You are reading these words right now, so you know with 100% certainty that your consciousness exists. Let's call you
the observer 👁️.
You can also observe a 3D world outside of yourself. Let's call this 3D world
the observed 🏠.
A visual representation of reality. In the center we have
the observer 👁️. Everything outside of you is
the observed 🏠.
We'll now parse this information through three logic gates. Each logic gate will return a binary outcome:
the observer 👁️and
the observed 🏠the same thing?
This is the most fundamental question about our universe, yet scientists never bothered to ask it. Because according to the scientific method, the answer is
true by default. Basic logic confirms what mystics have been saying for millennia: our reality is a "non-dual" illusion - like a dream, or a simulation.
the observer 👁️ and
the observed 🏠 the same thing?
Depending on the answer, we live in either of two completely different paradigms...
You know with 100% certainty that your consciousness exists. Let's call this variable
x. The world outside of you could also be
x, or it could be a separate & independent entity (
If the answer is
true, then everything outside of you, is you. This means we live in a non-dual paradigm, where 3D reality is not 3D at all: it's a very convincing illusion.
The following video from OpenAI is a great example of non-dualism. The consciousness of these AI agents, and the 3D world 'outside' of them, are not separate and independent from each other. In the codebase, they are the same thing: 1s and 0s.
But if the answer is
false, then we live in a materialist paradigm. Materialism rests on the assumption that a real world exists 'out there', independent from your consciousness. Let's call this 'real world'
Before we begin answering this question, let's acknowledge our cognitive bias towards materialism.
Since birth, your brain has used a Bayesian process to model a 3D reality that's objective and physical. That's why materialism seems obvious, and non-dualism seems like a 'crazy' and 'weird' idea.
But your feelings about what should be true are not a valid factor in a logical argument, so they hold absolutely no weight in this assessment. Just because non-dualism is counter-intuitive to humans, doesn't mean it's wrong.
In fact, quite the contrary...
You see, the field of physics has been stuck for half a century. There are two entire branches of physics - quantum mechanics and relativity - that are accurate in isolation but are fundamentally incompatible. Every attempt to unify these theories has failed.
Hence, the solution to that problem must be counter-intuitive and non-obvious...
...because if it were intuitive and obvious, we would have found it already.
With that being said, let's begin assessing the evidence.
Occam's razor is a simple problem-solving heuristic: when presented with competing explanations, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
When we translate this logic into a function, it looks something like this...
Non-dualism explains everything with a single variable,
x. And we know with 100% certainty that
Therefore, according to a correct application of the scientific method, we live in a non-dual paradigm by default. If you'd like to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
Occam's razor can slaughter our current scientific paradigm without anyone having to lift a finger. It's a swift and efficient assassination, which will save the scientific community decades of endless debate as we transition to a new understanding of the world.
Either the scientific method is wrong, or non-dualism is right. But they can't have it both ways.
If we reason using a Bayesian process, the probability of something being true is contingent on two things:
We have plenty of prior evidence that consciousness is a brilliant illusionist. It constructs a non-dual paradigm for us every night when we enter a dream.
In contrast, we have absolutely no evidence that a 'material' reality is even capable of existing separate to an
observer 👁️. It could, but we just don't have any data to support that claim.
So who's more likely to have robbed the bank: the man who's been arrested every night for robbing banks, or an invisible, undetectable man who may not even exist?
When you frame it like that, materialism sounds an awful lot like a convoluted conspiracy theory.
Bayesian reasoning points to non-dualism, not materialism.
Quantum mechanics has historically been labelled 'weird' and 'mysterious'.
If you're not sure what I'm talking about, here's a quick video explaining the famous double-slit experiment in the context of the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment...
While these results may be counter-intuitive to our monkey brains (who are cognitively biased towards materialism), they are exactly what you'd expect in a non-dual paradigm.
In a non-dual paradigm (e.g. a computer game), everything exists in a superposition in the lower dimension (i.e. the codebase). But you can only observe the information in one particular state.
In the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment, a choice made in the present moment influences what happened in the 'past'.
Again, this is exactly what you'd expect in a non-dual paradigm. We already have brilliant mental models for this: computer games. In computer games, your choice in the present moment creates the 'past' because the entire thing is an emergent illusion of information.
Below is a demo of this concept in Minecraft. I start by placing a cat in a box. My measuring device (a glass block) turns
red if the cat is dead, and
green if the cat is alive. I run a normal version of this experiment, and a quantum-eraser variation as well.
Oh, and just for context, my name is Nikki. I used to run an online coding school for children, teaching them how to hack their favorite game by building Minecraft mods. I filmed these experiments on my learning platform a few years ago for a different project, so some things I say will be slightly out of context. But the demo itself should make sense.
