By John Ringland (www.anandavala.info)
Inspired by conversations with V (the devil's advocate) [2007/03/13-20]
Edited due to contributions from Glistening Deepwater [2008/04/9-16] - many thanks :)
Regarding feedback: This document is an ongoing work in progress and is constantly evolving as better ways to express things are found. Feedback is an essential aspect of this process so please, if you feel like it, let me know about your experiences reading this and any ideas that occurred to you (john.ringland@anandavala.info). It is helpful if you let me know what parts you found unclear, unconvincing or incorrect. It is especially helpful if you can explain why you found them so. Then I will take that into consideration. It is also helpful to let me know what parts you strongly agree with, what parts were challenging, what parts you found irrelevant (unnecessary complication) and any ideas you have to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of this discussion. Let me know if it’s just feedback or if you wish to discuss the issues because I do not have time to answer all emails, but I take them all into consideration. Oh and make the subject line clearly distinguishable from spam, otherwise it might accidentally get deleted. If you feel like providing feedback it will help put these ideas to the test and clarify them, thereby honouring truth. Thank you in advance.
See these excerpts from recent discussions about this document and the related ideas. It provides a concise of overview of some of the key issues.
by Glistening Deepwater.
The subject matter covered in this body of work is at once subtle and dense, it makes fascinating yet at times challenging reading. It discusses ways of potentially coming to an understanding of the nature of the mind, the way we relate to each other and the world, and the fundamental underlying nature of reality. Many comparative metaphors, drawn from disparate traditions, are brought together and clarified.
This work provides clear insight into newly developed tools that can be employed in order to holistically 'get a handle' on the seemingly divergent scientific and mystical paradigms. It can help one reach a point within ones self where these views come into focus in a unified and coherent manner. It offers an opportunity for the seeker of clear and verifiable Truth to develop the capacity to clearly apprehend that truth in their own way, whatever their background knowledge may be.
Backed up by both rigorous and inspired scientific research and a wealth of references and resource material, it gives a coherent overview of and method of transcending our current limitations in understanding how it is we come to be what and where we are at this stage of evolution, not just as a race but as a phenomena existent in the context of the universal whole. It proposes a way forward toward a Holistic Science, one in which all genuine avenues of approach to the truth are treated equally and with their due respect.
Whilst this work is extensive in its endeavour to elucidate ways of thinking about 'reality', it is concise and presents us with valuable tools and insights with which we can nourish our own understanding. It makes no apologies for being direct and it cuts to the core of some of the deepest fundamental issues facing the world today; the 'way' in which we come to our understandings.
Approaching this work with an open mind and a willingness to leave any preconceived ideas and judgements to one side, one can potentially gain a deeper insight into the true nature of reality and our relationship with it.
This is a sincere attempt to convey an important overview of the metaphysical situation that currently faces us as human beings on this planet. I hope it helps to clarify many minds, as has been my experience in working with it.
Namaste.
Due to the conceptual language and subject matter of this discussion it may not be accessible or meaningful to many people, but to others it can potentially be of profound and far-reaching benefit; it represents a major paradigm shift. To motivate you and help you decide if you wish to read on some hints of what is coming will be given in the introduction, but beware of interpreting particular words or phrases using old-paradigm associations. It can be difficult not to but be aware that this may create many preconceived ideas, and could potentially stir up irrational responses. This discussion describes a 'paradigm shift'; a change in the way we interpret things and thereby derive their meaning and significance. So there is much that needs to be clarified before any words or their interpretations can be taken on face value. Many things can be seen in a new light and the meanings and relations between things can change both subtly and radically.
To use a potentially useful early 21st century metaphor...
This paradigm shift is the red pill that can potentially lift you out of the matrix of worldly illusions, take it and you will see "how deep the rabbit hole goes". Or simply turn away; “take the blue pill and the story ends... you believe whatever you want to believe.” (The Matrix) [Further Reading]. The decision is: “Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) [but for how long?] or do you lead... 'the examined life'... The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe we know. We are comfortable, we do not need truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting to work every day, or brushing your teeth. The red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that it can help us to find the truth. We don't know what that truth is, or even that the pill will help us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt and questioning.” (In the Matrix, which pill would you take, the red or the blue?) [FR].
This discussion is not geared to take part in a combative discourse whereby it tries to use intricate proof to pin down resistant minds. Such methods are too crude and egoic to be effective in navigating a profoundly transformative paradigm shift that takes one way beyond the realm of ego driven illusions. You must employ effort to understand things rather than just search for things to object to; the ideas are too subtle to be understood without sincere effort. The work does not attempt to use ‘proof’ as a weapon, instead it seeks to inspire people to question things themselves, to look at their world and our accumulated knowledge in a fresh way and see if it makes sense. Although it doesn't use proof as a weapon it encourages people to try and disprove what it says so long as they understand what it is they are trying to object to; because by doing so they will put the ideas to the test from many different angles and also come to understand things in more detail, perhaps ultimately verifying it for themselves; however it does not not seek to impose ideas on minds that are not yet ready. It doesn't want people to believe but to find out for themselves and to develop their own understanding. It simply seeks to share certain ideas with people who are ready. You judge for yourself your level of readiness based on your responses to the ideas.
The document provides a large list of links to further reading on related subjects (usually indicated by [FR]) but they don't seek to prove anything or back anything up. They are purely there to provide a starting point for people who are interested in exploring further; see the index for this list. There is also a glossary of important terms where the meaning significantly differs from the popular meaning. The re-defined words are often hyperlinked to their redefinitions. These are not given as strict definitions; that is too crude for this discussion, they are just given as hints to help you avoid obvious misunderstandings. If you take them as simplistic ‘definitions’ this could crystallise your understanding and make it too rigid to be able to discern the subtler and deeper meanings. For some people a quick look through the glossary will inform them of the depth and the nature of the paradigm shift and they may learn a great deal from this alone; see here for the glossary.
This discussion is
written for sceptical, rational, open-minded people who are willing
to employ intelligent, imaginative effort to follow the development
of ideas and who are therefore capable of making
a paradigm shift.
This work is not a "walk in the park"; it is more of
a serious trek deep into remote territory. To totally understand
these ideas requires overcoming commonsense
realism (also called naive realism), which
is the root of all delusion. It is an
intrinsic tendency that causes us to unquestioningly believe in the
idea of "out there". It is the
seed illusion from which all later delusions
grow, thereby causing us to lose touch with and come into conflict
with reality.
When we look at something we believe
we are seeing some
'thing' "out there" but
what is actually happening is that information
flows through the senses, it is subconsciously
filtered and interpreted to form a cognitive impression that is
presented to the conscious mind. The
conscious mind succumbs to commonsense realism and believes that the
cognitive impression is actually "the world".
So "with our thoughts we make the world"
(Buddha) and the ego is the perceived centre of
that world around which we structure all of our illusions.
In the information theoretic and mystic paradigms, the ego, its countless ideas and beliefs such as in "the world" have no existence beyond our cognitive impressions, but we unquestioningly believe in their absolute reality and thereby operate in a self created fantasy world, which is just the shadow of reality that is cast upon our minds. There is certainly 'something' real, but we must overcome our reflexive beliefs to truly perceive and understand that 'something'. To confuse our subjective objects of perception for being objective objects "out there" is commonsense realism and it is inherently anti-skeptical, non-scientific and irrational because it is an unfounded belief that we impose upon reality without any rational basis. We do so solely because it is evolutionarily conditioned into the mind to provide for basic animal survival. However we are no longer just individual animals, we have become a part of a civilisation that spans the globe and our delusions spread and evolve throughout the culture and come to oppress us and the whole planet.
