Part 1: The Universe as an Information System

The World

The World is the commonly accepted and routinely experienced theatre of experience. Everyone accepts from the evidence of their own experience that “the World” exists in some sense. Thus it has been the starting point for all serious metaphysical enquiries throughout time.

After billions of years of evolution we are born already adapted for existence in the world. We naturally and effortlessly experience it and believe in it. It forms the foundation for common sense, for the empirical sciences and all kinds of day-to-day interactions.

But what is this idea about the ‘world’? From where does it arise? There are two main dimensions to this idea, one of which is the idea of an objective world that exists independently of any observers; often conceived of as the “physical universe”. But let us start closer to home with our own personal experience of the subjective world and then work our way toward the idea of the objective world.

Without our own subjective experience we would not know of any world to speak of. We cannot know of it without perceiving it, furthermore we perceive and experience it according to our particular perceptual and experiential apparatus. For example, we humans see with our eyes which have very particular properties and we process this visual experience with our minds which also have very uniquely human properties. In this manner the subjective world is a construct of our particular senses and mind. The subjective world of an ant is very different to that of an eagle.

Nature of Perception

It is only through the process of perception that we come to experience and thereby know anything about the world. So what is perception exactly?

Consider the phenomenon of hearing. In-coming audible signals cause vibrations to propagate through the surrounding air and produce pressure variations in the region of our ears. These are channelled into the ear and cause tiny hairs to vibrate to different frequencies. These then stimulate nerves which propagate signals into the nervous system and the brain.

In general; an observable phenomenon (pressure) undergoes variation (vibration), which then produces a corresponding variation in internal state (vibrating hairs then neuronal signals). This describes a general interface for the receipt of signals. Thus perception is an inherently information theoretic phenomenon; it is the transduction of information from an external medium to an internal medium.

All that the perceiver can experience of their world is based upon the signals that are incident on their senses. But what is experience? There are two aspects to it. When the internal state of the perceiver is influenced by the incoming signal, this change in internal state is the experience; it is a change in the perceiver’s state of being. But also, when the signal is received it is comprehended by pure awareness, which is the underlying essence of all experiences. As we will see later, at the foundation of existence there is both being and awareness, or representation and computation.

The content of the perceptual experiences is coherent and exhibits persistent forms or patterns, which we come to experience as objects. We experience ourselves as an object amongst other objects, which are arranged in space. These objects can also be seen to be composed of objects, thus there are objects within objects. These objects interact in ways that produce solidity in some situations and this experience leads to the idea of matter, which is a kind of solid stuff that exhibits behaviour.

We experience observable phenomena and also the absence of observable phenomena; for example, sounds and the silences between sounds. The observables form the substance of our experiential world and the void between observables forms the context within which the world arises. For example, we experience objects in space where the space is just an emptiness that contains the objects and through which the objects stand in relation to one another.

But on closer analysis we see that the vacuum is not an empty stage within which matter exists. Physics suggests that it is more the case that the vacuum is the deeper reality; it is the ocean and particles are like waves on its surface. It is a plenum of potentiality, containing all particular forms. It is out of this fullness that particular actual (as opposed to potential) forms arise. The vacuum is a formlessness from which arise all forms. This is the perspective of the situation from within the world and later we will consider this from a much different perspective.

In the world composed of objects of perception, we experience ourselves as being aware; i.e. we perceive, experience and respond to our situation. All of this is experienced to occur in the present moment; the past is memory and the future is expectation. Furthermore our experiences are produced by our own senses and mind so we have a unique singular perspective and we cannot experience the world from any other perspective.

We interact with the objects of perception and thereby participate in our context. We exhibit behaviour (patterned activity) which then organizes into roles. In this way we become enmeshed in the world.

The objects that we perceive around us have both form and behaviour. Their form arises from our perception of them but what about their behaviour? Perhaps in some sense they too perceive experience and respond. Perhaps in their own way, from their own singular perspective, they too are aware of their world. This is reasonable to assume for other objects that we identify as human or living but even so-called inanimate objects may have rudimentary awareness that allows them to exhibit behaviour. Otherwise how do they interact?

Our own experience of awareness is a good indication of this but we cannot directly experience the awareness of anything but ourselves. So for now we can only be certain that the objects of perception exhibit behaviour.

What do we know and what do we believe?

Ultimately we can only ever know ourselves. Only through our perceptions, experiences, responses and perceived effects can we know anything. However there are two aspects to this situation that one may focus on. One can focus on the objects of perception and thereby contemplate a world of objects or one can focus on the awareness that produces those objects of perception and thereby contemplate a world of consciousness. Both approaches are valid and valuable because both outer form and inner awareness are fundamental to oneself and perhaps also to every thing.

