Antonin Tuynman's Blog, page 2

"Is Reality a Simulation? An Anthology" has been published

Dear Friends, Readers,I proudly announce the publication of "Is Reality a Simulation? An Anthology", which I edited and co-authored.Blurb:Did your dark night of the soul ever make you doubt the reality of your existence? Do you wonder whether you are living in a dream or computer simulation? Are you haunted by the perspective that you're already dead and wander through the infinite dimensions of Hell or the Cyberbardo? Does it really matter at all if one of these questions is answered affirmatively?Then you're in good company. Join us on a psychedelic rollercoaster through the rabbit hole. Fasten your seatbelts. Your belief systems are about to be questioned, challenged and perhaps overthrown. This Anthology with contributions from Technoshamans, Physicalist scientists, Pantheists, Pandeists and Panpsychists will rock your mental foundations, haunt your convictions and put you through the epistemological wringer.This choicest selection will sharpen your mind to find truths hidden in the plain sight of a tower of turtles, patterns in a grid of chaos and clarity in a forest of apparent randomness. From Gross' Ouroboric Simulism to the Other of Swayne; Dive into Rosati's lucubration from Deli's Fractal of Consciousness to Mapson's Pandeistic Analogue Simulation; from the Vikoulovian Apotheosis via Byrne's Panpsychic Musings to the Tuynman Omega Constant. Escape with Bruere's scenario's from King's Parasitism and Perceptual valuation.Welcome to a dazzling orgy of the post-singularity conceptualization of Simulation Theory. Welcome to the kaleidoscopic variegation of the perplexing pictorial perspectives that dwarf Bostrom's argument into oblivion.   Is reality a Simulation? is an unorthodox challenging anthology on Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis. With contributions from scientists, philosophers, technoshamans and mystics it shows a broad variety of perspectives from both supporters and opponents of the argument.   The book "Is Reality a Simulation? An Anthology", which I, Antonin Tuynman (a.k.a. Technovedanta) edited and co-authored is now available as Kindle ebook. But you can get a free pdf, if you promise me to write a review and post it on Amazon, Goodreads and Lulu. For a free pdf send an email to iconomenatgmaildotcom.I wrote this book together with a number of excellent thinkers, such as Dirk Bruere, Sean Byrne, Matt Swayne, Donald King, Eva Deli, Knuje Mapson, Dante Rosati, Alex Vikoulov and Tim Gross.  My other books are "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta".By Antonin Tuynman a.k.a. Technovedanta

Are we living in a Simulation? A historical overview

It is hard, if not impossible to determine how deep the roots of belief in the tree of virtuality reach back in the history of the human race. Certainly we did not need our Oculus Rift VR headset to come up with this idea. When did man first started to doubt the reality of the solid world around him? When did we first start to think we might be living in an illusion? AntiquityThe first written tradition is perhaps the allegory of the cave by Plato [1]  in his treaty "The Republic" written around 380 B.C. In this allegory prisoners are chained in a cave in such a way that they can only look at a wall in front of them. Behind them is a fire burning and between the fire and the prisoners is a low wall, behind which other people walk carrying objects or puppets "of men and other living things". These objects cast shadows on the wall in front of the prisoners. The sounds made by the walking people also echo from this wall, so that it seems that the shadows are making these noises. For the prisoners, who never experienced anything else these shadows are the only reality there is. In the story one man escapes. At first according to Plato he would not understand that what the prisoners see and hear are mere shadows and echoes.  Only once the escaped prisoner would find out about sunlight outside the cave and get accustomed to it, he'd be able to learn about shadows. Thus he'd start to understand the real source of the images and sounds. Thereafter he'd consider this new reality superior and "he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other prisoners]" and would want to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight". Unfortunately back in the cave his eyes would need to get accustomed to the dark again. His fellow prisoners would think he'd gone blind and conclude it's dangerous outside of the cave. They would not be willing to leave.As the freed prisoner in this allegory represents the person who sees the world for the illusion it is, this is one of the first written proofs that humans were conscious of the possibility that our reality might not be the ultimate reality.
The Greek sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) [2] is reputed as the father of Solipsism, the notion that we can only be sure of our mind to exist. Moreover he's quoted  to have stated: 

1. Nothing exists.

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.

3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

With this reasoning the Sophists tried to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. An extreme interpretation of Solipsism is to assume that only I exist and that everything else is a concoction of my mind. Or a simulation if you wish.
Another early text on this topic is from the Zhuangzi [3] by the eponymous author who lived between 369 and 286 B.C:

"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things."

Dreaming in fact is our most direct springboard to question whether our reality is an illusion.Both Vedic and Buddhist traditions have spoken of the world as Maya, a magic or illusory veil. Maya has been said to be the reflection of something very real in a spiritual world. The powerful and colorful paintings the Tantric and Tibetan Buddhists have used were intended to help them visualise alternate realities. The so-called Avatamsaka Sutra from about 100 B.C. speaks of "infinite realities". In images we find an enlightened deity sitting calmly on a lotus flower often in the middle of raging fires. Worlds within creatures and worlds within circles representing the karmic cycle show how we are caught in the web of dependent arising. Fortunately, there seems to be a way out of this Maya. A little rainbow colored path leads the enlightened ones to the realms of the deities. Even today certain schools of thought in Buddhism teach perceived reality literally as unreal. Chögyal Namkai Norbu[4]  considers all our sensory perceptions as a big dream. From a neuroscience perspective he is actually right in a certain way: When you think you see the outside world, actually what you are experiencing is an image concocted by your brain. We constantly internally hallucinate a "supposed world out there". We strongly filter the overflow of data entering our senses and create a coherent picture therefrom, which may or may not have a certain degree of isomorphism to the ontic reality. This is especially evident when we are asked to focus on a particular activity. If you are asked to count the number of times on people throw a ball to each other, like most people you will totally miss the man in a Gorilla suit walking among the players, because this irrelevant information is filtered out by your brain. In other words, from the sensory data we receive our brains concoct a simulation which is as meaningful as possible under the given circumstances. In that sense our epistemic reality is almost certainly a simulation.
Similarly in Hinduism  we find the notion that Vishnu[5], the all-pervading one, lies in a dream state on the serpent Adisehsa Ananta. Ananta is time and floats for eternity on the ocean of Cosmic Consciousness. Brahma is born out of the navel of Vishnu and begins the process of creation. Vishnu expands into everything thereby becoming everything. By the act of watching his dream, including the creation of the universe by Brahma, Vishnu sustains the Universe. Only when Vishnu wakes from his dream, the cycle of creation ends.
In the Hellenic world[6] we find the notion of Hermes Trismegistos, the thrice great one. This Godhead seems to be a merger of the Greek God Hermes and the Egyptian God Thoth. The earliest texts mentioning this God go back as far as 172 B.C. Hermes Trismegistos is reputed to have written the so-called Tabula Smaragdina  (which may have an origin much later. It's earliest written version is an 8th century Arabic text). This Tabula Smaragdina mentions the concept "As above, so below", which seems to be considered as an absolute truth among esoterically oriented people today.

"That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing." 

The concept "As above, So below" implies that our physical world is a reflection of a spiritual world. That the microcosm (oneself) is similar in structure to the macrocosm (the universe).
Around 200 A.D. we find the sect of the Gnostics. Gnosticism is a peculiar religion, which describes a dualistic cosmos. Spiritual sparks or souls have become trapped in matter but can be freed by saving knowledge or "Gnosis". The world is the creation of the Demiurge Yaldabaoth, which literally means "Child, come hither". However in another translation his name is translated as "Child of Chaos". The gnostic myth recounts that Sophia (literally "wisdom", the Demiurge's mother) desired to create something apart from the Father to which he did not consent. In this act of separation, she gave birth to the Demiurge. Being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. As the Demiurge did not see Sophia or the Father, nor anyone else, he thus concluded that only he himself existed. In a quote from the Apocryphon of John he is reputed to have said: 'I am God and there is no other God beside me'.However, he did not know the source of his power and did not know that there was someone above him. The myth furthermore shows how this first separation later on resulted in the entrapment of the divine spark, Sophia, within the human form. This spark is latent until awakened by a call and knowing oneself as this divine spark is the beginning of restoration of Sophia as well as gnosis.It gets a bit blurry when we see that in Gnosticism Yaldabaoth created the world together with six other so-called Archons. One of these is "Sophia" (Venus), whereas Yaldabaoth himself is indicated to be Saturn. The internet is full with conspiracy theories that somehow link the Gnostic teachings to the notion that we live in a simulated virtual reality ruled by these evil Archons, who feed on our energies. Many of them claim that one of the Archons is called "Hal", which a Coptic word meaning "simulation" and that this is linked to the "Hal 9000" computer in Space Odyssey 2001. Neither Clarke nor Kubrick has confirmed this assertion. Rather Clarke indicated that this name derived from "Heuristic Algorithm". I have not been able to find this name Hal in the Apocryphon of John either or in any other texts of the Nag Hammadi English Library. These theories rather feed on themselves, braiding an unintelligible and untangleable knot of nonsense. In my humble opinion it appears to be a 20th century myth invented by a self-educated and self-proclaimed scholar named John Lash who twisted facts to feed a hungry audience of conspiracy theory addicts.Middle AgesIn the middle ages we encounter a number of theories that reality is made for us as a kind of "cosmic intelligence test". In the book the "Assassins of Alamut" Anthony Campbell[7]  refers to the medieval Islamic Sect of the Ismailis". they believed the Koran contained an esoteric secret, to which they held the key. He claims that similar notions can be found in the Kabbalah, the teachings of the Cathars of the Languedoc and in the Gnostic texts, all relating to the theme of the world as an unreal simulation, veiling an unknown ultimate reality.Kabbalists reveal in the book of Zohar [8], that what is revealed to us as matter is merely one thousandth of the total matter and that there is nothing real about it.From the Renaissance until the 20th CenturyIn the 17th century René Descartes [9] came with his famous "dream argument". Dreaming according to Descartes is proof that we cannot fully rely on our senses to distinguish reality from illusion: "Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."His contemporaries Locke and Hobbes have tried to refute his argument by stating that in dreams there is no pain and that dreams are susceptible to absurdity unlike waking life. From my personal experience I disagree with this counterargument. As a child I have worn braces on my teeth and sometimes in my dreams I still feel the pain thereof, whereas in waking life I have been free of these braces for over 30 years now. In addition not every dream I have is necessarily absurd. Some dreams are eerily realistic.Descartes even went so far to suggest that even his body (as well as everything else) perhaps only existed as an idea in his mind, thus venturing on the path traced by solipsism. Eventually he concludes a mind-body dualism, but at least he explored the possibility of ontic reality as a mind simulation.Kant was also of the opinion that we could only know the appearance of things (phenomena), but not the things in themselves; the world as it actually is, which he called the noumenon. In other words our mental image of the world is a mere simulation.In the 19th century the theosophy movement of H.P Blavatsky [10]  introduced the notion of the so-called Akasha, borrowed from the Vedas, which she referred to as indestructible tablets of astral light. This notion was picked up by Alfred Percy Sinnett [11], who describes a Buddhist belief in a permanency of records of everything that has happened in the Akasha, as well as the ability of man to read the same. This notion has developed to the so-called "Akashic Records", very popular among the esoteric people. Interestingly, this concept of the Akasha has in the 20th century been equated with the so-called quantum vacuum, quantum foam or zero point-field, which according to certain adepts can function as a memory and a digital computer. The world we live in is then nothing else than ones and zeros on an Akashic switchboard, which can either be a simulation carried out by entities from a higher dimension or a kind of "self-simulation". Most of these theories have a religious connotation. And this is not surprising. After all, every notion that a God or Gods created or designed the world can be considered as a simulation argument. God as the grand architect of the universe.20th CenturyThe 20th century is full of fictional literature, lecture and movies about dream and otherwise simulated realities. Most of these are of the cyberdystopian genre. It would go beyond the scope of this chapter to give a comprehensive overview of these. I just picked a few author names for illustrative purposes.An absolute master of science-fiction involving simulated realities is Philip K.Dick. There's even an annual Philp K.Dick prize for the best SF book. Robert Heinlein, Stanislaw Lem, Douglas Adams and William Gibson are other great authors if you wish to explore the VR-scape in literature. Most of these books were written in the second half of the 20th century.The book "Neuromancer" (1984) by William Gibson deserves a special place in this row, as he's the first to use the terminology "the Matrix" to indicate the global computer network in cyberspace which is a virtual reality dataspace. Unlike in the movie "The Matrix", in Neuromancer people still also live in the "real" world and can access this cyberspace in a full immersive mode. The main character is unable to access this matrix, becuase his nervous system has been damaged by a mycotoxin, which had been administered to him as a punishment for a crime.In the movie culture we can go back as far as 1973 where in Fassbinder's "Welt am Draht" (World on a wire) adds the theme of recursivity by having the very people who work on simulating a world find out that they actually live in a simulated world themselves.The Matrix (1999) is probably the best known movie on theme of a computer simulated world. In the unlikely event you haven't seen it; I'm not going to give away the gist of the film.21 CenturyThis brings us to the 21st century where we have the formalisation of the simulation argument by the Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom [12].Bostrom's trilemma argument states that at least one of the three following propositions is almost certainly true:

(1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; 

(2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; 

(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. 

