Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

I have noticed that there is a degree of anti-rationalism in the collective discourse, where people identify rationalism as a major problem in the world. This is quite understandable due to the injustices perpetrated throughout history in the name of rationalism, but the entire situation is based on a misconception, which I will endeavour to clarify here.

The cause of the many problems that are blamed on rationalism is actually “narrow context rationalism”, which is really a form of pseudo-rationalism because when it is applied in the wider context it is entirely irrational. But pseudo-rationalists often label rationalists as pseudo-rationalist so the terms are quite confused in the collective discourse. But an analysis of their contexts can distinguish them from each other...  More >

I cordially invite all interested readers to engage in a conversation about the issues raised on this blog.

In this article I first explain my motivations for the invitation. Secondly, I identify some potential pitfalls in collective communication that we must seek to avoid. And finally I provide a flow-chart for a rational discourse that serves as a clear and binding guarantee / commitment that all participants will be civil, rational, impersonal and detached.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science

Firstly, what does “unified science” mean?

Unified: (1) formed or united into a whole ... (2) operating as a unit; e.g. "a unified utility system" [1]

Science: (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice...

The word science comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, which in turn comes from scio. 'I know'. The Indo-European root means to discern or to separate, akin to Sanskrit chyati, he cuts off, Greek schizein, to split, Latin scindere, to split. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge. Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning. [2]

Thus “unified science” refers to “any systematic knowledge or practice” that is “formed or united into a whole” and “operating as a unit”.

How does this relate to empirical science?  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Scientistic Heresy

Also see Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science.

The value and power of the scientific method when applied properly is plain to see, however too often it is used for political purposes, to suppress enquiry into areas that challenge unquestioned beliefs and to push certain agendas. This is a clear abuse of the scientific method, one that not only the scientific community must address, but the whole of humanity because science has become a fundamental guiding principle in our civilisation.

There is a prevailing belief that science is somehow immune to human weakness, that scientists somehow have "minds washed clean from opinions" (Francis Bacon) but this is a very unscientific approach to science. Such an obvious self-deception at the core of the scientific community leaves it (and our entire civilisation) open to disaster.

This obvious contradiction in science is largely a result of the particulars of the origins of modern western science, as a reaction to the trauma of previous abuses of reason (see Naïve Realism and Empiricism). But one cannot fight un-reason with un-reason, and science must question the motives behind its entrenched position in regards to many subjects. There is no place for the politics of manipulation within a genuine scientific method.

There has been for some time a propaganda-war between politicised-science (Scientism) and politicised-Christianity and many minds have been caught in the cross-fire. For those who have been deceived into believing that science is actually what it claims to be, below are a few links that illustrate some of the cracks in the otherwise smooth façade of self-deceptive propaganda.

If we are to reclaim genuine science for humanity then we must slip through cracks such as these and escape the fools debate. (also see Reclaiming Genuine Religion for Humanity and Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism)

To help those that are willing to help themselves, this is just a brief sample of documents on the subject to serve as a jumping off point for further research.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

There are ancient roots to the use of observation and rational thinking to understand the world but here I am addressing the issue of modern 'empiricism'.

Also see these articles on naïve realism,   Scientistic Heresy,   Reclaiming Genuine Religion for Humanity and Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

In a recent conversation here on NCN I indirectly learnt a great deal. Even though it was not what one would call a functional conversation it was nevertheless a very interesting experience...

Below is an article compiled from my part in the conversation. It addresses many issues that are central to the conduct of a progressive discourse, which can result in cooperative solution seeking that is grounded in reality and can be genuinely effective even in the face of cynical attacks and denial. These are just thoughts on the matter.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

I have been thinking a lot about Naïve Realism lately. It is a profoundly important concept to understand if people wish to safe-guard both their individual and collective sanity.

It came to my notice that the Wikipedia article on Naïve Realism was only a few paragraphs long, not referenced, quite biased and VERY misleading. So I rewrote the article using many quotes from philosophical and scientific sources with full references to map out the progression of our understanding of what it is and how it applies to our lives, the world and everything that we experience.

The new article is posted below but it will keep evolving (wikipedia version).

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Information: is structured discernible difference which manifests within and moves between any medium that is capable of manifesting two or more distinguishable observables. Such a medium is termed an information space.

Information Space: is any medium that can contain information. The information content within an information space is encoded within a structured field of discernible differences.

Information Content: is limited by both the information space's representational resolution and the observer's perceptual resolution. The lack of perceptual resolution results in information content that is unavailable, which is entropy.