Each being experiences a subjective world and these worlds overlap giving rise to common experiences. The individual beings experience each other as objects within each other's subjective world and they thereby respond to each other as objects in a world. By recognising similarity with themselves they ascribe awareness to some objects and not to others. They communicate and interact and share their stories thereby reinforcing each other's beliefs and subtly conditioning each other to believe in the concept of an objective world; a world out there that is the common foundation of everyone's subjective worlds. Whether the objective world exists or not our knowledge of it relies solely on shared subjective experience.

This is a process of perceptual feedback which creates and reinforces the idea of the objective world; it boot straps perceptions into apparent reality by providing each singular perspective with a perceptual mirror on itself. From this collective interaction and feedback whole cultures and philosophies and mythologies and metaphysics and sciences arise trying to explain the appearances of things out there. The objective world then becomes central to every beings story and becomes a central article of faith in every beings belief system so every being then comes to perceive and experience an objective world whose structure depends upon the mixture of belief systems at that time.

For example a being may live in a world of devils, witches, saints and sinners, or divine priesthoods and human sacrifices, or imperial powers and monarchies, or consumers and producers, or corporations and markets, or pop stars and fans, or artists and musicians, or sex, drugs and rock'n roll, or laws and authoritarian hierarchies, or a mechanistic materialistic "clock work universe" where consciousness is a by product of the biochemical functioning of the brain, or many other worlds. Human history is a show case of many intriguing states of collective being.

From this perspective we can see that our understanding of the “objective world” is an idea, it is a consensus and a belief, but we have no direct evidence of it other than our own subjective experiences. But the observed coherence of our shared experiences means we can safely surmise that there is an objective world of some kind that produces each of our subjective experiences but we can only ever know that world via our senses. But our senses only give us access to its observable form so any ideas about the nature of the objective world are inferences and not direct experiences because the form of the world isn’t necessarily indicative of the nature of the world.

By focusing on the objects of perception one may surmise that the world consists of matter in space because that is how it appears to our awareness. Or by focusing on awareness itself one may surmise that it is a field of consciousness or a computational space, through which information flows and impinges upon our senses thereby producing the appearance of objects in space.

Form and Behaviour

Within the context of the consensus based “objective world” most people routinely live and ponder the world around them. We perceive objects (or forms with behaviour) as they manifest to awareness, without questioning how they arise. These objects have observable properties such as colour, position and size through which we come to experience them. Through observation we come to recognize relations between these properties, for example, if one applies a certain force to a free object it will move in a certain way, or when the volume of a gas is decreased the pressure increases.

By continued observation we come to comprehend many of the behaviours of and relations between objects. These relations between observables can then be represented in abstract ways, such as verbal descriptions or mathematical equations. This is the underlying process of traditional science. But these objects are actually “objects of perception”. There is definitely some underlying phenomenon that manifests the objects in our awareness and the awareness of others but we can only observe the outer form and not the inner dynamics of that phenomenon. So the traditional scientific method rests upon descriptions of the observed form and behaviour of things and the descriptions may not be indicative of the real nature of the underlying phenomena.

For example, in the case of equations describing the economic behaviour of nations; the people involved know nothing of the equations and most definitely do not base their actions on any such equations. However through their individual activities and interactions they produce an economic system that manifests behaviours that can be described by the equations. Thus the equations are simply descriptions of observed forms and behaviours and they do not necessarily indicate the actual processes that give rise to the forms and behaviours.

Whilst traditional science began by describing simple relations between observable phenomena, via continued theorizing, experimentation and inference it has in many ways delved beneath the outer forms and tried to capture the inner workings of systems. It has inferred the existence of internal states and the relations between these that produce an inner dynamic that then produces the observed outer behaviour. Such is the case for the development of quantum physics. No body can directly perceive a wavefunction but we hypothesize their existence because by doing so we can use quantum physics to accurately describe other phenomena that we can directly observe. By degrees traditional science has delved deeper and deeper, diverging from the familiar appearance of the world and becoming more and more abstract. Two products of this approach are general relativity and quantum physics, both of which produce seeming paradoxes but this is because our form based ideas of the nature of reality are too limited to comprehend the real nature of reality.

General relativity describes the situation on the large scale – where the finite speed of light imposes strict limitations on the range of interactions between objects. This indicates that all physical interactions depend on propagating signals and are thus information processes.

When general relativity is interpreted solely from the equations only the outer forms can be comprehended because the equations are derived from observed objective phenomena. From this perspective the world appears to be a predefined four dimensional block of space-time in which there is NO present moment. Thus our own experience of the present moment is thought to be an anomaly of consciousness that limits our awareness to a single three dimensional slice of space-time that moves smoothly in one particular direction through the temporal dimension. Thus awareness becomes an anomaly when the forms are accentuated.