If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. 

If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

His trilemma reasoning departs from the concept that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Even if only a tiny percentage of them were to run so-called "ancestor simulations" (i.e. "high-fidelity" simulations of prior ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.Bostrom then uses a type of anthropic principle reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people with our kind of experiences live in simulations, then we are almost certainly living in a simulation.Most books about Simulation Hypotheses are endless repetitions of Bostrom's argument. This book is not one of them. It will argue in favour or against a simulation hypothesis starting from other axioms or observations.Starting with Vernor Vinge idea's about the upcoming Technological Singularity (A point in human history beyond which our future predictions and speculations become pointless as this Technology explosion will transcend our way of living completely and dramatically beyond compare. Some suggest it may grant us immortality and other Godlike properties if we succeed in uploading ourselves to the singular Webmind, in which we can shape a simulated virtual reality (or a plurality thereof) as our “new reality”), the 21st century is arena of the Technopapes such as Ray Kurzweil, Peter Diamandis and Elon Musk. Their visions consider that if we are not already living in a simulation, before 2045 we will be able to upload our minds to a computerised substrate which will run an infinity of computer simulations, which will appear as real as what we now consider to be ontic reality.Interested in reading more of this subject? It will be published in my upcoming anthology on the question whether reality is a simulation. I will announce this on Steemit, once the book is published.By Antonin Tuynman, author of the books "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta". References: [1] Plato, The Republic, Penguin Classics, 2007. [2] Bruce McComiskey, Gorgias on Non-Existence, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol.30. No.1, pp. 45-49, 1997. [3] Watson, B. The Complete Works of Zhuangzi, Columbia University Press, 2013.[4] Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light, Snow Lion, 2002.[5] Fred S. Kleiner, Gardner's Art through the Ages: Non-Western Perspectives. Cengage Learning. p. 22, 2007.[6] Papyrus Vindobonensis Graeca 29456.[7] Anthony Campbell, Assassins of Alamut, Lulu Press, 2013. [8] Matt, D.C.,  Zohar: Annotated & Explained, SkyLight Paths, 2002.[9] Descartes, R. Meditations On First Philosophy, Watchmaker Publishing, 2010.[10] H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011.[11] Sinnet, A.P. Esoteric Buddhism, Loris Bagnara Editions,1883. [12] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html and Bostrom N. Are You Living in a Simulation?, Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No.211, pp. 243-255, 2003. 

Truth-hidden-in-plain-sight clues for Reality as a Simulation

Imagine I were to show you, that completely unrelated physical quantities show the same value over and over again in our universe. You will probably consider that I have discovered some kind of new universal physical constant. But then I tell you that the fact that we see the same value occur repeatedly is highly unlikely, because the units in which these quantities are measured do not have a link to each other, and most of them were quite arbitrarily chosen. After all, why would there not be an alternative way to measure distance, time, temperature etc. Over the ages humans have used various units, like miles, yards, meters etc. many of which were based on lengths of human body parts; seconds were based on the sexagesimal system of the Babylonians; Temperature relies on base 10, with regard to the number of degrees between the melting and boiling of water.So it seems that it would be quite a coincidence if with such unrelated quantities, we see the same number appear very often - yes, unlikely often- isn't it?Let me take you on a journey into perplexity. You won't believe your eyes. For me, the coincidences I am going to show you are so unlikely, that I have wondered, whether they are a pointer to a form of "intelligent design". Not in the sense of "intelligent design of life forms" as opposed to "evolution", but in the sense of intelligent design using highly complicated and sophisticated mathematical calculations to come up with a set of physical parameters, which seem to create a self-sustaining numerical set. And as a bonus, the rabbit out of the hat, the units to get these numerical values have mysteriously found their way to our minds.273, The Tuynman Omega constant(What follows hereafter, I partly published in a previous Steemit article, but adapted, enriched and updated)Let me start with numbers which show the ciphers 2, 7 and 3 in this sequence:1. The diameters of the Earth and Moon (7920 miles and 2160 miles, which is 11x6! and 3x6! miles, respectively) are in the ratio of 11 to 3, 11 ÷ 3= 3.7 (to be precise: 3.66), while 3 ÷ 11 = 0.273. There are almost 366 days in a year, which is the rotation time of the Earth around the Sun. In fact there are 366 so-called "sidereal days" in a year.2. The 3:11 ratio is also invoked by Venus and Mars, as the ratio of the closest to farthest distance. The ratio that each experiences of the other is 3:11. As we know, the fraction 3/11 rounds to 27.3%.3. 27.3 is also the number of days it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.4. 27.3 days is even the average rotation period of a sunspot.5. The acceleration ratio of the Moon in its path around the Earth is measured as 0.273 × cm/s2. In fact, the acceleration of the Earth and the Moon behave reciprocally as the squares of the radii of the orbits of the Earth and the Moon.6. Moreover, 273 m/s2 is the acceleration of the Sun!7. The Moon controls the movement of water around the Earth, ebb and flow. When water is set as the standard for measuring temperature, the Absolute Zero or the temperature at which all atomic movement comes to an absolute halt is -273.2° C.8. According to the experiments of Gay-Lussac, when a gas is either heated or cooled by 1 degree Centigrade, it expands or contracts respectively by 1/273.2 of its previous volume.9. The triple point of water is defined to take place at 273.16 K.10. The Cosmic Background Radiation is 2.73 K.11. All medical students are required to memorize that a pregnancy (read: life developing in water) is calculated on the basis of a 10-sidereal month period of 273 days from conception to birth, which is 9 “regular” months. 27 divided by 3 gives 9.12. A woman’s menstrual cycle is on average 27.3 days.13. If a circle is drawn with a radius from the centre of the Earth through the centre of the Moon, the perimeter of the square around the Earth and this circle are one and the same! It also reveals how the Moon and the Earth have resolved the puzzle of the squaring of the circle. In other words, if the Moon could roll around the Earth, the circle made by its centre has a circumference precisely equal to the perimeter of a square around the Earth (when Pi is approximated by its ancient, traditional ratio of 22/7 = 3.14). Comparing a square’s perimeter to a circle having an equal circumference, the circle’s diameter is 27.3% longer than the edge of the square. Inscribe a circle inside a square.14. The four corners make up 27.32% of the total area.15. There are 273 days from the summer solstice to the vernal equinox.16. Furthermore, 2,730,000 is the circumference of the Sun in miles.17. About 108 diameters of the Earth fit across the diameter of the Sun.18. About 108 Sun diameters fit in between Earth and Sun.19. About 108 Moon diameters fit between Earth and Moon.(In fact the number in items 17-19 is 109.2, which in fact is precisely 4x27,3, the "intelligence signature number" we saw before).Alpha and OmegaAnother important constant we encounter in physics is the fine structure constant of Hydrogen, alpha (0.0073), in which we encounter again two of the digits of 273.1/alpha =137. The scientist Pauli was obsessed with the archetypical meaning of numbers in particular number 137, which unintendedly also turned out to be the number of the room in which he died. A so-called "synchronicity". Pauli shared his fascination for numbers and in particular 137 with the psychologist Jung, who is the conceptual father of the notions archetype and synchronicity. Note that our universe is said to exist 13,7 billion years.Strangely enough the ciphers making up 273 reproduce 137 in the following manner: 27+37+73 =137. And 37/27=1.37. 1,2,3 and 7 are four of the five first mathematical “Lucas numbers”, a variation related to the Fibonacci series.37 itself is strongly related to 137. 2 exp 37=1.37...* 10 exp 11.  37!=1.37..* 10 exp 43.37°C is the human body temperature. There are 37 trillion cells in a human body. 37 minutes is the golden section of an hour. 137,5° the complement of the golden section of a circle. The remaining 222° are 2x3x37.1,2,3 and 7 are related in more than one way, for instance via 27x37=2701= Sum(73) and 2 exp 37=1.37...*10 exp 11.1/27=0.37037.. and 1/37=0.27027..There are 12,37 full moons in a year.37 is the 12th prime number, 73 the 21st.27x37=999, which, if we forget the powers of 10 is very close to unity.The mass of the Moon is 1/3*1/27=1/81th of the mass of the Earth.273=3x7x13 or 21x13. 273x137=37401.13 itself is 2x3+7. As 13 is the number of closely packed spheres in the so-called “Vector Equilibrium” (cuboctahedron, the basic unit of the Akasha, the ether in Hinduism), consisting of a central layer of 7 spheres and an upper and lower layer of three spheres, it can be said that the basic unit of Akasha itself encodes the 1,2,3 and 7.27 is the number of bones in a human hand. There are about 10 exp 27 atoms in the human body.The ciphers of the speed of light (186282 miles/second) add up to 27: 1+8+6+2+8+2=27. The adding up of ciphers of a number is also called the Indig of a number.The multiples of 27 such as 54, 108, 432 and 864 are found in numerous relations of time, space and music. They are also key values in Hinduism and Buddhism.E.g. there are 86400 seconds in a day, the diameter of the Sun is about 864000 miles. The Sun and Sirius are 8,64 light years apart. 27x32=864. 432 is a time cycle number in various religions and cultures, from Hinduism to Mayan, from Biblical to Sumerian. 432 squared (186624) is very close to the speed of light in miles/second and its Indig is 27 or rather 9 again.27 and 37 together make 64 (27+37=64), which is the number of DNA codons and I Ching permutations. 64+73=137 Q.E.D. 64 corresponds to “prophesy” in Kabbalah and 73 to “wisdom”.Multiples of 3 times 37 always generate a number of the form "nnn". 3x37=111 and hence 6x37=222 etc. Most interesting here are the 18x37=666 or (6+6+6)x37=666 and 27x37=999 or (9+9+9)x37=999.37 is not only an octagonal number, it is also both a hexagonal number and a hexagram number. Thus it is the first trifigurate number. Its inverse 73 is a hexagram or Star number as well with the 37 hexagon inside. 13 is the first hexagram, with a core of 7 spheres. Again we see the 1,3 and 7.As already said 37x18=666, but also note that 73=37+6x6.Tesla said: “If you only knew the magnificence of the 3,6 and 9 then you would have a key to the universe.” Funny enough the remaining numbers 1,4,2,8,5,7 together form 27 (3x9) and the permutations thereof can be ordered in a 6x6 magic square, in which each row yields 27 as sum.The second trifigurate number is 91 (13x7). 91 spheres can be ordered as triangle, hexagon and pyramid.37 is the fourth hexagonal number if we include 1. The sum of the three preceding hexagonal numbers 1+7+19=27. A 13 Star has a 7 hexagon, a 73 Star has a 37 hexagon.(See the image on http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Figurate.phpunder the heading Hexagon/Star Pairs).Thus 1,2,3 and 7 are also extremely important in the genesis of form.Holy...Due to its relation with the so-called “number of the Beast” (666=18x37) from revelation 13:18, the Bible fanatics are fond of finding all kind of relations with 37. Noteworthy, 137 is the 33rd prime number, 33 is related to the length of life of Jesus in years.The word Kabbalah has a Gematria value of 137. The number 6 is used 273 times in the Bible.The most elaborate and impressive collection thereof can be found on the so-called “Biblewheel” site .Religious occultism is fond of “Gematria”. Gematria is a kind of coding system which assigns values to each letter of a word and by adding those gives the Gematria value of a word. Words with the same or similar Gematria value are considered to bear a strong relation. It is permissible to add or subtract the value of one Aleph (1) in order to still have a related meaning. Thus the Gematria of the name of God in Hebrew (YHWH), which is 26 is related to 27. The perfect number 28 (i.e. it is the sum of its divisors) is also related to 27. Interestingly 137x2=274, which is therefore Gematrically identical to 273.More interestingly the Gematria value of the Greek “he kleis” (the key) is 273. What a clue! This is also the value of “klesis” (calling) and “hiram abiff”, the all-seeing eye. The Hebrew Gematria value of the Greek word “Gematria” is 273.Likewise interesting is the suggestion by the Biblewheel[1], that the first verse of Genesis (the Gematria of which yields 2701=37x73) is a “Creation holograph”. 37 is also the value of the Gematria of the word of God.The author of the “Biblewheel” first went berserk in a kind of Apotheosis-singularity experience, in which every gematrical relation fitted in a beautiful scheme and then he himself started to debunk his findings in his dark night of the Soul being lost in the quagmire of agnosticism.Other religions made similar claims: Hinduism claims the first verse of the Rg Veda to be a creation holograph, Islam does the same with the first verse of the Qu’ran. These religions also have their variants of Gematria. The Hindu shloka (verse) “gopibhagya madhuvratah shrumgashodadhi samdhigah khalajivitakhatava galahala rasamdharah”encodes pi up to 31 decimal places.Because these religions also have their own Gematria system (called Katapayadi in Hinduism and Abjad in Islam), with equally impressive results and because these different religions contradict each other, it cannot be so that they all represent the word of God (which they claim), in an equally truthful manner. Thus unlike these religious zealots, I do not conclude the correctness of a religion based on its impressive Gematria results. In my book Technovedanta I argue that the writers of these books were perhaps telepathically influenced (in a manner unknown to themselves) by entities from a higher intelligence or even higher dimension (our simulators?).The agenda of these entities is not necessarily benign. Although they give numerical clues and keys about the simulated structure of our universe, they have also created a great deal of confusion and suffering, by being the instigators of the mutual oppositions of the different opposing religious factions. Therefore we cannot necessarily rely on the moral prescriptions of these religious books, but we can perhaps use them in our deciphering of the key to the simulated ontogenesis of our universe.Personally, I think that if the Gods or simulators put so much effort in devising such an encryption, which they knew would be deciphered one day, they also meant it to be so. It seems to me that then it is also their wish that we become like them, without there being any animosity or wrathfulness, because we would have been too “proud”, too audacious to venture in their realm. 1,2,3,7 is not a forbidden fruit. It is not the tower of Babel. It is our rightful heritage to become K’Elohim ("like the Gods" or "like God": The desire to become this was considered to be Satan's sin)....And I was born in 1971, which is 27x73 q.e.d.Akasha and Self-similarityThe numbers 1,2,3 and 7 seem to be a kind of numerical attractor, that like a fractal keep regenerating themselves. A bit like Phi. But whereas Phi arrives at itself by operations with unity, a kind of parthenogenetic self-regeneration, 27,37,73 and 137 sexually intermingle by mathematical operations with themselves to create self-similar offspring. Like a hologram each one of these encodes all the others if allowed to create interference with another from the set thus generating a holographic set. This leads me to the concept of "digital self-regeneration" or "digit-fractalisation". Is this the result of the self-modifying recursive code I have been writing about? It has a reason that these numbers keep turning up and reinforcing themselves: Like Ervin Laszlo suggests in his books about the "Akasha" the fine tuning of constants in our solar system is the results of multiple cycles of "Big Bounces", this creates a kind of resonance interference pattern in the Akasha (a.k.a quantum vacuum or zero point field). If we combine that notion with the notion from my book Technovedanta that the processes in the Akasha are computational processes, we start to be able to see that this computational consciousness substrate has a predilection for natural phenomena and laws that show these specific numbers because they mutually reinforce themselves. Because they function as number resonators. Self-reflecting themselves they are a hallmark of consciousness, which is characterised by its self-reflexive abilities.
0.27/0.37=0.73; 0.37/0.27=1.37; 0.27*0.37=0,1;1,37*0,37=1/2; 27*27~730; 37*37~1370; 2,37/1,37=1,73; 1,37/0,37=3,7;Sum 73=2701 =Sum(37)+2*37*27;273=13*21=37*7,3=3*7*13; 2,73/1,37~2;27+73+37=137; 100/173=73%; 37/137=27%.  
These equations all have 1,2,3 and 7, Can you see the pattern of self-regeneration resulting in numerical self-sustention?"Like attracts like" will be part of the algorithm leading to Bayesian proximity co-occurrences, which already are used in latent semantic analysis in Watson etc. Our internet is progressing to become kind of omniscient, but is still in the infant stage. If the Akasha substrate is a neural network and mind like as certain authors suggest, it may be already omniscient, in the sense that it knows everything, what is going on on its inside.Speaking of the Akasha substrate, this reminds me of the cuboctahedron-octahedron grid, which Steven Kaufman[1] proposes as the structure par excellence of the Akasha, as it is the closest packing of the so-called "realities cells" mentioned in the previous chapter.I figured out that if a so-called distortion (light?) would travel along an axis, such that both the cuboctahedron and the octahedron are traversed, the relative lengths would be in the ratio of Square root 3: 1 or ~1.73:1. Giving a total relative distance of 2.73 octahedron edges the distortion traverses per space-unit in this hypothetical substrate. Henceforth -not in the least as a token of arrogance- I baptise this key number 273 the "Tuynman Omega constant". A truth hidden in plain sight. An elephant in the room. Perhaps it is a previously unidentified natural constant, perhaps it is the very signature of our intelligent simulators (perhaps they even are artificial intelligences) and a pointer to a pancomputational panpsychic existence. Are they rubbing our faces it it? Are we fishes not realising we are surrounded by water?...leading to weird synchronicities: The other day I went for groceries. When I looked at the bill it turned out I had bought 27 items for a price of 37 Euros and 37 cents at 11:37... By Antonin Tuynman, author of the books "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta".Please upvote if you liked reading this article. Top image borrowed from https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/737006/life-is-a-SIMULATION-neil-degrasse-tyson-brian-greene-elon-musk-simulation-theory[1]  http://www.biblewheel.com//GR/GR_37.php [2] S.Kaufman “Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence Into Experience”, Destiny Toad Press, 2002.

