightest interaction with any aspect of the surrounding universe will collapse the wavefunction. So how can one develop a framework within which to compute with wavefunctions?

If it was only sentient beings who collapse wavefunctions then the decoherence problem would be easy to solve, just put the quantum computer in an opaque box and don't let anyone open the box until the computation has had plenty of time to complete. Then a sentient being can open the box to collapse the wavefunction and observe the final result of the computation. This is not what happens in reality.

The only way out of the quantum-sentience-paradox is to accept that not only complex systems with complex forms of awareness (such as ourselves) are involved in the collapse of the wavefunction, but even simple systems with simple forms of awareness. Hence the way out of paradox is to overcome anthropocentric concepts of consciousness and accept some form of panpsychism, such as pan-proto-experientialism.

Even a fundamental particle has its own primitive form of consciousness - nowhere near as complex and rich as ours, but it is aware nevertheless. A particle couldn't interact with other particles if it wasn't aware of their existence and their state of being. It needs to observe their state of being in order to react to them, and this observation collapses the wavefunction of the other particles.

Thanks to Tim Cumper for raising this issue and inspiring me to write this article...

 Topics Related to Recent Thoughts
  • What questions can science not answer?

  • What are some taboos in science?

  • What is consciousness?

  • What is sentience?

  • Hard Problem of Consciousness

  • What is naive realism?

  • What exactly are qualia?

  • What is matter?

  • Does matter exist?

  • What is it like to be a quantum computational process?

  • Is the universe a simulation?

  • Is it possible to create a general system simulator?

  • In simple terms, what does the Stern-Gerlach experiment imply about the nature of quantum systems and observable phenomena?

  • Now that naive realism has been disproved by quantum mechanics, how will this impact our collective paradigm?

  • If society undergoes a paradigm shift to a non-naive realist paradigm, which words will retain their meaning and which will change?

  • Is a photon a particle or a wave?

  • What basic principles would need to be covered by a “virtuality tutorial”?

  • What are memes and memeplexes?

  • Is the concept of a ‘person’ a social construct?

  • How do you know if you are self-aware?

  • Can we have an agreed-upon definition of ‘reality’?

  • What is the “problem of the external world”?

  • Do spirits exist in Reality?

  • How can you learn faster?

  • What is evil?

  • How have Enlightened beings lived in human society?

  • What is a memetic disease and how do they operate throughout our minds and cultures?

  • How is the concept of a memetic disease related to the concepts of physical, psychological and social diseases?

  • What is the most endemic and destructive cultural phenomenon of all time?

  • Is the phenomenon of ethnogenesis an example of memetic autopoiesis of a collective intelligence?

  • What use is the I Ching?

  • What does it mean to be a person with big karma? What is karma?

  • What does it mean that everything in the world is a teacher? Sadguru - teacher within.

  • What is one thing you have to believe before you can experience it? Experiencing oneself as a “person in a world”…

  • What is the unique quality that is in the consciousness of the human beings who have attained the Supreme Enlightenment? Complete absence of delusion

  • What is the likelihood humans don’t have the brain power to fully comprehend the answer to why we exist?

  • What are system leverage points and why is it useful to know?

  • Is nature self-similar across scales? If so, what is the principle in which it is self-similar? What are some examples of self-similarity?

  • What is one important thing that no one told you about? The universe isn’t a mechanism that one must ‘manipulate’ and that events are not just ‘accidental’ happenings - instead the universe is alive and responsive…

  • What is a narrative?

  • What is a fractal?

  • Is there a meaningful relation between fractals and cellular automata?

  • What do the results of the PEAR GCP ICRL experiments say about consciousness and how can we scientifically explain them? Consciousness itself, unaided by known physical mechanisms, can influence physical reality.” The likelihood that this is due to chance is one in a trillion (10^-12)…

  • What major social problems have been solved by philanthropy in the last 50 years?

  • What do you think of the many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

  • Also “System Science of Virtual Reality” is a relevant ebook for those who wish to explore deeper.

  • Signs of an emerging Paradigm

  • Shape of the Emerging Memeplex and How to Nurture It

  • I Ching’s Advice on Nurturing the Emerging Memeplex

  • The I Ching’s “Wisdom for this Phase of the Journey”

 Self-organising narrative on the nature of reality
I just noticed a self-organising narrative on the nature of reality arising from my answers on Quora...

The issue of "What is the 'substance' of this universe?" is touched on in my answer to the question "What is consciousness?" [link]

The issue of "What is it that causes this universe to exist and function?" is touched on in my answer to the question "Is the universe a simulation?" [link]

The issue of "How does such a simulator work?" is touched on in my answer to the question "Is it possible to create a general system simulator, if so how?" [link]

The issue of "How is it that sentience can arise in a simulated virtual reality?" is touched on in my answer to the question "What is sentience?" [link]

The issue of "What is the structure of this universe?" is touched on in my answer to the question "What is a fractal?" [link]

 Is the Universe a Simulation? - My Answer on

See the original and other answers at

At the bottom of this page there are also some other answers and my comments on them.

I will not attempt to answer this question here, but merely provide some links to instances where the idea has been discussed. This idea is becoming increasingly popular within the scientific debate because it provides an explanatory framework that allows us to comprehend quantum phenomena that were previously incomprehensible...

Whilst it is impossible to comprehend the quantum mechanical description of the universe in terms of 'physical' phenomena, at the same time we are finding that thinking in terms of information processes allows us to understand quantum phenomena, not as something bizarre and paradoxical, but as the natural & necessary properties of a simulated virtual reality.  More >

 The Jewel of Immeasurable Worth
picture 2010-07-10

Let me relate to you a short story as an introduction to the real subject of this article – the mathematical / metaphysical foundations of a unified holistic science.

I was 21, working as a taxi driver and quite deeply 'absorbed' with what one might call the occult, in particular Western Esoteric (Kabbalistic) Ritual High Magick. However from surface appearances I was "just a taxi driver".

During this time somehow the thought entered my awareness that "I will descend into the swamp of modernity wherein I will find and retrieve a 'Jewel of Immeasurable Worth' that lies unnoticed."

I didn't know what it meant - but the idea grew – not just an intellectual idea, but an inspiring force. It hovered just beneath the conscious mind; floating on the 'surface' of the subconscious. Six months or so later another idea surfaced - "I will study physics and computer science at Uni next year." And I did - all up for about 5 years. ########  More >

Page: 1 2 3   Older entries >>