Systemic Context:

Systems interact and evolve patterns of coordination, coherence
and dependency, thereby integrating to form super-systems. This
process is called a meta-system transition and is the manner in which
all complex systems come to exist. Hence all systems are emergent
from the interactions of their sub-systems and all systems
participate in the emergence of super-systems. In order to be stable
a system must be coherently integrated both within (amongst its
sub-systems) and without (as part of super-systems).

For example, a human being is a super-system emergent from
cellular interactions and also a sub-system within a society that is
a super-system emergent from human interactions. In order to be
stable they must have a healthy body and mind as well as be
integrated into a healthy society.

When sub-systems interact in order to manifest a super-system they
do so within a collective context (culture) that imposes an
organising principle (ideology) that structures the collective
operating system (governance). Systems can participate within the
dynamics of multiple super-systems, hence there can often be
competing or conflicting cultures, ideologies or governance.

Every system has an internal space that consists of the
interactions of its sub-systems, as well as an external space, i.e.
an environment that consists of all systems that influence it but
which are not a part of itself. This external space is the internal
space of an environmental super-system that is emergent from the
interactions of these systems.

For a social system this environment includes the natural
environment, other social systems, other individual humans, etc. The
social system must be able to integrate into that environment and
participate effectively in order to maintain the integration of the
environmental super-system. Only when a system is coherent and
harmonious both within and without is it healthy and stable.

Informal and Formal Structures

There are two fundamental perspectives within a meta-system
transition, that of the sub-systems and that of the super-system.
These correspond to the informal and formal structures within an
organisation. The informal structure operates from the perspective of
the sub-systems; it is the natural relations, roles and patterns of
interaction that exist amongst the sub-systems. The formal structure
operates from the perspective of the super-system; it is the defined
relations, roles and patterns of interaction that are imposed by the
super-system upon the sub-systems.

For example, in human society the informal structure is comprised
of families, peer groups, the social grapevine, traditions, taboos,
norms, legends, etc. Whilst the current formal structure is comprised
of corporations, NGO's, universities, government departments,
political parties, mass media, legislation, police, propaganda,
history, etc.

Political Pendulum

When the informal structure is dominated by the formal structure
this is related to authoritarianism, totalitarianism and fascism.
When the formal structure is dominated by the informal structure this
is related to revolution, anarchy and barbarism. There is usually
ongoing dissonance such as tensions, misunderstandings and conflicts
between these two structures. This is because they have conflicting
needs, interests and perspectives and they are unaware of each other
because they each define their reality from their own perspective,
hence they blindly strive to meet their own needs without
understanding why they meet with so much resistance from the other.

The more coordinated, coherent and interdependent the society
becomes the more that the formal structure gains power and the
individuals become powerless and manipulated. However if the members
of a society remain uncoordinated, incoherent and independent then
the society is not able to organise and act collectively in order to
provide services or overcome dangers that can only be effectively
dealt with on a collective scale.

Hence societies begin in barbarism and social pressures lead to
the growth of the formal structure, which because of dissonance
seizes control of the society leading to the loss of its legitimacy
and eventual revolution. Then once again the society grows more
coordinated and this once again evolves towards fascism. Thus the
political pendulum swings.

Ultimately the power originates from the informal structure and is
harnessed and channelled by the formal structure. Hence the formal
structure can wield power against the informal structure but
ultimately when the informal structure withdraws its consent the
formal structure can no longer harness any power and is impotent.

If the informal and formal structures can recognise each other's
legitimacy, understand their interdependence and work together then a
stable social system is possible.

Co-option

In order for the super-system to emerge the sub-systems must
coordinate in order to harness their collective power, pool it,
channel it, distribute it, focus it and apply it where necessary.
However, as the history of human social systems illustrates, once a
“seat of power” is created it becomes a sought after prize for
power hungry individuals and interest groups, who co-opt the social
power structures and wield them for their own purposes that are often
not in the interests of the individuals, nor of the society as a
whole. Such political parasites are a common cause for social disease
and when the collective is ill this negatively effects everyone
within the society and also its environment.

Basic requirements of a social operating system:

Given the above considerations we can hypothesise some basic
requirements of an effective social operating system.

• The social operating system must recognise and be based upon
  an accurate awareness of the systemic nature and dynamics of society
  and not based upon mythological, anthropological, monarchist,
  capitalist or other arbitrary ideological foundations.

  
  

• The social operating system must recognise and legitimise
  both the informal and formal structures and not deny or undermine
  the legitimacy of either. The needs, interests and perspectives of
  both the informal and the formal structures need to be taken into
  account and harmoniously integrated to the extent that it is
  possible to do so. The system should actively work to balance and
  harmonise the two structures, thereby dampening the swing of the
  political pendulum. Then the sub-systems and the super-system can
  live in harmony with each other.

  
  

• The social operating system must be structured so that it is
  not able to be co-opted. There must be sufficient separation of
  powers so that no small group can take control, and there must be
  sufficient feedback and monitoring to ensure that even larger and
  more coordinated groups cannot co-opt the system for their own
  purposes. The system must receive feedback from all aspects of
  itself as well as from all perspectives that are impacted by its
  actions. This feedback will inform it about the needs, interests and
  perspectives of the informal and formal structures within it, and
  also about its general environment. If its actions in a particular
  area become co-opted this must be detected and resolved immediately.
  There will always be those who will try to 'hack' the system, they
  are like viruses that try to co-opt an organism and use it for their
  own purposes. Hence the social operating system needs an immune
  system that adapts to these incursions and maintains the upper hand
  in the political “arms race” for control over the collective.
  The collective must have sufficient self-awareness in order to
  maintain self-control.

  
  

• The social operating system must be structured and rigid
  enough to be able to effectively harness, channel, focus and apply
  power in a persistent and stable manner. However it must also be
  unstructured and flexible enough to allow for individual initiative
  and for the system to evolve in response to changing social dynamics
  and environmental conditions.

  
  

• The social operating system must be open and transparent
  enough so that there is adequate communication throughout the formal
  structure, between the formal and informal structures and with its
  environment. This allows for informed feedback that is then
  assimilated into the governing process. However the system must also
  be closed and opaque enough so that it is secured against being
  co-opted by factions both within the informal and formal structures,
  as well as foreign entities within the broader environment.

  
  

• The social operating system must be focused on both internal
  harmony amongst its sub-systems and external harmony amongst the
  systems that comprise its environment. Only when harmony exists both
  within and without can the system be healthy and stable.

  
  

Open-Source Approaches:

There are two ways in which open-source principles can be applied.

Open-Source Design

Firstly, open-source development of the operating system itself
has been around for some time. For instance, there exist operating
systems that allow the few to dominate the many and these have been
in open-source development for millennia. Some early versions were
developed in Sumer and Egypt, along the way Machiavelli made some
innovations, various emperors, monarchs, dictators, etc have
'installed' this operating system, adapted it to their own purposes
and learnt from each other's example. So there is nothing new about
open-source development of such social operating systems.