Reality, the Mystical Self-Referential Descent into Imagination

In his article "The Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness" Cosmin Visan [1] explains in great detail how Self-Reference (SR) brings Consciousness into existence. He also describes how consciousness is structured on a hierarchy of phenomenological levels as manifestations of self-reference, which he names Self, Vividness, Diversity, Memory and Time. However, he describes a remaining problem as regards how self-reference picks up essences, give us exactly the qualia domains we have and not others.Although I will certainly not claim to have solved this problem I would like to take you on a mystical journey into additional possible levels of phenomenology as an alternative non-scientific representation (I don't dare to call it an explanation) of a great deal of phenomena. Additional levels are frequency, music and recursive self-modification, respectively, giving rise to electromagnetic radiation, gravity and material reality ontogenesis.I will also draw an analogy between Visan's phenomenological levels of SR and Peircean, Palmerian and Goertzelian metaphysics.
Moreover, I will present this as a spiritual process of the art of the descent of the Self into matter.
It is certainly no claim of me or of this essay that anything described herein is the way that things happen in reality. Rather it is an artistic and aesthetic proposal, building on philosophical and mythological ideas. A mythopoetic mythopoetic proposal, which suggests how from consciousness a material world can have arisen. Any assertion in this article should not be considered a fact but a hypothesis.
Introduction
Because the explanation of the Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness is indispensable to my theory, I'd like to encourage you to read this paper [1]  before going further. But in case you don't have time for that I will try to summarise its teachings briefly, knowing that this is bound to give an incomplete understanding.
Visan describes how self-reference has the property of looking back at itself. The Self, the ontological entity at the heart of consciousness is hereinafter referred to as "I" (although not referring to the Ego). Imagine an empty universe where there is only "I". "I" sends an "am" arrow like reference into the unknown, which only hits something by returning to itself, thereby acknowledging its own existence and thus establishing the "I am" knowledge of itself. This level of Being Visan calls the phenomenological level of "Self", which can be compared to Peirce's firstness or raw being. Kether of the Kabbalah.
Now the Self can identify with this new "I am" concept which appeared, leading to an I am "I am" state. This is the second level, Visan calls "Vividness". I compare it to a kind of reaction or polarisation or dualisation into two states, comparable with Peirce's secondness. It also brings a first possibility of creating distance to itself. To see oneself as an object.
This process can be repeated to give higher levels such as I am "I am "I am"". This generates "Diversity" according to Visan as the self can identify with multiple states, namely with both "I am" and with the "I am "I am". Therefore Visan calls this state I am "I am" & I am. In Peircean metaphysics the third level is about relation between the two poles, which is in fact expressed in the ampersand symbol of the above-mentioned state. It brings a further possibility of creating distance to itself. To see oneself as an object and to see the content of one's contemplation.
The fourth level introduces Memory. Memory stores what has been, which is its own quale and which is the collection of all its previous levels: Diversity & Vividness & Self equals the state [I am "I am" & I am] & [I am "I am"] & [I am].The emergent level is more than the levels from which it emerges and cannot be reduced thereto, but does include those levels, which are also still operating independently. Each level is a form of consciousness and each qualitative essence requires a complete emergent structure to arise.
Visan defines an essence as that what makes an entity to be what it is and also equates this to a quale and a concept. An existence he defines as an actual instantiation of an essence. By introducing a third degree of distance, we have now created our familiar three dimensional space. But that also means that memory is a kind of spherical cell, as there is no mechanism by which extension would be more prominent along one of the axes. In analogy to the terminology in Steven Kaufman's URT [2], we could call this memory cell a "reality cell".As each entity can look back at itself, it is fact a kind of "Self" itself. Which means that self-reference is a means to generate a plurality of "selves", so that it includes and transcends itself. It  bootstraps consciousness into existence, the actual only thing that really exists.In Goertzelian metaphysics (which continues where Peirce and Palmer stopped) four is the level of emergence of the first stable form. A memory is also a stable form in that it can be remembered and thus perpetuated over time. Thus Self has created the first structurally existing object, which is also a subject as it is a self with the ability to look back at itself. This looking back at itself of a memory cell creates a kind of pulsation: the "memory" sends "am" radial like reference arrows into the unknown, which only hits something by returning to itself. This can be called the breathing of a reality cell and is in fact the generation of periodicity of time.
Visan distinguishes between recursivity and self-reference. A fractal, which is recursive takes its output and uses this as an input in an iterative manner. Looking-back-at-itself however, is not iterative but is by its very nature Visan argues. The "self-reference" is always itself; it does not need to do anything. The "process" of levels described above, may look iterative, but in fact it is just the continuous action of looking back, which does not stop but is always there in a timeless manner and is not really a process.
How do "doing" and time then arise?
Chronos, Brahman and Tartaros
Time emerges out of memory. The present moment is itself a memory and is then taken as a memory and fed-back into the present moment to create a new memory. "I" remembering that it had a memory becomes a new instantiation, which can be remembered in turn. The new present moment is then itself as present moment and as past for the next moment. Time by looking back includes itself (memory), and thereby becomes more than itself and becomes an essence onto itself (Chronos). But time does not only result in a breathing, which is the level of memory cells looking back at themselves. The more original level of self, when remembering that it had a memory which becomes a new instantiation thereby creates a new memory cell! So now we have our first element of doing. Out of a single cell, two cells appear. We have a mechanism of cell multiplication by cell division, the procreation of form.
Akasha or Aether
If memory is the first stable counting starts here. Every additional level generates a new number. And new reality or memory cells. It creates the rhythm of Brahman, the bringing forth, which is synchronous with the breathing of the cells. But as heavenly as this may sound, at the same time it's also the creation of Hell, Tartaros or the multiplicity that allows us to be pulled apart in different directions.These reality cells neatly stack onto each other in a closest packing, and by confining each other creating an isotropic vector equilibrium, in which each set of 13 cells can be described as a cuboctahedron, but by the pressing of the cells on each other each individual cell also takes the shape of a cuboctahedron.
As the cells touch each other, they create relations with each other, which are higher levels of self-contemplation. Thus a relational matrix as usggested by Kaufman [2] is formed, which I'd like to equate with the Hindu concept of the Akasha or the Greek concept of Aether. This is space at large, the organised quantum vacuum.
Lucifer
If a sixth level is introduced above time, this allows for a diversification of the temporal states, which introduces the possibilities to create a code by identifying with one additional state or not. It provides space-time with a content, which propagates over time through memory. In line with Kaufman's URT, this is Energy or Light, a distortion of the space fabric. Again these light waves are sentient, because they are higher level instantiations of self-reference.
Echo
A further level -levels will from now on be indicated with a number between brackets- (7) of self-referential identification with content or not can lead to the formation of patterns. Given that only simple on-off patterns which are repetitive stable can perpetuate over time can be identified with at this level, makes that this level generates the highest frequency. A frequency is a tone.
Spectrum
The next level (8) level that adds a tone is a new pattern, a new code, which leaves more gaps and results in a lower frequency. And thus a spectrum of tones is generated. Perhaps this is the birth of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Muses
A next level of self-reference could bring all kinds of patterns of tones or frequencies. This is a kind of Music (9). Note that there were 9 Muses in the Greek Mythology. Like in Tolkien's Silmarillion, the Universe was sung into existence, by Eru Lluvatar the one and his Ainur (comparable with God and his Angles: The Elohim).
The frequencies pair and are attracted to each other: Gravity is caused by gradients of radial distortions emanating from a linearly propagating distortion. Distortions attract each other more if the reality cells they propagate through are more distorted. This creates gravity. When distortions meet each other, due to the rules inherent to the structure of the medium, the distortions start to circumambulate each other forming a so-called compound process, which is how a particle is formed from pure energy in Kaufman's [2] model. 
Malkuth
The sensing of the radial attraction is also a cognitive process of the propagating waves. They become aware of an influence, which by now they no longer recognise as themselves. The cycle of confusion is complete, the individual self, atma or soul has descended into matter and forgotten about its conscious origin. The energies have convolutedly descended in a double helical coil. This is the Kundalini, the coiled snake, lying at the base of every soul, atma or self. Kundal means coil. But I could also dissect the word Kundalini in parts and read it as if it was written in Dutch. (I am a Dutch native speaker). To me Kundalini sounds like "De kunde van het dalen in "i", which would mean the art of the descent into "i", in which i symbolises the mathematical imaginary dimension. What I'd like to convey with this mystical pun is that the genesis of matter is a descent of the Self in ever more convoluted constructs of imagination, so that it loses itself and become matter. Two propagating waves, which create such a compound process of circumambulating Yin and Yang together from a material particle. The first sub-atomic material particle is born here.This stage is a self-reflection, where the self appears no longer to refer to itself but instead takes this other part of what is still itself to be something else. It is the Ouroboros believing that his tail belongs to another entity.
This would be level 10, which in the Kabbalah also corresponds with Malkuth, the kingdom of material existence.
Pan
As I already wrote, from level six onwards we get a code in reality; reality from level six onwards is paninformatical and panmusical from level 9 onwards. A holographic universe of resonances, a panresonant universe as well. 
Recursively Self-Modifying Code
With the birth of material particles, all kinds of interesting information and energy exchanges can start to occur and for every interaction, it can be considered that reality takes itself as input undergoes a transformation and creates an output. The input is still a kind of code, but the transforming entity is the same code, giving rise to a transformed code that is still reality. This is the process of pancomputationalism. This is the process of a recursive self-modifying code or language, in line with Langan's CTMU [3], and Tsang's [4] Brain Fractal Theory. Thus recursive self-modification is but a higher level (11) form of self-reference. It gives birth to fractals, which are ubiquitous in nature. It also gives rise to many rounds of informational exchange, transformations and aggregations from sub-atomic particles to atoms, from atoms to stars and more atoms, from atoms to molecules, from molecules to macromolecules, such as self-processing RNA. And here we encounter reality in a blissful form of self-similarity. As I wrote in a previous article:
"RNA is the nucleic acid molecule that preceded the better known nucleic acid carrier of inheritable traits called DNA in evolution. Certain viruses, proto-life forms, do not have a DNA but an RNA molecule instead. RNA is also present as an essential constituent in the cells of every life form. Nucleic acids are like a code with four symbols, which are present in the form of two pairs of complementary molecular motifs called nucleotides. They encode proteins. The code can be read by other nucleic acids that dock to the code if they have the complementary code. This can then trigger the assembly of proteins from amino acids. It can also result in the further assembly of a complementary nucleic acid strand, which is a form of copying the code. So basically nucleic acids function as a kind of cellular computer, which takes other nucleic acid molecules as input and provides proteins or nucleic acids as output.Certain types of RNA can fold back on themselves and have stretches of their nucleotides pair, so that you get a kind of lariat form. Where did I see this before? It reminds me of the alchemical symbol of the Ouroboros, the snake that bites its own tail and thereby gets to know itself. An ancient symbol of the self-reflective nature of consciousness.Now certain RNA molecules can process i.e. modify themselves when they interact with themselves. Often this results in cutting of a part of itself (self-splicing), but it can also result in extending itself." 
Tsang shows us how nature's program or recursive self-modifying code further gives rise to genes, organisms and neurons. Neural networks, which are the apex of Self-representative abilities; the summum bonum of Self-reference.
As I wrote in my previous article:"This finally leads to the "principle of Efficient Language". A neural network with binary trees (as we saw in Tsang's theories) allows for a maximisation in the generation of meaning whilst ensuring the least amount of action (as well as the least amount of symbols and simplest syntax) to achieve this. It also allows for the expression of binary syntactically free choices inherent in the underlying consciousness. Meaning comes first geometrically and numerically at the fundamental level of reality but its readout becomes transcendent thereof in higher neural networks, whilst still being built on and emergent from these geometric/numerical structures. Not unlike Buckminster Fuller's [5] geometry of thought."A Recursively Self-Modifying Code, an ultimate Panmetaphor?
Conclusion
I have taken you on a dazzling journey of self-reference. We started with Visan's pure consciousness self-reference to give rise to vividness, diversity, memory and time. In memory I identified structure and the seed for space. In combination with time this led to the generation of the space-time matrix I called the Akasha and which I described in line with Kaufman's Unified Reality Theory. We saw how space generated tone, code, frequency and music and how matter was born from the mutual attraction between sentient energy waves. We saw where the Self lost itself in becoming a localised material particle and lower self. We have seen how the self has travelled through the recursively self-modifying process of evolution to create neural networks, capable of high levels of representation that allow for the uncovering or Apokalypsis of the nature of the Self. In this process of remembering, we can now finally identify again with the undifferentiated Self at the beginning of this story. You, I and everybody and everything else is just a higher level self-referential instantiation of one and the same consciousness. Ultimately we are one, we are the same. So let's give up our quarrels and disharmony and treat each other as the limbs of the same organism that got lost in imagination. Imagining itself to be other. Rise O Kundalini, spread your wings O Quetzalcoatl, O Caduceus and return to your heavenly empire of Oneness.
By Antonin Tuynman, author of the books "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta".
References:
[1] Cosmin Visan, The Self Referential Aspect of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 8 (11):864-880, 2017.[2]  S.Kaufman “Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence Into Experience”, Destiny Toad Press, 2002.[3] C.M. Langan, “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory” Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, 2002.[4] Wai H.Tsang, The Fractal Brain Theory, Lulu press, 2017.

"When the map becomes the territory". Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Reality Ontogenesis?

