So why not drop your pseudonym or provide a link to your 'published articles,' or/and your 'new book,' and we can all judge for ourselves who the idiot between you and @180 Proof is, based on your exchange on this thread. I for one, suggest that in this case, it is you FrancisRay who has typed like an idiot.

I'm 90% through the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft. — Pantagruel

Read one book, ages and ages ago, but really stayed with me. I loved the idea that you go into alternate realities through dreams. Although otherwise he's a bit too dark for me, never went back for a second helping.

I think that the underlying theme is that of going beyond conventional parameters, which can appear bizarre and even horrifying, but is not necessarily so. The prose gets a bit purple a times, but it works. I'm a certified Lovecraftian now. The "dream within a dream" story (The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath) is brilliant.

and we can all judge for ourselves who the idiot between you and 180 Proof is based on your exchange on this thread. I for one — universeness

All I see see is some people who don't want to think outside their comfort zone.

As for my pseudonym;I'll stick with it, thanks. My point was only that not all editors and dissertation advisors are as shirty and closed-minded as some on this forum. Thanks goodness.

If these are the standards applied here I'm very happy to seem to be an idiot.

If anyone on this forum can challenge you or anyone else on philosophical thinking, it's folks like @180 Proof. What you seem to be recoiling from, is that he and his knowledge of all things philosophical is what you face as challenge. Face his scrutiny or run rabbit run! Those are your choices. Other TPF readers will decide who makes the stronger points between the two of you. That's an important part of any useful discussion/debate site, yes?

I expected to be speaking to 180 proof about his question, but he took his bat home. What am I to do?

I find this about the best philosophy forum on the internet, but it seems to be ruined by less than a handful of posters. Wherever I go they turn up to lay waste to the discussion. I gave up the first time I joined, a few years ago, because of this and having come back I find them still here. So I've given up again. No need to defend anyone, I'll be off and stop causing trouble. .

I think that's a loss to all members here, as you seem to have a lot of knowledge of Eastern philosophy.
Perhaps you get exasperated too easily, we all get frustrated when we are challenged but it is very important to stand your ground, if you give a damn about who else might read these exchanges on TPF.
Perhaps 180proof is still waiting for you to answer his two questions:

i. What 'facts of the matter' do "the nondual doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy" explain?
ii. What 'predictions' can be derived from this "Perennial" explanation which can be experimentally falsified? — 180 Proof

Surely one of the reasons that you find this site, one of the better ones on the internet is that you WILL get challenged here by some folks, who are well-versed in the philosophy field.
Readers might think better of you, if you stand your ground and answer questions put to you rather than throw a couple of insults at the member asking the questions and then stop posting.

I'm not here really, having taken a break, but I'll give an answer.

The nondual doctrine translates into metaphysics as a neutral theory. In principle it explains all metaphysical problems and questions. For instance, it explains why metaphysical questions are undecidable. It explains ontology, epistemology, ethics, religion, consciousness, life. death, the universe and everything.

It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and gives answers for all such questions. It predicts that no scientific data or philosophical argument will ever falsify or refute it, a prediction that is tested every day, albeit only in a negative way.

As it denies the true existence of space-time and that reality has dimensions it seems to be relevant to non=locality, entanglement and other things, as Ulrich Mohrhoff explains in his book 'The World According to Quantum Mechanics'. It predicts the 'hard' problem of consciousness, which arises because it is impossible to disprove the 'advaita' explanation of consciousness. mind and matter. It predicts that science will never discover any substance or essence at the heart of matter/ It also explains (of course) the phenomenon known as 'mysticism'.

I would say that if one understands a neutral theory one understands philosophy, and we don't then we don't. . . — FrancisRay

Just in case you think I had not read this response you gave. I have, but it did not answer the questions 180proof asked imo.

:up: :up:

I think that's a loss to all members here, as you seem to have a lot of knowledge of Eastern philosophy.
Perhaps you get exasperated too easily, we all get frustrated when we are challenged but it is very important to stand your ground, if you give a damn about who else might read these exchanges on TPF. — universeness

Excellent point. I accept that I become exasperated too easily. It's a fair cop. .