However the paradox of time dilation indicates that our idea of time depends on the experience of the change of state. In certain conditions when the flow of information slows down the rate of change also slows down so outside observers perceive time to have slowed down. For example, a person flies in a space ship near the speed of light for a short trip and when they return their children are older than they are so time has progressed slower for them. Or like two characters in two interacting simulation programs running on distinct but connected computers. If one computer undergoes a heavy computational load because there is a lot of activity occurring in it’s model, then the simulation moments are computed at a slower rate. Thus time moves slower in that simulation.

However for all observers time seems to progress normally for themselves because their awareness of time only occurs via information processes occurring over successive moments of time so as these vary, their awareness also varies accordingly. They cannot be aware except in the present moment of existence so they cannot be aware of the varying rate at which the moments are generated.

This lends weight to the idea that all objects have some basic awareness via which they perceive, experience and respond to their situation. The equations of general relativity describe the observed behaviour of objects near the speed of light but the objects don’t obey these equations; instead they engage in perceptual interactions which thereby manifest behaviours that can be described by those equations. In this way we see that present moment awareness is not an unexplained anomaly within general relativity, but is instead central to it. Awareness cannot be observed as a form in the world so it is not explicitly represented in the equations, which only describe the observed behaviour, thus awareness is an anomaly in that context. But when one considers the underlying dynamics that produces that behaviour, it is fundamentally based upon present moment awareness and the interactions that arise between objects due to perceptions and responses that are propagated via signals.

Quantum physics delves beneath the observable classical phenomena and describes the underlying quantum dynamics. In this sense it is far removed from the common sense world of our experiences but it is also the most exact science that has ever been developed. So its many inferences must have some correspondence with the inner dynamics that underlies the observed outer behaviour.

This science is based upon the interaction of non-local waves of probability that interfere and produce complex probability distributions. Then when an act of observation occurs the probability distribution is collapsed to produce a single actuality that is then experienced as the observed reality.

Quantum physics presents many seeming paradoxes for the common sense world view. It breaks down our concept of distinct objects that are localized in time and space. There are instantaneous quantum interactions between objects that are far removed (EPR pairs) and objects that are seemingly solid are seen to pass right through each other (quantum tunnelling). Furthermore, Feynman paths indicate that when any event occurs the entire universe is involved. For example, a simple particle undergoes simple motion from one location to another nearby location but in order to accurately calculate the behaviour of this event one must include terms for EVERY possible path that could potentially have been taken, including paths that follow convoluted routes around the universe and then come back to that nearby location. As all of these terms combine and cancel out, what is left is the simple path from point A to B. Thus the dynamics that occur are not simply localized to the particle and the region of space between points A and B, but they are a computation involving the whole of the quantum universe.

Although the quantum dynamics involves instantaneous interactions across any distance, when the final classical phenomena are observed they involve only classical behaviours where signals must travel at or below the speed of light. The classical world is produced from the quantum world via an act of observation and our experience of the world is totally based upon these observations, hence each observation is a moment of reality for us (like a frame in a movie) and all the quantum dynamics occurs between moments. The observed classical reality arises from underlying quantum dynamics, which have a very different nature to the observed classical phenomena.

In quantum physics the idea of distinct objects that are localized in time and space breaks down but these are replaced by a field of interacting waves of probability. Probability and information are very closely related, most famously by the equation for Shannon Information
(H = -p. log(p) ). Thus one sees that the flow of information is primary to the basic functioning of the world.

In the above discussion I have drawn a distinction between descriptions of observable phenomena (which describe how the world appears to us) and descriptions of inner dynamics (which describe how the situation actually functions). When observing the forms and behaviours of the world one can take time as a dimensional variable and then describe how properties change over time in relation to other properties; this gives rise to the equations of traditional physics. However when trying to implement the inner dynamics of a situation one cannot treat time as a dimensional variable, instead it is the flow of awareness, it is a process that is happening.

For example, one may describe the behaviour of a computer program using equations based upon time as a dimensional variable but if one actually tries to re-create that program one must go into the inner causal logic of the programming and then try to re-create the actual process that gives rise to the observed behaviour. The idea that time is a process rather than a dimension is central to the fields of process philosophy, process physics and process studies in general.

Throughout history these ideas have been in the background of scientific thought but in recent decades they have begun to assert themselves as a coherent and compelling idea that overcomes many seeming paradoxes; in particular, the role of present moment awareness in the dynamics of the physical universe. Rather than inert matter obeying physical laws there are systems that interact via present moment awareness of their situation.