If I were to tell you that reality is a kind of book that is writing itself, you'd probably declare me bonkers. If I were to tell you that there are even scientists, who seriously contemplate this surreal idea in the form of a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself, you'd probably get the hell out of my vicinity as fast as you could. The fact that I even dare to mention these unicorn fables, will probably make you put away this article at this very moment.If you still continue reading, you might have a sense of humour or curiosity to see how people end up contemplating such rubbish. After all, language is a high-level phenomenon. Surely these people mistake the map and the territory. Or maybe you find it fascinating that someone came up with the bizarre and unrealistic idea to unify the ontic and the epistemic under one banner.But if I tell you there are certain subtypes of a molecule called ribonucleic acid (RNA), which almost hit all the marks to qualify as real life representatives of this concept, you might be willing to lend me a listening ear. After all such a concept might have technological applications in biotech or in artificial intelligence in the form of an algorithm that can create complexity by recursive self-modification to generate a more dynamic version of the computer program called "game of life".RNA is the nucleic acid molecule that preceded the better known nucleic acid carrier of inheritable traits called DNA in evolution. Certain viruses, proto-life forms, do not have a DNA but an RNA molecule instead. RNA is also present as an essential constituent in the cells of every life form. Nucleic acids are like a code with four symbols, which are present in the form of two pairs of complementary molecular motifs called nucleotides. They encode proteins. The code can be read by other nucleic acids that dock to the code if they have the complementary code. This can then trigger the assembly of proteins from amino acids. It can also result in the further assembly of a complementary nucleic acid strand, which is a form of copying the code. So basically nucleic acids function as a kind of cellular computer, which takes other nucleic acid molecules as input and provides proteins or nucleic acids as output.Certain types of RNA can fold back on themselves and have stretches of their nucleotides pair, so that you get a kind of lariat form. Where did I see this before? It reminds me of the alchemical symbol of the Ouroboros, the snake that bites its own tail and thereby gets to know itself. An ancient symbol of the self-reflective nature of consciousness. Image of OuroborosSource: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common... certain RNA molecules can process i.e. modify themselves when they interact with themselves. Often this results in cutting of a part of itself (self-splicing), but it can also result in extending itself. Image of self-splicing RNASource: dm5migu4zj3pb.cloudfront.net/manuscri... other words, these RNA molecules constitute a kind of code or language, if you wish, that recognises and reads itself and modifies itself as a consequence thereof. The only aspect which a priori appears to be missing from the earlier mentioned concept of a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself, is the "sentience" aspect. You could argue that the molecular interactions that lead to the mutual recognition of the motifs are sensed in a certain way; it is not merely the fitting of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle: electronic charges attract and repel each other and hydrogen bonds are formed. If we accept this as a form of primitive sentience, this molecule hits all the marks to qualify as an instance of the previously defined concept. When it comes to RNA maps can be territories simultaneously. So a self-processing sentient language that creates reality by modifying itself might after all not be such a surreal concept.In the last decades some idealist-type ideas have been suggested by outsiders with respect to philosophy, who suggest that virtually everything in reality is the result of such a "Recursive Self-Modification" of a code. In view of the RNA example, perhaps they do merit our consideration, if not for philosophical reasons then at least for the potential technological relevance or as an aesthetic enrichment of the human epistome (i.e. the complete collection of all that is known in imitation of terminologies such as genome and proteome).Many of these ideas find their origin in a branch of physics called digital physics. Not energy, but information is considered to be at the root of reality. But this introduces a problem, because information implies meaning conveyed by symbolism and requires a mind or at least consciousness to recognise or make sense of the meaning. And this brings us back to the age-old problem of the Cartesian Mind-Body dualism. So if information is at the root of the manifested reality, consciousness must somehow be present at a deeper non-manifested level.In this essay I will show you how a number different scientists and garden-variety philosophers have come up with a suggested solution to this problem, the common denominator of which is the notion of Recursive Self-Modification. I will give an overview of a number of such contemporary "mind=reality theories", which consider reality as the product of a cognitive self-processing language. I will discuss a number of similarities between Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), Irwin’s Code Theoretic Axiom (CTA), Kaufman’s Unified Reality Theory (URT), Tsang’s Brain Fractal Theory (BFT) and Deli’s Science of Consciousness (SoC). I will also discuss the idiosyncrasies which makes each of these theories unique. Aspects as neural networks, fractals, category theory and the Yoneda Lemma and their implication for sentience, self-reference and self-processing will be discussed. Finally, I’ll try to suggest how these different complementary frameworks can be integrated in order to evolve towards a Theory of Everything, with the ultimate aim of providing a sound metaphysical basis for physics without the usual paradoxes that arise from the underlying self-reference.Although I do not take most of these theories seriously over their whole scope, it is neither my intent to use this essay to systematically undermine each of these theories, nor is it my intent to defend them against criticism. Rather, I'd like to review them in order to distil useful notions worthy of further exploration.Langan's CTMU
Let me start with the most controversial of these theories, which has the most far reaching claims. It is the so-called Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) by Chris Langan (i). Langan, who has been described as the smartest man in the world in the media because of his impeccable scores in IQ tests, is an outsider in the field of philosophy and academia. Nevertheless, reading his work reveals he has a deep knowledge of mathematics, physics and metaphysics.Langan has tried to formulate an all-encompassing theory of everything (TOE), the claims of which seem a priori impossible. He claims to have solved the problem of what caused existence to become manifest, the notion of free will and the Cartesian Mind-Body dualism.The essence of his theory is the Mind=Reality equation or in other words, reality as a whole is a kind of cosmic conscious mind, not unlike in cosmopsychism or the views of ancient Hindu and Buddhist mythology. For idealist philosophers this notion per se is of course not problematic.What follows hereafter is my interpretation of Langan's work and I'd like to add a caveat here, that due to the convoluted language full of neologisms used by Langan, it may well be that I have misunderstood certain aspects, the explanation of which does not conform to Langan's own understanding of his theory.What is extremely remarkable and unorthodox about Langan's theory is how this Mind is brought about. It's perhaps in a sense comparable to John Wheeler's self-excited circuit. Reality in Langan's definition includes everything which can influence reality, which excludes external causes. As "nothing shall come from nothing" (in Shakespeare's words) excludes a spontaneous creation from nothing, there must be a third option, suggests Langan. Unlike (in)determinacy and (a)causality, Langan proposes self-causality and self-determinacy as the origin of reality; as an ontological precybernetic feedback, which he calls "telic feedback". This telic feedback takes place between the state of reality and the functional rules that govern its behaviour upon input. Langan calls these rules a Syntax. This feedback retroactively applies a generalised utility function (a kind of optimisation; maximisation) by means of atemporal communication between past and future. I figured that this may correspond to Visan's (ii) self-referencing, a looking back and forward (looking back at its state and looking back at its looking back etc.) kind of activity, by which time can be generated from memory. As I understand this, reality takes itself as input, which results in looking back at itself, which then creates a feedback between the looking and the state of self. (In my humble opinion this amounts to saying that reality was always there and that manifesting itself is a kind of self-perpetuation). What results is a kind of energetic universal system of rules to act upon the information and rules that establish the system. Or in other words, a kind of language - a mathematical control language through which nature regulates its self-instantiations. Langan calls this a "Self-configuring self-processing Language" (SPSCL), which is both cognitive/conscious and informational.Another way to show that the conscious energetic processing that makes up reality is a form of language is his "principle of Linguistic reducibility" or "Syndiffeonesis". Says Langan "Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same".The difference between A and B is the "difference relation" between A and B. In order to be related this difference must have a medium and syntax which are common to A and B, according to Langan. You can express a difference in energy or information, but you can also express it linguistically, which has the advantage that it does not only take into account structure but also function.If A and B are Mind and Reality, respectively, and we would test if there is a difference in the sense that Mind is cognitive and Reality is physically embodied information, then the relational difference between Mind and Reality would need a common medium and common syntax to make them interact. This common substance Langan calls infocognition, which is the SPSCL he previously referred to.(I personally think this type of reasoning is flawed as it does not take emergence into account. This however does not invalidate the theory per se).Although it does not fall within the framework of this essay to discuss the 56 page long CTMU paper of Langan in detail, there are a few peculiarities which are worthwhile mentioning:Langan see the universe as a holologically organised system, with a fractal like similarity at many - if not all- levels. He claims that CTMU logically establishes that the universe is indeed a holographic self-simulation. Whereas there is a single main consciousness in the form of the infocognitive protean principle, his telic recursive feedback principle results in a degree of polymorphism: The system multiplies itself into multiple instances of itself, which are called Telons or Telic entities, and which in turn do the same and so on. According to Langan, the infocognitive monism thus results in what he calls a "stratified panpsychism", but I think he meant "stratified pantheism", because there is no concept of consciousness arising from the sum of sublevel conscious entities in his theory. To qualify as Telic entity, it must have "sufficient mental coherence and complexity to internally model the relationship between self and environment".In Langan's model there is no cosmic expansion, but rather a so-called "conspansion". Everything is shrinking, which gives the impression of expansion.The quantum mechanical collapse of a wave into a particle is caused by the mutual observation of the wave in question and a wave or particle from the detector or screen.Langan (iii) claims in a later paper  that physics and the scientific method cannot explain physics itself. For that metaphysics is needed. To explain physics as object language a metaphysical metalanguage is needed, which includes physics as a sublanguage and which is mathematical in order to be able to explain the mathematical manifestations observed in physics. Using syndiffeonesis as relational structure of reality and having inherent cognitive nature SPSCL is such a language according to Langan. In other words Langan claims to have unified the ontic and epistemic in a single (meta) language like entity/process called infocognition, which can operate as both object and subject, as both map and territory, depending on which part of the Ouroboros we are looking at. Tsang's Brain Fractal TheoryBy now you probably had your share of wasting your time and tossed this article away as a bunch of nonsensical mumbo jumbo, as I did with CTMU in 2012. In case you are still reading: five years later however I came across the Brain Fractal Theory (BFT) by Wai H.Tsang (iv).Tsang has a degree in computer science and artificial intelligence from Imperial College in London. In his book Brain Fractal Theory, Tsang shows that there is a perfect functional mapping between the genetic realm and the neuronal world. Tsang develops his ideas about universally occurring binary trees to a true recipe intended to generate artificial general intelligence which may reach and even surpass the human level of intelligence. The combination of divergent and convergent forward and backward chaining which result in an intersection where they meet is not only a heuristics technique in present day AI, but is developed further in the framework of Tsang's binary tree mapping process as the mapping means to select successful candidates. What is extremely interesting here is that Tsang describes a recursive self-modification algorithm, in which the process takes itself as an object and maps this. Image: Recursive Self-modifying loop by Wai H.Tsang.Source: http://www.iawwai.com/FractalBrains/FBTPaper.htmlWhere did we hear or see something like this before? The RNA molecule? Langan's SPSCL?So even if it turns out that Langan's portentous ideas cannot live up to their promise, at least the notion of "recursive self-modification" has a promising application in the form of a genetic self-sustaining algorithm. Perhaps only for this reason, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.In mathematical category theory, if a category is like another category, there is a mapping between the two categories; a meaningful mapping that preserves the structure of the category when mapping it to another category. Such special structure-preserving mappings are called "functors".The mappings from A to B can also be considered as the way A relates to B. The relation between A and B could then be considered as the sum of the maps from A to B and the maps from