]Perhaps 180proof is still waiting for you to answer his two questions:

i. What 'facts of the matter' do "the nondual doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy" explain?
ii. What 'predictions' can be derived from this "Perennial" explanation which can be experimentally falsified? — 180 Proof

I provided an initial answer and expected a follow up question or some discussion. Instead my answer was dismissed for being new age nonsense. This is a pity, since I find the relationship between the Perennial philosophy and physics fascinating but tricky.

I'm always happy to debate issues, but I become agitated when people who don't study these issues and seem to have no interest in them waive their arms around and dismiss mysticism as nonsense. Never do they exhibit an understand of what they are dismissing. .

The general issue here is how best to study and understand philosophy. It's standard practice in our universities to study only a restricted part of philosophy and ignore much of it, but only when one studies the whole field does it become comprehensible.

The question of what the nondual doctrine explains is easy to answer, but the question was what it claims that is testable in physics and this is trickier,since it requires some chat about exactly what counts as testable. There are some subtleties. It's a topic that interests me and I'm up for discussing it, but only when it's taken seriously.

Thanks for your peacekeeping effort. .

:up:

The question of what the nondual doctrine explains is easy to answer — FrancisRay

I'm very much influenced by my encounter with Advaita and (also Buddhist) non-dualism, although that mostly amounts to reading about it, with some regular meditation over periods of years. But I don't think it is an easy thing to explain.

Recently I've discovered an excellent Advaita teacher, Swami Sarvapriyananda, of the Vedanta Society of New York, who has many online videos and discussions with other philosophers (some can be found here. I particularly liked his conversation with idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.) He is articulate, educated, and philosophically literate. Indeed the Vedanta Society of New York was originally founded by Swami Vivekandanda in the late 1800's and has had a profound influence in America and beyond.

Nevertheless I don't believe that the teachings of Advaita are easy to convey, as they demand a deep kind of perspective shift or insight. They are not trying convey factual information, but a fact about existence, which is said to be obscured by avidya, ignorance. And 'piercing the veil of ignorance' is the fundamental teaching of Advaita. It's simple in the sense of not being complicated, but it's not necessarily easy to grasp. The well-known Advaita guru, Sri Ramana Maharishi, made it perfectly clear that there was only one requirement for true 'God realisation', which was complete abandonment of the ego.

ust in case you think I had not read this response you gave. I have, but it did not answer the questions 180proof asked imo. — universeness

Okay. I was providing a starting point for further discussion but did not make this clear. I cannot answer the second part of 180 Proof's question without some preliminary philosophical chat.

For example. Does the question of whether space-time is grainy or continuous belong in philosophy or physics? I'd say philosophy, but there is an overlap. The Perennial philosophy states it is both since there are two ways of looking at it, as is argued by the mathematician Hermann Weyl. It predicts that it would be impossible in logic or empiricism to decide this question and this is the case. but is this relevant to 180Proof's question? I'm not sure.

Likewise, it predicts that physics will never prove anything really exists. Is this a testable prediction/? I feel it depends how one looks at it. There are many more similar issues that fall between philosophy and physics,

And again, is the 'hard' problem of consciousness, as defined by Chalmers, a problem for physics? Or is it strictly philosophical? Mysticism disposes of this problem at a stroke, but is this relevant to physics? It might depend who we ask. ,, ,

Thus a straight answer is difficult to give, and impossible in the face of a dismissive attitude to mysticism. .

I'm very much influenced by my reading of Advaita and (also Buddhist) non-dualism, although that mostly amounts to reading about it, with some regular meditation over periods of years. But I don't think it is an easy thing to explain. — Wayfarer

I believe,that it is the hardest thing in the world to explain. But explaining how it explains philosophy at the level of principles is easy. The crucial issue to grasp is that all metaphysical questions are undecidable. If we are aware of this then we will be able to grasp that a 'non-dual' or neutral theory explains why they are undecidable and thus explains all Russell's 'problems of philosophy'.