Observer: is a perspective from which an observable is defined. Types of observers are the computational process and systems. Types of perspectives are subjective perspective and objective perspective.

Subjective Perspective: is a perspective from which there are other equally valid but different perspectives. Hence it is a perspective on a context that only conveys information relative to a particular observer. Systems within an empirical context have a subjective perspective. The inverse of this is objective perspective.

Objective Perspective: is a perspective from which there are NO other valid but different perspectives. Hence it is the only truly valid perspective for an observer of an information space. The only objective observer is the computational process within the transcendent context. The inverse of this is subjective perspective.

Entropy: is structured indiscernible difference. It is information that is unable to be meaningfully discerned.

Communication Process: is a computational process that structures the flow of information between information spaces through an information channel. The process may change the representational format but preserves the information content. Communication can operate between any information spaces or within a single information space. Communication involves encoding information, transmission, introduced noise from intervening channels and decoding of information into observables.

Information Channel: is a simple information space that provides a 'pipeline' through which information flows in one direction from one information space to another. This pipeline has an input and an output.

Observable: is information that has been discerned and decoded by a computational process thus resulting in something that has meaning to that computational process. The observable is defined from the perspective of the observer.

Noise: is unstructured discernible difference. It is information that is unable to be meaningfully decoded.

Computational Process: is a communication process that is structured by information (the program), which transforms the communicated information. It consists of discrete computation events. It can manifest and operate within any information space and often operates within a single information space to produce a computational space. All of the above concepts involve some subjective factor, such as 'discernible' or 'indiscernible' difference, 'observable', “observer's perceptual” resolution and 'decoding'. Computation is the subjective element implied by all of these subjective factors. For example, a single stream of information may be entropy or noise in relation to one computational process but a different computational process may discern or decode the information stream, so in relation to the latter process the stream is information rather than entropy or noise. Computation is the active element within the passive information space; it discerns the difference, decodes the observables, and 'experiences' a programmed response that may change an observable, which is then encoded and communicated (perhaps back into a computational space). Also see observer and system.

Bandwidth: is the quantity of information that flows through a information channel within a given number of computation events.

Computation Event: is a single discrete operation within a computational process.

Computational Space: is an information space that is operated on and animated by a 'resident' computational process. It may communicate with other information spaces or computational spaces via information channels. It can store and operate on information content using information processes.

Program: is information content within a computational space that structures a computational process.

Information Process: is a dynamic, structured pattern of information content and program within a computational space. Also see system.

Transcendent Context: is a closed computational space wherein the perceptual resolution of the computational process is equal to the representational resolution of the information space, so there is zero noise or entropy. Within this computational space there is information content flowing between sub-spaces whilst being transformed by the computational process. Thus information objects and information processes exist within that information space and are animated by that computational process thus undergoing coherent change or dynamical evolution. The transcendent context underlies the existence of an empirical context. In a transcendent context the only subjective element is the single computational process that animates the transcendent computational space so all subjective factors are defined from that perspective. There is therefore, in this context, an uncontested (absolute) perspective from which to determine all concepts and quantities so this context is considered to be an objective context because there are no clashes of perspective so for all intents and purposes things are how they seem to the observer in that context. In regards to transcendent observables and information processes the transcendent context is dualist, but in relation to systems (empirical objects and processes) it is non-dualist.

Empirical Context: is a virtual space represented by information content and animated by the computational process within a transcendent context, however it is defined from the perspective of empirical systems within a universe. The systems have varying perceptual resolutions and are connected into a complex network of interacting systems (a universe) so from each empirical perspective there is both entropy and noise. Within this virtual space, from the subjective empirical perspective of a system embedded within the universe, there are observables and observation events. Thus systems with observable states exist and experience observation events within that virtual space. In this context every system has a subjective perspective from which its empirical context is defined. There is therefore, in this context, NO uncontested (absolute) perspective from which to determine all concepts and quantities; everything is relative. Because of this the empirical context is considered to be a subjective context because there are clashes of perspective and things are not how they seem. There are many perspectives but they only reveal subjective empirical observables that are just partially discerned, partially decoded and largely distorted interpretations of the absolute underlying transcendent information. In regards to systems (empirical objects and processes) the empirical context is dualist and from an empirical context the transcendent observables and information processes are not directly discernible other than through inner-perception (resulting in experiences of spirits, angels, bodhisattvas, ghosts, etc that have a dualist form but of a transcendent nature). Hence from an empirical perspective the transcendent context seems to be a mostly invisible, non-dualist but also dualist, all pervading influence that operates “behind the scenes” of the universe (known to some as Akasha or the Akashic Field).