If one keeps only to what can be know with certainty and tries to capture both the inner dynamics and the outer form and behaviour of the world, as well as the experience of the present moment, what kind of world view arises? Is there a single concept that can succinctly capture ALL of the above and everything else that we may definitely know about the world?

Information System Theoretic Paradigm

Information System Theory (IST) is traditionally concerned with computers and other such systems that obviously process information and much of what I speak about is commonly known as “system theory”. But I take the ideas one step further hence I use the term information system theory to make it clear that information is central to the concept of system (as we will see later).

Firstly, what is information? In essence it is discernable difference. This involves the phenomenon of discernment or awareness/computation. It also involves the concept of a varying observable property. If there is no observer or there is nothing to observe there can be no flow of information. Furthermore, if there is a varying observable phenomenon but the observer cannot distinguish these variations then it perceives a constant phenomenon and no information can flow. However, if the observer can distinguish the variations then these may convey information, such as for a radio tuning into a base frequency and detecting the variations in this and thereby conveying a radio station to the listener.

Because of its general nature information can manifest in any medium, whether waves of electromagnetism, configurations of matter, water waves, packets of binary data and so on. It is a general concept that is not dependent on any particular medium, thus it is a useful concept for the general analysis of systems.

Information and computation are dual concepts; they cannot exist without each other. Information arises from the computational discernment of varying data and computation is the transformation or variation of data. Furthermore, the concept of discernment involves the phenomenon of symbolic association, i.e. what meaning the different observable states have for the observer. It doesn’t matter exactly what the meanings are so long as there are distinct meanings. For example, if a computer program reads in a binary file but that program ascribes the same meanings to both the symbols 0 and 1, then that program could not discern the information encoded within the file. Thus discernment is related to encoding and decoding or symbolic representation.

System theory posits that everything is a system in the sense that the concept system can be applied to everything in a meaningful and practical sense. Every thing is a system that is composed of sub systems that interact to create that system and so too for each of these sub systems down to some ground of being. Thus ultimately there is only a field of primitive systems and the information that mediates their interactions. Through their permutations and combinations they build up the successive levels of systems. Furthermore, every system is a sub system within larger systems and interacts with other systems passing information, coordinating, organising, cooperating, competing, etc. Thus forming the higher-level super systems and so on up to the universe as a whole which is a single unified and coherent system.

System theory is the foundation of a truly general understanding of the world; the concept 'system' is a universal metaphor for any 'thing' at all regardless of its particular properties, origin or substance, thus it provides a unifying or synthesising force to counter the fragmenting or analytical aspects of science and empirical knowledge. With the use of this metaphor one can consider aspects of any and all things and phenomena. It may be used to translate and unify concepts across the many fragmented and often estranged fields of knowledge.

Information systems are a general concept that captures all that we can know about the world. Because of the generality of information an information system can manifest in any medium, whether galaxies, stars and organisms in the medium of matter, or viruses in the medium of genetics, or memes in the medium of minds and culture, or characters in a computer game, and so on.

They are entities that exist in a world. They have interfaces (sensors and actuators), they perceive signals (varying observable phenomena), experience internal state changes (varying state of being) and respond (vary their own observable phenomena).

They cannot experience anything else but the world that appears to their senses. They experience external phenomena and also have internal experiential dynamics that produces these experiences. They experience solidity (e.g. a login portal is a barrier if one lacks a valid password).

They are capable of but do not necessarily experience themselves as being aware. Self awareness is due to internal feedback loops. We for example, not only experience, we also experience the experiencing and we experience the experience of experiencing, thus we come to know that we know that we know.

They only ever experience things in the present moment and they can record the past in memory and predict the future as expectation. They can only ever experience from their own perspective so they have a unique singular perspective on their world.

They interact with the objects of their perception and thereby participate in networks of interacting systems. They exhibit behaviours and thereby occupy roles in these networks. They are composed of networks of interacting sub-systems and they are themselves sub-systems in larger super-systems. They are both immersed and enmeshed in their world.

They have both form and behaviour, both outer observable form and inner dynamics. Their form only becomes apparent when perceived by a system from a particular perspective. Their basic inner awareness/computation allows them to perceive, experience, respond and thereby interact.

They can only ever know themselves; whether the objective world exists or not their knowledge of it relies solely on shared subjective experience. If these systems focus solely on the world presented to them by the objects of perception then they will totally believe in that world, however if they have feedback loops via which they can focus on the process of their own awareness, then they will come to believe in a very different kind of world.

When comprehending the world of their senses they can only rely upon observed form and behaviour. If they posses the appropriate inner dynamics (like humans) they can discern relations between observable properties and then make deductions based upon prior knowledge. In this way they can come to understand the outer form and behaviour of systems and also the inner dynamics of systems.

