Anderz

@Artsu Yes, but a relation can be complete by having a relation to itself. A difference on the other hand results in duality since a difference in relation to itself is no difference. I think that was what impressed me so much by Leo saying that reality is difference.

No, because we cannot cheat and jump ahead into the future. Take a look at for example Leo's new video about libertarianism, how our civilization is a result of an incredible struggle and development into larger and larger holons. One cannot just go from the Garden of Eden with humanity being in oneness with God in an undifferentiated state to the iPhone and the internet by wishful thinking. Nor can we by wishful thinking produce a technological singularity tomorrow. A technological singularity will not happen until the year 2045 according to Ray Kurzweil. And as Kurzweil has explained, evolution accelerates because it builds on previous results. One cannot just skip one or more levels.

@Member Leo actually blew my mind when he said that reality is difference. Because I had tried to picture how something can evolve from a single state. In the Wolfram model they haven't figured out yet what the initial condition is or what the rule for the graph is. Reality made of a single difference, that becomes really interesting. Because it's a minimal principle from which all of existence can emerge as I have shown. And the arrow of time is a direct consequence of the difference keeping on differentiating so to speak. But where does evolution come from? That's where I have the Omega number (a Chaitin constant). The Omega number for our multiverse is a very special number which has intelligent "design". Notice that since it's just a number that just is (platonic form), no external or internal designer is needed. The Omega number is infinite, yet the manifestation of that number is always finite (compare with the Wolfram model where the graph is expanding yet always finite). The continuous circle I mentioned previously is the infinite unmanifested. Manifested reality will never reach infinity. So although the unmanifested and the manifested are one, the unmanifested will always be greater than the manifested, so time goes on forever. Evolution is a result of increasing complexity. And complexity is information structured as holons. What we will experience is that larger and larger and more complex holons will emerge, including planet Earth as a single holon. Bruce Lipton calls it fractal evolution:

In this video from about 4 minutes Leo says: "The only thing that is real is what exists right now in the present moment. The only thing that is real is what exists right now, for you, in your direct experience in the present moment." What Leo said is exactly how I think of time. I don't know if Leo thinks the past is real, but the principle of everything in the now is consistent with direct experience and can be made logical sense even with a real past by saying that all the past is information in the now, and only in the now.

@Nahm One standard definition of concept is that it's an abstract idea. So for example Eckhart Tolle told a story about a Zen master who when asked what the nature of Zen is raised his finger and said nothing. That gesture is also a concept basically. Anyway, why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is in the question itself. The question contains a difference between something and nothing. And since the question clearly exists, the difference exists. And that single difference produces our universe as I described earlier. Edit: On a second thought, that explanation is a bit of begging the question, because it takes the question as already existing when it's the existence of the question itself along with everything else in existence it's about. But anyway, I thought it was a new take on it.

The idea of consciousness as a feedback loop I got from alternative researcher Nassim Haramein. Here are two short videos where he explains the idea:

@Nahm You mean there is a difference between a pointer and a concept? I think of it as pointers being concepts, while concepts are not necessarily pointers. Even to say "not two including oneself" is a concept.

Even "not two" is a concept. Everything we post here are concepts. As nonduality teacher Ramesh Balsekar said, something like: Whatever any spiritual teacher or guru has said at any time, whatever any teaching has said ever, is a concept.

I think of consciousness as a feedback loop between the infinite unmanifested and the finite manifested. The unmanifested can be pictured as a continuous circle where all points are connected to each other. That's the same as an infinite undirected simple complete graph. Just a seemingly simple circle like that is mind-boggling. No matter how small section of the circle, there is always an infinite number of points in that section. It's called an uncountable infinite set. It's beyond enormous. Manifested reality is the manifestation of that circle (graph) in the now. Leo said in some of his videos that reality is difference. That made me think of how to start with a single difference, and since it's a difference it has a 'this' and a 'that' which produce the first step of the graph. Then in the next step there are new differences between the previous differences and so on in explosion of differences. The picture above is not exactly how the graph/circle increases in size, but it illustrates the idea. And the Omega number for our reality (multiverse) is a point somewhere on the circle. And that point is a real number.

@Nahm I certainly include myself in nonduality. Probably science will move towards nonduality, because reality is one, not two or more. Because if reality had two or more parts, then those parts are included in the one reality, or they would be separate realities.

@Nahm Nonduality is a word, so it's a concept. Nonduality teachers often talk about how all of reality can only be described through concepts and pointers. Leo has mentioned that too. @Forestluv The graph is also a concept. But there is a difference. The graph can (potentially) model how reality works. At first one can imagine that a graph can represent reality. Then the next step is to examine if such model can describe reality better than the current models in science and spirituality.

From Wolfram's paper:

@Nahm Nonduality is a concept, but it can also be called a pointer. And the Wolfram team needs to be careful to follow traditional science as much as possible or few people will take them seriously, so even if they have spiritual ideas that's probably not something they will add to their model, at least not yet. (With the disclaimer that I haven't read the entire 400+ pages paper about the project.)