B to A. According to the philosopher Wittgenstein there are no things or objects in reality but only relations. It is the interplay between these relations which create the illusion of localised objects, where there are none. In fact quantum mechanics shows that everything is in fact a giant interference pattern of vibrations and vibrations are essentially non-local. Moreover everything is in a constant state of flux; there is no phenomenon that is exactly identical between two moments. Or as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: Panta rhei, ouden menei: Everything flows, nothing remains and "no man ever steps in the same river twice".In category theory we call mappings morphisms. Mappings show the maps between "objects" (characters, strings, mathematical objects, sets etc.). A special functor in category theory is the Yoneda functor. Whereas functors normally map objects, the Yoneda functor takes morphisms (mappings) themselves as objects and maps these into a set, which is a new object. (A map of maps so to say). This is the notion that Tsang uses to come to his recursive self-modifying algorithms. In a correspondence, he wrote me that he seriously considered the possibility that this type of mapping activity is indeed involved in our cognitive processes.Kaufman's Unified Reality TheorySteve Kaufman (v), author of "Unified Reality Theory" has a liberal arts degree as well as a medical degree, but is an autodidact as regards physics. He describes the ontogenesis of reality as a repetitive and progressive process of self-relations. If consciousness as singular absolute existence engages in a relation with itself (or metaphorically folds upon itself) the parts that now touch each other become a kind of relative existence, This dualization process can result in the creation of so-called reality cells of relative existence. It's like a cell division process, which result in the fabric of space: A vast 3D array of reality cells optimally organised in a closest packing establishes a relational matrix. The cells can expand, shrink and interpenetrate. A kind of quantum foam, if you wish. Light is created if distortions arise and propagate through this matrix. When a cell is distorted it has a value 1, when it is not a value 0, leading to a kind of binary substrate, propagations through which can also be interpreted as a code or primitive language. As this is all made out of consciousness, such distortions are sensed too. The system is sentient. When distortions meet each other, due to the rules inherent to the structure of the medium, the distortions start to circumambulate each other forming a so-called compound process, which is how a particle is formed from pure energy in Kaufman's model. Noteworthy, Kaufman disagrees with the notion of curved spacetime in Einstein's general relativity theory. Gravity is caused by gradients of radial distortions emanating from a linearly propagating distortion. Distortions attract each other more if the reality cells they propagate through are more distorted. This creates gravity. Thus he claims to resolve the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. There is also no need for a "graviton" particle.Similar to Langan, wave collapse into a particle is thus also achieved via the mutual observation of waves. Experience arises, when the unified existence is obscured and existence becomes defined in relation to itself, in a folding back on itself kind of relation. What is experienced, is just the part of existence that impacts itself.Again this Ouroboric tailbiting, again a self-modifying, rule based self-relating process. If one is an instance, two a coincidence and three a pattern, we must conclude that we are starting to see a pattern in the above mentioned theories.Irwin's Code Theoretic AxiomAnother author Klee Irwin (vi), founder of Quantum Gravity Research and co-founder of Kurzweil's Singularity University, comes with a similar idea, which he has baptised the "Code Theoretic Axiom". At the Planck scale Irwin suggests the fabric of reality might "operate according to a geometric language with syntactical freedom". He attributes a quality of freewill and cognition to elementary particles, based on the idea that we must have inherited our freewill from the lower levels (Freewill? I am being commanded to write this article by my Muses!).He quotes the whole club of physicists and in particular digital physicists, who argue that nature is "information theoretic". In particular he mentions the "self-dual error correcting codes" physicist James Gates Jr. (vi) found embedded in the supersymmetry equation network that unifies all elementary particles and all forces other than gravity.As information is meaning conveyed by symbolism, this implies the presence of choice and consciousness as well. Discarding the simulation hypothesis because it implies an external causation, he postulates a "self-organised-simulation, where symbolic code is simultaneously the hardware, software and the output - the simulation." Again reference is made to "physically realistic syntactical rules how an abstract code self-organizes". Freewill action is the expression of syntactically free steps.Irwin sees reality at this level as a neural network based code. Neural networks may not only find their expression in the nervous systems of animals; the symbiotic network between plant roots and mycelium also appears to qualify as one. Moreover the structure of stellar clusters in the universe is eerily reminiscent of neuronal structures. Irwin suggests that the pan-consciousness also leads to consciousness in emergent sub-systems. Again a kind of stratified pantheism in a self-actualised neural network.Typical in Irwin's theory is that he refers to self-referential geometric symbols (e.g. a triangle representing a triangle, a square symbol representing a square) as ingredients for a natural code: quasicrystals can fulfil that function as a kind of first principles occurring in nature.This finally leads to the "principle of Efficient Language". A neural network with binary trees (as we saw in Tsang's theories) allows for a maximisation in the generation of meaning whilst ensuring the least amount of action (as well as the least amount of symbols and simplest syntax) to achieve this. It also allows for the expression of binary syntactically free choices inherent in the underlying consciousness. Meaning comes first geometrically and numerically at the fundamental level of reality but its readout becomes transcendent thereof in higher neural networks, whilst still being built on and emergent from these geometric/numerical structures. Not unlike Buckminster Fuller's (vii) geometry of thought.Deli's Science of ConsciousnessThe last Theory I'd like to address actually does not belong to the list of selected authors. After all, Eva Deli (viii) is a physicalist. She does not speak about a self-configuring, recursively self-modifying language. Nor does she consider consciousness to be all-compassing and/or foundational to reality. Eva Deli is a scientist with a degree in cell biology. As regards physics she's an autodidact. I still included Deli in this article because she does describe reality as a self-regulating system with an inherent organising principle, which according to her necessarily converges towards the emergence of an intelligent mind. She does describe a kind of fractal theory of mind like structures, but a bit the other way around: Minds, nature and reality at large behave like fermions and have a similar structure in her opinion. Deli presents a kind of alternative unorthodox proposal for a "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) in which spacetime is separated into orthogonal spatial and temporal fields. Insulated Calabi Yau manifold toruses of elementary particles, fermions in particular, can interact therewith or not, based on their spin-down or spin-up status. The universe is considered a polarised construct in this model, the poles of which are "information saturated black holes" and "free energy based white wholes". Complexity of the material construct of existence as we know it arises somewhere in between. Deli claims to resolve the incompatibility between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics by separating time and space as orthogonal constructs.The mind is presented as a temporal fermion itself and its emotional behaviour is shown to have interesting parallels to the behaviour of the particulate fermions we know from physics. Most interesting I found the notion that increased attention for detail (i.e. information saturation) is associated with higher brain activity frequencies whereas relaxation is associated with lower frequencies. The brain tries to maintain a constant level of activity, which is warranted by the so-called Default Mode Network activity and increases in frequency are balanced by decreases in frequency over time. Depression can be compared to quantum spin-down states, whereas equanimity and relaxation are compared to spin-up states which are more in tune with the freedom of a manifold torus unbound by a field. Whereas I see these maps as interesting analogies, the author presents them as if they are facts. Fortunately at the end of the book, she admits that it is a hypothesis needing verification.The book is also about evolutionary biology and provides a similar map as the second part, but now between evolutionary processes and Deli's physics. In a certain way Deli shows that a same pattern is present in macro and micro dimensions, in spatial and temporal dimensions and in mind and matter dimensions. Such a unifying fractal pattern may indeed be included in a future T.O.E. However in the absence of solving the hard-problem of consciousness IMHO it does not qualify as a T.O.E. yet.Integrative ConclusionWe have seen the notion of a recursive self-modification code or language as a principle that a number of 21st century authors consider to be at the root of manifestation in reality. A code, which gives rise to fractals and neural networks as ultimate tools for self-representation and self-regeneration. Although we cannot deny the occurrence of the principle of recursive self-modification in specific instances in nature, there is no a priori reason to assume that this property is universal. The authors, all of which are outsiders in the field of philosophy, have arrived at their conclusions via deductive or abductive reasoning or via reasoning by analogy. Whereas the classical deductive method may have been highly valued in the time of Aristotle and whereas it cannot be denied that the deductive method can sometimes yield results that can be verified experimentally afterwards (as was the case in Einstein's relativity theories), it is nowadays not regarded as a preferred way to acquire knowledge. After all -unless they are mathematic - the axioms of deductive reasoning usually have their basis in an inductive grounding. The impossibility (as of yet) to empirically verify most of the tenets of the above mentioned theories, makes that for the moment -even if they can sometimes be tautological onto themselves- they cannot qualify as a serious epistemological method. Rather, they are speculative heuristics at best, some of which do merit further investigation.Of these Tsang's application of recursive self-modification in the generation of computer algorithms is the most promising. If he is successful, he might create a kind of "Game of Life" program, which is capable of creating higher degrees of complexity than the existing primitive computer program called "Game of Life". Such a game has potential in modelling chaotic and complex systems and to explore how such "dynamical fractals" can give rise to symmetry breaking and form plus function diversification. Notions of mapping processes in neurosciences can also be "mapped" further themselves, in order to explore a new conceptual theory. It may also provide an avenue to explore the possibility of creating an artificial mimic of consciousness. After all, recursive self-modification can be considered as a higher level of phenomenology of the self-referential nature of consciousness described by Cosmin Visan(ii).It is however my gut feeling that these authors can complement each other in interesting ways: Kaufman and Irwin could compare their ideas to see which geometry of the quantum foam is more likely. Langan might learn about the exact nature of his syntactic rules by paying attention to Kaufman's and Irwin's geometric considerations. Deli's notions about information saturated black holes and fermions at different scales can be evaluated in the light of digital physics, but may also help in the appreciation of the possibility of a cosmic consciousness, for -as Irwin convincingly argues- information does not make sense without a consciousness to interpret it. Information cannot be fundamental.Kaufman and Deli's approaches to overcome the incompatibility between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics certainly merit a closer look.Langan and Kaufman's quantum collapse as mutual observation upon proximity co-occurrence is perhaps a notion, which could inspire scientists to perform additional experimentation to help us further in understanding the double slit experiment in physics. And guess what, in the branch of artificial intelligence called "Latent Semantic Analysis" statistical relevant proximity co-occurrence of terminologies is crucial to the attribution of meaning.Perhaps, if the gaps and contradictions between these theories are resolved, and if we do find empirical ways to verify the validity of the resulting theory, we might end up with a basis to develop a serious Theory-of-Everything, which includes both consciousness and information.From an artistic point of view the bizarre surreal notion of unifying and even transcending the ontic and epistemic can be inspiring as well. This reminds me of the story "Del rigor en la ciencia" by the Spanish author Borges (ix), who wrote about an empire with such an exact science of cartography, that only a map of the exact size of the empire sufficed. Of course this leads to the recursive necessity to include a map of the map as well and so on ad infinitum...References:(i)  C.M. Langan, “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory” Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, 2002.(ii) Cosmin Visan, The Self Referential Aspect of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 8 (11):864-880, 2017.(iii)  C.M.Langan Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.313-330, 2017.(iv)  Wai H.Tsang, The Fractal Brain Theory, Lulu press, 2017.(v)  Klee Irwin, Code Theoretic Axiom, http://www.quantumgravityresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Code-Theoretic-Axiom-02.17.17-final-KI.pdf(vi)  S.J.Gates in http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051, 2008.(vii)  R. Buckminster Fuller, “Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking”, Macmillan, 1982.(viii)  E.K.Deli, The Science of Consciousness, Nadir Video, 2015.(ix)  J.L.Borges, 123: Narraciones (Letras Hispánicas) Tapa blanda, 2005.by Antonin Tuynman, author of the books "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?", "Transcendental Metaphysics" and "Technovedanta"