Ideas such as the world, objects,
people, places and events are useful metaphors
for referring to cognitive impressions so long as one doesn't naively
believe that they are "out there".
Because beyond the mind made world
there is no such thing as "out there". The only reality is
the flow of pure awareness or the
existential information process, which
quantum physicists are only just beginning to comprehend and mystics,
visionaries and saints have known in various ways. In its real nature
it manifests as consciousness and it
can only be truly known 'within'. All that
we think is "out there" is
actually 'within' but in truth there is no
inner and outer ,there is only existence,
but the mind creates an arbitrary division into
inner and outer
as an evolutionary strategy. This arbitrary division underlies all
dualistic concepts, especially mind and matter
or self and other.
What follows is
ultimately just elementary psychology and information systems theory
but the implications are profound! Unless one overcomes commonsense
realism one cannot begin to comprehend the deeper information
theoretic reality. Through a commonsense lens it
would only seems absurd or totally unrealistic because one's
entire concept of what is 'real' is based on confusing the objects of
sense perception with the idea of ontological, separately
existing material objects.
However commonsense realism is not trivial to overcome. The most
common method is to practice the process of letting the impressions
arise whilst not believing in their separate
reality; this is meditation. Or with the method
of jnana yoga (pronounced gyan), one can subtly enquire into
the nature of the self until one 'sees' through one's imagined self
and realises the divinity within all.
To totally understand this work one needs to see through commonsense realism, but to effectively question it and overcome it one must be unfailingly skeptical and honest with oneself. Any hint of cynicism or blind acceptance is the imposition of arbitrary beliefs that warp the mind and make it virtually impossible to successfully enquire into the deep seated cognitive habit of commonsense realism. Many people confuse the concepts sceptic and cynic so they are clarified here.
"Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse 'skeptic' with 'cynic' and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)
Hence 'skepticism' implies an open-minded approach whilst the manner in which the word is often used implies a closed-minded approach. This is a confusion of skepticism and cynicism. Many people dignify their cynicism by saying that they are skeptical but it would be more accurate to say that they are cynical.
"Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others."
(The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 11 Jun. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
A cynic approaches an enquiry such as this, irrationally convinced that it is wrong and that they already know the answer. They interpret everything in the context of that agenda, subconsciously desiring to attack and destroy the idea. If they argue their position coherently it can be useful to have a cynic around for "destructive testing" of ideas, but generally they confuse the issue in their mind and are resistant to any clarification, seeking only to prevent their unquestioned beliefs from being questioned. Hence a cynic is fundamentally unable to undergo or comprehend a paradigm shift.
But if you approach this discussion sceptically there is a great deal that can be learnt. It contains some mind-blowing ideas (literally). As they flow through my mind and out my fingers they are blowing my old paradigm into tiny pieces - dissolving everything and re-casting it into a new paradigm or vision of reality. So beware if you are attached to your familiar world-view - you will find this discussion threatening. Read this only if you are willing to question fundamental beliefs and assumptions, and you seek a deep rational knowledge of your self, of the world, of the nature of the phenomena and events in the world and how to holistically, harmonious and effectively participate in reality.
"If we truely desire to understand the world, then we are forced to fight constantly for clear vision. We must fight constantly against our expectation bias, against our human tendency to see only what we want to see. Researchers who assume it's easy to avoid self-delusions and wishful thinking... are probably the victims of self-delusions and wishful thinking. It takes quite a bit of effort to avoid these pitfalls. The effort starts with a painfully honest self-examination, wherein we discover just how large our personal capacity for self-delusion can be." (http://amasci.com/weird/wskept.html) [FR]
This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Subjects about which many people have hard and fast beliefs and prejudices that they never dare look into and question. It can be surprisingly easy for ones mind to just slide off the subject and avoid ever contemplating it directly. Some people experience strong aversions toward such subjects and yet show neither understanding nor any coherent argument against them. These ideas challenge certain core beliefs that many people have not seriously questioned so they are unable to defend them by rational means so their tendency is to retreat into denial. Be wary of these impulses in yourself and be mindful of your responses. Peer review is a vital aspect of any scientific enquiry, for ideas to be put to the test and found to be reliable or unreliable, but for this to occur people must approach the ideas with a sceptical attitude.
The work says many profound things and is just one voice amongst many, if these things were true the ramifications would have far reaching benefits for everyone and could help us comprehend and avert major systemic crises. Given the vast potential benefit it seems that these ideas should be made available to be independently and rationally assessed to either refute them or to help subject them to closer examination. What is described is detailed extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims however one must clear away many illusions, such as commonsense realism and unquestioned beliefs that cause the mind to slide off the topic before one can comprehend things from a clearer perspective. Then the claims can be properly tested. As you read through the discussion you will hopefully be able to identify the assumptions and illusions, overcome the preconceived ideas and be able to contemplate the topic from a new perspective that will make it much clearer.
There are many profoundly interesting and shocking ideas ahead however it is necessary to clarify many things before certain ideas can be introduced. Even then many will have great difficulty because this is a profound paradigm shift and old cognitive habits can be difficult to even recognise let alone overcome. For some it is relatively effortless but for others there are many subtle stages of deepening clarity before real understanding arises.
The subject itself is the essence of simplicity but because of the complexity of our ideas the work must provide a very complex analysis to make it connect with our world of ideas. Also due to countless trivial misunderstandings and objections raised over the years many stumbling points have been clarified and made explicit, but this has caused the discourse to become rather complex and detailed. Perhaps in the future simpler versions can be produced but until then, apologies for the mass of details but this has been necessary.
The discussion may start off a bit too technical for some and it may get a bit too metaphysical or abstract for others. It is primarily meant for people who are enthralled by the world of ideas (intellectuals) and who are open to exploring its foundations and seeing 'beneath' the world of ideas. It is particularly aimed at open minded, rational, and skeptical, scientists, philosophers, intellectuals and theologians as well as open minded, rational, skeptical and enquiring people of all kinds. It covers vast territory so much of it may be unfamiliar or may seem familiar on the surface but be totally different to what you would expect. This discussion describes a paradigm shift, so if you find parts that sound like utter gibberish or nonsense then this is because your current paradigm is incompatible or even hostile toward the paradigm discussed here. There is no question of being right or wrong, it is just a matter of understanding each other.
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as fraud." (Carl Jung [FR])
If understanding becomes difficult then just skim those parts you can’t understand and come back to them later. The important thing is to absorb those parts that you can understand and to be careful of judging things based on misunderstandings due to different associations with words and concepts. In a paradigm shift many meanings subtly and radically change and one must assess concepts based, not on preconceived ideas and beliefs but on their relations with other concepts in the current discourse; it is a matter of learning a new conceptual language. By looking at the glossary you can get an idea of the depth of the paradigm shift. You need to step across to the other side to properly see the view from there; it may surprise you. Only then and not before are you in a position to assess the paradigm rationally, sceptically and scientifically. If you don’t cross the river you can’t know about what is on the other side.