Happy to delve deeper if you wish to go down this rabbit-hole. . .

Recently I've discovered an excellent Advaita teacher, Swami Sarvapriyananda, of the Vedanta Society of New York, who has many online videos and discussions with other philosophers (some can be found here. I particularly liked his conversation with idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.) He is articulate, educated, and philosophically literate. Indeed the Vedanta Society of New York was originally founded by Swami Vivekandanda in the late 1800's and has had a profound influence in America and beyond.

I'll look out for this swami. I've been speaking with Bernardo for many years now and we agree on nearly everything. My metaphysics is stronger that his but his physics bests mine hands down. His mate Rupert Spira is a wonderful teacher.

Nevertheless I don't believe that the teachings of Advaita are easy to convey, as they demand a deep kind of perspective shift or insight. They are not trying convey factual information, but a fact about existence, which is said to be obscured by avidya, ignorance. And 'piercing the veil of ignorance' is the fundamental teaching of Advaita. It's simple in the sense of not being complicated, but it's not necessarily easy to grasp.

It's fantastically difficult to grasp, but making sense of it in philosophy as a theory is not so difficult. It's a neutral metaphysical theory, and this can be explained in standard philosophical language. I would strongly disagree that the advaita teachings do not teach factual information, however, and wonder what you mean by this comment. After all, it teaches that reality is not-two, and what more important fact could there be?

I would strongly disagree that the advaita teachings do not teach factual information, however, and wonder what you mean by this comment. After all, it teaches that reality is not-two, and what more important fact could there be? — FrancisRay

Not factual in the sense of being about objective things or states-of-affairs. I don't mean it in the sense of not being true - far from it! - but not being about empirical facts. As Edward Conze says, 'the wise men of old have found a wisdom which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody." Why? because it depends on insight.

Also, not at all clear by what is meant by 'metaphysically neutral'. Perhaps you might unpack that a little.

Not factual in the sense of being about objective things or states-of-affairs. I don't mean it in the sense of not being true - far from it! - but not being about empirical facts. As Edward Conze says, 'the wise men of old have found a wisdom which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody." Why? because it depends on insight. — Wayfarer

Hmm. I see what you mean but see things differently. It is an empirical fact that philosophers cannot decide metaphysical questions due the the logical absurdity of all their positive answers. Advaita explains this empirical fact. Would you not count this as being about empirical facts?



. .

t is an empirical fact that philosophers cannot decide metaphysical questions due the the logical absurdity of all their positive answers. — FrancisRay

That itself is not an empirical statement. Not that I want to pick nits with an otherwise kindred spirit. :chin:

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say that someone says that they have life-altering insights through meditation or spiritual philosophy. How could that be demonstrated to a disinterested third party? There are large-scale studies of the effects of meditation practice carried out by Universities and the like. That is an arduous process involving surveys, questionnaires, and the gathering of data about large numbers of subjects. That is 'empirical data'. What this or that person says about their state of awareness or changed state of being which they attribute to meditation or nondualism is not empirically verifiable. I'm not saying, on that account, that it's not true or doesn't represent a profound insight. But it's not empirically measurable.

I agree with what you say about meditation. But I don;t understand why the inability of philosophers to decide metaphysical questions is not an empirical fact. It is information acquired through the physical senses and easily verifiable. .

Likewise, it is an empirical fact that the non-dual philosophy is globally endorsed,by meditators and that it makes no claims that contradict any scientific facts. To me this seems to be an empirical fact in need of an explanation. How come the writers of the Upanishads could claim that nothing really exists and 21st century physicists still cannot gainsay them?

We seem to be demonstrating that judging the extent to which the advaita doctrine is empirically testable is not a straightforward problem. .

We seem to be demonstrating that judging the extent to which the advaita doctrine is empirically testable is not a straightforward problem. — FrancisRay

:100:

Perhaps it is relevant that physics is coming ever closer to the same conception of reality as the mystics, for this suggests that empiricism does at least support the discoveries and realisations of those who explore consciousness. Newton's universe was hopelessly out of step, but with QM and relativity, entanglement and non-locality physics comes into line, as Schrodinger was keen to point out, and nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth.