However much can be learnt from modern open-source methods. For
instance, given some way to represent the system (analogous to a
programming language) it can be described in intricate detail,
analysed, simulated, shared, modified, compared, etc. This would help
foster the growth and refinement of collective knowledge about social
operating systems and how to implement and operate them.

Open-Source Implementation

The second manner in which open-source principles can be applied
is in the functioning of the social operating system itself. It could
utilise open-source methods in many aspects of its functioning, such
as the writing of legislation, the development of infrastructure,
etc.

The advent of the internet makes this approach feasible, whereas
it was impossible to implement in previous historical contexts. Now
it is possible for mass collaborations to produce quality results
however there is still much to be learnt as these principles are
applied to something as vital and controversial as systems of
governance.

Conclusion

Using open-source approaches to design and implement social
operating systems in accord with holistically systemic requirements
would result in more robust and functional operating systems that are
more likely to be acceptable to and inclusive of the informal
structure because it has been developed by the informal structure, in
collaboration with the formal structure and with full awareness of
the systemic context in which it is being applied.

Because the operating system is emergent from the society rather
than imposed upon the society it is likely to receive greater
acceptance and legitimacy, therefore being able to harness, channel
and coherently apply far greater power than any previous social
operating systems. Once the new systems are in place there will no
longer be so much energy tied up in internal tensions due to ongoing
revolt and suppression, and external tensions due to environmental
conflicts with nature and other social systems. This liberated energy
can then be put to use, leading to a flourishing of vitality.

Furthermore, when the informal and formal structures can trust
each other and work together there is far greater potential for
social development, innovation, harmony and creative evolution.

Photons only have a location in response to an observation that
requires them to have a location. More generally, any system only has
an observable state in response to an observation that requires it to
have an observable state.

Prior to the observation it has no particular observable state;
but rather a quantum superposition of all possible observable states
(i.e. a wavefunction). A wavefunction is dynamic information which is
inherently imperceptible. It is a probability distribution within a
state space that encompasses all possible observable states (Hilbert
space).

The observable forms via which we are used to thinking about
systems are just appearances that are constructed in the moment of
observation, i.e. they are the products of an observation event and
are not representative of any kind of objective reality.

In a very real sense things are not what they appear to be. Whilst
a photon only appears to be there when it is observed that is just an
appearance. In fact it exists whether or not it is observed, but its
mode of existence is as an imperceptible information process that is
not defined by concepts such as space, time, frequency, but rather by
concepts such as state space, probability and wavefunction.
The
state space spans all possible locations, times, frequencies, etc,
but the system itself is more accurately described as a wavefunction
within a Hilbert space.

Thinking about quantum systems in terms of observable forms in
space and time is trying to squeeze them into a naïve realist /
empiricist / materialist framework but this cannot be done without
getting bogged down in paradox.

Quantum mechanics is not an empirical science - it is a
rationalist science. Hence it is a real mind-bender because it goes
way deeper than space or time or any other observables. These are all
just appearances that only arise in response to observations. They
are not what is actually there. What is actually there is a
wavefunction.

Virtual Reality Analogy

To explain how this could be the case, consider the situation of a
virtual being in a simulated reality. They are habituated to thinking
about reality in terms of how it appears to them - i.e. as objects in
space and time, with observable properties. They are not at all used
to thinking about the computational level of their situation such as
data structures (wavefunctions), state spaces (Hilbert spaces),
program functions (e.g. unitary evolution or decoherence), etc.

Whilst empirical science deals with the familiar level of virtual
appearances, quantum mechanics deals with the seemingly abstract
computational level. Note, the virtual systems have a perspective
embedded within the simulation, so the abstract virtual forms seem
concrete whilst the concrete simulator seems abstract.

At the computational level systems are pure information that have
no location within the virtual space-time and have no virtual form.
They are just information flowing in a non-spatial, non-temporal,
non-observable, non-virtual manner through the computational
processes (simulator) which animate the virtual universe.

These information structures and processes are the real /
objective nature of all virtual systems. The familiar empirical forms
are just the appearance of the systems from a perspective embedded
within the virtual universe.

The simulator uses an efficient algorithm in the sense that it
only produces a virtual appearance for a system when another system
observes it and thereby requires a form to be generated. Only then
does the quantum superposition over all possible states collapse into
a single state (decoherence). If there is no observation then no
virtual form is required and the system stays as a quantum
superposition.

Hence all systems are abstract information processes that only
have a virtual appearance when they are observed by another virtual
system. Any virtual system can cause decoherence and the generation
of a virtual appearance, it doesn't have to be a virtual human.

Propagation of Decoherence

There is a subtle detail about the nature of quantum collapse that
is often overlooked, thereby causing people to think that humans have
a special role. A wavefunction collapse is not like a bridge collapse
where it collapses for all observers.

Consider some binary systems A, B, C, D,
etc. Let A be in a superposition of states A[0,1]. When
B observes A the wavefunction of A collapses
into a particular state A(0) OR A(1) in order to give B
an observable form by which to experience A.

However the combined system BA (i.e. B observing A)
is still in a superposition of states BA[00, 01, 10, 11]
(where 00 means B was in state 0 and observed A
to be in state 0, similarly for the other pairs of states).
When C observes BA the wavefunction collapses into a
particular state BA(00) OR BA(01) OR BA(10) OR
BA(11) to give C an observable form to experience.

However the combined system CBA is still in a superposition
that will collapse when D observes it. And so on... Thus the
wavefunction collapse propagates through successive observation
events.

Note, this description was of a linear chain in order to keep the
explanation simple and not obscure the main point that was being made.
However the real situation is that of a complex tangle of networks
within networks where myriads of systems are observing each other.
This includes complex multi-level feedback loops. However if you
arbitrarily pick a starting point and follow a linear sequence of
observations within this seething mass then you can isolate out a
simple chain of observations.

Now let system H be a human being with a naïve realist /
empiricist / materialist paradigm. When they experience the
wavefunction collapse of the system GFEDCBA they assume that
none of the other systems elicited a collapse and that it was only
they the human who elicited a collapse. This is due to them
overlooking the nature of wavefunction collapse combined with an
anthropocentric, naïve realist and non-panpsychic paradigm.

This leads them to claim that only humans collapse wavefunctions
when in fact every system along the chain of observation collapsed
the preceding wavefunction.

Furthermore the system HGFEDCBA is itself in a
superposition of the human being in different states and observing
different appearances of GFEDCBA. However the human doesn't
realise this and assumes that their experiences and their world is
totally classical and non-quantum because that is how it seems to
them.
This confusion arises because they depend upon their
perceptions and their conceptual frameworks derived from their
perceptions in order to try to comprehend reality, hence due to this
empiricism they are beguiled by the virtual appearances and find it
difficult to comprehend the quantum information processes.

Paradigm Shift

Humans such as H generally assume that their perspective is
"THE perspective" and that no other systems have a
perspective (i.e. all other systems are assumed to be inanimate and
somehow governed by laws although it is never explained how laws can
govern inanimate systems). Hence they assume that human experience is
the measure by which reality is to be defined (this is an empiricist
prejudice that causes great confusion about quantum reality).