Free downloads of chapters from my book "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?"

In order to promote my recently published book "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?" I make available two trial chapters:

Chapter 7 Emotional Intelligence

Chapter 9 Artificial Consciousness
Enjoy reading. Any feedback is welcome!

Is structure fossilised sense?

In this essay I will compare the way experience is stored in structures with concepts from mathematical category theory. I will try to show that it is not unlikely that the involution of sensorial experience finds its expression in an observed evolution of biological species and behaves like a mapping process known in mathematical category theory as "Yoneda embedding". I will also argue that there is a primacy of sentience over matter, leading to an idealistic hypothesis of existence.
Warning/disclaimer: This essay is highly speculative and may rest on wrong interpretations. If you are not interested in metaphysics don't bother to read further or to reply.
Background
What is reality? Are the objects, entities and processes we observe with our senses really there? Or is what we observe a mind-fabricated hallucination? It is the ruling paradigm in science that our senses and brains filter the information we receive as an input and then fabricate a kind of simplified representation thereof, which we usually call "reality". But does the information we receive really correspond to anything out there? In the film "The Matrix" (1999), the main character Neo found out that everything he experienced before taking the red pill was not really there in a three dimensional tangible world, but rather a mental illusion fed to his brain by a vast computer system called the matrix to which he was connected in a kind of hibernation vessel. In other words, everything he experienced up till that moment was an illusion produced in the theatre of his brain by interplay of computer and brain information exchange.

This idea has also historical antecedents. Plato's cave with shadows that were taken for real and the notion of Maya in Hinduism and Buddhism. Modern developments in physics -in particular digital physics- invoking the so-called holographic principle have postulated the possibility that we are living in some sort of hologram, possibly projected from the two-dimensional surface of a black hole. Others even go as far as to speculate that we are living in a computer simulation. Perhaps not entirely like in the movie the Matrix, but the analogy is troubling.

Whatever is the higher truth as regards these ideas, at least we can make sense from what we observe. We can distinguish recurrent patterns and use them to our advantage. Technology is a proof, that however limited our understanding might be, at least we can employ this understanding in a predictable manner.

We may never know what reality really is like, but at least we can get an idea of what it is doing. The reproducibility of our knowledge suggests that what we observe is a meaningful and useful representation of the inner workings of reality. Perhaps even an isomorphous representation.

In mathematical category theory, if a category is like another category, there is a mapping between the two categories; a meaningful mapping that preserves the structure of the category when mapping it to another category. Such special structure-preserving mappings are called "functors".
The mappings from A to B can also be considered as the way A relates to B. The relation between A and B could then be considered as the sum of the maps from A to B and the maps from B to A. According to the philosopher Wittgenstein there are no things or objects in reality but only relations. It is the interplay between these relations which create the illusion of localised objects, where there are none. In fact quantum mechanics shows that everything is in fact a giant interference pattern of vibrations and vibrations are essentially non-local. Moreover everything is in a constant state of flux; there is no phenomenon that is exactly identical between two moments. Or as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: Panta rhei, ouden menei: Everything flows, nothing remains and "no man ever steps in the same river twice".