My belief is that physicists will see the plausibility of the advaita doctrine before philosophers, since they often seem more brave in their thinking and have less invested in metaphysical conjectures. . , , . .

I provided an initial answer and expected a follow up question or some discussion. Instead my answer was dismissed for being new age nonsense. This is a pity, since I find the relationship between the Perennial philosophy and physics fascinating but tricky. — FrancisRay

Your last two responses to me are very reasonable and well-balanced. I also found your last sentence above intriguing.

I'm always happy to debate issues, but I become agitated when people who don't study these issues and seem to have no interest in them waive their arms around and dismiss mysticism as nonsense. Never do they exhibit an understand of what they are dismissing. . — FrancisRay

For me, this is a interesting accusation. I am a neophyte at best, in academic philosophy, (even though I am 59). My area of expertise is Computing science. I am also an atheist, a naturalist, and a secular humanist. It is part of my current convictions to initially respond with, :roll: , when anyone proposes anything related to 'mysticism,' depending on how that word is being employed. I then try my best to give the proposer the benefit of the doubt and listen more to what sense/level of logic versus skepticism, they are using in what they are proposing. I suppose you could even label such, their epistemology.
I would certainly push back, if you are suggesting that @180 Proof, is an example of the persona you are trying to describe in the sentence I have underlined from the quote above. He has been a member of TPF for 8 years. Think about how exasperated he must be at times, with the woo woo mob that he has had to deal with in that time. I have only been here for a year or so, and I have also become a bit more unforgiving towards the more extreme peddlers of woo woo. I will again admit that words like 'mysticism,' can be a bit of a red flag for me, but you seem to be willing to take part in useful discussion/debate. We all just have to accept that each of us can get a bit heated. I can assure you, @180 Proof is a very good interlocuter. I have my disagreements with him but he makes his points very well and provides valid and logical arguments to back them up. He is worth debating with.

The question of what the nondual doctrine explains is easy to answer, but the question was what it claims that is testable in physics and this is trickier, since it requires some chat about exactly what counts as testable. — FrancisRay

I'm very much influenced by my encounter with Advaita and (also Buddhist) non-dualism, although that mostly amounts to reading about it, with some regular meditation over periods of years. But I don't think it is an easy thing to explain. — Wayfarer

These are interesting paragraphs, which I for one, would enjoy reading TPF member responses to, which would include @180 Proof
I have already enjoyed reading the contributions from @Wayfarer, @Fooloso4 and many others in the past 8 pages. I would like to hear some contributions from folks like @Existential Hope, as I suspect he knows a great deal about Eastern philosophy and probably 'Advaita' as well.
Perhaps, I can contribute something of value myself as the posts here invoke my 'search engine' attempts, to look up terms like 'Advaita,' 'nondual doctrine,' and 'Perennial philosophy.'

Perhaps it is relevant that physics is coming ever closer to the same conception of reality as the mystics, for this suggests that empiricism does at least support the discoveries and realisations of those who explore consciousness. Newton's universe was hopelessly out of step, but with QM and relativity, entanglement and non-locality physics comes into line, as Schrodinger was keen to point out, and nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth. — FrancisRay

I find this a fascinating statement.
But what do you specifically mean by the words I underlined above?
They seem to me, on an initial reading, to be stating the obvious, in that experiment and the scientific application of empiricism, is currently, our best method of discovering new truths, or arriving at new 'realisations' about the nature of consciousness (human consciousness in particular). Perhaps I am missing your point. But in what way does this suggest that physics is coming ever closer to the mystics?

The Rupert Sheldrake proposals regarding his 'morphic resonance,' come to my mind.
Can rats, who have never taken part in the maze experiments that Sheldrake goes on about, really learn how to best traverse these mazes via 'morphic resonance?' All rats, everywhere on the planet?
That seems quite 'mystical' to me.
Do you think that Sheldrake's work, does contain some real physics-based truth behind it, at a quantum or 'fundamental' level?