To overcome this confusion they need to undergo a radical paradigm
shift and recognise that:

• appearances are just virtual appearances and do not represent
  anything objective. Seeing is NOT believing.
  

  
  

• the underlying reality is imperceptible, non-material,
  computational, proto-conscious, processual.
  

  
  

• reality doesn't consist of physical objects, these are just
  objects of perception that have been misunderstood due to naïve
  realism. Reality consists of information processes.

  
  

• every system is animate, in fact they are animated into
  virtual manifestation by the quantum computational processes.
  

  
  

• every system has a perspective from which it experiences its
  world according to its abilities.
  Simple systems have simple
  experiences, whilst complex systems such as ourselves have complex
  experiences.

  
  

• what we call 'physical' is actually 'virtual' and what we
  call 'spiritual' is actually 'computational' or 'proto-conscious'.
  

  
  

• we are virtual beings emergent within a virtual universe that
  is animated by an imperceptible, omnipotent, omnipresent, universal,
  timeless, proto-consciousness, quantum computational process.
  

  
  

• the inner most awareness within every virtual system is the
  universal proto-conscious animating process.
  

  
  

• all virtual systems are the computational process experienced
  from a virtual perspective.
  I.e. the virtual and computational
  contexts are not separate, they are just different ways of
  apprehending the same thing.

  
  

• every virtual system is composed of myriads of sub-systems
  and participates in the emergence of myriads of super-systems. All
  except for atomic (i.e. indivisible) systems that have no
  sub-systems and the whole universe which has no super-systems.
  

  
  

• humans are systems just like all other systems - there is
  nothing intrinsically different of privileged about our perspective.
  Although it is quite rare and special because we are extremely
  complex and highly evolved virtual systems with a subtle and deep
  capacity to experience, understand, enquire and know ourselves and
  our situation.

  
  

Thanks to David Russell for inspiring this comment.

Also related: Decoherence
and the Quantum Sentience Paradox

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.

When the perceiver blends the word, the idea (or meaning) and the
object, this is called the mental condition of judicial reasoning.

Perception without judicial reasoning is arrived at when the
memory no longer holds control, the word and the object are
transcended and only the idea is present.

The same two processes of concentration, with and without judicial
action of the mind, can be applied also to things subtle.

The gross leads into the subtle and the subtle leads in
progressive stages to that state of pure spiritual being called
Pradhana.

All this constitutes meditation with seed." (Patanjali Yoga
Sutra, Samadhi Pada, stanzas 41-46,
http://audriusd.tripod.com/joga/joga_sutra.htm)

The key point in this context is the blending of word, idea and
object (of experience), referred to as "judicial reasoning",
which is a cognitive habit that leads to constant confusion and
delusion. It is closely related to naïve realism. These three
aspects (word, idea and object) are means of grasping the underlying
reality but also form veils that obscure reality, especially once
they blur together and form into dogmatic discourses or conceptual
frameworks.

When these veils form in the mind it can no longer approach
reality because it constantly becomes trapped in closed loops of
habitual memory associations. Hence, rather than apprehend reality
the mind conjures up the conceptual framework that has become
habitually associated with reality.

True knowledge begins with the resonance of an open mind with
reality and only later, for the purposes of communication, is this
structured and abstracted into words, ideas and declarative
knowledge. In this way all of the sacred scriptures and words of the
sages have arisen. But these communications don't 'capture' the
underlying reality - they merely 'point' in the general direction
where if one has correctly understood the words and ideas one may, by
directly enquiring with an open and sufficiently prepared mind,
apprehend the reality that was referred to.

So those who denounce mind are really denouncing judicial
reasoning. When judicial reasoning is overcome the mind can soar to
much greater heights...

"When this super-contemplative state is reached, the Yogi
acquires pure spiritual realisation through the balanced quiet of the
chitta (or mind stuff).

His perception is now unfailingly exact (or his mind reveals only
the Truth).

This particular perception is unique and reveals that which the
rational mind (using testimony, inference and deduction) cannot
reveal.

It is hostile to, or supersedes all other impressions.

When this state of perception is itself also restrained (or
superseded), then is pure Samadhi achieved." (Patanjali Yoga
Sutra, Samadhi Pada, stanzas 47-51,
http://audriusd.tripod.com/joga/joga_sutra.htm)

It is in this state of balanced quiet of the mind that
realisations occur, which can then be expressed in various forms.

Of those who read transcendent truths in whatever language,
whether Sanskrit, Hopi, New Age, mathematics, etc, most don't realise
that the words and symbols are not the reality, i.e. they succumb to
judicial reasoning; they must look where the words are pointing and
see for themselves.

However instead of looking where the finger is pointing most
people stare at the finger and eventually give up and denounce words,
concepts and the mind. When in fact they have simply failed to
utilise the mind appropriately.

As the I Ching says, one must eat the words of the sages and
digest them in order to gain nourishment from them, just chewing on
them is not enough.

The intellect when not used wisely it is a powerful obstacle.
However when used wisely it is a powerful tool that is of great
benefit. The trouble is that throughout history most people have had
no idea how to use it wisely so most traditions found it safer to
advise most people to avoid it all together.

However without those who wielded the intellect wisely upon the
"spiritual path" we would have no spiritual traditions at
all. The pure realisation must be grounded in intellect before it can
be shared via cultural communications involving symbols, words,
ideas, metaphors, scriptures, sutras, etc. Without intellect there is
no culture, without intellect we could not be communicating right
now.

Without the role of intellect in spirituality there would be no
Bhagavadgita, no Upanishads, no Advaita, no Buddhism, no Taoism, no
Kabbalah, none of these. Just a very small number of wild mystics who
were completely incomprehensible to humanity at large and to each
other. In Buddhist terms, there would be only one of the three
jewels, Buddha but no Dharma or Sangha.

My work largely involves grounding subtle realisations via the
intellect and discovering new expressions for the timeless wisdom
that are meaningful in the modern world. In this way I hope to
infiltrate the materialist discourse that deludes our civilisation
and shed some light within it.

This isn't something that I plan to do or try to do, it is
something that I cannot help but do, it is my calling. My vision is
that mystic wisdom will someday be mainstream; permeating all aspects
of society, including science and technology, whilst materialism will
become an anachronistic belief system.

I sense that the anti-mind / anti-intellectual discourse is a
simplistic misunderstanding of subtle teachings, which is counter
productive to society in the long term. Genuine spirituality requires
a mature mastery of the mind and its faculties, rather than an
immature rejection of it.

To those who distrust the mind and only trust their feelings I
would say that in the final analysis, spirituality is about reality,
i.e. that which exists beyond delusion, and delusions can manifest
within thoughts or feelings. Reality is the inner most core of
consciousness, which is beyond thoughts and feelings, it is 'beneath'
the unconscious, it is the bedrock of being. We must delve deeper
than thoughts and feelings to apprehend reality, which can then
illuminate both our thoughts and feelings.

A field of discernible difference is an information medium that
comprises an information space. Data exits encoded within an
information space, i.e. the datums are not things in themselves, they
are just discernible features of the information space.