Dualist: is when a context contains distinct entities that bare distinct relations with each other. Both transcendent and empirical contexts are dualist on their native level. The inverse of this is non-dualist.

Non-Dualist: is when a context contains NO distinct entities that bare distinct relations with each other. Empirical systems are represented in a non-dual manner within the transcendent context so it appears to be non-dual to an empirical observer. The inverse of this is dualist.

Universe: is the network of all systems within an empirical context. It has a fractal structure, with multi-level systemic self-similarity. From a system's subjective perspective within the network of systems the universe is experienced as an all encompassing existential context, it is their “physical universe”.

System: is a transcendent information process conceived of from a general empirical perspective. It is a system within a universal network of systems. It is an observable form as well as an observer within the empirical context. In this sense it has an outer aspect and an inner aspect. It is a participant in empirical dynamics which are just the transcendent dynamics conceived of from an empirical perspective. A system is an empirical subject and has some perspective from which various concepts and quantities can be defined, such as information, entropy, noise and so on. A system is one participant amongst many within a universe, hence its definitions of concepts and quantities is only relative to its perspective. The concept system exists only within the empirical context, when in the transcendent context they are conceived of as information processes.

Inner Aspect: of a system is the operation of the transcendent computational process as it animates the system. It is conceived of from an empirical perspective as pure awareness, direct experience or proto consciousness. As systems increase in complexity the complexity of both inner and outer aspects increases. What we call consciousness and mind are complex inner aspects.

Outer Aspect: is the empirical observable form of a system's transcendent information content. It is a subjective view that depends on the particular observer's perspective. It is an object of perception and is experienced as an object within the experiential (empirical) context. It is an output interface by which information is communicated to be decoded as observables by other systems.

Observation Event: is a single discrete operation of a system's inner aspect that discerns, decodes and experiences an observable. This is an experience of present moment awareness but becomes overlaid with empiricist interpretation. It is conceived of from an empirical perspective as a single moment in time and the succession of these moments combined with the propagation of their information through information channels (which serve as memory) results in the empirical experience of the flow of time.

Interaction: is a communication process between systems that allows them to experience each others observables and to respond by changing their own observables.

Finite & Discrete: is a proposition that within any realisable information space there will be a finite number of distinguishable observables. This would mean that no manifest form or process (system) within an empirical universe could be infinitely large, infinitely small, infinitely complex or infinitely detailed. This implies that the universe will be quantised and relativistic. It also concludes the existence of atomic systems and precludes the existence of any actual infinity within an empirical universe. Hence there are a finite number of atomic systems that exhibit a finite range of discrete observables. In this sense the unified paradigm is partly a reductionist perspective but it also explicitly comprehends the unified structure of all things and the role of the observer in the creation of the universe, hence it is also partly a holistic perspective.

Reductionist: is an approach that conceives of atomic parts that interact to create complex parts and the whole (empirical universe) is just the collection of all systems and interactions. The inverse of this is holistic.

Holistic: is an approach that conceives of a single unified whole (transcendent computational space) wherein there are dynamic patterns (information processes) and the parts are just discernible features (observables relating to complex systems) that can be resolved by observers from various perspectives. The inverse of this is reductionist.

Unified Paradigm: is a paradigm that comprehends all other paradigms and relates each to the other. The information system paradigm presented here is a unified paradigm because it unifies information and computation, object and process, transcendent and empirical, reductionist and holistic, dualist and non-dualist, subjective and objective, spiritual and physical, atomic and universal, quantum and classical, and more.

Infinity: Only potential infinity is possible, for example, the space of all words of any length is infinitely large but we only ever manifest a finite number of words at any one time and as the words get longer it gets more difficult to manifest them so it is fundamentally impossible to manifest an actual infinity of words. This general principle applies to all information processes due to their finite & discrete information spaces, which result in quantised and relativistic empirical contexts.

Atomic System: is a system that has no subsystems. It is an atomic information process so it has only a single atomic information object (observable, outer aspect) and a single atomic computational process (observer, inner aspect). An example of a primitive system is a single bit in a computer. Its atomic observable has the state zero or one and its atomic computational process is a simple read/write interface with the observable so that information can be stored or retrieved from that atomic computational process. So an atomic system is an atomic observable as well as an atomic observer that is only able to discern single atomic observables. The concept atomic system exists only within the empirical context, when in the transcendent context they are conceived of as atomic information processes that operate on atomic observables and participate in complex networks of atomic information processes within the transcendent computational space.