It is part of my current convictions to initially respond with, :roll: , when anyone proposes anything related to 'mysticism,' depending on how that word is being employed. — universeness

Thanks for an interesting post. I think there are two problems here. The first is the issue of how the word 'mysticism' is employed. Clearly you and I employ it in different ways, and others employ it in all sorts of ways. The second is that those who employ it as I do may often speak about in ways that are meaningless to a discursive philosopher, appealing to experience, enlightenment, authority and using ideas that will be meaningless to a non-practitioner. I do not do this, yet am often subjected to the criticism that this is what I'm doing.

My feeling is that sceptics such as yourself underestimate the powers of reason and logic to reveal the facts about mysticism and the doctrine that arises from it. This is understandable, since much is made in mysticism of the inability of the intellect to reveal the truth, but it is a misunderstanding. I won't address it right now, but I can tell you that I became convinced of the truth of Buddhist doctrine on purely intellectual grounds well before I read a book about it or tried meditation. It's just a matter of doing the sums.

I then try my best to give the proposer the benefit of the doubt and listen more to what sense/level of logic versus skepticism, they are using in what they are proposing. I suppose you could even label such, their epistemology.

This seems a sensible approach.

I would certainly push back, if you are suggesting that 180 Proof, is an example of the persona you are trying to describe in the sentence I have underlined from the quote above.

Fair enough. I'll reserve judgement.

He has been a member of TPF for 8 years. Think about how exasperated he must be at times, with the woo woo mob that he has had to deal with in that time. I have only been here for a year or so, and I have also become a bit more unforgiving towards the more extreme peddlers of woo woo.

Yes, I see the problem. Perhaps I should take more note of this, since there certainly is a lot of nonsense in the air these days. I feel this problem largely goes away when we deal only with the actual statements people make. I find that very often when I speak about mysticism my statements go unquestioned, even when they are very bold, but my sanity is brought into question. This sort of response is almost impossible to deal with. I sometimes deliberately make bold statements in order to fire up a discussion and demonstrate that such statements can be made, but very often they are not challenged but simply dismissed.

I'm aware of the widespread scepticism surrounding the Perennial philosophy and how little it is studied in academia, but I'm a big fan of the Principle of Charity and think it should be more widely employed by sceptics. . .

nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth. — FrancisRay

I wanted to post about this sentence separately.
No physicist I have read about can demonstrate the concept of 'nothing.' There is no experiment in physics, that can currently demonstrate any example of 'nothing.'
Folks like Carlo Rovelli certainly posit that time is a very localised experience, in that, even when I am talking to a person standing right next to me, there is a notion of me, sensing that person, from their past, rather than their present. This is because there is a tiny duration, before I see each frame of their movement or hear their words or register their touch etc. So in this sense I cannot experience YOUR present, I can only experience my own. So time is, in a sense, a unique experience for all humans.
That's not mystical and it may also not be of much importance, especially in the macroscopic life of a human. Exactly how important it is to the existence of a quark or any quantum field excitation or the information held inside a black hole or in the case of quantum fluctuations or the 'information state' that exists between two entangled quanta, remains unknown. I still don't see where the word 'mystical' is of use here, other than as a placeholder for 'it's still a mystery to us.'

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say that someone says that they have life-altering insights through meditation or spiritual philosophy. How could that be demonstrated to a disinterested third party? There are large-scale studies of the effects of meditation practice carried out by Universities and the like. That is an arduous process involving surveys, questionnaires, and the gathering of data about large numbers of subjects. That is 'empirical data'. What this or that person says about their state of awareness or changed state of being which they attribute to meditation or nondualism is not empirically verifiable. I'm not saying, on that account, that it's not true or doesn't represent a profound insight. But it's not empirically measurable. — Wayfarer

Or as I have often suggested, there may be phenomena associated with life-processes whose feedback is long term and complex (read, "karma"), which, as real as they are, may not be measurable in any trivial sense. We need to always bear in mind that science functions explicitly by reductive abstraction. We murder to dissect. Sure, it frequently works. But the more complex the phenomenon, the less so.