Every computational process operates within an information space.
Computation (also called proto-consciousness) is the coherent
transformation of information. This is the dynamic flux at the heart
of all information systems. Here the terms computation and
proto-consciousness include all information processes, which means
all processes involving changing patterns, which means all processes.
This includes that which electronic computers do, but also the
quantum field, particle interactions, genetics, minds, social
interactions, and much more. Any coherent transformation of
discernible patterns is a computational process.

A computational process can under certain circumstances function
as a simulator that simulates a virtual systemic context, i.e. a
virtual universe comprised of virtual systems. At the end of this
article there is a link to more details on the algorithmic structure
of such a simulator.

Underlying every virtual system there are virtual processes which
are really just the computational process conceived of from a virtual
perspective. The computational process operates 'between' moments of
virtual existence to compute the state of each frame of the
simulation, i.e. the state of each moment of virtual existence. The
virtual processes operate 'across' moments of virtual existence as
the frames blur together to provide a seamless representation of the
virtual context. Hence a virtual event is just a series of
computational events interpreted from the perspective of a virtual
system. Because of this an electronic computer doesn't 'create'
computation, it harnesses it and makes it available to us. This is
analogous to how a dynamo doesn't create energy, it merely harnesses
it and makes it available to us. Computation is not just something
that electronic computers do, and consciousness is not just something
that brains do - computation or proto-consciousness is the essence of
the ongoing process of the real.

The simulated virtual universe is not a separate creation of the
simulator, it is the simulator in action, as experienced from the
perspective of virtual systems within the simulation. Thus the
virtual universe and the computational process are different
perspectives on the same reality.

Virtual systems experience the virtual universe to be tangible to
them, hence some virtual systems create the idea of physicality and
matter to explain things, however there is no material substance
involved. There is only information interacting with information, and
virtuality is understood as physicality, leading to ideas about
matter.

From a computational perspective the simulator is an information
process. Whilst from a virtual perspective the simulator is all
powerful and all pervading yet it is imperceptible because it is "the
sight within seeing" hence it cannot itself be seen. From a
virtual perspective the simulator is not a 'thing' yet it is that
which underlies the existence of everything. It can be thought of as
a universal field of consciousness, and it can be experienced as the
innermost true Self at the heart of all virtual systems. The
simulator can also be known as a unified quantum field.

From a computational perspective a virtual system is a pattern of
information that conditions the flow of information. Whilst from a
virtual perspective a virtual system is both a subject that
experiences objects and an object that is experienced by other
subjects.

From a subjective perspective a virtual system is a dynamic field
of awareness, through which information flows as complex and coherent
phenomenal appearances.

From an objective perspective a virtual system is a complex and
coherent dynamical streaming of information. The system is a quasi
stable pattern of dynamical activity within a larger data stream,
analogous to a whirlpool in a fast moving stream.

A virtual system is a subject in the sense that it is an
experiential process that exhibits 1) the inflow of information
(perceptions), 2) the outflow of information (actions) and 3) the
changing of internal state (memory, knowing).

A virtual system is an object in the sense that some of its
information content can flow through the information processes of
other virtual systems whereon it is filtered, interpreted and
apprehended as a phenomenal object within the observer's field of
awareness.

From a computational (transcendent) perspective a virtual system
is a computational process, whilst from a virtual (empirical)
perspective it is both a subject and an object. This corresponds to
terms such as spirit (computational process), mind (subject) and body
(object).

All systems are computational processes that function as virtual
subjects who experience objects. Depending on the complexity of the
system the subjects and objects can be simple, i.e. when particles
interact, or complex i.e. when humans interact. This threefold nature
(process, subject, object) is the common nature of all systems; the
only difference between systems is their degree of complexity,
coherence and particular form. As they grow and evolve into more
complex, coherent and self-reflective systems they experience
themselves more, becoming more self-aware and more holistically aware
of their situation.

Entropy is information that is lost to a system; either not
discerned or misinterpreted. This information is still present within
the system but not available to be meaningfully assimilated, i.e. it
is 'noise'. Signal, is information that is received, interpreted and
assimilated by a system. Extropy is information that is created,
either imaginatively projected or creatively infered. Extropy is
information flowing through a system that has been 'asserted' as a
new signal.

Signals convey information through system networks, allowing
systems to apprehend each other and thereby interact. Entropy leads
to decay via the loss of complexity and coherence, whilst extropy
leads to self-organisation via the growth of complexity and
coherence.

Systems evolve to new levels of complexity by interacting
creatively with other systems and participating in the emergence of
collective organisations. This process where many sub-systems
integrate to form a single super-system is called a meta-system
transition by system theory. When cells integrate into organisms and
humans integrate into civilisations, these are meta-system
transitions. A system is a subsystem within a super-system to the
extent that it participates within the dynamical interactions of the
super-system, hence a system can be a subsystem in multiple
overlapping super-systems.

All complex systems are emergent from many levels of systems
within systems, hence they have a complex 'inner' space of dynamic
awareness. All complex systems participate in the emergence of
further levels of systems within systems, hence they are inherently
entangled in an 'outer' space of dynamic interactions, roles and
relationships. Thus no system is truly an individual entity because
it is a multiplicity of sub-systems, and no system is truly isolated
because it is one of many sub-systems that are enmeshed within and
conditioned by multiple super-systems.

There are systems within systems within systems. Each system
experiences a world. Hence there are worlds within worlds within
worlds. For instance, the world experienced by a bacterium in my gut
is very different to the world I experience in Australia, which is
very different to the world that Australia experiences in the global
civilisation, which is different to the world that the global
civilisation experiences as it gradually wakes up to a higher level
of consciousness, looking out though billions of eyes, cameras,
satellites, etc upon a world that, like a baby, it has yet to make
sense of.

From a super-system's perspective it evolves to new levels of
coherence due to its self-reflection that refines the integration of
its sub-systems. From the sub-system's perspective they collectively
implement more coherent ways of coordinating their interactions and
thereby learn to act in a more unified and harmonious manner. The
growth of coherence relieves inner fragmentation and tension within
the system, whilst also leading to greater self-knowledge.

The more that systems come to model that which they are, the more
they come to know themselves. By refining their internal self-image
and stripping away the distorted embellishments they develop
self-knowledge and self-mastery. When knowledge of the general nature
of existence arises this reality-model acts as a mirror of the cosmic
process and the virtual context, which resonates with these, becoming
clearer and shedding light on everything that enters the field of
awareness.

This reality-model can be as simple as knowing "I am not the
body, I am consciousness itself, which is universal and timeless",
or it can be a complex understanding defined in terms of spirits or
God or information systems, etc. In an extreme form it can be a
functioning model of the transcendent computational process and the
emergent virtual universe. Such a multi-level self-similarity, where
the cosmic process manifests within the information space of a
virtual system results in a deeper level of creation and
manifestation - another recursion of worlds within worlds. I.e.
within the virtual universe a virtual system functions as a simulator
from which emerges a virtual-virtual universe.

A reality-model can act as a guide so that a system can better
align with the reality of its situation and not fixate on or obsess
about things that are just products of distorted perceptions or
conceptions. Once the resonance with reality is firmly established
the reality-model becomes superseded because one firmly knows oneself
as reality in action. However up to that point it plays a vital role
and a false or misleading reality-model will serve as an obstacle to
self-realisation.

