reality and her secrets

What is reality? How does she work? What are her secrets? What is something, and nothing, and anything, and everything?

Why is there something rather than nothing? From a non-dual standpoint, this question dissolves. "Nothing" and "something" are conceptual distinctions that arise only within dualistic thought.

The "nothing" is not a void but the formless source that inherently manifests as "something". In this sense, nothingness is not the absence of existence but the unconditioned potential for all existence.

If consciousness and the "base" layer of reality is fundamentally a non-invariant space, physical reality could be understood as a relational phenomenon. Objects, events, and even motion and time are defined only in relation to one another, rather than to any fixed or external "background".

If there is no invariant space, then "movement" isn't an absolute change in position within a pre-existing framework. Instead, it's a shift in relational configuration.

For example, motion is not something an object "does" in isolation but is a co-arising phenomenon. The relative distances or relationships between entities change, and this is what we perceive as movement. What appears to "move" is entirely dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. Without a fixed frame, there's no privileged perspective from which movement can be absolutely measured.

From a non-dual view, there may be no "things" doing the moving at all - just a dynamic, seamless unfolding. The distinction between "mover" and "space" dissolves, and motion becomes a play of appearances within awareness or presence itself.

Space and time are themselves dynamic and relative, and from a deeper, experiential perspective, reality might not be "physical" in the way we conventionally think.

It could instead be a spontaneous arising of phenomena without fixed ground or inherent substance. In this view, physical reality is less of a "thing" are more of an experience of interdependent, ephemeral patterns, with "movement" being the perception of shifting relationships within that flow.

In conceptualizing the "base layer" of reality as a dynamic structure of informational relationships, this relates to the notion of a quantum information manifold, a geometric or topological representation of quantum states, where each point corresponds to a possible configuration of information. Motion, change, or dynamics on such a manifold can be understood as transformations of informational relationships.

At this layer, there are no objects with intrinsic properties. Instead, reality arises from interactions and entanglements between informational states. This resonates deeply with non-dual insights: the idea that separateness and "things" are emergent rather than fundamental.

So what's "doing the moving"? What moves the hand that moves itself? "Movement" isn't an object traveling through a medium but a shift in the informational relationships encoded in the manifold. Just as quantum states evolve according to the wave function or unitary transformations, movement on a quantum manifold is the reconfiguration of relational information. Quantum systems have no absolute spatial reference; they evolve within a relational, probabilistic framework.

This reflects the non-invariant nature of space and emptiness and dependent origination - motion is not absolute but emerges as a relational pattern of quantum information.

Just as non-duality dissolves the distinction between observer and observed, quantum mechanics dissolves classical notions of localized particles. In both cases, what we perceive as "movement" or "reality" is an arising within a seamless, indivisible whole.

If the base layer is quantum information, then what we call "physical reality" is an emergent phenomenon, arising as patterns or forms of that information. Non-duality echoes this by asserting that reality is an appearance within awareness, not something inherently solid or separate. The "quantum foam" or informational manifold might correspond to the dynamic, interdependent arising of phenomena in non-duality.

Movement, both in quantum terms and from the non-dual view, is less about "something moving" and more about the play of relationships or fluctuations within an indivisible field.

So what is this "space" in which all things occur? The "space" isn’t a thing but rather the groundless ground - the unmanifest potential from which all phenomena arise. It is not a "container" but an absence of boundaries, distinctions, or dualities. From this perspective, "space" is awareness itself, without inherent structure or separateness.

In the quantum context, the "space" is the structure of possible informational relationships — the quantum manifold itself. This isn’t "space" as a classical void but a mathematical and topological construct representing the potential configurations of quantum states.

Philosophers like Heidegger refer to this "space" as Being—the foundational "isness" that allows anything to appear. In this view, space is the condition for the possibility of relational phenomena.

So why is there something rather than nothing? From a non-dual standpoint, this question dissolves. "Nothing" and "something" are conceptual distinctions that arise only within dualistic thought.

The "nothing" is not a void but the formless source that inherently manifests as "something." In this sense, nothingness is not the absence of existence but the unconditioned potential for all existence.

In quantum theory, the "vacuum" or "nothingness" is not truly empty—it is a seething ground of potential, often described as quantum foam or zero-point energy. This aligns with the idea that "nothing" is unstable and must give rise to "something" due to intrinsic fluctuations.

Some argue that "something" exists because it is logically necessary. A true "nothing" would have no properties, not even the capacity for existence or non-existence, which makes the concept of "nothing" incoherent. Existence might therefore be self-necessitating.

Mathematics, especially number theory and the theory of infinite sets, provides a framework to explore the structure of this "space" and the dynamics of "something arising."