@Member I think of all of reality as similar to the Wolfram model which starts from an initial condition and then expands. It's a completely deterministic process. One difference is that I think manifested reality starts only from a single difference (I got that idea from one of Leo's videos). Another difference is that causality in my view is a result of the whole unmanifested rather than only cause and effect from past to future as in the Wolfram model. Interestingly, Wolfram mentioned that there is something called Omega numbers, also called Chaitin's constant. And an Omega number is a single real number! That's how I think of reality. The Word of God is literally a single number that timelessly just is, one extremely special number out of all possible numbers.

@Nahm Wolfram only said that the graph isn't made of anything. That the graph is all Mind is something I made up. But it makes sense from a nondual perspective. Wolfram and his team are hardcore scientists, I haven't heard them talking about nonduality or other spiritual concepts. Although one commenter mentioned Indra's net which I found fascinating.

@Nahm Stephen Wolfram said that the graph isn't isn't made of anything, and that's how I see it too. The graph itself is the fundamental no-thing that gives rise to time, space, matter and also thoughts. In the Wolfram model, they separate time from space, and time is the expansion of the graph. They have a certain time interval for the "time ticks" (smaller than the Planck time if I remember correctly). I don't see where they get a definite smallest time interval from, but if they can derive it somehow directly from the graph that will be amazing. Explaining how time intervals work and why they have a certain duration is something I haven't figured out yet. The expansion of the graph is Mind, one could say. So that everything is mind, and physical matter, time and space are that Mind too. Mind is both subjective and objective.

I think of information at the fundamental level like how in The Wolfram Physics Project they have an interconnected graph as their model of reality. So the fundamental information is an interconnected whole. What we usually call information is made of separate bits. Nouns and verbs too are separate objects. That's second-order structures (or higher). The first-order information is one whole no-thing.

No, it's impossible in general to predict what will happen even a millisecond from now! And it's not only about everything being interconnected. Even many very simple processes are computationally irreducible. Stephen Wolfram discovered this with a simple cellular automaton he calls Rule 30:

@Member Stephen Wolfram has a great concept of free will based on what he calls computational irreducibility. So even if the universe is deterministic, it's not like in Laplace's mechanical determinism where the future can be predicted. With computational irreducibility it's impossible, even in theory, to fully know the future. And our personal choices are a part of making the universe happen. We cannot "cheat" and jump ahead into the future.

@Member According to my view all past choices are information in the now. And only that! So it's a kind of illusion of a past separate from the now. But that contradicts our experience of free will, at least in ordinary consciousness. Many nonduality teachers talk about how there is no choice. Some of the most hardcore nonduality teachers, such as Tony Parsons and Jim Newman even say that nothing ever happens. My own experience is that I have free will, and that I have made choices in the past. But logic tells me that it's more likely that I don't have actual free will and that the past is only now. So I need more practical experience before I know with more certainty whether my theory is real or not.

Manifested reality is a continuous increase of complexity. That's change. But it's just an increase of information where the past information still remains, so change is no change. And choice is a result of past moments lacking enough complexity to determine the direction of life. Choice is no choice. Once the direction becomes known, choice becomes obsolete. Time is change. There is no additional substance or process of time. And since change is no change, time is no time. Time is a revelation, not a process.

Whoa, what is fear other than the belief that things can go wrong? What if that perspective is sin? Meaning, what if that belief is wrong?

The ego believes in randomness and accidents. Miracles are the opposite of that. If we expect miracles instead of accidents then that might change reality. I don't mean like in free will change, but change through a new understanding. The very belief in accidents may be what produces them.

Science today has physical models that are the same in both directions, past and future. One way science attempts to explain the arrow of time is to propose that the universe started from a state of incredibly low entropy, and from there the entropy continuously increases. But where does the complexity in the universe come from? Low entropy means order but it doesn't automatically mean high complexity. And entropy means disorder, so are we supposed to believe that the universe started from a state of low entropy and then through increase of disorder that it has led to today's world with the internet, airplanes, dogs and cats? That scenario is so unlikely that it's like the analogy of how a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard will produce a Boeing 747. I suggest that the arrow of time is a result of increasing complexity, not increasing entropy. Science today doesn't even have valid definition of complexity. I define complexity as information structured as holons. Evolution, then, is a consequence of the formation of more and more complex holons. Example of holons are atoms which are parts of molecules which are parts of cells which are parts of multicellular organisms. Evolution is not only a biological process. The whole universe evolves, including things like science, society and technology.

Not only money, but also calendar time is a huge burden. Humanity has through ego consciousness been able to build a formidable and complex civilization. That's great. Leo explains in great detail in his new video how much humanity has gone through in order to get to the stage we are at today. That's highly valuable. So the trick is to preserve all that, along with money and calendar time, for decades to come at least, until those things can be replaced by even more advanced solutions through automation. So freedom from money doesn't mean the abandonment of money and a regress into anarchy and barter. Freedom from money, calendar time and all forms of control structures comes through the realization that there is no individual control. The actual control is a result of reality as a whole unfolding with increasing complexity.