Complex System: is the product of a meta system transition. In the empirical context it is a system that has subsystems. It is a complex information process so it has multiple atomic or complex information objects (observables, outer aspects) and multiple atomic or complex computational processes (observers, inner aspects). An example of a complex system is a computer. Its complex observable form can be in many different states and its complex computational process can manifest a variety of simple and complex information processes. So a complex system is a complex observable as well as a complex observer that is able to discern multiple simple and complex observables. A complex system is composed of a network of interacting subsystems and it participates in a network of interacting systems to form supersystems via a process called meta system transition. The concept “complex system” exists only within the empirical context, when in the transcendent context they are conceived of as complex information processes which have no inherent hierarchical structure of subprocesses within superprocesses, they are just a flat network of atomic processes.

Meta System Transition (MST): is a process conceived of from an empirical perspective whereby simple forms seem to integrate to produce more complex forms. This applies to both a system's outer and inner aspect. In regards to outer aspect, a system's limited perceptual or experiential resolution means that incident information becomes entropy and the finer detailed observables in a complex network of systems are blurred into a macroscopic observable that appears to the observer to be a single complex system. Thus it appears that a group of subsystems have interacted and integrated into a single complex supersystem. However in the transcendent context nothing has fundamentally changed, some interaction bandwidths may change but there is still just a field of interacting atomic systems, only the empirical observable changes during an MST. In regards to inner aspect, a complex system may experience a complex yet integrated inner aspect (such as human consciousness). This too is a product of a MST, whereby entropy within the system's inner network of sub systems and the associated inner computational processes causes the mass of interacting sub-processes to be experienced as a single super-process. MST is an empirical perceptual illusion that causes a system to experience a complex network of systems as a single complex system, both from within and from without.

SMN related concepts directly extend these general concepts and will be defined shortly...

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Ontologies

My discussions over the years have left me totally frustrated at how twisted and confused the language is - most of the important words are literally back-to-front and people are thinking about the world in an inside-out manner. It's no wonder that the world is a mess... And it's very difficult to use a twisted language to disentangle a twisted language.

I've decided to try a different approach - I'm giving up sentences and essays entirely for a little while and building ontologies. I'm always trying to find ways to more effectively express simple but uncommon truths and the technology of ontologies has advanced considerably in recent years.

By simply writing essays or ebooks it only gets through to those who are already open to the ideas and meanwhile the mass delusion continues to grow rapidly and drive the entire civilisation toward annihilation. Most of the communications within mass culture are the psycho-babble of the collective ego and any words of wisdom are just a vague gnawing conscience way back in the collective mind that is mostly just ignored. That conscience needs to find some way of making its wisdom heard even in the midst of mass collective insanity.

I'm exploring one likely method - it involves a recent synthesis of computer science, the internet and philosophy. It's related to the "semantic web" and its essence is the construction of ontologies - philosophical structures that define "that which exists" and the relations between the things that are believed to exist. Very advanced computerised methods are being developed to determine implied ontologies and to use ontologies to structure information.

Every belief that is held or every utterance that is made relies upon an implicit ontology that gives it meaning. The ontology is just the lowest level of beliefs that structure every other belief that is built upon them. Beliefs are only recognisable as true or false in relation to their ontological foundation so if the foundation is false all later beliefs are false but they will seem to be true. The materialist ontology relies on a series of assertions of belief that are actually proven to be false - and only so long as people don't notice this fact and continue to operate upon that foundation they will continue to believe in fantasies that seem to be true. Meanwhile there are other ontologies that don't rely on spurious assertions but on well verified facts from information theory, system theory, quantum physics and direct personal experience - but most people are too attached to their false beliefs to be able to seriously consider these more rational alternatives.

As an example of how ontologies and beliefs interact, take the phrase by the Buddha "with our thoughts we make the world" most materialists cannot comprehend this because they believe that "the world" is an "external material context" and that we are just material objects within it so our thoughts cannot "make the world". But if one uses a more accurate ontology where "the world" is just a subjective impression formed by our minds and which by naive realism we assume to be an "external material context" then it is obvious that with our thoughts we make the world. It is also obvious that to think of ourselves as objective material objects in and objective material universe is not a rational position - it may or may not be true but on the current evidence it is purely an irrational belief. What we know for a fact is our mind made worlds - beyond that we should avoid irrational belief systems and approach the situation rationally.  More >