"The reception of a new paradigm often necessitates a redefinition of the corresponding science. Some old problems may be relegated to another science or declared entirely "unscientific". Others that were previously non-existent or trivial may, with a new paradigm, become the very archetypes of significant scientific achievement."(Thomas Kuhn)
It is the nature of a paradigm shift that it can shake things up and stir things into motion in your mind; it can even slaughter your sacred cows and cherished illusions. This can be disturbing at times, but this is cognitive growing pains; if you revere truth and reality then these pains are a part of the process. As you proceed things will quickly settle and reform into a deeper and more holistic understanding. Each time you experience something it is largely a function of your current paradigm, which is the lens that you look through. So during a paradigm shift it is important to use a cyclic approach. For example, after having read this document your understanding of this paradigm will be much deeper and clearer than it was originally. Then spend some time looking through this new cognitive lens at your world and reassess things anew. Then return to this document (or other transcendent writings) and you will see it in a new light and understand it on a much deeper level.
For those who are not technically minded you can skim or skip the technical discussions and read the rest; it is all very simple and intuitive really - it's more about awareness than about intellect. As the discussion progresses its format becomes less technical and once people are able to understand the metaphorical language that is employed it covers all kinds of topics, shedding new light on them. There are parts of this discussion that develop a rational argument that must be followed through to be understood but most of the discourse is just many different ways of saying the same thing. Towards the end of the discussion there are countless paragraphs that can sum up the entire message contained herein but only if one has successfully shifted one's paradigm enough to be able to understand them. For those already open to the paradigm presented here they could just skip to the latter sections and see the entire message presented in many different ways, each highlighting a particular subtlety but otherwise saying essentially the same thing. But for those unfamiliar with the paradigm it may require many years of subtle enquiry, growing awareness, personal growth and changing life circumstances before things become comprehensible.
Through questioning and deconstructing fundamental assumptions and confusions then exploring the ramifications of this the work seeks to motivate people to clarify and overcome these distortions in themselves and the wider culture so that we can all better comprehend and participate in reality. It does not propose any new ideology, grand theory or belief system, just a 'device' that can assist in clarifying understanding. After that, awareness and reality do the rest.
“Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart ... Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens.” (Carl Jung [FR])
Here we introduce one of the major threads that weaves through this discussion, first lets clarify the concept of skepticism a little more. Skepticism has a specifically philosophical meaning:
"skepticism [Gr.,= to reflect], philosophic position holding that the possibility of knowledge is limited either because of the limitations of the mind or because of the inaccessibility of its object. It is more loosely used to denote any questioning attitude. Extreme skepticism holds that no knowledge is possible, but this is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself. The first important skeptical view was held by Democritus, who saw sense perception as no certain guide to objective reality. The Sophists were the earliest group of skeptics. Protagoras taught the relativity of knowledge, and Gorgias held that either nothing could be known, or if anything were known, it could not be communicated. Pyrrho, regarded as the father of skepticism, later held a similarly extreme position, seeing reality as inaccessible. Arcesilaus taught that certitude is impossible and only probable knowledge is attainable. In the Renaissance, skepticism is seen in the writings of Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Charron, and Blaise Pascal. For René Descartes skepticism was a methodology that allowed him to arrive at certain incontrovertible truths. At the end of the 17th cent., Pierre Bayle skeptically challenged philosophical and theological theories. David Hume, a leading modern skeptic, challenged established assumptions about the self, substance, and causality. The skeptical aspect of Immanuel Kant's philosophy is exemplified by his agnosticism; his antinomies of reason demonstrate that certain problems are insoluble by reason. To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism [REF] of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause."
(The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia University Press., 2003. Answers.com 11 Jun. 2006. http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
This positivism is a core belief that goes unquestioned throughout empirical science and it is the philosophical foundation of empiricism [FR] and empirical science [FR]. It is this sacred cow of science that is questioned here. The following argument and this entire discussion rest upon the idea that reality has a processual [FR], information / system theoretic [FR] nature; that there are no fundamental bits of matter that a priori (miraculously) exist in space and time and interact to construct a physical universe. This outmoded idea is already proven false but it is so deeply ingrained that it lingers on in the philosophical foundations of our thinking. Whether one thinks of information, computation, pure awareness or abstract non-physical ‘physicality’ such as quantum wavefunctions or strings or a unified quantum vacuum, these are all information processes.
"Because it is now a scientifically established fact that less than 4% of the universe is composed of matter as commonly understood modern philosophical materialists attempt to extend the definition of matter to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However this opens them to further criticism from philosophers such as Mary Midgley who suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)
Many of the concepts in modern physics are not ‘physical’ in the traditional sense of the word; whilst a wavefunction gives rise to the appearance of physical attributes such as mass or velocity the wavefunction itself has no mass or velocity or any observable attributes; it has no empirical appearance because it is ‘made of’ probability. A super-string gives rise to physical phenomena but it itself is not ‘physical’ because it is an abstract information medium that represents information using vibrational states. A unified quantum vacuum gives rise to physical phenomena but it itself is not ‘physical’ because, by definition, the vacuum itself is devoid of all physical substance; it is the invisible ‘stuff’ out of which every ‘thing’ comes and within which all events occur, and that is exactly how a computational process would appear from within a virtual reality [FR]. In this manner physicists have already left 'materialism' and 'physical' reality behind but have yet to explicitly recognise this fact.
"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that their individuality was based on the identity of matter in them...The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something, that it must be a material substratum that is required to take on a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles constituting matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an individual speck of material..." (Erwin Schroedinger [REF])
So if it is the case that the physical universe arises from underlying non-physical processes, then that deeper reality that underlies the existence of all things and underlies the process of perception and experience is not accessible to empirical science by its very definition. “Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge” (Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [FR]) whilst the existential process “underlies the existence of all things and underlies the process of perception and experience”.
Naive realism [FR] claims that the objects of perception are ontologically real external objects that the mind can directly grasp. Whereas phenomenalism claims that the objects of perception are just that, they are perceptual constructs that form in the mind due to the incidence of sensory information and the interpretation of this by the mind. "Edmund Husserl (1970), saw the phenomenologist in Hume when he showed that some perceptions are interrelated or associated to form other perceptions which are then projected onto a world putatively outside the mind." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)
"Naive realism [FR] is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until they start reflecting philosophically, are naive realists. This theory is also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism". Naive realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour. [It is assumed that] These properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly, and so perceive them as they really are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism)
"Noumena (the ontological [FR] reality that underlies our sensory and mental impressions of an external world) do not cause phenomena [FR], but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena... we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind... We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world corresponds with a reality by reasoning... [however] we can participate in the underlying reality that lies beyond mere phenomena." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer)
Empiricism does not question the nature of perception but takes it for granted and it uses the objects of perception (which are mistaken to be objectively real objects) to construct the idea of a physical objective world that is made of objects, which are actually objects of perception - in this manner it is inherently naive realist. From this flawed conceptual foundation it builds all of its later hypotheses. It proposes that the hypothetical physical universe underlies the process of perception, hence one of the major paradoxes in empiricism is “how can the process of perception, awareness and consciousness arise from the interactions of inert physical objects (which are really just objects of perception)? This is a fundamental paradox that arises because of assumptions about the nature of perception and the confusion between “objects of perception” and the idea of “ontologically real physical objects”.
What is proposed is a rationalist approach: “Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.” (Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [FR]) In this way we can overcome the lingering attachments to ideas derived from arbitrary human sense experience. Rationalism or scientific realism is anti-empiricist. It essentially claims that the fundamental properties of things are more real than their appearances in the mind. So frequency is more real than colour or sound and wavefunctions are more real than particles or waves. So the informatic / systemic entities are more real than their appearances in our minds. That which we experience in our minds is just a cognitive reflection of the deeper reality. This should be quite obvious but because it challenges certain core beliefs people’s minds have great difficulty in thinking clearly about this.