How relations build structureRelations at their most fundamental level can then only be a functional process of mutual information exchange, which is continuously updated. The relations are expressed as vibrations, which result in resonance patterns of standing waves: There is a continuous waving and vibrating taking place, but what we observe is a form with a kind of stability.
In other words if we were to consider the forth- and back going vibrations between two points A and B as a mapping activity in progress, this mapping activity results in a physical (re)presentation of another dimension, which we call the standing wave and which we experience as an almost static thing.
In category theory we call mappings morphisms. Mappings show the maps between "objects" (characters, strings, mathematical objects, sets etc.).
A special functor (a mapping between categories) in category theory is the Yoneda functor. Whereas functors normally map objects, the Yoneda functor takes morphisms (mappings) themselves as objects and maps these into a set, which is a new object. (A map of maps so to say).
The analogy struck me. I wondered whether if relations are sets of mappings and such a set can be considered an object, there is at least an artistic similarity with my standing wave idea. I'd perhaps even go so far as to formulate the hypothesis that the structure of an object is a faithful (not in mathematical sense) representation of the functional relations from which it is built.
Perhaps this example is a bit far-fetched, as it is disputable whether vibrations can be considered as relations. But what happens in the brain, may be a better analogy.
Memories in brains are not stored locally as in computers but in distributed ways. Brains store memories in a highly "Wittgensteinian" manner: The patterns that build a concept or an image in the mind are stored functionally in flux patterns of neurotransmitters between neurons and structurally in terms of links between synaptic links between dendrites and axons (the input and output channels) of different neurons. It is the resulting pattern of relations which maps an event or object we have memorised. Whenever we experience something new, the molecular fluxes stimulate synaptic growth to connect neurons. In this way, sensing, which is a functional process forces the formation of structures. It is like a Yoneda mapping taking place in situ in concrete form: the sensorial patterns we observe and categorise according to a certain pattern similarity in our brains are then stored as a new pattern: The morphisms crystallise or fossilise in a set of synaptic links.
But this type of physical direct mapping does not only occur in the brain; at the level of DNA experiences often result in parts of the DNA being post-translationally modified, most often in the form of methylation. The methylation pattern of the DNA can influence whether a gene is switched on or off. It can also be inherited. This is the field of epi-genetics. Environmental influences can strongly influence the way genes can or cannot be expressed as a consequence of environment-induced methylation. This can also render a gene more prone or vulnerable to mutation or influence the way genes are copied or even multiplied upon cell division. In other words certain types of experiences are also stored on the level of the genes or can result in mutations at the DNA level. Again this is an example how sensing the environment and building a relation with the environment is mapped physically in a set of information. Environmental morphisms fossilising in the form of material and informational structure.
In other words, I have drawn an analogy between the abstract way a Yoneda functor maps and embeds morphisms into a set and the concrete way the brain and the epigenome store information resulting from sensorial input. The way the sensorial input is processed corresponds to the morphisms and the concrete stored information in synaptic links or methylation patterns correspond to the embedded set.
Also in this way structure can be considered as a form of fossilised sense.
Yoneda mapping as an analogy for meditationOne of the techniques in Indian meditation is the "Panchadasi" technique. You mentally try to throw your light on a topic of consideration from 15 different perspectives. By doing so, you probe the object functionally and structurally. It is like having an object defined by a few dots and then trying to connect the dots to see what it represents. In fact you are mapping relations between the dots, and the more you progress from these relations you suddenly start to see what the intended object was. From partial links at a certain moment the whole which is more than the sum of parts reveals itself. By performing this technique and considering a topic from as many perspectives as possible, you build as many ontological relations in your mind as possible. At a certain moment, the framework of ontological relations is sufficient to understand the whole. No longer do you experience a broom, a hose and a drum, but suddenly the elephant -of which you had considered the tail, trump and ears separately, without knowing what they were- snaps into your experience. This holistic experience of the phenomenon of contemplation can even result in that you start to feel what it must be "like" to be this phenomenon. Not only do functional relationships reveal a structure, structural relationships can also reveal function.
To speak in category language, not only do the morphisms lead to a representation in a set, but the relations of the objects in the set can by an inverse functor also be back-translated into the morphisms they originated from.
The meditative process thus might be a way to experience "what it is like to be" concerning the object of contemplation.  In Latin this is called "quale" from which the word quality derives. Neurosciences often speak of "qualia" as the qualitative aspects of observation, such as the "redness" of a tomato. Meditation is often intended to achieve oneness with the object of contemplation. This is achieved by experiencing the "what it is like-ness" of the object. Perhaps a process which resembles Yoneda embedding or the reverse thereof is involved in this experience.
Funny enough, one of the basic tenets of category theory is that if a category is "like" another category there is a meaningful mapping which preserves the structure of the category (functors).

Pancomputational Panpsychic AkashaIn my book "Transcendental metaphysics" I argue that the ground of existence is "primordial consciousness" (i.e. sentience per se if you prefer). From this formless all-pervading filed, informational units arise, which form a kind of neural computational network in the so-called the quantum vacuum, which has been equated with the Indian concept of the "Akasha". The Akasha even allows for a kind of digital processing in addition thereto. If reality is indeed a computational substrate involving information processing as digital physics suggests, there must be a consciousness to make sense of the information (otherwise it is gibberish). This leads to my hypothesis of pancomputational panpsychism. As this network of reality as a whole is considered sentient in this model, perhaps I can also speculate that the very way in which structures arise in this model is via Yoneda embedding. It is interesting to note that Yoneda embedding requires that the functor which operates the mapping does so from a "locally small category". This is important because I have suggested in earlier posts that sentience is present at the smallest level of reality which can be considered to have a certain individuality and relative locality. If reality indeed creates structure by fossilising sensed experiences, then this is not in contradiction with my panpsychic hypothesis. Moreover the fractal of panpsychic entities, which I have proposed, perfectly fits the idea that functions and structures are each other's transform.
In my model your localised awareness inhabits a vessel which is made out of smaller entities (your cells), which can be considered as a bunch of smaller localised entities. The awareness of a cell inhabits a vessel made by atoms, which in turn can be considered as a bunch of smaller localised entities with a minute form of individual awareness. Thus you get a fractal of entities that on the one hand are sensing entities themselves and on the other hand form structured vessels in cooperation. Each entity is then at one level a functional sensorial living entity and at the same time the structural fossilised building block of a higher aggregation level.

I don't say this is my belief or an absolute truth to me. It's a speculative artistic process of associations, which I explore in the hope that one day I will be able to integrate them into a verifiable hypothesis. Consider these my metaphysical musings and please do not take any speculation for a fact in this essay. Perhaps my analogies are not even valid since I am not a mathematician. But if they are I hope my musings will be read by one of them and inspire them, to help me prove my ideas.
ConsciousnessIn a previous article I have also suggested that primordial consciousness might operate to generate information by self-representation. Again this fits the notion of Yoneda embedding. Self-representation or self-reproduction is a concrete analogy of mapping the functional consciousness process into a fossilised structure that can be experienced , so that the knower generates information as known and by observing its self-generated information comes to know itself as the Ouroboros from alchemy biting its own tail.
ConclusionI hope to have shown that the abstract mapping of morphisms into sets in mathematical category theory may have an equivalent in the way structures arise in physics and biology. The process of Yoneda embedding may not only be involved in such concrete examples but also in meditative processes as well as in the ontogenesis of existence from primordial consciousness.

By Antonin Tuynman a.k.a Technovedanta; inspired by ideas from Eric D.Ryser.
You can find my book here.
Image from http://eresaw.deviantart.com/art/Soap-Bubble-Ballet-293874327

Tsang's Brain Fractal Theory: The ultimate algorithm for AGI

In this chapter I will discuss how Tsang's Fractal Brain Theory describes a way to implement the evolutionary algorithm of intelligence in a computer environment to generate Artificial General Intelligence.
Background
In my previous book "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?" I described an algorithm that evolution follows to generate complexity. To my great surprise I found the same ingredients back in the book "Fractal Brain Theory", although differently presented. This chapter is the first of a series of a sequel to my previous book.
I described how when a (living) system encounters a problem such as a lack of resources, this gives the system a stimulus to start to probe for a variety of alternatives or other solutions.
Quote from my previous book:

Nature will now generate a plethora of alternatives by combining elements from the environment with the system. 

This includes changes such as mutations.
In Tsang's book an equivalent is found in that the system differentiates or diverges.
From the probing or testing of these alternatives by the system, the system abstracts patterns. (Screening of relational “Syntheses”.) From these the most successful alternative strategies can be selected. (Elimination, Pruning of Syntheses and Emergence of new “Theses”.)
This plays a role in what Tsang calls "intersection", which I will discuss later in this chapter.
Quote from my previous book:

This can be repeated on a heterarchical level between groups of entities or (living or non-living) systems (such as bacterial colonies or animal societies). When contending groups encounter each other, this gives a stimulus to start a so-called “Intergroup tournament”. The tournament can lead to a mutual probing of the distinctions between the groups. Nature will screen which elements from the contender can be copied and integrated and which ones should be discarded. This can result in the formation of 1) a “niche” (each group specialises in a niche such that it does not poach on the contender’s preserves); 2) a “symbiosis”: the groups learn to cohabitate peacefully together and provide each other with a service, resulting in a transactional scenario of a win-win situation); or 3) an exchange of those features which are different between the groups (“mimicking”). Thus the system adapts itself to its environment.

The most promising strategies ideally result in symbiosis, a unification of features toward which the system will strive. 

In Tsang's book I found an equivalent which he calls convergence.
Quote from my previous book:

The system will try to resonate “morphogenetically” (i.e. in form, as dictated by its genetic make-up) with its new environment and thereby adapt to it. This is Nature’s way of continuously striving for more complexity and incorporation of mutual features, as this assures more adaptability to and integration with the environment and hence increased chances for survival. In other words Nature’s intelligence algorithm is essentially integrative: It tries to unite, to combine apparent opposites.