Due to their ongoing interaction, information flows between them, thus the holistic situation dynamically changes. These changes can be observed and the relations described but the situation is fundamentally driven by perceptual systemic dynamics rather than in accordance with any equations that simply describe the observed behaviour.

If one system experiences another system it manifests as an object of perception; only the outer observables are apparent and the inner awareness cannot be directly discerned. But each system has both outer observables and inner awareness.

When perceiving the outer form of other systems, they do so with finite resolution and from a particular perspective. If there is a tightly interacting network of systems that is being observed but the observer lacks the resolution to discern the distinct sub-systems, then that network is perceived and experienced as a single system. This is how super-systems form; the general process is referred to as a meta-system transition (MST).

Communication between classical systems occurs via propagating signals that are limited by the speed of light, thus relativistic effects arise, especially when the situation approaches the speed limit.

Their capacity for discernment is finite thus signals have finite resolution, i.e. a variation that is infinitesimally small cannot be discerned. Thus the signals and states are quantized, thus quantum effects arise, especially when the situation approaches the resolution limit.

Systems can be either quantum or classical, as will be seen when we come to model general systems. The two are very closely related types of systems.

As we will see in part 2, information systems do not only exchange information and process information, in fact they ARE information. Systems are persistent patterns of information within a computational space, which is their common universe. Thus systems communicate by exchanging systems through systems, they are all made of systems and they form systems; and all of this is patterns of information flowing within a computational space.

Thus IST implies that the ultimate theatre of reality is a computational space and the basic substance of reality is information. This implies that “the world is virtual”.

Metaphysics of Virtual Reality

If a computational space animates a virtual reality within which intelligent beings contemplate their situation, how would such a world seem to them? What metaphysical concepts would they arrive at? What would it be like to be a sentient being in a virtual world?

I propose this hypothetical situation as a neatly defined context for analysis that has some interesting parallels with our own context. This computational metaphor likens primal consciousness or pure awareness to the computational stream of a computer and thereby describes the manner in which computation is structured and woven together to create a distributed context in which individuals may experience the same underlying context from countless unique perspectives. The resulting perceptual dynamics drives the network of systems and causes it to evolve.

Suppose that there is a computer (a CPU and memory) that provides a computational space. Within this space there are information constructs such as data types, lists, etc as well as information processes such as threads, conditional loops, etc.

These are all woven together into a simulator program. This is an information process that manages all of the existential and causal data that structures exactly what exists and happens in the virtual world. It also manages all of the moment by moment information logistics that underlies all interactions between systems. This is the role of the mathematics and software that is introduced in part 2.

As the simulator functions the virtual existential context is computed one moment at a time and as the moments blur together the virtual world comes into existence.

Within this context every system is defined by existential information and every process is defined by causal information. As the computational process animates the context each perceptual process draws upon the existential state of the universe and a perceptual experience is generated for each system according to its context. Each system then interprets and responds to this according to its programmed nature.

The virtual systems perceive, experience and interact within a context of systems in relation that impose upon their senses and create the impression of their existing a world out there.

Within this dynamic system theoretic context the systems interact and combine into higher level systems. These systems become more complex and refined through repeated adjustments to each other. Thus there eventually evolve complex systems that can be called organisms.

Some of these organisms develop complex internal feedback loops, or higher cognitive functions so that they experience the experience of experiencing. They also make associations between these experiences and others using an abstract system of symbols. Thus they come to know that they know that they know.

These sentient beings would arise as a population and they would evolve in a symbiotic relationship with an external ecosystem as well as an internal ecosystem of memes. The latter is their culture which would contain a broad spectrum of ideas about all kinds of experiences and inferences from experience.

With this culture they would have conceptual frameworks within which to begin to analyse and discuss the nature of their reality. They would seriously question "What am I?" and "What is this place?".

Given this context of intelligent beings in a virtual reality running on a computer, a number of questions arise.

What could they experience of their reality? Mainly the objects of the senses which combine to create the illusion of the virtual world. But if they turned within through meditation they could also experience an inner space of pure awareness as well.

What would an empirical perspective lead to? A belief in an objectively existing "world out there" that consists of objects in space and which exists independently of the observer. There would be concepts such as 'matter' and the idea that everything is "made of" matter, including themselves. Their own experience of consciousness would be surmised to be some unexplained result of the functioning of their material bodies.

What would a deeply subjective perspective lead to? A belief that consciousness is fundamental and that the "world out there" is just a construct of the objects of the senses. They would propose that there was a deeper level of reality that was not "made of" matter and which underlies the coming into being of all such things as 'matter'. In this deeper reality all the individual consciousnesses are unified, the universe is seen to be a field of consciousness and with consciousness they could participate in that field.