Here is a metaphor to explain what is meant when stating that the existential process itself exists prior to perception and experience. Consider a virtual reality world generated by a computational process (the simulator). The computational process underlies the existence of all objects within the virtual universe and it implements all interactions between these objects. Whenever a virtual system perceives another system it is the computational process that underlies the flow of information that implements both that which is perceived and the process of perception. In this respect the VR universe is composed of information systems of some kind that appear as physical objects (with attributes) in spacetime. These systems perceive things from an empirical perspective ‘within’ the virtual world. But underlying these appearances of objects in space, the actual reality is computational in nature. So you may play a computer game and know the game space very well and understand the many objects and phenomena that appear within the game, but you cannot comprehend the underlying computational process in terms of these objects and phenomena because they only arise as appearances within the virtual world and they have no meaning within the context of the computational space and the complex computational processes that create and implement every aspect of the game world. This is just an elaborate metaphor to explain what is meant by saying that existence underlies the process of perception therefore a perceptually based theory cannot comprehend questions of existence but only appearances within the mind. The objects and the perceiver don’t miraculously arise from separate roots; they are intrinsic parts of a computational process.
Rather than consider a world of separate objects we must eventually return to considering a universe that is One and Whole, that is unified and coherent rather than fragmented and random.
"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes." (David Bohm [REF])
Because of the fundamental limitations of empiricism [FR] most of empirical science [FR], western philosophy, common sense and general knowledge is fundamentally limited. That’s not to say that the vast accumulation of empirical data and hypotheses are not useful. Within the context in which it arose much of our knowledge is highly accurate and some of it is deep and subtle. But what it means is that outside of the empirical context it has no meaning because the entire empirical context is a perceptual construct – by its very definition. Therefore knowledge derived from a perceptual, empirical perspective can be useful in the empirical context but it has no meaning outside of that. Hence empirical science can never address issues of ontology (what is) [FR] but only phenomenology (that which appears to be) [FR]. Ontology is the “science or study of being: specifically, a branch of metaphysics relating to the nature and relations of being; a particular system according to which problems of the nature of being are investigated” (Definitions of Ontology by Leading Philosophers, [FR]) whilst “Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.” (Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [FR]).
Because existence underlies perception, and empirical science depends solely upon perceptual phenomena, traditional empirical science is fundamentally unable to address issues of existence but only appearance, however the cutting edge of science is stretching the concept of empiricism by going beyond concepts that derive from our sense experiences, going beyond solidity, localisation and so on. In this way science is overcoming empiricism and is approaching a more rationalist and realist perspective (holistic realism rather than common-sense or naive realism) [FR].
Traditional empirical science addresses “the epistemological question [what can be known and what is unknowable] by drawing a sharp distinction between truth and empirical adequacy. [Empirical science claims] that a good theory need only provide an empirically adequate description of observable phenomena. Any unobservables, such as electrons and quarks, are simply empirical tools for describing the observable world... [hence] our epistemic knowledge is limited to the observables.”
However “Scientific realism claims that we can know about objects beyond what we observe with our bare senses, and this knowledge is what allows us to predict phenomena… The realist interpretation [of quantum mechanics] shows that we can make knowledge claims about objects, such as electrons, that are unobservable with our bare senses. This challenges the empiricist claim that quantum objects are simply empirical tools to describe observables. Thus, contrary to what we might at first think, the wave-particle duality of quantum objects provides support for the realists. We now know that quantum objects behave differently from everyday objects, and we can make an experimentally supported epistemological claim about the quantum world, a very realist claim.” (A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics (PDF) [FR])
"we have to give up the idea of [naive] 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. For everyday objects, such [naive] realism isn't a problem. But for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look.” (Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantum mechanics just got even stranger. [FR])
Any attempt by traditional empiricist theories to make ontological claims is like a computer game player saying that the computational process actually consists of objects in space and time, whereas the computational process is really an information process wherein there are no empirical phenomena at all. Therefore when empirical science projects its empiricist ideas beyond the empirical context (which is a construct of perceptions and appearances) then it is attempting to operate in a context in which it has no meaning and is therefore illogical. This is the situation with Scientism.
"Sociologists coined the term "scientism" back in the 1940s, when they realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories as simple, unquestioned Truths, just like believers in any "ism," and thus we often acted like any prejudiced "believer," especially outside our immediate areas of expertise." (The Archives of Scientists Transcendent Experiences (TASTE) [FR])
To a large extent physics has moved in the right direction by letting go of its billiard balls and plum pudding models of matter and it has gone into relativistic spacetime, quantum wavefunctions and fields, strings, processes and information. By hanging onto empirical ideas that are inherently derived from sensory experience within the virtual reality we are trapped within an empirical understanding of things. But by letting go and going deeper into the abstract information processes we can comprehend the underlying process of existence and thereby comprehend our experiences on a much deeper level. Rather than just take our experiences for granted and enshrine them as core beliefs in an empiricist approach, we can rationally question those beliefs and subtly penetrate to a much deeper understanding.
That is what is proposed here. I describe a general information systems theory [IST] based upon matrix algebra and discrete mathematics that is used to explore the underlying existential process and thereby comprehend the empirical (experiential) world from a deeper perspective [FR]. This document is not a technical discussion; it is more descriptive. For details refer to the website (www.anandavala.info) or follow these links [overview], [metaphysical approach], [VR metaphysics], [IST], [SMN], [sys theory], [unification], where there are mathematical and software models illustrating how one can use matrix algebra and discrete mathematics to create existential processes that generate virtual empirical worlds where systems interact and experience being in a world of systems in interaction. This mathematical methodology is called system matrix notation [SMN]. There are also metaphysical and general essays and long lists of assorted comments and even poetry and images; all trying to make the ideas accessible to people.
In the SMN approach all the principles of system theory naturally arise within the virtual realities. The models can implement quantum, pseudo classical and relativistic phenomena. The quantum and relativistic effects arise due to the constraints of discreteness. There is an inherent arrow of time, which is of a processual nature [FR] so there is no ontological “dimension of time”, there is only an ongoing process-of-the-real that exists in the present moment. This means that any equation or theory relying upon a time variable ‘t’ is an empirical description of observed appearances and events from within the VR simulation when it is running. This is also the case for any spatial coordinate (x,y or z), because SMN has only process time and state space; it is from these that empirical time and empirical space arise within the simulation. Whilst all the virtual systems have an inherent present moment existence, to empirical science [FR] this is an inexplicable anomaly; this is because empiricism relies on the flow of countless present moments of existence as its conceptual ‘ground’. It takes experience as an a priori (miraculous) starting point and thus can only comprehend the virtual experience of existence and not the actual mechanism of existence. Furthermore, all virtual systems have input, internal state and output, these are primitive precursors to perception, experience and response. Complex systems can have very complex structures, behaviours and appearances as well as highly complex ‘cognitive’ processes with countless internal feedback loops and internal processes.
This indicates that our consciousness may be a highly complex manifestation of a universal principle. What we call ‘consciousness’ is a high level experience of the existential process itself as it looks through our perspective and experiences the “virtual world.” So it could be said that all things are made of consciousness and the ‘objects’ are appearances; they are the content of consciousness. This resolves the mind/matter paradox that arises within empirical science. Consciousness is an inexplicable anomaly in empirical science for the same reasons that empirical science cannot comprehend present moment existence. Because empiricism takes the process of experience as an unquestioned ‘given’ and it builds all of its ideas upon that assumption, it is therefore unable to use its later ideas to coherently comprehend consciousness. One cannot comprehend the mechanism of consciousness by using concepts solely derived from the contents of consciousness.