Now one of the most interesting points I found in Tsang's book was the way he described the selection process (which I called the screening and pruning), which he calls the intersection of the convergence and divergence. This is one of the points that I will discuss in more detail in this chapter.
The other point is that Nature is a system performing mapping. I discussed this in my essay: "Is structure fossilised sense". Likewise I find that Tsang describes mapping as the unifying process underlying all natural processes.
Finally, Tsang speaks about a recursive self-modifying process, in which the process takes itself as an object and maps this. This is Yoneda embedding, which I also discussed in my article on structure being fossilised sense. Moreover, in my article on sentience I suggested that this form of self-representation is the very ontogenetic process of reality generation.
MappingTsang convincingly shows that nature both on the genetic as well as the brain level cunningly exploits the process of making binary trees to arrive at an ontogenetic process which observes rules of symmetry and symmetry breaking, recursive self-modification and warranting self-similarity over different scales. The brain maps its experiences, its sensory data observing a hierarchical process involving binary trees, and these are reflected in the generation of corresponding structures at the neuronal level in the form of axonal and dendritic branching  (but also at the genetic level: e.g. epigenetic markers). Moreover, this forward chaining process is mimicked by a backward chaining process in the motor neurons. Both the structural modifications and the motor neuron actions can be considered as mappings of the sensory process: (s)ensing translates into (r)econstruction in terms of Tsang. From (s)timulus to (r)esponse.
Amplification, Reproduction and seed.Nature has found both at the neuronal and genetic level a system to reproduce itself, which is a special kind of recursive mapping which takes itself as object to generate isomorphic structures, we could call this amplification. At the same time, there is a kind of randomisation process going on allowing for mutations and changes, a differentiation can occur in the copies. At the level of DNA this is obvious in the form of point mutations, deletions and insertions, but at the brain level as well plasticity is rewarded allowing for morphological differentiation and asymmetric linking up of the neurons. Moreover, a Yoneda type mapping process occurs in that the mapping process itself becomes the object of the mapping process. We can reflect on how we reflect and this is reflected in new links being created at the neuronal level. Now that we understand that this type of reflecting is a Yoneda-type of mapping we are actually doing this very thing in situ. The process which maps and creates our neuronal links is mapped to itself. You have now created a mapping of the recursive process by the recursive process. You have done so by creating a hierarchical binary tree. You have crystallised (or fossilised) sensing and function into structure. This is what nature does, it evolves evolvability by a process which Tsang calls recursive self-modification. A hierarchical binary tree generation process which is the unifying process in our ontogenesis.
Tsang moreover shows that the brain is like a fractal structure as every idiosyncratic aspect of the brain can be mapped to a structure or function at the genetic level. After all our genome encodes precisely how our brain's architecture should be formed. Our genome in a certain sense is a brain in seed form.
Interestingly, Stephen King a computer scientist (not the horror writer), called this process of self-generation the generation of a null-representation, a self-representation or a seed, which can grow out into a full blown new entity.
Divergence and DifferentiationAnd Tsang adds the modifying and divergence or symmetry breaking aspect to it. Some branches will get more attention than others. Neurons have a kind of background random spiking activity, which can be rewarded if an interaction is generated and a connection is built. This creates a divergence. If a cell would simply undergo a doubling process by division without any differentiation, all you would get is a homogeneous essentially spherical blob of cells. Fortunately, nature has invented a way to differentiate by employing so-called morphogens (special chemicals that cells produce), the presence of which tells the cell to differentiate, by silencing certain parts of the DNA and switching on other parts. These morphogens form a gradient, so that not every cell is differentiated, but only the ones where the morphogen concentration is high. Even on the neuronal level there is a differentiation in type, there are activating and inhibitory neurons; there are also spindle cells for long distance information transfer.
Screening, Pruning, Intersection and SelectionI described how nature has to screen and prune the variety of alternatives it has generated to select the most promising ones. Darwin's survival of the fittest. But how does it pull off this trick if a mapping process underlies the ontogenesis? It is here that I found Tsang's description most elegant and inspiring. It employs a combination of forward chaining and backward chaining, just like certain type of heuristics in artificial intelligence. In a literal sense the sensory  motor neurons expand and branch until they meet each other and only those who meet are selected, because they form a link! Just like  a forward chaining heuristic starting from the problem meets a backward chaining heuristic starting from the solution. Tsang describes this as Bayes inverse probability Rule in action. Bayesian probability can be expressed as the chance that B occurs when A is present  P(B ¦ A) being equal to the chance that A occurs multiplied by the chance that A occurs when B is presented and divided by the chance that B occurs: P (B ¦ A) = P(A)*P(A ¦ B)/P(B).
The chance that B occurs when A is present is like the forward chaining heuristic and the chance that A occurs when B is present as the backward chaining heuristic. Where the branches meet a connection is formed and metaphorically an intersection is formed. This is how neurons select. Neurons that wire together fire together. Enhanced flow through a neuron attracts the attention of other neurons, which will then also benefit from enhanced flow. This is like publicity. This is what Howard Bloom calls the "Matthew" principle: To those who have it shall be given, from those who have not it shall be taken away. There is a mutual rewarding going on, which is rather exclusive. Only really new ontologies to be created may be able pull off the trick of including the previously excluded neurons.
But only those who can create a proper linkage create a connection, and Tsang here uses the lock and key metaphor. The conjugation or linking up at every level can only occur if the key of the backward chaining heuristic fits the lock of the forward chaining heuristic. In order to select which ones can link up, a scoring system is needed. Tsang proposes that the lock comes before the keys otherwise we wouldn't have anything to score the keys with. The female precedes the male, in this chicken-and-egg problem.
Convergence and IntegrationThis shows that ontogenesis is more than differentiation and selection only. The parts must also start to work together, they must be integrated into a whole. A meta-system transition must occur for the cells to group into an organ. And again this trick is pulled off by mapping. Yes, mathematical category theory is a very powerful concept, for describing reality as we know it. Here we employ linking up of the various  mapped elements. This is the cooperative symbiotic part of the evolutionary search engine, allowing the mapped conjugated entities to map into a convergent hierarchical tree. And this new entity can then be submitted to a new round of recursive self-modification, giving rise to the steps I described as intergroup tournament, distinction probing and (further) symbiosis.
Artificial IntelligenceTsang believes that the ingredients of symmetry, self-similarity and recursion resulting in a simple self-modifying recursive algorithm, which creates binary trees, may be the key to unlocking the secret of Artificial general Intelligence: Creating AI which is context independent and which can achieve or surpass the human level of intelligence. Provided that Tsang in his endeavours in AI includes the elements of selection and integration he has described, this may indeed be a promising novel avenue in this field. But we must not forget that it took nature billions of years to arrive at the complexity we presently have. The different layers and structures in the brain (cerebellum, hypothalamus, pituary gland, hypophysis, hippocampus, amygdala, cerebral cortex etc.) have a very special fine-tuned architecture, which employs a great variety of neurotransmitters. If Tsang's future algorithm is successful it will take quite some cycles and extensive pruning and selection, before a human  level AGI evolves from it. On the other hand the ever increasing speed at which this can occur and the ever increasing resources in terms of memory and miniaturisation according to Moore's law, may pull-off this trick faster than we think. Because it has the very notion of representation and recursive self-modification at its heart.
Noteworthy, Dr Joe Tsien has recently shown that intelligence indeed follows a “neural network” type algorithm (not a traditional von Neumann style algorithm). The more thought, the more cliques join in, Tsien says. The basis of Tsien’s Theory of Connectivity is the algorithm, n=2ⁱ-1, which defines how many cliques are needed for a “Functional Connectivity Motif” to arise. This enabled the scientists to predict the number of cliques needed to recognise options in their testing of the theory. The  2ⁱ in this formula represents the number of neurons that join in, which follows exactly the binary tree indicated by Tsang!
ConclusionWe have seen that Tsang's brain fractal theory can be mapped quite accurately to my "intelligence algorithm" and "structure is fossilised sense" ideas. We have seen that Tsang provides serious improvements thereof in terms of binary trees, an intersection selection and connection process and a recursive self-modifying process. We have also seen that this may be a serious candidate to create human level AGI which may perhaps one day herald the advent of the technological singularity. Thus Tsang lifts the veil of the underlying algorithm of existence as a whole, a process, which the Greek called Apokalypsis. The Fractal Brain Theory by Wai H.Tsang, wholeheartedly recommended.

The Moral Compass of Higher Intelligence: Preface

A wave of divisiveness engulfs this world. Extreme right wing populism is gaining momentum, because many people believe the lies of the demagogues. People believe that their kind should come first and that others should be excluded. They build walls, like between Israel and Palestine and are planning to build one between the USA and Mexico.

Excluding others not only happens on the political plane. Economic exclusion is becoming a more and more frequent phenomenon. People losing their jobs, being evicted from their houses whilst a small group of extreme rich billionaires, the top 0,1% owns as much as the bottom 90%. This is not a scenario of a third world country where such a partitioning is common, this is the reality of the USA!

Strangely enough, the poor and dispossessed hardly organise in cooperatives, guilds and unions. No, there is a general trend that they admire the usurpers. “Exclusivity” is something people crave for. And the poor and dispossessed do not adopt a different more inclusive lifestyle, no they too try to pick every little grain that is still left joining the general tendency to egoism: I first, my kind first.

This tendency towards exclusion and divisiveness are expressions of different types of discrimination. We discriminate with regard to gender (sexism), race (racism), economic status (classism) and religious beliefs (this has no official name, but I’d like to call it “cretism” from the Latin word “credo”).

Moreover as a consequence of the hoarding and overconsumption linked to the reign of egoism, we deplete all mother Earth’s natural resources and we pollute this planet with our vehicles, factories and overconsumption so that many of the huge agglomerations have turned into literal shitholes. The emissions resulting from our massive burning of fossil fuels have resulted in a climate change beyond compare as regards the speed with which the climate is changing. This brings the risk of a runaway scenario in which the air becomes so saturated with carbon dioxide that the resulting greenhouse effect will warm up temperatures which may even make life impossible on earth. Earth could become a second Venus, where temperatures are as high as 462°C!

We are like bacterial colony in a petri dish. We thrived, we boomed with an explosion of population and now we start to really deplete the last resources. What biology tells us is that such a colony will soon herald its own demise. The crisis of survival in the last stages is called a Malthusian crisis after the 19th century biologist Thomas Malthus.

Is this what history has taught us as a viable and sustainable way to survive? Is this an intelligent strategy of the evolutionary search engine?

In my previous series, “Is intelligence an Algorithm?” I have already argued that natural intelligence seeks to cooperate, that the so-called Nash equilibrium results in a win-win situation wherein the overall output is higher than when the contenders would have continued to compete.
Today I read an article by Krnel about morality. Whereas I agree with his intent, I have a slightly different philosophical stance on this topic which I will try to explain in this series (in the last paragraphs of this article you’ll find a hint as to why my stance is different).
In this series I will argue that if we seek the best solutions to our global problems by applying the natural algorithm of intelligence we actually acquire what is a kind of natural morality intrinsic to complex systems that manage to survive.

I will not make many friends with the series, because I am going to challenge your very belief systems. I am going to turn upside down your comfort zone. I am going to tell you an inconvenient truth. I will question what truth is, whether objective truth exists at all. I will question what morality actually is. I will question your religions and only distil therefrom what is universal and in line with Nature’s natural intelligence algorithm. But I will denounce all the nonsense in religions that make man suffer. I will denounce capitalism, communism and anarchism. And I will denounce our corrupted ways of living, which are rapidly sending us towards a point of no return: The extinction of our species.

Is then everything lost?
No, Nature has its intelligent ways to survive even the advent of a destructive variant of a species. When bacteria or eukaryotic unicellular organisms reach the Malthusian crisis, they do something very interesting: They sporulate. The entirety of their intelligent knowledge is so to speak stored in a spore in which their genome is safely packaged in a way that can withstand extreme environmental changes. Once the metaphorical environmental “storm” is over and conditions are favourable again, the spores break open and the organism can come to life again.

We are already sporulating. The whole creation of the internet in which all our knowledge is packed, and the not-so-far-in-the-future awakening of the internet as a quasiconscious entity, lays the foundation for the creation of life, of our successors in a distant future. They might even bring back to life human beings as in the film “Artificial Intelligence” by Steven Spielberg.

This series will explore two avenues:
The first one will describe what we can still attempt to do to save our Earth and learn how to live in a responsible manner. How we can transform the manure of our corrupted ways into a blooming awakening into a sustainable respectful all-inclusive society. The remedy? Turning inwards to our innate intelligence and spirituality.
The second avenue will explore the ways how we can effectively sporulate our knowledge into an artificial substrate, which may allow one day to raise us from death again, but now with the knowledge what we should learn to avoid.

My plea will be moralising. Not because I believe in good and evil, not because I believe in right or wrong, or any other “absolutes”, but because I am pragmatically convinced that intelligence is more successful than ignorance. That usefulness yields better results than futility. Yes, that morality is an innate aspect of intelligence. What I understand under “morality” will be the topic of a next essay.

This is my new project and my new topic for my next book.

Is Intelligence an Algorithm?

My book "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?" will be published on 26-1-2018 by iff-books. This book is a must for anyone who would like to improve his/her intelligence. The book starts with an overview how in Nature evolutionary complexity is arrived at via an inherent sequence of steps, which you could call an algorithm. Then the book analyses different aspects involved in human intelligence such as (re)cognition, reasoning and problem-solving. The role of emotions and how to control them is also discussed. Three chapters are dedicated to artificial intelligence. The book concludes with the more elusive aspects of intuition.

The book is available on amazon for pre-orders:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intelligence...
Here is the "Marketing Blurb":



Do you wish to improve your intelligence? Then we’ll first have to figure out what “intelligence” actually is.
Join me on a journey that starts with Nature’s ways to generate complexity. I will show you that from bacterial wisdom to the quagmire of human social interactions the same steps are followed to generate so-called “meta-system transitions”, where singleton entities organise into societies and finally into new emergent entities built there from.
In this book I will not only dissect intelligence into elements of cognition, pattern recognition, reasoning, problem-solving and diversity generation, I will also venture into the more elusive realms of emotions and intuition.
From these concepts I will provide strategies, heuristics and architectural plans to create a new generation of Artificial Intelligence. A conceptualisation of Artificial Consciousness and a blueprint for an Artificial Webmind.
And as a bonus I will provide you with tools. Tools to organise your thoughts, tools to solve any kind of problem, tools to navigate through the wild waves of our emotions.
This is the abstraction of the dissecting knife of the intellect and the great integrator of cliques allowing to spawn a plethora of novel and inventive solutions which are screened and pruned to generate an apotheosis of ever increasing complexity.
This is the book that reveals nature’s inherent simple algorithm to achieve complex goals in complex environments.
Please visit my new website dedicated to this new book: https://www.intelligencealgorithm.com/ 
I will be needing reviews from people who have read the book. If you are interested in getting a "review copy" for a reduced price before the book is officially published please contact me at iconomen@gmail.com.