What would they conclude about their reality? What would logic demand? That depends upon one’s perspective. Whether one’s experiences were of the senses or of consciousness itself. The empiricists would conclude that the world was an objective construct made of matter and the transcendentalists would conclude that the world was an illusion of the senses that arises from a deeper world of spiritual dynamics.

There is no way of proving any of these perspectives; they both rely solely upon the voracity of outer or inner experience. The beings have no direct means of discerning the underlying computational context. They could discover it through meditation and inner unification with it or they could scientifically take the objective world mythology to its logical extreme by searching for the fundamental unit of existence, that magic stuff that just exists in space and behaves, but without any underlying or inner dynamics. This exploration would eventually breakdown and give rise to a theory of abstract non-local information processes such as quantum physics.

Ultimately they can only infer it and given that all knowledge is a tapestry of experiences and associations which are modified and built into new conceptual frameworks, they would have no direct means of comprehending the underlying dynamics. They could only adapt known concepts to metaphorically capture the strange new ideas. They would describe the unfamiliar computational space in terms of spiritual beings and other worlds or subtle dimensions, or perhaps wavefunctions and quanta, and so on.

They could also develop their own computing technology. That would provide a set of experiences and a language of associated concepts with which they could comprehend and analyse their deeper situation.

They could eventually build a computer that was running a virtual reality simulation inhabited by sentient beings that are contemplating their situation. Then they would have a model of their situation - an actual implementation rather than just descriptions in terms of cultural discourses and observable phenomena. Then they could really begin to explore the deeper foundations of their reality.

Computation but No Computer
I will here point out one possible stumbling block for some. This is the idea that a computer is a physical object that creates a computational space within which the virtual reality exists. When this is applied to the metaphysical context it implies that the computational space is the transcendent aspect of reality but beyond that there is a physical object that is the real foundation. Ideas such as a cosmic computer as an actual object in a world of its own, or of a God that is a being with a body in a world of its own, these ideas lead to confusion.

The assumption behind such ideas is that all processes have a physical foundation. Indeed that is how things seem to us when we experience our world. But one cannot take an idea from one paradigm and apply it to another; in this context one must remember that all objects are objects of the senses, these arise from underlying information processes.

Thus when one constructs a physical computer one is taking the computational capacity of the cosmos, in the perceived form of electronic circuits, and this is woven into a configuration that makes that computational capacity available to us in a convenient way. When comprehended through the senses it seems that physical objects are being configured to create computation, but underlying this it is the cosmic information process that is being configured to channel computational capacity.

Just as when the virtual beings discussed above build their own computer, they perceive a physical computer but really it is the computational capacity of their virtual world that is being channelled to create another virtual-virtual world. This will become much clearer when we discuss the underlying information processes in detail later.

Computation doesn’t arise from physical computers; it is the fundamental essence of reality that underlies the existence of all the objects of perception. It is the animating pure awareness that underlies all perception, response and interaction. The computational space is the foundation of all virtual worlds and our world is a virtual construct within a computational space. This implies that the cosmic foundation, the ground of being, God or the Supreme Self is not an object in a world; it is not the computer, it is the formless computational space within which all worlds form. The whole has no other thus it cannot be perceived and experienced as an object, thus it has no outer form and it is pure inner awareness. The VR metaphor indicates that everything that exists exists within the computational space.

Part 2: Information Systems and Mysticism

Modelling General Information Systems

So far we have described information systems a little but here we introduce a mathematical model of information systems. The basic methodology of System Matrix Notation (SMN) will be introduced. On the whole the mathematics is very simple although there are many conceptual subtleties. If one has no interest in the mathematics of system models one can just skim over the overtly mathematical portions but there is still a great deal of interesting discussion in this section. One will get a deeper and more complete understanding by comprehending the mathematics but this is not essential for understanding the general properties of systems or for understanding this book.

Only a basic outline of SMN will be introduced here, just enough to show that it is a coherent reality generative process for virtual worlds. For more information on extensions, finer details and examples see the website (www.anandavala.info).

Modelling
Because information can manifest in any medium information processes can manifest in any medium, however not always with the same resolution. This is the general principle of modelling. For example, a plastic model airplane captures the basic observable properties of a real airplane within the medium of plastic. In this way one information medium can be used to model information systems that exist in some other medium.

Mathematics is a highly flexible modelling medium. This is because it is itself an information process. It has an information space composed of numbers which are symbols for discernibly different quantities, e.g. the set of integers, the set of reals and the set of complex numbers. There are also operations on these numbers or relations between these symbols. The symbols and relations can be combined into equations and systems of equations. These program the information space, structuring its form and behaviour. SMN is one example of this.