There are many other profound and striking parallels between everyday experience, scientific knowledge and the perennial philosophy [FR], which I discuss later once certain fundamental confusions are cleared up. The current limitations of SMN [FR] are here clarified; it is currently strictly confined to working with ontological processes and the general properties of the virtual reality and not on the contingent processes that give rise to any particular virtual universe. To explain, SMN provides a new context of enquiry, a new mathematical / computational approach with new system simulation techniques. It provides a general model of the structure and dynamics of the existential process; it models the metaphorical cosmic ‘simulator’. SMN gives us a general model of the simulator and its fundamental constraints but any kind of system model or VR universe can be run on this simulator. There is still a great deal to be learnt about how to create a ‘seed’ model that evolves into a universe very much like our own. The nature of the simulator imposes fundamental constraints on the nature of the VR universe; it must be finite, discrete, quantised, relativistic, systemic and so on, but within these constraints any type of system model or VR universe can be created and simulated. So the question remains, which particular types of models evolve into universes much like our own?
Using SMN as the mathematical foundation this work contemplates the information system theoretic principles that naturally arise in the virtual worlds. It seeks an understanding of how they connect with our own personal experience of existence and with our accumulated knowledge. From this arises, what in the context of this work is called “information system theory” (IST) [FR], which is a general theory of systems [FR] and their interactions. It is not presented as a formal theory but rather as a way of thinking that subtly uses the flow of the mathematics [FR] to comprehend the flow of information that is the existential process that underlies our empirical experiences. In this way one is not fixated wholly on the objects of perception, assuming that they are the reality, because within one’s mind’s eye one also sees the connectivity and the flow and one understands the complex empirical appearances and their behaviours on a much deeper level. It subtly informs one’s understanding of the holistic situation. It is analogous to playing a computer game when you are the one that programmed the game; you have a far deeper understanding of the information flows underlying the objects, places and events in the game, whereas an unfamiliar player could only respond to sense impressions and would not perceive the underlying dynamics.
Whilst empirical scientific enquiry has done much to clear up many of our surface confusions, the empirical scientific method is itself distorted by some of our deepest, most profound and far-reaching assumptions and beliefs. It is most definitely NOT a truly skeptical approach. It must let go of its sacred beliefs before it can be truly skeptical. These beliefs are buried deep within the philosophical foundations of empiricism, thereby distorting the whole of empirical science. It is a matter of great importance that we recognise these distortions, comprehend their effect on us and work to correct them. We need to understand the mind first before reliably contemplating the contents of the mind otherwise we are open to illusion, delusion (persistent illusion), fanaticism, oppression and holistically destructive behaviour.
The mind is the foundation of our knowledge; it responds to the stimuli of existence and generates cognitive experiences and ideas. It is the fundamental link between reality and our knowledge of reality. It is the 'instrument' by which we experience and know anything at all and all good seekers of knowledge should understand and master their most fundamental instrument. In order to see clearly through the lens of the mind one must understand the nature of mind and its complex non-linear property whereby the view influences the lens, which influences the view, which influences the lens and so on. In this way we come to look through our own ideas. Because of this one must master one's own mind before one can derive reliable knowledge through it. Otherwise everything is coloured and distorted by preconceived subconscious ideas and attitudes that reinforce each other and evolve into complex, subtle and compelling illusions. If an illusion is enduring and pervasive it is difficult to identify as an illusion, hence within what we normal consider to be “just the way things are” there dwell many unquestioned illusions.
We will see in this discussion that the concepts of ‘reality’ and ‘illusion’ are not at all clear-cut. That which many call ‘real’ is actually illusion in the strictest sense, and will generally be described as such, but it is illusion in the same way as a virtual reality is an illusion; for characters that dwell in that virtual reality it is ‘real’ because it is all illusion and all as real as they are. Hence the illusions discussed can be thought of as processes that manifest a virtual reality [FR]. This has also been described as relative reality, as opposed to absolute reality. But in general this work will simply refer to absolute reality as reality or objective reality and to relative reality as illusion or virtual reality or pseudo objective reality (that which we believe to be the objective reality but it is actually a construct of shared subjective experiences).
A major feature of this discussion is an analysis of the information flow from reality, through perception, interpretation, experience, ideas, expression, communication, cultural consensus and finally arriving at collective knowledge; and then the many feedback loops through which our awareness and understanding is conditioned. Using this understanding it deconstructs many common illusions and assumptions. This creates profound and far-reaching cracks in one's belief system. It shows how loosely our collective knowledge is related to reality and how the mind has an incredible ability to construct experiential worlds based upon our preconceived subconscious ideas. It is a literal fact that, as Buddha said, "with our thoughts we make the world" [FR]. Not the objective reality of course, but our own personal experiential world. For most people, that is the only world they have ever known.
For example, consider some object in front of you; you cannot ever see or experience the object "as it is". All you ever experience is your subconscious interpretation of the signals that stimulate your senses; these produce a response in your mind and that is what you actually experience. A simple example is a person who is hypnotised then handed an onion and given the subconscious suggestion that it is an apple - they will eat it gladly and experience it as an apple. You can never experience or know anything directly. Whilst our own responses do depend on the incident signals coming from reality, the actual form that they take in the conscious mind, which is what we experience, depends primarily on our particular way of interpreting and representing the signals to ourselves. So people with different subconscious cognitive filters actually experience different worlds.
That's just one of the many confusions that are clarified in this discussion. They are systemic perceptual illusions, i.e. illusions that arise because we are systems within a universe of systems and we only interact via the communication of information. We are not material objects in space that miraculously exist with innate solidity and behaviour, and we don't have a perfect "God's eye view" of reality or even an objective view, as people tend to assume. We experience many perceptual illusions that we accept as reality; these lead to experiences such as objects in space, around which we have woven ideas and allege the existence of a world "out there". But all we ever know is our own personal subjective experience that is totally constructed by our own minds.
Many people have primarily been looking through the mind naively assuming it to be a perfect objective window on reality and that we all experience the same objective world. Many people intellectually know better but still carry this subconscious assumption, which permeates their entire experience and knowledge of the world. Many people look through the mind without understanding the nature of the mind and thereby confuse the contents of mind with objective reality. This is a profound and far reaching error that opens us up to unending illusion, confusion, delusion (persistent illusion), agitation and suffering. We become prone to take our illusions as reality, to base all our knowledge and actions upon them and to thereby experience and operate within what is essentially a fantasy world that is loosely based upon an underlying reality.
These illusions are all pervasive in our experience; they initially arise from fundamental principles of information, systems and perception, but through biology and culture they have become reinforced and woven into what is generally considered to be the bedrock of incontrovertible self-evident facts of experience, that we never question because they are never recognised as a position or a theory that could be questioned, they are just assumed to be the way things actually are. On top of this we have built civilisation, a vast and intricate structure of knowledge, belief, tradition, roles, dependencies and the status quo of the world. From this vantage point we uncritically contemplate the world that presents itself to the conscious mind, assuming that we have a clear, undistorted and objective perspective on reality.