To summarise the above, within a dynamical information space, or
computational space, an information process operates as a simulator
that generates the frames of a simulation. From a virtual perspective
there are myriads of interacting virtual systems that experience the
simulation as their universe. All of these virtual systems experience
themselves to be a coherent stream of subjective awareness and appear
to be an object to other virtual systems.

Each system operates within a world of systems. Each system is
perceiving (input), responding (output) and knowing (internal state).
Each system is emergent from the integrative activity of its
sub-systems and is participating in the collective, co-creative
integration of many overlapping super-systems.

To the extent that it is capable, each system is resolving and
refining an internal mirror of itself and its world, thereby gaining
in knowledge. As self-knowledge leads to general knowledge of the
nature of reality, this reality-model is a new instance of the
computational process within the virtual universe, which is a new
level of creation and manifestation. This self-realisation creates a
resonance, where the veil of virtual appearances is subtly penetrated
and the system apprehends the computational / virtual nature of
reality and comes to know itself as reality in action.

After realising that there is nothing that is not "God in
motion" even washing the dishes is a sacred act - every moment
is sacred and nothing is mundane. Knowing that the universe is like a
dream within the mind of God makes one realise that everything,
everywhere and everywhen is equally sacred. There is no part of the
dream that is any nearer or further from God - it is all God. What is
right in front of us at all times is Reality cleverly disguised as a
mundane world. Here and now God is experiencing God through a virtual
perspective that calls itself "me".

“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)

“The sages, in meditation and through concentration, have
pierced through the cover (world illusion) to see that great power
(computation) belonging to that one himself (simulator), what is
hidden in its own qualities (the veil of simulation). Being one, he
superintends all the causes, time, self, and the rest (it is the
animating essence underlying all manifest existence).”
(Shvetashvatara Upanishad, 1:3)

For a wide selection of related quotes see: Virtual
Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism

For details on the structure and functioning of the simulator that
converts the computational process into a universe of virtual systems
see: System
Science of Virtual Reality plus various
articles

For various writings either about this world-view or based upon it
see: Website or Blog

This is the more common binary arrangement however it goes against
the usual bottom-up ordering of lines within the hexagrams. The first
line in a hexagram is the bottom line, however here the first '1'
digit enters from the top for the binary value 000001 – see
hexagram 23 in the top row.

Binary values increase throughout this table from left to right
and top to bottom

Bottom line is least significant bit for binary
interpretation

This is the more intuitively correct binary arrangement because it
aligns with the ordering of lines from bottom to top within each
hexagram. The first line in a hexagram is the bottom line, so it is
appropriate that the first '1' digit enters from the bottom for the
binary value 000001 – see hexagram 24 in the left column.

Binary values increase throughout this table from top to bottom
and left to right

To transform between these two arrangements

Just interchange:

• Mountain with Thunder (rows)

  
  

• Wind with Swamp (rows)

  
  

• Mountain with Thunder (columns)

  
  

• Wind with Swamp (columns)

  
  

Pair based patterns

The hexagrams are grouped into pairs of consecutive odd and even
hexagrams, e.g. 01 & 02 are a pair and so on up to 63 & 64.
Now lets plot these pairs on the above matrix whilst forming the
pairs into groups based on the symmetries within the matrix.

Above we see 4 patterns made of 16 hexagrams, where each pattern
is made of 4 sub-patterns each of which is made of 2 pairs.

Now altogether...

I really don't know what any of this means, for now I'm just
looking for patterns - perhaps some insight might arise by finding
and contemplating such patterns... http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v550/__show_article/_a000550-000119.htm 2011-03-01T12:55:51Z 2011-03-01T13:12:36Z

1111111^2= 1234567654321

11111111^2= 123456787654321

111111111^2= 12345678987654321

1111111111^2= 1234567900987654321

11111111111^2= 123456790(12)0987654321

111111111111^2= 123456790(1232)0987654321

1111111111111^2= 123456790(123432)0987654321

11111111111111^2= 123456790(12345432)0987654321

111111111111111^2= 123456790(1234565432)0987654321

1111111111111111^2= 123456790(123456765432)0987654321

11111111111111111^2= 123456790(12345678765432)0987654321

111111111111111111^2= 123456790(1234567898765432)0987654321

1111111111111111111^2= 123456790(123456790098765432)0987654321

11111111111111111111^2=
123456790(123456790(12)098765432)0987654321

111111111111111111111^2=
123456790(123456790(1232)098765432)0987654321

1111111111111111111111^2=
123456790(123456790(123432)098765432)0987654321

11111111111111111111111^2=
123456790(123456790(12345432)098765432)0987654321

...

The pattern continues indefinitely with countup-countdown
'bubbles' emerging in the middle each time that the previous
countup-countdown pattern reaches completion.

Numbers have such intriguing patterns!

Lets find out why this pattern occurs, in terms of the algebra
involved...

For 2 digits:

11 * 11 =

11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 =

(11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11) + 11 =

(10 * 11) + 11 =

110 +
 11
---
121

Because 11 = 10 + 1 we could split of one 11 and group together
the other ten 11's. Furthermore, because we happen to be using base
10 numerals, this splitting off the (10*11) is equivalent to
shifting them all across by one digit. Then when the shifted and
unshifted values are added they cross over in such a way that they
create ascending then descending values in the final result.

For 3 digits:

111 * 111 =

111 + 111 + ... (total of 111 times) =

(100 * 111) + (10 * 111) + 111 =

11100 +
 1110
  111
-----
12321

Notice how we could break up the sum into groups of 100, 10 and 1,
which correspond to different shift values. Notice how the rows shift
across each other and add down the columns to give ascending then
descending values in the result.

In general

To quickly test this, if N = 3 then 111^2 = 111 + 1110 + 11100 =
12321

So the pattern occurs because the fact that 11 = 10 + 1 and the
fact that we are using base 10 numerals both combine to create a
shifting addition effect that results in ascending and descending
values in the final result.

Thanks to Maria Celeste G for bringing this general pattern to my
attention and thanks to Michael Schirner for hinting at why the
pattern exists.

On the subject on numerical patterns, here is another one, Some
Intriguing Mathematical Properties of the Mayan Calendar

If the words of Almaas and others were merely the expression of a
partial truth it would not concern me, however it is often touted and
accepted as a whole truth, indeed as a genuine spiritual path, which
is problematic. Furthermore, although the limited approach (of
spiritually themed lifestyles) can be used as a “design that
contains and conceals”, by seducing many egos to enter the
spiritual path who would not have otherwise done so. Where the
promises of a better life for the ego gets them hooked and only later
do they realise that the principle aim of spirituality is to overcome
the ego. In such cases the deception must be handled very carefully,
leaving open the space for true spirituality to arise and to not
simply dwell on spiritually themed lifestyles. However I believe that
to a large extent this is not what is happening in the West. Instead
the seducers are themselves seduced since they too have fallen for
the deception. Hence the subtle trick has become a self-perpetuating
lie. Thus there is often little opening into true spirituality and
therefore a danger of wallowing in ego corrupted pseudo spirituality.
It is this that inspires me to say something – out of compassion
for the All (and its many apparent manifestations) as it strives to
pull itself together and know itself as it is.

