There is a fundamental inconsistency at the core of the scientific method / world-view that makes it unable to comprehend quantum mechanics (which seems paradoxical due to the inconsistency) nor can it comprehend consciousness or spirituality.
I have been identifying, explaining and challenging this inconsistency in a series of articles to help motivate the paradigm shift that will eventually make quantum mechanics understandable as well as making research into consciousness and spirituality understandable to modern science and recognised as vitally important.
There is an entry point here: http://anandavala.info/article/Are-we-today-as-wrong-about-any-scientific-fact-that-is-widely-accepted-as-geocentrism.pdf
If what I say is correct, which it seems to be, then these documents point towards the possibility for a radical paradigm shift!
Pass on the good news if you know people who would be interested, the more people who help figure this out, the sooner and the clearer the shift will be.
Especially people interested in the interface between science, consciousness and spirituality. As well as the hard problem of consciousness, psi-phenomena, scientific realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, cybernetic interpretation of quantum mechanics, virtual realism, virtual reality hypothesis, simulation hypothesis, computational metaphysics, reinterpretation of ancient mystic wisdom, etc... It's all connected!
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?
The quotes below discuss reasons for the entrenched culture of denial within physics (as well and philosophy and science in general) regarding the consequences that quantum mechanics has for naive realism (AKA classical objectivism).
"After more than 50 years (now over 80 years) of unquestionable success as a theory, questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics continue to plague both physicists and philosophers. It is argued here that discussions about the meaning of quantum mechanics remain stymied as a result of the failure of physicists to formulate a cognitive paradigm adequate to their theory. The conventional interpretations which they offer can be seen as inadequate in one of two ways — implicitly, they retain one or the other of the two basic tenets of classical physics, the objectivity or the knowability of nature. This, it is argued, can be viewed as a form of cognitive repression of knowledge acquired, but not yet assimilated. A psychological explanation for the persistence of classical beliefs is proposed...
Piaget has invited the comparison between the historical development of scientific thought and the cognitive development of the child. Both, it is suggested, proceed through the emergence of discrete stages of structural organization, each stage brings with it new possibilities of conceptual integration, and concurrently, the possibility of a verbal articulation of the new level of organization perceived. Prior to the establishment of a new conceptual structure, knowledge already present in nonverbal forms (in e.g., sensorimotor rather than representation schemes) finds no avenue of expression, and, to the extent that it jars with the earlier established structures, demands cognitive repression. Piaget  tells us that an action schema which "cannot be integrated into the system of conscious concepts is eliminated... (and) repressed from conscious territory before it has penetrated there in any conceptualized form." Caught in a transition between stages, the child, when pressed to articulate perceptions requiring cognitive structures which are not yet available, displays confusion, denial and avoidance - a disequilibrium strikingly reminiscent of the mechanism of affective repression." (Cognitive repression in contemporary physics, Evelyn Fox Keller, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.11911)
"There exists a cognitive repression of the interpretation problem by the majority of physicists. For that majority the questions concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics are answered once and for all by the Copenhagen interpretation, and all further inquiry is rejected as a sign that the inquirer does not understand the topic. Further questions are called "only philosophical" and thus not befitting a physicist. But if one inquires in depth what the Copenhagen interpretation says one gets a variety of different answers. According to Fox-Keller this, too, is a sign for evasion, whereby what is evaded is the necessity of a new cognitive structure which differs radically from the existing one. Fox-Keller calls the old structure classical objectivism. To her, the confusion concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics exists, thus, in the attempt to retain one or more components of the classical position. While this may be as it is; I suggest that the search for interpretations different from the Copenhagen interpretation very often is motivated by trying to evade its radical consequences, that is, an act of cognitive repression on the part of the proposers." (On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics, Anton Zeilinger, http://typo3physik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/zeilinger/philosoph.pdf)
When one sufficiently overcomes the habit of naive realism one can
coherently understand the nature of reality rather than remain
trapped in a self-reproducing closed loop of unconscious assumptions
and resulting misunderstandings.