John Archibald Wheeler is the famous theoretical physicist who devised this delayed-choice experiment.
He likened time to a game of negative twenty questions. The game goes something like this...
Now, from your perspective, it looks like I selected the number
42 at the beginning of the game, and then led you to it.
But that's not what happened. You simply asked binary
false questions, and I maintained consistent logic.
If you ask "Is it more than
25?" and I answer
yes, then I can't also answer
yes to a question like "Is it less than
10?" That would be logically inconsistent.
So there really was no number decided upon ahead of time. When the game began, the number was in a superposition between
100. You then asked "Is it more than
50?" (i.e. you made an observation) and received an answer:
From that point, the probability of the number manifesting in a state between
100 went down to 0%. It could have manifested in those states, but it didn't. Doing so would be inconsistent with the information you'd already observed.
By the end of the game, there were only 3 possible states the number could manifest in:
44. You asked a question ("Is it
42?"), I gave a binary response (
yes), and the game ended.
Hence, the cold, hard, empirical evidence from the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment suggests that time is far more malleable than it first appears. You believe you're discovering reality (i.e. the number
42) by making observations. But it seems to be the other way around: your observations are procedurally generating reality at runtime - just like a computer game.
Two entangled particles can be on opposite sides of the universe, yet still appear to communicate instantaneously with each other. Einstein called this 'spooky action at a distance' because information can't travel faster than the speed of light.
Here's a video explaining entanglement...
Yet, entanglement is perfectly plausible in a non-dual paradigm. Three-dimensional space doesn't exist in the lower-dimensional codebase where everything is the same one thing.
I demo this concept in Minecraft below. When I make an observation (throw a snowball), the particles (glass blocks) simultaneously decide on a state (color) and update themselves in the same game loop (i.e. in the same increment of time).
By the way, I'm aware that entangled particles pick complementary polarizations in real life, but I've abstracted away that detail in my demo. I'm just trying to communicate the core idea: the polarization of entangled particles is mutual, not independent. I filmed these videos a few years ago, and I could have used more precise language in retrospect.
A century ago, Einstein figured out that space and time are not independent variables — they are linked together on a continuum called spacetime.
According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.
This makes no sense in a materialist paradigm. But in a non-dual paradigm, relativity is a quirky side-effect of computational parsimony. It's exactly what you'd expect.
Let me explain...
the observer 👁️ and
the observed 🏠 are the same thing, then everything outside of you, is you.
And you cannot observe yourself unless you create the illusion of separation — here and there, before and after.
And since you can observe here and there, before and after...
...you can deduce that these extra dimensions of space and time are not fundamentally real — they are emerging from a lower dimension, just like they do in a computer game.
Now, think about it...
In a computer game, the faster you move through space, the higher your frame rate needs to be to construct the emergent illusion of space.
If you’re a snail, you’re moving so slowly through space that you could observe the game at, say,
3 frames per second and still have a perfectly smooth experience of space.
But if you’re a cheetah running through the game, you're moving much faster through space...
...so if you were to observe the game at
3 frames per second, your reality would glitch. You would suddenly be at point A, then point B, then point C, with no continuity between each frame of information.
Therefore, a cheetah needs to observe the game at a much higher frame rate than a snail in order to construct the emergent illusion of space.
So if you were the designer of this game, you might place all observers on the highest frame rate possible. If the fastest observer needs a frame rate of
300,000 frames per second, you'd place all observers on that frame rate.
This would give every observer the same experience of space and time…
…but if a snail only needs a frame rate of
3 frames per second, and you give it a frame rate of
300,000 frames per second, you’ve just created a computationally inefficient game.
And since our universe abides by the Principle of Least Action, we can deduce that it would place all observers on the minimum frame rate possible. The frame rate would actually fluctuate depending on how fast the observer is moving through space, and where they are located in space, relative to other observers.
This option is perfectly parsimonious and computationally efficient, but it produces a quirky side-effect. Variable frame rates inextricably link space and time together - thus giving us relativity, and its weird consequences (like time dilation).
Here's a video of me demoing special relativity in Minecraft...
So, you see, spacetime cannot be bending because we’ve just deduced that spacetime doesn’t fundamentally exist.
Instead, the observer’s frame rate would be bending (and, as we'll get to later, everything is an
observer 👁️ — not just biological entities).
That’s why Einstein’s theory of relativity would make accurate predictions but is still fundamentally wrong, and won't unify with quantum mechanics.