Because of this fundamental error most of empirical science, western philosophy, common sense and general knowledge rests upon a false foundation and does not represent reliable knowledge about reality. It is only reliable knowledge about the appearance, structure and behaviour of our particular systemic, biological, historical and contemporary cognitive illusions. These illusions are ultimately based upon an underlying reality but the lens is often so distorted that the illusion exhibits only superficial resemblance and relevance to reality, thus leaving most of reality incomprehensible and most of our actions inappropriate in the wider context. We may act rationally within a narrow context but this can be highly destructive and irrational within the wider context. The vast majority of information is filtered out by the subconscious and the remainder is heavily interpreted and distorted by deep-seated assumptions and misunderstandings.
In many respects science is becoming skeptical on its cutting edge with quantum physics [FR], string theory [FR], process physics [FR], process philosophy [FR], information physics [FR], system theory [FR], computational metaphysics [FR], cybernetics [FR], and so on. But on the whole there still remains an irrational and unquestioned attachment to an arbitrary but naively compelling belief that dwells within concepts such as empiricism [FR], positivism [FR], empirical science [FR], materialism, commonsense/naive realism [FR] and Scientism. Note the capital ‘S’ for Scientism, this is because it is a religion and these are usually capitalised. Scientism is a product of the gradual cultural distortion of science, just as popular religion is a product of the gradual cultural distortion of mysticism; it is when direct and subtle knowledge is taken out of context and it devolves into confusion and results in unfounded belief or dis-belief, which are both just assumptions.
""materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." (Schopenhauer)... an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)
By uncritically accepting the contents of mind as objective reality we are prone to illusion. These illusions distort the lens of our mind thus distorting our experiences and if these too are uncritically accepted as objective reality the illusion is further reinforced. These illusions bring us into conflict with ourselves, with each other and with the holistic context, our total environment. To see clearly, understand coherently and participate effectively we need to understand the mind and make direct clear contact with reality. Just as illusions reinforce, so too does sincere and open-minded questioning of things lead to greater and greater clarity and awareness. Then we are in a position to clarify the many fundamental errors in our conscious and subconscious understanding; to straighten the lens; to see through it and get a fresh perspective. From this perspective we can then follow through the ramifications of those changes, to work from the re-aligned foundation all the way up, through the structure of our knowledge, renovating it and re-aligning it with reality. This is not as difficult as it sounds if one uses one's whole mind effectively.
Only then can we develop reliable personal and collective knowledge about reality. No collective knowledge can be perfect, but it can at least be comprehensive enough and accurate enough to overcome much of the dire confusion, agitation, imbalance, conflict, suffering and destruction that threatens the very survival of life on this planet. If science is to become skeptical and not devolve into Scientism it must openly, rationally and sincerely re-examine its roots and realise that the mind is its foundation and not a naive belief in the objective reality of the contents of the mind.
"The old foundations of scientific
thought are becoming unintelligible. Time,
space, matter, material, ether, electricity, mechanism, organism,
configuration, structure, pattern, function, all require
reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a mechanical
explanation when you do not know what you mean by mechanics? The
truth is that science started its modern
career by taking over ideas derived from the weakest side of the
philosophies of Aristotle's successors. In some respects it was a
happy choice. It enabled the knowledge of the seventeenth century to
be formulated so far as physics and chemistry were concerned, with a
completeness which lasted to the present time. But the progress of
biology and psychology has probably been checked by the uncritical
assumption of half-truths. If science is not
to degenerate into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses, it must become
philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its own
foundations."
(Alfred North Whitehead
http://www.alfred.north.whitehead.com/witwiz/witwiz4.htm
[FR])
This discussion first introduces some basic concepts of information systems theory, then describes the mathematics and its ramifications. Then it analyses the process of perception leading through experience, ideas, communication and resulting in collective knowledge, which then feeds back upon our minds and influences the whole process. This shows that not only is our knowledge limited by empiricism but that accurate awareness and knowledge is highly dependent on a good understanding and mastery of the mind. It is a highly complex and non-linear process by which we experience and know anything at all. In this sense the mind is the true foundation of empiricism, not a fervent belief in objects in spacetime. The mind is the instrument of experience and knowledge, which we must understand and master if we are to experience and know coherently, but the mind cannot be understood within a purely empiricist paradigm because the mind precedes experience and therefore cannot be explained in terms of the objects of experience. We then explore some of the implications of having many minds, integrated through culture and resonating together and some of the systemic phenomena that arise from this. This sheds light on issues of enormous relevance to current global events and crises. The work then explores some of the many parallels between information system theory and the perennial philosophy, it then discusses the role of religion in this context. Then it discusses some things that you can do to improve your own clarity and awareness. It then discusses what can be done to renovate and re-contextualise our empirical knowledge within the wider holistic context and generally re-establish ourselves as seekers of knowledge within the wider context. It then ends with a challenge to all people who seek deeper understanding and a more harmonious life to take a fresh look at themselves and their world and to sincerely tackle the illusions and irrationalities that go unquestioned in our minds and to strip away outmoded ideas that impair our awareness, understanding and judgement.
Essentially, it is proposed that science, which “in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality” is capable of far more than empirical science implies. Here it is proposed that a holistic science is possible, achievable and desirable (indeed vital for our survival). This work describes a path that leads toward a holistic science, which is a profoundly skeptical science (devoid of sacred cows) that comprehends the nature of mind and uses it effectively, rather than a naive science that assumes that the experiences and ideas in the mind are representative of objective reality. It is not just an intellectual science, but also one that requires deep introspection, self-awareness and self-mastery. It is a science that comprehends both the personal and the mystic experiences of existence. The central principle of mysticism [FR] is "know your self". "The effort to understand yourself is Yoga" (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj [FR])
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy, is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof Capra [FR])
“Mysticism … is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality…through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is …an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism)
“Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) [FR]
This discussion does not propose a fragmented and limited science based upon 'mechanical' assumptions but a deep and holistic way of knowing that unifies all the fragmented disciplines of empirical science and all the mystic traditions. An understanding that elucidates the deep nature of ourselves and civilisation, that reconnects religion with its mystic roots and science with it skeptical roots and that opens up a vast new field of technological innovations and solutions to systemic problems that plague our lives and threaten our survival.
"General Systems theory should be an important means of instigating the transfer of principles from one field to another (so that it would) no longer be necessary to duplicate the discovery of the same principles in different fields." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy [REF])
"There is this hope, I cannot promise you whether or when it will be realized - that the mechanistic paradigm, with all its implications in science as well as in society and our own private life, will be replaced by an organismic or systems paradigm that will offer new pathways for our presently schizophrenic and self-destructive civilization." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy [REF])
The ‘device’ that can take us to this holistic science is information system theory (IST), either as discussed here or in some form. The approach discussed here unifies all of the other paradigms within a single elegant and holistic paradigm that derives from pure mathematics and the concepts 'information' and 'system'. There are no introduced assumptions and beliefs; its foundation is clear and simple, yet powerful enough to underlie all of our knowledge of the universe. But information system theory is only a device; it is not the holistic science itself or even the foundation of the holistic science. Clear and open minds are the foundation and IST gives us motivation and guidance in attaining such a thing and also a conceptual language within which to express our deeper holistic understanding.
In particular IST identifies a general process for the clarification of assumptions and illusions, the overcoming of habitual and compulsive thought patterns, reconnecting with ourselves and our minds because we are the foundation of all culture and knowledge, then through ourselves to connect with reality and then a renovation from the ground up of our individual and cultural paradigms. Only then resulting in a holistic, re-aligned cultural domain, with clear and open minds connected to reality and not trapped within compelling and competing illusions. The resulting holistic science can assist us in re-aligning with reality by motivating us and directing us to re-connect with ourselves, to come to know ourselves and through this to know reality.