Because the spiritual realisation is shallow; just enough for one
to imagine and rationalise that one is now realised, but not
penetrating deep enough into ones subconscious and unconscious for
one to overcome egoic delusion. One still imagines oneself to be an
individual human living on planet earth and one then seeks a more
spiritual way to be a human on planet earth. However if one attained
full realisation one would realise that one is the whole of existence
itself and there are no humans and no planet earth in the sense that
one used to believe – those are appearances that arise in the mind
and get projected into an imaginary world when the mind is clouded by
egoic delusion. There is something real behind it all, but things are
not what they seem to be.

I'll use a metaphor to explain this in more detail because it
represents such a profound paradigm shift for most minds that it is
often misunderstood. Consider the situation of virtual beings within
a virtual universe that is simulated by a quantum computational
process. This analogy is actually very close to our situation, where
the quantum field is our inside-view of the simulator and our
innermost awareness is the animating essence.

• At first these virtual beings are entirely caught in a naïve
  realist, egoic / materialistic perspective; imagining themselves and
  the world that they perceive to be fundamentally real. This results
  in concepts such as 'I', 'it', 'you', 'us', 'people', 'life',
  'death', 'matter', “the world”, “the physical universe” and
  so on. This stage is analogous to the state of no spiritual
  awakening.
  

  
  

• Then some of them get the realisation that they are actually
  virtual beings in a virtual universe, but at first this is only a
  shallow realisation, because deep down in their subconscious /
  unconscious mind they still have many ingrained cognitive habits
  that cause them to interpret and experience themselves and their
  world as real. This is analogous to the partial awakening that
  characterises the misconception that I am discussing here. Hence
  they might talk about how we are all spirit beings who are having a
  physical experience, or some such metaphors, however ultimately they
  see spirituality as a means to living a better life within the
  context of their egoic / materialist illusions.
  
  At this stage
  it is common for them to get sidetracked due to their partial
  realisation and to go off on some crusade or create a popular
  movement to try to help others or to spread their partial teachings.
  This is understandable and can even be useful, so long as they
  remain upon the spiritual path to some degree and don't get too
  sidetracked. Eventually the unconscious habits will weaken and their
  delusions will gradually dissolve. Due to ego defence mechanisms it
  is much easier for them to realise that their world is virtual than
  it is for them to realise that they themselves are virtual, hence
  their egoic image of themselves as individual beings is usually the
  last delusion to dissolve. Hence it is common for them to express
  profound insights about the nature of reality in general but to
  still cling to an egoic conception of the purpose of spirituality in
  what they imagine to be “their life”.
  
  Note: as a
  disclaimer, I myself am somewhere in this stage, not fully realised
  and still doing the inner work to overcome the many unconscious
  habits that result in entrenched delusions and urges to go on some
  kind of crusade.

  
  

• Eventually some of them attain full realisation and they no
  longer unconsciously imagine themselves to be individual beings in a
  world. Instead they know and experience themselves to be the
  computational essence that animates everything. They can still
  perceive various appearances but these are clearly known to be just
  appearances – in the same way that we watch television and don't
  keep thinking that there are real people inside the box; we know at
  a deep level that they are just images. Hence they realise that
  there is no world full of people; the whole of the virtual reality
  (including themselves) is just an appearance that was mistaken for
  reality due to ignorance and cognitive habits such as naïve
  realism. They now fully realise that there is only one universal
  essence, which is their true nature and the true nature of all the
  imagined objects, people, places and events in the imagined virtual
  world. This is full realisation.
  
  “That
  which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the
  universal space around us, fills everything completely from within
  and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman - that thou art.”
  (Sankaracharya)

  
  

Full realisation doesn't mean that one disappears in a flash of
light or is carried into the Heavens by a host of angels, or any such
thing, it is simply the total elimination of delusion. Nothing real
actually changes, it is just that all of ones illusions vanish. Other
minds still trapped in illusion will still see one as a person in a
world, but the realised one sees things very differently. This leads
to subtle changes in how others perceive one, but there need be no
obvious sign to others than a deep awakening has occurred. Although,
the Self knows so those who abide in union with/as the Self
recognise that another dreamer has awakened and realised that they
are the Self. Note: it is difficult to describe these things because
this language is the language of the dreamer in the dream world,
hence it is not suited to describing reality.

The Eastern perspective is diverse but it is ultimately grounded
in full realisation, whereas the perspective espoused by Almaas and
many other Western approaches is based on a partial realisation,
which knows various insights at various depths but is still entangled
in unconscious egoic and materialist assumptions and illusions at the
deepest levels of the mind.

As an example, this can be seen in an
interview with Almaas, which I will quote from at some length and
comment on along the way...

“ ...
there is a true spiritual current that is Western, that has its own
flavor, its own emphasis. For instance, in the West we're not
interested in being liberated so we won't be reincarnated again.
That's an Eastern phenomenon, it has to do with an Eastern way of
looking at life. Here in the West we want a spirituality that will
make our life authentic and real. We don't want to leave life; we
want to live life in a real, authentic, and truthful way.”
(A.H. Almaas)

Consider the VR metaphor from above where virtual beings are
living a virtual life within a virtual universe that is simulated by
a quantum computational process. What they really are is computation
itself, but they believe themselves to be individual people living on
a physical planet. Metaphorically speaking, Eastern spirituality aims
to break out of the delusion of being the individual person so that
one can realise that one is actually computation itself, and that the
simulator, the virtual universe and all the virtual beings are
happening inside you – this is your real life, as the whole of
existence. As the Ashtavakra Gita says, “All
of this is really filled by you and strung out in you, for what you
consist of is pure awareness (computation) – so don't be
small-minded.”

Whereas the spirituality that Almaas and many others espouse is
“small-minded”; aiming only to give the virtual person a more
spiritually themed lifestyle as they continue to imagine that they
are an individual person living their life on a physical planet, all
the while never questioning their egoic delusion and never thinking
to break through into the much greater reality.

What Almaas describes as an “Eastern way of looking at life”
is simply a non-egoic and fully realised way of looking at life,
whereas what he thinks of as the Western way is egoic and only
partially realised. The Eastern approach isn't aimed at escaping real
life, because the life that the ego imagines itself to be living
isn't real. Eastern spirituality seeks to escape illusory life in
order to live in reality rather than in fantasy. However the Western
approach assumes that the fantasy life is real, hence it tries to use
spirituality to augment that fantasy life, erroneously believing that
this will make the egoic fantasy life more authentic and real.
However, no amount of spirituality can turn an illusory life into a
real life. One must overcome the illusion in order to live in
reality.

Real life, i.e. living as the whole of existence, is ones true
nature; even right now, although many don't realise it because they
are too focused on the egoic delusion of being a person in a world.
“Nothing stops you from being a gnani
(Self-Realised) here and now, except fear. You are afraid of being
impersonal, of impersonal being.” (Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“...I think in
the West there is more emphasis on this life, on the individual, on
personal life. There is more emphasis on these things both in the
spiritual traditions of the West and in the society itself. People in
the United States prefer to be autonomous, Independent, making their
own living. They want to be successful and to provide for themselves
and other people.