A coherent understanding can be attained personally and also
examined scientifically. A personal understanding will transform
one's life. A scientific understanding will transform civilisation.
The main features of a coherent understanding:
Reality is that which perceives rather than that which is
perceived. The objects of perception are not objective because they
depend on how we perceive them. The objective reality is the stream
of awareness within which the objects of perception arise and which
is our true self.
We have experiences of "being in a world", which is
how the situation appears from our perspective. However those
appearances do not reveal the true nature of reality, just as
experiences of a VR game world do not reveal its true nature to be
There are underlying processes that animate our stream of
awareness and give rise to the appearances that we apprehend. These
processes are that by which we perceive and cannot be apprehended as
objects of perception, thus they themselves seem unmanifest and
All manifest forms are inferred to
exist from our perceptions, however they have no independent
self-nature. Hence the ideas of matter and a physical universe are
The underlying processes animate all systems and enable them
to experience, react and thereby interact. All system interactions
are driven by reciprocal experiences and there are no inanimate
The underlying processes that enable our individual streams
of awareness are part of a unified process that animates everything.
There is a global coherence to this unified process, which
imparts a global coherence to the realm of manifest forms. Thus no
event is local, every event is a 'movement' of the entire cosmos.
We can operate via sensory perceptions and thereby exert
influence locally, or we can operate via the inner-most animating
process 'within' us and thereby exert influence globally or
Our individual state of being (both body and mind) arises
from the many levels of interacting sub-systems that comprise us. If
these sub-system interactions are dysfunctional we suffer.
Our interactions and relationships integrate us into many
levels of super-systems (groups and organisations) that comprise
society as a whole. The collective state of being emerges from this
integration. If our interactions are dysfunctional the emergent
The main results of the work from which this world-view arises can be found
My initial motivation was the need to resolve the tension between my rational and spiritual sides. Once that was eased my attention also turned to the civilisation-wide tension between science and spirituality.
There is so much needless suffering and destruction that arises from misguided sciences, misguided religions, the conflict between them all and the resulting confusions and dysfunctions that permeate our cultures and minds.
I really believe that this tension can eventually be resolved and out of that will arise a unified science/spirituality that will have a lasting positive influence on our whole civilisation; so profound that we can barely even imagine what it will be like from our current vantage point.
There are so many people contributing in different ways to this process of unification at present and my greatest hope is to serve some useful role in that effort...
"There is this hope, I cannot promise you whether or when it will be realized - that the mechanistic paradigm, with all its implications in science as well as in society and our own private life, will be replaced by an organismic or systems paradigm that will offer new pathways for our presently schizophrenic and self-destructive civilization." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Founder of general systems theory)
Schizophrenia seems to be a problem where there is no means for thoughts to be coherently 'grounded' in truth or reality, hence the tension of confusion builds upon itself creating more confusion and running out of control.
If the wikipedia description is interpreted as applying to our civilisation rather than an individual person it is surprisingly relevant to our current situation as reflected in politics, media, social breakdown, etc:
"Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by impaired emotional responses. Common symptoms are delusions including paranoia and hallucinations, disorganized thinking and a lack of emotional intelligence. It is accompanied by significant social dysfunction. The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
In the case of our civilisation I would propose that the core confusion is naïve realism, which gives rise to numerous other confusions such as exoteric religion, empirical science, mechanistic views of human nature, oppressive legal and social systems, entrenched struggle for dominance over others, etc. These reinforce the confusions and generate vast amounts of tension throughout civilisation.
I explain this in more detail in "Simplified Anatomy of the Global Systemic Crisis and How to Heal Civilisation" http://www.anandavala.info/STAR/anatomy.html
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: http://anandavala.info/article/EmergingParadigm.pdf
A more detailed analysis is conducted here: http://anandavala.info/OIPVSE.pdf
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.