The factual re-examination of some general principles brings to light some of their implications and reveals the fundamental limitations of the currently dominant paradigm. By looking through the cracks and exploring deeper, we discover profound parallels between cutting edge science, information theoretic metaphysics, existential philosophy and the perennial philosophy or mystic wisdom. They are all talking about essentially the same thing but coming from different angles and using different metaphors. By identifying and distilling the common underlying structure of these metaphors this work elucidates the general structure of a unified paradigm that seamlessly encompasses them all. Each particular paradigm is a particular metaphorical expression of the common underlying paradigm and concepts from one are mirrored in the other. Given such a unified understanding we can translate from one to the other and each can learn a great deal from the others. The resulting understanding is that the assumptions of common sense realism and the unquestioned beliefs that arise from it, such as empiricism and positivism, are fundamentally flawed, limited and limiting. The actual range of possibilities inherent in existence is vastly greater than that which the current paradigm can comprehend.
Ultimately all collective ideas are of the nature of illusion to varying degrees, they are not the actual reality but just ideas about it, so if you are wondering if this discussion and the proposed path to a holistic science is some kind of illusion; you can be assured that it is to some degree. But it can show how it is an illusion and elucidate the exact relationship between ‘illusion’ and ‘reality’. The mathematics and information systems theory are part of the illusion, everyday experience of the world is part of the illusion and also common sense, mystic wisdom, religious dogma and scientific knowledge too; the whole of human civilization is a part of the illusion. Described here is an illusion that unifies all other illusions; that elucidates the nature of illusion and shows that all ideas, theories and beliefs are all ultimately an illusion. The actual reality “is what it is” and we weave ideas around it to comprehend it, but in doing so, due to the nature of mind, we can subtly and radically distort our experience and understanding of it. The deconstruction of the phenomenon of illusion reveals that which isn't an illusion; it is the reality that produces the stimuli that we interpret, experience and form ideas about, it is the reality that the mind can only reflect and never hold or capture and it is ourselves as the bridge between reality and ideas.
For those who dwell in a world of cognitive impressions and ideas the actual reality seems to be something remote and abstract. If IST was not itself an illusion, it could not be recognised or comprehend by such people. But it is an illusion that dispels illusion. So it does not proclaim itself to be any truth, the truth is ultimately beyond words and ideas, and only approachable through direct contact and clear open awareness. We are the weavers of illusion and only by turning back on ourselves and mastering the mind can we disentangle ourselves from our web of illusion and come to know and fully participate in reality.
"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green." (Goethe)
Firstly here is given a brief introduction to information systems theory (IST) [FR] to clarify the context of this analysis. The term "information systems theory" has been used in several related contexts, usually involving computers that process information or organisations that use information in their management processes [FR]. For example a common definition of "an information system, ... is a technologically implemented medium for recording, storing, and disseminating linguistic expressions, as well as for drawing conclusions from such expressions" (Langefors [REF]). Another definition is that "an information system consists of three components: human, task, application system" [REF]. These are very specialised applications of IST that are defined within very particular contexts, however here we discuss general information systems theory [FR] that is applicable to all systems and to all forms of information exchange and processing. Just as 'energy' is far more general than just electricity or fuel used for technological applications (matter itself is energy), so too we will see that the concept of an "information system" is vastly more general than just information exchange within applications of interest to humans.
Some questions to keep in mind are: What is a useful way to think about the fundamental ‘mechanism’ of existence? And what about all these objects, people, places, events that we experience in the world? And the universe itself? What about when something happens, what is the cause? And what exactly is a system?
This discussion uses information system theory because it provides two universal metaphors, 'system' and 'information'. Any manifest form can be meaningfully thought of as a 'system', whether a particle, a person, a meme (idea), a process, a cultural phenomenon, a society, a planet, a galaxy and up to the whole cosmos as a single closed system (the only truly 'closed' system). This is the reason for the usefulness of system theory [FR].
"In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world-view emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. It might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process." (Fritjof Capra [FR])
There are certain general properties of all systems, regardless of their form, their behaviour or the medium within which they exist and interact. A general property of all systems is that they interact via communication of some form [FR]. Not just social interactions between people or documents in a computer; for example, particle interactions when modelled by particle physicists are thought of as communications that are mediated by virtual particles, or mechanical systems communicate by directing force through levers, pulleys, gears etc. Each system has an outer observable form through which it is perceptible to other systems and an inner observational process by which it perceives other systems. Each system is embedded in an inter-connecting network of communication paths and thus has a unique localised perspective. Signals flow between systems and through systems and this is conceived of as 'information'. Information is defined as "discernible difference". It requires some medium that can support different observable states and an observer that can discern these states; it unites both outer and inner in the one substance. When information is perceived it is as signals (outer observable form) but when it flows within a system this flow is experienced as an inner observational process. Furthermore, because of its generality information can manifest in any medium, it can be transformed from one medium to another and can flow through any network of systems. The approach of information theory is to model the flow of information through communication channels [FR].
Because of the generality of the concepts 'system' [FR]
and 'information' [FR]
and 'network' [FR],
the approach of information system theory [FR]
is a form of general system theory GST [FR].
"General systems theory in the narrower sense (G.S.T.), ...
is trying to derive from a general definition of 'system' a complex
of interacting components, concepts characteristic of organized
wholes . . . and to apply them to concrete phenomena."
(Ludwig
von Bertalanffy [REF])
"While each scientific theory selects out and abstracts from the world's complexity a peculiar set of relations, philosophy cannot favor any particular region of human enterprise. Through conceptual experimentation it must construct a consistency that can accommodate all dimensions of experience, whether they belong to physics, physiology, psychology, biology, ethics, etc.." (Alfred North Whitehead [FR])
However IST goes much further than traditional system theory, whilst GST is conceived of as an analytical tool within an empiricist context, which defines what the “concrete phenomena” are, IST relies on no preconceived assumptions and it makes definite scientific realist or rationalist ontological claims that go beyond the scope of empiricist science. IST is what arises when one takes GST (also quantum physics) seriously, not just as a useful tool within a preconceived context but as a genuine and accurate science and metaphysics of the nature of the universe. When one takes systems as the reality and objects as just the appearance of systems within another system’s perceptual process then one overcomes the attachments to sensory beliefs and bases one’s ontology on the systemic structure of reality and not on the subjective perceptual experience of reality.
Each system perceives the incoming information and responds thus producing outgoing information. I.e. discernible difference is incident on a system and produces a discernibly different change in the system's observable state, which is then perceived by other systems as their incident discernible difference. This process occurs only in the present moment thus only the present moment can be said to 'exist'. In this context the past is memory and the future is expectation. In general there is more to it involving concepts such as the quantum multiverse or the permutation space within which all existential configurations exist as potentiality but are not temporally ordered (not formed into sequences of successive moments), hence all past and future states exist as part of a probability distribution within an abstract space of potentiality and our path through that space creates our experience of past, present and future. So only the present moment exists as an actuality but the present moment contains all potentiality. But this is beyond the scope of this discussion, as it requires going deep into the mathematical foundations of IST to elucidate the phenomena. See the website for more details on this.
As systems communicate and interact within the complex network of interaction paths there are feedback loops and resonances. These result in some systems interacting strongly and others weakly; i.e. high and low communication bandwidth. When systems strongly interact and integrate together into a functional whole they are perceived as a higher-level system by other systems and for most intents and purposes they 'create' a higher-level super-system; they become sub-systems within the super-system. This phenomenon is referred to as a meta-system transition (MST) [FR]. In this way systems are "made of" sub-systems and they interact to 'make' super-systems. But all of this is a construct of appearances; when all the details are lost (entropy) then the ensemble of systems seems to be a single whole system. There is no ontological change from ensemble of systems to super-system, there is just degrees of integration leading to the perceptual appearance of a single whole super-system. MST is discussed at length later on.
