Here I discuss some basic aspects of quantum mechanics that are
not often explained and are often at the heart of common
misconceptions about the role of consciousness in reality and the
type of reality that is implied by quantum mechanics. More >
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.
Worldly concepts, words and thought processes cannot give the mind
enough traction to grasp reality. However the mind itself CAN grasp
these things and the intellect can understand. Although the word
'mind' means different things to different people... Hence I'll
explain a little of where I'm "coming from" in regards to
'mind'... More >
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 >
There are countless intriguing patterns that can be found within
the I Ching. I don't know what they mean, but here we explore some of
them... Firstly we map out the correlation between the hexagrams and
the binary numbers, and then within this context we explore that
patterns formed by the various pairs of hexagrams and groups of
pairs. More >
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
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...
Taking numbers consisting of 1's and squaring them reveals an
interesting countup-countdown pattern in the resulting product.
11111^2= 123454321 More >
I was recently asked my opinion on the work and teachings of A.H.
Almaas, called the Diamond Approach. This article is not a general
review of his work, it is about something that I believe to be a
common misconception of spirituality, particularly throughout the
West (e.g. many proponents of Integral philosophy). However I found
in Almaas' work a clear and succinct expression of that
misconception, which has inspired me to say something about it now.
Firstly let me say that I am not familiar with Almaas or his work,
however after reading an
article on the core principles, written by him and an
interview with him I think I can sense the gist of where he is
coming from. He has many deep insights that suggest genuine
realisations, hence I suspect that many spiritual aspirants could get
some benefit from his fusion of depth psychology with aspects of both
dualist and nondual spirituality. That is all I have to say regarding
his work in general.
However, from my perspective and the perspective of Eastern
spirituality, he succumbs to a critical mistake. It is this mistake
that I will discuss here because it is very limiting and it is
prevalent and growing in popularity throughout the West.
I am talking about a misconception of spirituality that is based
on a partial realisation that is mistaken for a full realisation. The
seeker attains a degree of realisation, but mainly at an intellectual
level, which has not penetrated very deeply into their subconscious /
unconscious mind – they are often not even aware that it should
penetrate deeply or how deep it must go before one has full
realisation. Hence they believe themselves to be realised and to
understand the spiritual path, even whilst the bulk of their mind is
unconsciously dominated by the ego and still bound within the
illusory world that the ego imagines itself to inhabit and the
illusory life that the ego imagines that it is living.
The partial realisation results in thinking that could be phrased
as “Okay, so now I'm realised, but I'm still
me, an individual person in the world - so what now? How can this
realisation help me and others to lead a better, more spiritual life?
That is after all what spirituality is really about.” This
thinking results in the tendency to approach spirituality more as a
spiritually themed lifestyle for the ego as it lives its illusory
life in the world. Rather than seeking to deepen their realisation
and eventually attain full and complete realisation of reality and
truth, and thereby overcome the ego and all of its delusions; thus
traversing the greatest paradigm shift of all and coming to apprehend
and live in reality, which is radically different to what the ego
imagines. More >
I just read a very thought provoking article The
Truth by Eric
Gross, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In response to it something
came to mind, certainly not as a criticism but simply as an extra
dimension to consider... More >
Some quotes from Advaita Vedanta:
“Truth must be discovered, but there is no formula for its
discovery. You must set out on the uncharted sea, and the uncharted
sea is yourself. You must set out to discover yourself…” (J
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # -
"No person from outside can make you free... No one holds the
Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold
that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the
purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the
Kingdom of Eternity..." (J. Krishnamurti)
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # -
“That which is the subtle essence, in it is the self of all that
exists. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou ... art it.”
(Chandogya Upanishad 4:10:1-3)
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - More >
Recently I have been feeling harassed by someone and yesterday during
"peace negotiations" with them I realised why they were
behaving how they were, and I took a fresh look at myself and saw that I
also do a similar thing - it helped me to understand many things about
my life. I'll try to explain what I realised and what that meant to me.
Perhaps this insight might be of some use to you if adapted to your
Firstly, I'll describe how they were behaving, at least according to my
perceptions. Have you ever known someone who came to look at you through
shit-coloured glasses and assume that was the real you? And then tried to
“help you” by seducing you and others to see you in that shitty way? And
they did all this in the name of Love? And they misunderstood your attempts
to clarify things as defensiveness? And they remain staunchly self-righteous
– believing themselves to be a beacon of loving kindness?
I realised that I also do this to others by looking at aspects
of society (such as propaganda, entrenched confusions, self-reinforcing
closed loops of hidden assumptions, outmoded paradigms, etc) through
shit-coloured glasses and stating my views rather harshly at times. I
do this out of love for the victims of illusion and its resulting
suffering, the oppressed, the deceived and the exploited. I also do
it out of love for truth, reality, decency, honour, peace and
health. However this is only one view and most people see things
differently, for instance those seeking comfortable illusions or
distractions, those seeking power and dominance, those seeking mayhem and
chaos, etc. It is a subtle trap to fall into one-sidedness and to denigrate
the ways of others. Even if one knows that those ways are destructive and
dangerous it is not productive to denigrate them. Even if those
following those ways (e.g. authoritarians, mass media, materialists,
egotists, fanatics, etc) routinely denigrate other ways.