"... for some reason it appears we’ve given up our freedom to varying degrees in exchange for something. But in exchange for what? Security? Acceptance? Ease? It sure appears that way. But how did this come about? ... Looking at the contrived and extremely controlling political and economic structure of our planet’s various societies and the miserable state of most of its inhabitants, it’s clear something is seriously wrong." (Does Humanity Even Want Freedom? [link])
It is clear that in countless overt and subtle ways we are losing our freedom. Why is this happening? And importantly, how far might this proceed and how can we *effectively* resist it? More >
This is an edited version of my comments from a recent conversation with a good friend Glisten (with extra comments to clarify a couple points). 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 >
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 see two approaches to this issue and will introduce them by
briefly describing the context and development of each, showing how
one leads into the other. I have endeavoured to keep this as simple
and concise as possible for a subject of this depth. More >
"The person is merely the result of a misunderstanding. In
reality, there is no such thing. Feelings, thoughts and actions race
before the watcher in endless succession, leaving traces in the brain
and creating an illusion of continuity. A reflection of the watcher
in the mind creates the sense of 'I' and the person acquires an
apparently independent existence.
In reality there is no person, only the watcher identifying
himself with the 'I' and the 'mine'. The teacher tells the watcher:
you are not this, there is nothing of yours in this, except the
little point of "I am", which is the bridge between the
watcher and his dream. "I am this, I am that" is dream,
while pure "I am" has the stamp of reality on it.
Nisargadatta Maharaj, I am That http://bit.ly/bvBQYR
[full text pdf]
"So long as people do not understand the true nature of the
objective world, they fall into the dualistic view of things. They
imagine the multiplicity of external objects to be real and become
attached to them and are nourished by their habit energy. Because of
this system of mentation, mind and what belongs to it is
discriminated and is thought of as real; this leads to the assertion
of an ego-soul and its belongings, and thus the mind-system goes on
- Lankavatara Sutra http://bit.ly/azCaUY
[full text pdf]
"When the television set is burned or destroyed, will the
people in the movie feel the pain and die? You have no form, no
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Seeds of Consciousness
"What is it that had birth? Whom do you call a human being?
If, instead of seeking explanations for birth, death and after-death,
the question is raised as to who and how you are now, these questions
will not arise...
The body is born again and again. We wrongly identify ourselves
with the body, and hence imagine we are reincarnated constantly. No.
We must identify ourselves with the true Self. The realised one
enjoys unbroken consciousness, never broken by birth or death - how
can he die? Only those who think 'I am the body' talk of
reincarnation. To those who know 'I am the Self' there is no rebirth.
Reincarnations only exist so long as there is ignorance. There is
no incarnation, either now, before or hereafter. This is the truth."
- Sri Ramana Maharshi
Again for emphasis...
"There is no incarnation, either now, before or hereafter.
This is the truth"
“Greatest assumption in human history: The existence of a
personal identity. 99,99% of our global communications refer to a you
and a me, but no one actually ever found an 'I' to exist anywhere!
All our thoughts, emotions and words refer to something no one has
ever been able to confirm to even exist. HA HA HA!! It's hilarious!!
And it's very very sad at the same
time! The single cause of our current state as a species. We're all
like sheep, following the herd, assuming what everybody else has also
been taught to assume. Time to wake up my friends.” (Bentinho
Massaro) ... More >
Monica Anderson said on Facebook:
“I can't figure out if the SA (simulation argument) is dualist and
would like to know”
Note: That which she calls SA
I have elsewhere called the VR analogy or computational metaphysics.
I have contemplated this issue of SA and dualism at some length
from many angles, in particular by studying an intuitively received
mathematical model (SMN) of the
reality generative process and how it processes information in order
to create the appearance of indivudual perspectives upon a physical
In brief I have found that the term 'dualism' has a certain
meaning within a particular context, however SA changes that context
and thereby also the meaning of the term.
To explain, first here is a comment I made earlier in the same
thread, which explains the context of our current meaning of the
term. More >
Page: 1 2 3 4 Older entries >>