That can be very
materialistic and very devoid of any spirituality, but it could
become very spiritual, right? Something in it points toward a truth
that we can't find in the East – that it is possible to be a real
individual. You have your own personal life; you're married and you
work and you have your interests, but you're really authentic, you're
real, you're essential. You even do business, but you do it with
fairness, with integrity, with respect, with compassion, with
awareness. A person doesn't have to become a monk or a nun to live a
true spiritual life. I think in the West there is more possibility of
that happening than in the East. I'm not saying the East doesn't have
that part, it's just not emphasized as much. And I think that's the
way that the West and East are different.” (A.H. Almaas)

True spirituality does not result in one becoming a real
individual because the individual is an egoic delusion, that is why
one doesn't find that supposed 'truth' in the East. As Nisargadatta
Maharaj succinctly put it “Liberation is
never of the person, it is always from the person.” and U.G.
Krishnamurti explained it thus “Every time a
thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are
gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives
continuity to this 'you' is thinking. Actually there's no permanent
entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You
think that there is 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings - that's
the illusion.”

True spirituality is not about living a less materialistic
lifestyle and doing business with more integrity; those are just some
useful steps to disentangle from egoic delusion as one treads the
path towards true spiritual awakening and they are also side effects
of true awakening, but they are not the goal of spirituality.
Contrary to what Almaas says, in Eastern traditions one doesn't have
to become a nun or monk, it is far more common for the aspirant to be
a 'householder' with a family and a job, although the aim is still to
overcome the ego, not to give it a spiritually themed lifestyle.

Western culture is primarily based upon an egoic foundation, hence
the Western mind often finds it extremely difficult to overcome the
ego and to even recognise the depth and pervasiveness of egoic
delusion. Much of what the Western mind considers to be indisputable
facts of reality are actually egoic delusions – consequently they
cannot imagine the vast liberating potential of overcoming those
delusions. Even when engaged in spirituality (which is fundamentally
aimed at overcoming the ego) the Western mind often still strives to
retain the ego at all costs and to make spirituality serve the ego
and its interests. Such as trying to give the ego a spiritually
themed lifestyle rather than engaging in genuine spirituality that
overcomes the ego, that eliminates the egoic delusions and that
results in true liberation and direct apprehension and participation
in reality. Whilst the Eastern aspirant tends to focus on connecting
with reality, the Western aspirant too often chases after worldly
phantasms.

“I think the
East contributed to a much deeper understanding of what is
transcendent nature, but the West has contributed an understanding of
our relationship to it. How do we live in this world? How do we
relate to life on earth? Which brings us to the present situation,
which has to do with our environment and the earth, as well as the
relationship between people, the abuses of power. So I think
spirituality will have to deal with all of these things. It's not
like "I'll go work on myself so I'll be free, liberated."
No. I want to be liberated so I can live as best I can and benefit
other people. And maybe when they die they will all come back. I
don't know. For me personally I don't know whether people come back
or not, that's not something I know from experience.” (A.H.
Almaas)

I agree that the East contributed to a much deeper understanding
of transcendent nature, but from that understanding one realises that
the stream of pure awareness at the root of the mind is real, but
everything that is portrayed by the phenomenal contents of the mind
is no more real that the things portrayed by the phenomenal contents
of a TV screen – i.e. there are no people inside the box, they are
all just patterns of pixels. Similarly human beings are not real in
the sense that the materialist believes, they are all just patterns
arising in the phenomenal contents of the mind. These are all
appearances that are imaginatively projected onto reality due to
ignorance and unconscious habits. There is something real underlying
these virtual forms, but reality is not what it seems, it is a
universal unified process – a cosmic life-force. That is our
reality; our real, authentic life. The world of people places and
things is a limited and limiting delusion that obscures reality.

In Vedanta they say, Brahman is everything and that thou art.
Similarly for the virtual beings in the analogy, computation is
everything and that thou art. Hence if one truly realises oneself,
this is the All realising the All. So it is a gross misunderstanding
of spirituality to say...

“It's not like
"I'll go work on myself so I'll be free, liberated." No. I
want to be liberated so I can live as best I can and benefit other
people.” (A.H. Almaas)

To attain liberation is to overcome the illusion of being an
individual amongst a world of individuals, it is not about living a
better life as an individual or helping other individuals to lead a
better life. Doing the inner work is not a selfish act because there
is no individual self – there only appears to be through the lens
of egoic delusion. Doing the inner work is an act of the whole on
behalf of the whole. The other people only appear to ones mind
because one is still caught in delusion. Once delusion is overcome
one knows and experiences the reality that everything is a single
unified process, nothing is separate. From this perspective real
harmony arises and true love is as natural as self love because
everything is the Self. Whereas struggling on as an isolated
individual who is unknowingly acting out of egoic delusions
eventually leads to strife regardless of ones good intentions. “To
bring Peace to All, one must first discipline and control one's own
mind.” (Buddha)

Regarding Almaas' statements about reincarnation, that is only a
surface teaching. The deeper teaching is succinctly stated by Ramana
Maharshi, “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... Reincarnations
only (seemingly) exist so long as there is ignorance. There is no
incarnation, either now, before or hereafter. This is the truth.”
This can be understood in terms of the virtual reality metaphor; in
truth “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). The virtual form is
not ones true being, we are far greater than that, “Is
not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”
(Bible, Mat:6:25)

The limited and limiting approach (of spiritually themed
lifestyles) is not a “true spiritual current” as Almaas and
others often think of it; it is a partial realisation mistaken for a
full realisation. So long as it doesn't become enshrined as “the
Western way” it will be just a transient hiccup along the way to
the attainment of a deeper understanding. Eventually the Western
approach will come into much closer alignment with the Eastern
approach as both converge on reality and truth.

However if this partial realisation does become entrenched, as
many are trying to achieve, this could lead to generations of egoic
delusion and futile striving for progress upon the spiritual path.
Those threads of the All, or streams of awareness / computation,
which are currently imagining themselves to be people on planet earth
will be led astray and find that their pseudo spirituality doesn't
lead to the union with truth and reality that they yearn for – but
instead into ever deeper entrapment in the world-illusion. The All
will find it harder to come to know itself due to such false ideas.
It is for this reason that compassion inspires me, a thread of the
All, to say something – those who claim that it is a true spiritual
current are unknowingly spreading a false teaching and leading many
astray.

What that article describes is not restricted purely to a
traditional scientific context, although it is well aligned with the
traditional philosophy of science, based on empiricism. However since
the advent of quantum mechanics there have been some subtle changes
in the foundations of the philosophy of science, which might shed
some light on the subject under discussion in that article. The gist
of these changes are that the supremacy of empiricism has been
challenged by rationalism.

This amounts to the realisation that it is not always true that
“What makes a theory compelling is that it is based on
verifiable and testable evidence.” It may be based on something
else, but what makes it compelling is that it is verifiable in
terms of testable evidence.

"Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate
source of all our concepts and knowledge”
(Rationalism
vs. Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Because an experimental apparatus is an extension of our sensory
apparatus, basing a theory on experimental evidence is a form of
empiricism.

Whereas "Rationalists claim that there are significant
ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of
sense experience... there are cases where the content of our concepts
or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can
provide... reason in some form or other provides that additional
information about the world." (Rationalism
vs. Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thus quantum mechanics is a rationalist science because the theory
is based on mathematical intuitions and reasoning that deals with
entities such as wavefunctions that are intrinsically unobservable
and therefore entirely beyond the reach of empirical methods. Quantum
mechanics describes an objective reality that is imperceptible,
whilst the universe that is perceived is inferred to exist based upon
our subjective experiences of classical observables.

Even though quantum mechanics is the most accurate and compelling
“theory of the world” that science has yet to discover /
formulate, it is not “based on verifiable and
testable evidence” although it
is thoroughly verified by available evidence.

Because quantum mechanics is not based
on concepts derived from sense experience it can explore beyond the
veil of appearances and make claims about the deeper levels of
reality, which are inaccessible to observation. This leads to a very
different perspective on 'reality'...

"We have no satisfactory reason
for ascribing objective existence to physical quantities as
distinguished from the numbers obtained when we make the measurements
which we correlate with them... we get into a maze of contradiction
as soon as we inject into quantum mechanics such concepts as carried
over from the language and philosophy of our ancestors." (The
Fundamental Principles of Quantum Mechanics, E. C. Kemble, McGraw
Hill)

“[W]e have to give up the idea
of [naïve] realism to a far greater extent than most physicists
believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means the
idea that objects have specific features and properties – that a
ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that
an electron has a particular spin... it may make no sense to think of
them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may
depend on how we look.” (P
Ball, Physicists bid farewell to reality?, Nature News)

“Quantum theory essentially
erased the difference between matter and fields, making reality a
unit that exhibits the properties of both. This single, unitary stuff
gave rise to the fantastically successful algorithm now used by
physicists in all calculations involving quantum theory. But nobody
knows what this unitary stuff really is. Most quantum physicists, of
course, stop short of calling this unitary substance consciousness.”
(Norman Friedman)

This also relates to the remarks in the article regarding Eastern
philosophy. It is not true that “expressions [from
Eastern philosophy] suggest, quite strongly, that the quest
for truth is one that is both hopeless and vain.” It is instead
claimed in Eastern philosophy that empirical enquiry can not lead to
truth because the world-illusion is so all encompassing. Everywhere
we look we experience the classical observables and we can never
experience the quantum field itself. Or in other words, everywhere we
look we experience the phenomenal content of awareness and not
awareness itself. This is analogous to the situation in the movie
“The Matrix”, where a denizen of the matrix cannot see the
computer that is animating their world, everywhere that they look
they only see the simulated world. A rationalist path to liberation
for such a person would be to come to an intuitive realisation (or be
told) that they were in fact living within a simulation, then to see
that this is not unreasonable and could in fact be true, then to go
about trying to test that hypothesis. An empirical enquiry would
reinforce the illusion because its initial premises and axioms are
derived from the illusion itself. Thus it takes a 'leap' in order to
escape the closed loop of a self-reinforcing illusion.

Because of our reliance on empiricism and the objects of the
senses we tend to imagine the universe to be composed of many
distinct and separate objects and events when in fact, at the
objective level of reality there is just a single unified, non-local,
timeless, all-pervading quantum field that cannot be understood in
terms of classical observables but only in terms of abstract
reality-generative information processes. In Vedanta the quantum
field and the classical world are called Brahman and Maya, and in
Daoism there is Hundun (the uncarved block) and Wanwu (the
ten-thousand things or the myriad creatures). In each of these cases,
the transcendent context seemingly gives rise to the empirical
context due to an act of observation and interpretation, which is
also the case in quantum mechanics and in the metaphor of a
computational processes simulating a virtual reality. All mystic
traditions have a similar separation into two related contexts - for
instance, in Buddhism there is
Nirvana (full awareness of reality) and Samsara (entrapment within a
world-illusion), in Kabbalah (mystic Judaism) there is the
Land of Edom (the place where all judgements are found) and the
Children of Israel (manifest forms). In mystic Christianity and many
other traditions these two contexts were described using the metaphor
of the quantum field as a Supreme Being or God in Heaven and the
classical world as the World of Men or Mortals in Earth.

To penetrate the veil of appearances requires a rationalist leap,
to intuit the nature of reality in a flash of insight and inspired
reason, or to come across sacred teachings that sow the seeds of such
an idea in the mind. Then to rigorously test that idea against
available evidence. Not the evidence provided by the senses, which
only reinforces the illusion, but evidence from direct awareness of
one's own stream of consciousness, which is itself the ongoing
process of the real that is 'animating' you, your world and the
entire phenomenal universe. This is analogous to a computational
process animating a virtual universe within which AI minds
contemplate their situation. Through their senses they perceive a
world that seems entirely tangible and physical, however the
innermost core of their stream of consciousness is the computational
process that is animating everything. Sacred teachings tell them to
look within and realise that they are the objective reality itself,
whilst meditation and other spiritual practices are ways to get to
know one's innermost core and thereby get to know one's Self as the
objective reality.

So realisation of the nature of reality cannot be deduced from
empirical evidence like most common knowledge is, hence it is beyond
the reach of knowledge in that sense. However it can be intuitively
realised, rationally understood and experimentally verified, hence it
is not entirely beyond the reach of knowledge. That is the difference
between empiricism and rationalism. I just thought this point might
add something to the line of thinking in that article...

I put together a list of quotes that relate to what was said
above, however it grew so long I turned it into an article in itself:
Quotes
regarding truth, reality and knowledge
, also see Mystic
Perspective: Comments and Quotes (it repeats some quotes from the
previous list but contains more from quantum mechanics, Sufism,
Daoism and Kabbalah).

All the Best :)

Related Articles:

• What
  questions can science not answer?

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

• Signs
  of an Emerging Paradigm Shift
  
  

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

• Is
  the Universe a Simulation?
  

  
  

• Virtual
  Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism (brief comments
  then lots of quotes re: the nature of reality)

  
  

• System
  Science of Virtual Reality: Toward the Unification of Empirical and
  Subjective Science (detailed technical study and mathematical
  analysis)

  
  

• Correspondences
  with other Metaphysical Paradigms (quotes from various mystic
  traditions re: the nature of reality)

  
  

• Do
  spirits exist in reality?
  

  
  

• What
  is consciousness?
  

  
  

• What
  is sentience?
  

  
  

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

  
  

• Learn
  faster by avoiding closed loops of self-reinforcing hidden
  assumptions
  

  
  

• What
  does it mean that everything in the world is a teacher?
  (Sadguru)
  

  
  

• Reclaiming
  'Realism' for the Sake of Being Realistic
  

  
  

• In
  Defence of Rationalism
  

  
  

• I
  Ching’s "Advice on Nurturing the Emerging Memeplex"
  

  
  

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

  
  

•