As part of a propaganda campaign it is standard practice to spread
a one-sided view and to denigrate other views, however this is really a
form of cultural violence, and violence begets violence. If one truly
believes that it is truth that will set us free, then one must accept
all ways no matter how abhorrent they may appear. One should not condone
them, but one shouldn't react with hatred towards them. Instead
accept them as part of what is and find ways to help the whole situation
evolve towards a healthier state. Rather than focus on attacking the
negatives one can focus on nurturing the positives.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I should never warn people of dangers.
That would be irresponsible, it just means that there are times, places and
ways of doing this. I must also learn to accept that many people will blindly
wander into suffering and despair and there is nothing that I or anyone else
can do about it. Making regular snide remarks and disparaging comments about
these destructive paths is not going to turn anyone away from them, it will
only make people bitter towards me and more entrenched in their ways, whilst
at the same time corrupting my expressions and obstructing my communications
Overcoming negative reactions is not easy though, there are subtle
mind-games that must be overcome. I have found that in myself some of
these are related to the activities of the shadow, that part of ourselves
that we habitually deny even exists. That is what this article is about... More >
Hello again everyone :)
I hope you have all been well!
I have been away for a while, maintaining abstinence
from all in-depth discussions in order to still the mind and focus
it. I'm not about to dive back into the fray of online discussions
but I have re-opened my facebook profile for now and will generally
hover on the periphery of cyberspace for a while. For those of you
who are interested, I'll share a little of what has transpired for me
over the past couple of months.
I've journeyed far and wide in a metaphorical sense, stilling the
mind to explore deeply into certain issues, as well as going beyond
the realm of ideas and emotions (the symbolic content of awareness)
to penetrate deep within consciousness itself (the stream of
awareness). Delving down through the layers, from the conscious mind,
down through the unconscious and into the psychosomatic interface
between body and mind. From this vantage point some very interesting
work has been done and will continue. However this is getting ahead
of myself, I'll back track and tell a little story, which also sheds
light on information wars, propaganda, oppression, authoritarianism,
effective resistance and other issues relevant to our times. More >
I empathise with the difficulty that people have in grasping the
mystic perspective. For those with an empiricist perspective these
issues are usually perplexing and seemingly inside-out and
back-to-front. I will briefly describe an approach to the mystic
perspective that some have found useful.
Consider an AI mind within a VR simulation. If this mind had an
empirical perspective it would seem to it that it had inner
cognitive phenomena and that it lived within an external physical
universe. However in a deeper sense these are just perceptual
illusions and the actual reality is a single unified information
process that is imperceptible, universal, non-local, timeless,
all-pervading, etc. Realising this fact leads to a mystic
perspective. More >
What questions can science not answer? http://qr.ae/7Xh2
What are some taboos in science? http://qr.ae/Jzq
What is consciousness? http://qr.ae/7FD
What is sentience? http://qr.ae/TRw
Hard Problem of Consciousness http://qr.ae/7nhU
What is naive realism? http://qr.ae/0cq
What exactly are qualia? http://qr.ae/7NA4
What is matter? http://qr.ae/7nnn
Does matter exist? http://qr.ae/7nta
What is it like to be a quantum computational process?
Is the universe a simulation? http://qr.ae/TlI
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
Is a photon a particle or a wave? http://qr.ae/7KBb
What basic principles would need to be covered by a
“virtuality tutorial”? http://qr.ae/72X9
What are memes and memeplexes? http://qr.ae/7ndi
Is the concept of a ‘person’ a social construct?
How do you know if you are self-aware? http://qr.ae/7Ryr
Can we have an agreed-upon definition of ‘reality’?
What is the “problem of the external world”?
Do spirits exist in Reality? http://qr.ae/7G76
How can you learn faster? http://qr.ae/7tA7
What is evil? http://qr.ae/7tmW
How have Enlightened beings lived in human society?
What is a memetic disease and how do they operate throughout
our minds and cultures? http://qr.ae/7nMq
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? http://qr.ae/7tBw
Is the phenomenon of ethnogenesis an example of memetic
autopoiesis of a collective intelligence? http://qr.ae/7Ih0
What use is the I Ching? http://qr.ae/1N8
What does it mean to be a person with big 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? http://qr.ae/030
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? http://qr.ae/7p14
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
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? http://qr.ae/0OG
What is a fractal? http://qr.ae/0gU
Is there a meaningful relation between fractals and cellular
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? http://qr.ae/7r9u
What do you think of the many-worlds interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics? http://qr.ae/7yfA
Also “System Science of Virtual Reality” is a relevant
for those who wish to explore deeper.
Signs of an emerging Paradigm http://bit.ly/dfxL4R
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”
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]
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Older entries >>