Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding

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

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:09:27 GMT

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

Quantum Mechanics, Decoherence, Observables, Consciousness and Paradigm Shift

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:23:53 GMT

Here I discuss some basic aspects of quantum mechanics that are
not often explained and are often at the heart of common
misconceptions about the role of consciousness in reality and the
type of reality that is implied by quantum mechanics. more >

Processual Metaphysics

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:58:36 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope it makes sense to you...

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

Defending mind from anti-mind spirituality

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:36:39 GMT

Worldly concepts, words and thought processes cannot give the mind
enough traction to grasp reality. However the mind itself CAN grasp
these things and the intellect can understand. Although the word
'mind' means different things to different people... Hence I'll
explain a little of where I'm "coming from" in regards to
'mind'... more >

Overview of information system metaphysics

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 13:04:13 GMT

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

Exploring some patterns in the I Ching

Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:55:51 GMT

There are countless intriguing patterns that can be found within
the I Ching. I don't know what they mean, but here we explore some of
them... Firstly we map out the correlation between the hexagrams and
the binary numbers, and then within this context we explore that
patterns formed by the various pairs of hexagrams and groups of
pairs. more >

Decoherence and the Quantum Sentience Paradox

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:19:11 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting countup-countdown pattern

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:00:15 GMT

Taking numbers consisting of 1's and squaring them reveals an
interesting countup-countdown pattern in the resulting product.

1^2= 1

11^2= 121

111^2= 12321

1111^2= 1234321

11111^2= 123454321 more >

A True Current of Western Spirituality or a Partial Realisation?

Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:35:02 GMT

I was recently asked my opinion on the work and teachings of A.H.
Almaas, called the Diamond Approach. This article is not a general
review of his work, it is about something that I believe to be a
common misconception of spirituality, particularly throughout the
West (e.g. many proponents of Integral philosophy). However I found
in Almaas' work a clear and succinct expression of that
misconception, which has inspired me to say something about it now.

Firstly let me say that I am not familiar with Almaas or his work,
however after reading an
article on the core principles, written by him and an
interview with him I think I can sense the gist of where he is
coming from. He has many deep insights that suggest genuine
realisations, hence I suspect that many spiritual aspirants could get
some benefit from his fusion of depth psychology with aspects of both
dualist and nondual spirituality. That is all I have to say regarding
his work in general.

However, from my perspective and the perspective of Eastern
spirituality, he succumbs to a critical mistake. It is this mistake
that I will discuss here because it is very limiting and it is
prevalent and growing in popularity throughout the West.

I am talking about a misconception of spirituality that is based
on a partial realisation that is mistaken for a full realisation. The
seeker attains a degree of realisation, but mainly at an intellectual
level, which has not penetrated very deeply into their subconscious /
unconscious mind they are often not even aware that it should
penetrate deeply or how deep it must go before one has full
realisation. Hence they believe themselves to be realised and to
understand the spiritual path, even whilst the bulk of their mind is
unconsciously dominated by the ego and still bound within the
illusory world that the ego imagines itself to inhabit and the
illusory life that the ego imagines that it is living.

The partial realisation results in thinking that could be phrased
as Okay, so now I'm realised, but I'm still
me, an individual person in the world - so what now? How can this
realisation help me and others to lead a better, more spiritual life?
That is after all what spirituality is really about. This
thinking results in the tendency to approach spirituality more as a
spiritually themed lifestyle for the ego as it lives its illusory
life in the world. Rather than seeking to deepen their realisation
and eventually attain full and complete realisation of reality and
truth, and thereby overcome the ego and all of its delusions; thus
traversing the greatest paradigm shift of all and coming to apprehend
and live in reality, which is radically different to what the ego
imagines. more >

Comments Regarding The Truth

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:54:09 GMT

I just read a very thought provoking article The
Truth by Eric
Gross, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In response to it something
came to mind, certainly not as a criticism but simply as an extra
dimension to consider... more >