If you're a scientist who wants this laid out in a formal, syllogistic format, here's the specific bug in Einstein's work that seems to be tripping everyone up...
Special relativity is a deductive argument resting on two postulates and confirmed by experiment:
observers 👁️, regardless of the motion of the source or the
As soon as you invalidate one of Einstein's postulates, you invalidate the entire argument.
When Einstein asserts that the speed of light remains the same for all
observers 👁️, he is assuming the fundamental existence of 'speed'. Speed is the distance traveled through space in a discrete period of time.
If space and time don't fundamentally exist, then neither does speed.
Using a deductive process from first principles, we know that space and time don't fundamentally exist in a non-dual universe. Therefore, Einstein's second premise is false, which renders his argument unsound.
Hence, using deduction, we know that Einstein is right at a superficial level and wrong at a fundamental level.
It's like he's right at the level of truth that we observe in the game, but wrong at the deeper level of truth that constructs the emergent illusion of the game (i.e. the lower-dimensional 'codebase').
I know it's kinda arrogant for a non-physicist to debug Einstein's work, but this is just where the logic leads, so...
The famous physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, hypothesized that energy is information. If Wheeler is right, and we know that matter is energy, then we can say
the observed 🏠 =
But if there's nothing in the laws of physics preventing us from creating self-aware human-level AI in a computer, then it seems
the observer 👁️ =
information as well.
Therefore, it's more-likely-than-not that we're living in a non-dual paradigm. Everything is information - just like a computer game.
In 2003, the Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom, wrote a famous paper about his 'Simulation Hypothesis'. If you aren't familiar with it, here's a quick explanation:
While I don't buy the argument that we're literally living inside a computer (because that assumes the existence of a material reality,
y, in which a computer fundamentally exists), the core logic is relevant because simulations are non-dual paradigms.
To summarize: either something terrible has happened, or we are almost certainly living in a non-dual paradigm.
Once you start digging into this topic, you'll realize just how many of our empirical observations are incompatible with materialism, yet make perfect sense in a non-dual paradigm. Everything from psychedelics to out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, psi phenomena, certain mental health disorders and mystics who can perform 'impossible' feats.
It's as if our scientists have never heard of falsification: one of the core principles that differentiates science from religion. Our scientific establishment laughs at, ridicules, belittles and refuses to take seriously any observation that might falsify their materialist God. They've already decided how nature should behave, so when nature is naughty and does something 'impossible', they dismiss the data instead of becoming curious about it. But if these so-called 'scientists' applied the same level of skepticism to their own claims as they do to everyone else's, then maybe they wouldn't be drowning in their own hubris right now.
I'm just so disappointed by the intellectual laziness and lack of imagination of a community I want to look up to and respect. If you're going to do science, then do science. But don't sit on your throne as the High Priest of Reason, telling uneducated simpletons like me that I'm 'woo woo' and 'irrational' for not bending the knee to your reductionist deity. I mean, it takes approximately two minutes of critical thought to figure out that materialism is bullshit - and once you do, all 'mystical' phenomena are on the table.
For example, in a materialist paradigm, your consciousness is in your body. But in a non-dual paradigm, your body is in your consciousness. Everything outside of you, is you. Here's a demo of an out-of-body experience in Minecraft...
Here's another example, demonstrating how your thoughts can effect your external reality in a non-dual paradigm...
As you can see, these 'weird' phenomena are perfectly plausible and deserve to be taken seriously in the pursuit of truth.
A correct application of the scientific method tells us we live in a non-dual paradigm.
I understand that this conclusion is highly counter-intuitive. When I try to explain it to people, I'm often met with comments like "Yeah, but you can't know for sure that materialism isn't true."
This is an accurate statement. We can't know for sure that
y doesn't exist. Just like we can't know for sure that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
But, given the logic and evidence, believing in materialism is highly irrational — just like believing in a flying spaghetti monster is highly irrational.
I've used the scientific method to come to this conclusion — the same scientific method that created the planes you fly in, your phone, and the medicine you consume.
It's counter-intuitive that something as heavy as a plane can fly through the sky, and yet you trust the logic that makes it so. In fact, every time you board a plane, you are trusting logic with your life.
Similarly, it's counter-intuitive that we live in a non-dual paradigm, but you can trust the logic that makes it so. Once your monkey-brain accepts and integrates this conclusion with the same level of certainty that it accepts the engineering of a plane, you've taken the first step towards mastery.
observer 👁️, are you a conscious system?
That's a trick question. You have to be conscious to respond to it, so the answer is
the observer 👁️ is a conscious system...
the observer 👁️ is
the observed 🏠...
the observed 🏠 is a conscious system, too.