Due to the MST process and the constantly changing patterns of interactions, complex systems appear and disappear, they integrate and disintegrate, they are born and they die. But all appearances and disappearances are just high-level perceptions of a constant and unbroken information process. The outer form seems to appear, it seems to remain constant for a time and then it seems to disappear. However the observable forms undergoing this process of change and stability are just the outer appearance of an underlying information process; they rise and fall like waves on the ocean. This process is not centred on any particular system; it flows throughout the entire cosmos and intricately integrates all things. The information process is a single unified 'dance' of information. As the information flows we perceive forms that appear, interact and disappear, and the coherence and integration of this activity rests upon the coherence and integration of the underlying information process. This ultimately implies that what happens regarding one system is a function or a 'movement' of the whole cosmos. For example, consider Feynman Paths [FR].
"The probability amplitude for the particle to be at [position] xb is the sum over all paths through spacetime originating at [position] xa at time ta" (http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/compsim/lect8/tsld004.htm)
The important thing to note here is that a simple movement from point a to point b that can be arbitrarily close still involves the "sum over all paths through spacetime"; even paths that snake their way around, looping around the moon, going off to a distant galaxy, coming back to Earth and into your house then going back to wherever it is that we perceive a particle moving a minute distance from a to b. The entire cosmos takes part in every single interaction and the information processing isn't just confined to the trajectory between a and b but rather, the perceived localised event is an aspect of the cosmic information process; it is a ‘gesture’ in the ‘dance’ of information.
“For anything to happen, the entire universe must coincide. It is wrong to believe that anything in particular can cause an event. Every cause is universal. Your very body would not exist without the entire universe contributing to its creation and survival...” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, "I am That", p371 [FR])
It is the dynamic flow of information that binds the sub-systems together into a super-system hence systems are composed of a set of sub-systems and an inter-connective information process. Now let us delve down the complexity hierarchy through the sub-systems then through their sub-systems and so on. Examine a system, step into its inner space and see that it consists of sub-systems plus an information process. Then examine each sub-system in the same way and so on.
At some point we reach a limit, either in our own ability to resolve the details or in the details themselves. Experience shows that manifest forms are finite (not infinitely large); quantum physics shows that they are discrete (not infinitely detailed) [FR] and relativity shows that dynamical quantities such as velocity, mass and energy cannot be infinitely large. It is also a property of well-defined information spaces that they must be finite and discrete [FR], for example, binary data.
At the lowest level there are systems that have no sub-systems and are composed solely of a trivial information process. There is no network of sub-systems for the information process to flow through; there is only the one system's inner space. This trivial information process can hold a state and can be influenced by incoming information. Hence these primitive systems are state variables or primitive observables or fundamental existential states. For example, in a computer the primitive systems are 'bits' that can exhibit the two states 0 and 1.
From this analysis we see that all systems are composed of primitive systems (fundamental existential states) woven together by a network of interaction paths and animated by a flow of information. There may be many levels of systems within systems so the network is very complex and the information can be thought of as flowing on many levels. A system is therefore entirely defined by the set of existential states, the structure of the network of interaction paths and the behaviour of the flow of information throughout the network. Thus a system is a pattern of structured (network) information (states) that processes information (flow).
"In a comprehensive view of nature, the physical world is
seen
as a patterning of patternings..."
(Amy
Edmondson)
This simple idea of a system as a pattern of structured information that processes information captures all the essential properties of a system. In the table below are the parallels between IST and the five fundamental conceptual aspects of any system according to Klir [REF]:
|
Klir |
IST |
|
state variables |
Existential States |
|
range and resolution of state variables |
Finite Discrete nature of Existential States |
|
permanent behaviour |
Network and Information Flow |
|
universe and coupling description |
Manifest forms and Relations |
|
state space description |
Permutation space (multi-verse) |
Hence, complex systems are generalised patterns from which we perceive 'objects'. When the details are lost dense collectives of systems are perceived as objects and sparse collectives of systems are perceived as the intervening space. This implies that it is fundamentally inaccurate to conceive of a system as a separate independent object. Any complex system is a complex pattern of dynamic processes where the 'object' is merely a focal point for our awareness; it is only the outwardly observable form.
"Imagine yourselves in terms of a moving-picture scenario. You've all seen moving pictures run backwards, where people undive out of the swimming pool back onto the board. I'm going to run a moving picture of you backwards. You've just had breakfast; ... all the food comes out of your mouth onto the plate; ... and into the cans, and they go back to the store; ...then they go back to the factories ...and they finally get back to pineapples in Hawaii. Then the pineapples separate out, go back into the air; the raindrops go back into the sky, and so forth.
But in the ... reversal of a month practically everything has come together that you now have on board you, gradually becoming your hair and your skin and so forth, whereas a month ago, it was some air coming over the mountains. In other words, you get completely deployed. I want you to begin to think of yourselves in an interesting way as each one of these.
... you would see chemical elements gradually getting closer and closer together, and, finally, getting into those various vegetable places and into roasts and, tighter and tighter, into cans, into the store, finally getting to just being you or me-temporarily, becoming my hair, my ear, some part of my skin-and then that breaks up and goes off and gets blown around as dust.
Each of us is a very complex pattern integrity with which we
were born."
(R. Buckminster Fuller, 1975)
In this discussion there is given only a purely descriptive introduction however these concepts have a rigorous mathematical foundation that in the context of this work is called “system matrix notation” (SMN) [FR]. In fact the mathematics is the only truly reliable way to approach these concepts without bringing too many false or unnecessary associations into play. Each concept/word has a long history and many meanings, some useful and some totally confused and confusing, but when one derives the concepts directly from the mathematics their only meaning is that which arises from their context and state of integration into the mathematics. Thus the best way to understand the subtle subject matter is to visualise the mathematics as a dynamic information process in your minds-eye and to derive and/or clarify all concepts in relation to this 'vision'. Going into the mathematics is beyond the scope of this discussion it will only comment on its form and function but not its details. See [SMN] for more.
Some questions to keep in mind are: How can mathematics represent the flow of information? How can it represent the structure of the flow? How does it represent the moment-by-moment structure of the objective reality? How does it model the moment-by-moment change and dynamical process of objective reality? How does it generate the virtual existence of systems in time and space? How does it model the process of perception, experience and response? How does it implement quantum behaviour and classical experience?
System Matrix Notation is primarily a general algorithm or information process. It can be efficiently implemented in mathematics or software and it models a generalised information process. There are many ways of conceiving of what SMN is but here are described three related perspectives. Firstly it is an algorithm that implements a "distributed event-processing regime" that can manage all of the information logistics within a complex dynamical system. Secondly it is a model of a "general system" and thirdly it is a model of "general distributed massively parallel computation".
For a more detailed and structured introduction to SMN and explanation of how matrix mathematics implements information systems, see Modelling General Information Systems. Briefly, what this mathematical process represents in terms of information systems is this; There is a state vector that defines the full set of primitive existential states and a matrix of causal inter-connections. ( A t this point we should include a ref. Link to “Getting a Grip.”) These combine to implement each iteration moment, in which the current state information flows through the causal network to produce the next state thus producing a state space that evolves over time. See