At its core, number theory explores the fundamental building blocks of mathematical reality: numbers. Numbers, as abstract entities, can represent relationships and structures, echoing how "something" arises from a "space" of potential.

The "space" of existence can be likened to the set of all possible numbers—a kind of infinite, formless background that gives rise to specific forms and patterns.

Cantor’s work on infinite sets reveals that there are different sizes or levels of infinity. This suggests that even within "nothingness," there could be a hierarchy or structure of potentialities—mirroring how the quantum manifold contains infinite possible states.

The relationship between finite and infinite in set theory reflects the interplay between form and formlessness, with the finite arising as expressions or subsets of the infinite.

Some thinkers, like Max Tegmark, propose that the universe is fundamentally mathematical. If this is true, the "space" is an abstract mathematical structure, and "something" arises as specific instantiations of mathematical relationships.

Non-duality echoes this: the manifold of infinite potential is like an unbounded set, and phenomena arise as "points" or configurations within it.

The "space" of existence, whether viewed through non-duality, quantum information, or mathematics, is not a "thing" but an infinite potential that manifests relationally.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because the potential for "something" and "nothing" is itself inseparable, just as the infinite gives rise to the finite within itself. This interplay is the dance of existence.

Are we thinking about reality or is reality thinking through us?

Everything is literally unfolding. Unfolding as a verb AND a noun.

Look at an ant or dog and you might think oh it’s just an animal. Biological automata. Well the same can be said for us too!

Many times we think we’re in control and “consciously” decide this or that. That I am this person doing this thing, exerting my free will. The thing is, that finite instantiation of “free will” is just that - both reality and ephemerality.

When you can enter “God Mind” you see that you too are just an animal. The same ways in which you view that dog from “higher above”, only now that above is above us. Blessed monkeys, I say.

This is a fascinating thing to think about, where exactly the observer lies and how it observes and what it actually observes, both “of its own volition” and not.

Is automata always there and is computation dependent on observer existence and nature? Or is it the other way around? Are they the same, and what would that imply about a bounded and unbounded world?

What is an automaton? If you zoom out, you could say that everything, including humans, operates under some form of computation - taking in information, processing it, and acting.

But who or what is doing the computing?

One way to see it: computation depends on an observer. For information to be processed, something must be there to register, interpret, and act on it. Without an observer, does computation exist?

The opposite view: the observer itself is a product of computation. The brain, for example, is just a highly complex automaton - billions of neurons computing and giving rise to the illusion of a self. In this view, there’s no true “observer”, just self-referential computation.

Another view: observer and computation are actually the same thing. The act of computation is itself the act of observation. There is no “thing” separate from the process - there is just unfolding, self-aware information processing.

If observer and computation are the same, then we start dissolving the boundary between who observes and what is observed. That raises the question:

Is reality finite, bound by the mechanics of observation and its superimposition? Maybe perception itself creates the limits of what can be known, making reality a bounded system.

Or is it unbounded, existing beyond any observer-dependent framework? Maybe computation keeps running regardless of whether anyone is “watching”, meaning there is something beyond perception itself.

If observer = computation = unfolding, then reality is both finite and infinite, bounded and unbounded, depending on where you look from.

What even is a perspective when perspective itself is an emergent part of the process?

Are we thinking about reality, or is reality just thinking through us?

What does it mean for things to be interconnected?

The whole universe exists in your direct experience. Your experience that is hyperspace; an infinitely finite existence.

It’s incredible how many elements there are to the contemplative path and navigating the inner world.

There’s the view from mindspace, where body and mind exist across the same dimensionality. As in, everything from the thoughts you think to the sensations you feel are operable in the awareness field.

There’s the view from nervous system configuration, where all phenomena are related to energetics and the manifestation and dynamics of this aliveness.

There’s the view from conceptualization, where everything is information and sentience. And of course, the view from non-conceptualization, where nothing is existence and experience.

Which one is it? Is it all of them? Is it something else? Or maybe a special mix?

Consciousness is conscious across so many interconnected hyperplanes, and it’s extremely worthwhile to take as much of a comprehensive view as you can into your direct experience.

The whole universe exists in that, and it’s all related, from your bioelectric system dynamics and psychological expressions to the world at large - the work you do, the social graphs you exist in, the clothes you wear, the global markets, frontier research and application, and anything else you can imagine.

That is to say all of this doesn’t need to be take in account for every single moment of your life. But just think about the seemingly infinite set of things that make up the causal-acausal you in every experience.

Somewhere in hyperspace you exist for everyone else. That is the beingness of connection - an interrelated tapestry of becoming.

This is why you explore, for exploration is the embrace and creation of the raw humaneness of reality!