Scientists have long pondered the fact that “mathematics is so unreasonably effective” in the physical sciences. Particles and numbers seem so different so how can mathematics mirror the physical universe so effectively? But as we have seen in this discussion, the physical universe is an information system that appears physical to us because we are immersed in it.

Mathematics is an information system and the study of mathematics is the science of general information and information processes. This is why domains of mathematics have proven so useful when analysing other information systems such as physics and the physical universe.

Representation
The fundamental substance of an information process is information. This includes representation and computation. First we address the issue of representation.

To represent something to infinite detail requires infinite information and to represent a value that is infinitely large requires infinite information, but an infinite amount of information would take an infinite amount of representational capacity and an infinite amount of time to compute unless one had infinite capacity; but in this infinite regime all finite well formed values lose their meaning. But we experience a world that is in all respects finite and well formed.

This indicates that the information medium has finite resolution and all quantities expressed within it are finite and discrete. There is a maximum possible value and a minimum possible non-zero value.

General relativity suggests finite dynamical quantities or existential parameters that are finite in value; e.g. the speed of light or the mass energy of an object. Quantum physics suggests discrete dynamical quantities such as a quantised energy spectrum, or quantised time and space.

Consider the cover image of this book. It illustrates a distance metric (Pythagoras’ theorem) within a finite discrete information space where the colours are a function of the distance from the centre. If the space had infinite resolution there would be only a radiating field of colour emanating from the centre and no other detail whatsoever. However the finite discrete constraints impose an order upon the space and create complex forms.

Finite resolution also constrains the recursion of systems within systems within systems. At some point the recursion bottoms-out leaving primitive systems. These are fundamentally simple systems that have a single state or observable and an internal causal process whereby that state can change in response to perceived external conditions.

These systems combine and interact to form all higher levels of systems formed out of systems and so on. As we will see, a complex system is an integrated collection of primitive systems, bound into a network of interactions. This system may also partake in a network of interactions and thereby participate in the formation of a higher level system.

To represent an information system we need an information medium that manifests discernable difference. In its most general form information is discernible difference, which may manifest in any medium. The discernible difference encodes the information and thereby represents it or symbolises it in some coherent manner.

Any information medium will suffice, so without loss of generality we can choose to use a finite discrete number line as an information medium. Hence different observable states are represented by different numbers.

This makes possible a mathematical analysis, primarily using algebra. Algebra and especially the sub domain of group theory are a complex and subtle science of the behaviour of information spaces. Given a set of states, such as the set of integers and a set of operations on those states, such as addition and multiplication, this forms a group. This mirrors the operation of a memory space and a CPU, where the computational operations effectively map one memory state into another. Here we will use matrix algebra because of the special properties of matrices.

Consider the above model of two systems. Let each element of the vector represent the state of a system. Now let each row of the matrix represent a perceptual interface for a particular system through which it can potentially perceive any other system. If the channel is closed then no information can flow and no perception of that observable can arise.

Furthermore, each column represents an output interface through which a system can respond to any other system. Thus each element represents an output channel from one system that is the input channel for another system. The diagonal elements from the top-left to the bottom-right represent self interaction channels.

Each system is thus represented by a row, a column and a corresponding vector element. The image below shows system A observing the states of systems A & B. Note that the first matrix row is the input interface for system A.

Every system has a row and a column, thus every system can potentially perceive and respond to every other system. Thus the matrix can represent arbitrary networks of causal connectivity between systems.

The information space has been structured into multiple systems, each with singular perspectives into a common network of systems. Each system has an observable form thus each system can be observed and can observe other systems.

The process of multiplying a square matrix with a vector implements this causal connectivity between systems. It draws the existential state of the vector through the information channels and produces a new vector.

Each element of a matrix row is paired with a corresponding element of the vector as shown above. Each pair is then multiplied and these are then summed into a single total that represents the new system state and also the new vector element.

A variation of this scheme is where a system’s state vector element (x) represents the intermediate state of that system and each element of the matrix consists of two terms, an output filter and an input filter (i.o). The observable state of the system is o.x and it can present different outputs to different channels by having different output filters down the associated matrix column. Outputs from other systems are perceived as i.o.x where o.x is the other systems output and i.o.x is that output after it has been filtered by the perceivers input filter. A system can perceive systems differently by having different input filters along its associated matrix row.

The matrix multiplication process may also be further generalized. In regards to the various pairs that are formed by matrix and vector elements, instead of multiplication, the matrix element can be any generalized function that takes the vector element as input. Furthermore, instead of all the pairwise results being summed into a single total, they can be operated on by any generalized function that takes them as input.

In this manner many causal networks or mappings between the current state and the new state are possible. Hence, many possible information processes are able to be represented. The generalized functions need not be mathematical functions, they could be any information process that made use of the input information and produced an output, such as computer code or hardware.

If the virtual systems are software modules these could be used to develop complex software systems. Utilising mathematical analysis and simulation methods this could provide a rigorous foundation for future software engineering (some such methods are discussed in detail on the website). If the virtual systems represent hardware then SMN can be a behind the scenes event manager that coordinates all the information logistics that animates and controls a physical system. In this sense SMN could form the basis of a general control system.

The vector represents the existential state of a system and the matrix represents the causal connectivity of the system. Multiplication causes the existential state to be transformed by the causal network into a new existential state. This represents a new instance of virtual existence, a new moment in time.

If the matrix is multiplied with the new vector another moment in time will arise. Thus as the matrix and vector are multiplied over many iterations, the existential state flows through the causal network and the virtual universe is animated into existence.

The existential state changes hence the observable forms or patterns of information change. Forms arise, interact and disperse. As the information flows, interactions occur and higher level systems manifest.

Each virtual system, via its causal programming, perceives, experiences and interacts with the world that it experiences from its particular perspective. At a transcendent level there is just a flow of information through a causal network but stepping into the virtual world, this flow underlies the perceptual/experiential dynamics that are occurring between systems. Thus the transcendent flow manifests empirical awareness.

Simple Classical Model
Let both the matrix and vector elements be distinct classical quantities. This can be thought of as a set of quantities with specific linear relations, such as simple equations of motion for a particle. For example, let the state vector contain the variables: position x, velocity v and force F for a single one dimensional particle. The following model is not a metaphysically accurate system model of a particle. It is just an example to show how the mathematics can simulate a simple system.

The causal matrix would be:

Thus producing the set of iterative equations:

Where setting a = F / m gives us the familiar equations of motion:

One can influence the particle through the state F, which imposes a force upon the particle that causes it to change its position and velocity. In the absence of external forces it travels with constant velocity. When the velocity is zero its position remains constant.

For a particle in three dimensions there are three positions, x, y and z, with corresponding velocities and forces, thus three matrices similar to the one shown above. These three matrices are merged into a single matrix that represents the state of the particle. If there are multiple particles there is a matrix for each particle; these are merged into a single matrix that represents the entire system. A force field such as gravity is implemented by a relation between the force experienced by each particle and the positions of the other particles. Thus the positions of particles influences the forces experienced by the particles and these forces change the positions of the particles.

This simple model is further illustrated by a particle simulation program called ParticleDraw that is downloadable on the website. With this program one can create systems of particles that interact via gravity and electromagnetism. One can interact with them in real-time and use them as dynamic paint brushes or even play pool with them.

Network of Reservoirs
Let the vector elements be distinct classical quantities and the matrix elements be proportions of flow (a measure of the openness of the channels, between 0 = closed and 1 = open). This can be thought of as a system of reservoirs that contain various volumes of fluid, which are interconnected by a network of pipes. The vector represents the volume in each reservoir, each matrix row represents the various flows into a particular reservoir and each matrix column represents the flows out of each reservoir.

A reservoir cannot emit more fluid than it contains so the proportions in each column (outflow) must sum to one. This indicates that all of the volume in the reservoir flows. However the self interaction channel (diagonal element) represents the flow that returns to the reservoir and is thereby retained.

For example:

Simple State Space or Quantum Model

Let the state vector be a probability distribution (quantum state) over the range of potential system states and let the matrix represent proportional flow. When a particular classical actuality is required the probability distribution can be collapsed randomly into just one of the possibilities. Thus the state vector values represent the probability of being actualized or the probability of existential instantiation.

For example, if we have two state variables a and b and each may exhibit the value 0 or 1 then there are two probability distributions that can be combined into a single compound probability distribution via a direct product as follows.

Here a₀ is the probability that a = 0; a₁ is the probability that a = 1 and similarly for the variable b. The resulting compound state vector contains the probabilities of actualization for all possible states
ab = { 00, 01, 10, 11}.

Think of the potential system states as reservoirs where the fluid is probability. This probability flows through the causal network and thus the probabilities of the states changes over time. If the system is in one particular state, the probability then flows through the causal network thus making other states more probable and the system thereby evolves.

Above is a simple example of two quantum binary systems (qbits) that interact such that a = a NAND b and b = a XOR b (simple logical operations). See the document Finite Discrete Information Systems on the website for more detail on this matrix and how it was derived. However, exactly which relations are implemented is not important here. What is important is that each system state maps to another system state so the system can evolve.