But what do you specifically mean by the words I underlined above?
They seem to me, on an initial reading, to be stating the obvious, in that experiment and the scientific application of empiricism, is currently, our best method of discovering new truths, or arriving at new 'realisations' about the nature of consciousness (human consciousness in particular). — universeness

There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. This is proved by the past popularity of Behaviorism. A science of consciousness would require a study of the actual phenomenon, and not just a lot of speculation. The study of the actual phenomenon is called mysticism. I know of no truths discovered by modern consciousness studies and see no hope of there ever being any. All the discoveries were made long ago by people who adopt a scientific approach and do the research. . . .

Perhaps I am missing your point. But in what way does this suggest that physics is coming ever closer to the mystics?

For instance, it is today fairly uncontentious in the sciences to claim that God does not exist, that space and time do not exist, that consciousness is fundamental and that the source of existence is empirically invisible. As these ideas and others are developed and integrated we come ever closer to the world as described by the Upanishads. The quantum pioneers were well aware of this, albeit that mainstream physics seems to have regressed since then into an entrenched ideological position. . ,..

The Rupert Sheldrake proposals regarding his 'morphic resonance,' come to my mind.
Can rats, who have never taken part in the maze experiments that Sheldrake goes on about, really learn how to best traverse these mazes via 'morphic resonance?' All rats, everywhere on the planet?
That seems quite 'mystical' to me.

I steer well clear of these sorts of speculations. I stick to metaphysics, where logic and reason are the only deciding factors.

Do you think that Sheldrake's work, does contain some real physics-based truth behind it, at a quantum or 'fundamental' level?

Quite possibly but I haven't examined the evidence. It wouldn't surprise me if it did or did not.

but I can tell you that I became convinced of the truth of Buddhist doctrine on purely intellectual grounds well before I read a book about it or tried meditation. It's just a matter of doing the sums. — FrancisRay

For me, this is a brave claim/conviction indeed. May I ask you for a percentage credence level that you would currently assign to all the 'truths' put forward by Buddhism and/or Buddhists, as a kind of 'general' or 'ad hoc' metric? For example, I consider myself more in line with hard or strong atheism, in that I am 99.999% personally convinced that the supernatural has no demonstrable existent.
Would you be willing to state that you are 100% sure that the main tenets of Buddhism are sound?

I am happy for you if you have found a doctrine of life (Buddhism), that you find so compelling and that has acted as a strong bulwark for you, as you face life's inevitable personal adversaries, but, as perhaps an annoying skeptic. I have to ask, what are these sums you are talking about?
How can you be so sure you are adding them up correctly?

I find that very often when I speak about mysticism my statements go unquestioned, even when they are very bold, but my sanity is brought into question. — FrancisRay

Well, I for one will try my best to respond to what you state, and not jump to any conclusions about your sanity.

I wanted to post about this sentence separately.
No physicist I have read about can demonstrate the concept of 'nothing.' There is no experiment in physics, that can currently demonstrate any example of 'nothing.' — universeness

Quite so. the idea is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous is the idea that the Ultimate lies beyond sensory empiricism and so looks exactly like nothing, which is the view I endorse.

Folks like Carlo Rovelli certainly posit that time is a very localised experience, in that, even when I am talking to a person standing right next to me, there is a notion of me, sensing that person, from their past, rather than their present. This is because there is a tiny duration, before I see each frame of their movement or hear their words of register their touch etc. So in this sense I cannot experience YOUR present, I can only experience my own. So time is, in a sense, a unique experience for all humans.

In his book The Continuum Hermann Weyl points out that nobody experiences time. It is created from memories and anticipations, a story we tell ourselves. He draws a careful distinction between the extended 'arithmetical' continuum, which is a theory, and the 'intuitive' continuum, which is extensionless. This double-aspect approach is consistent with Buddhism;s Middle Way doctrine. It would be a terrible mistake to image we experience time rather than create it, and it would lead to a deep misunderstanding of mysticism. All that would be truly real is the 'Eternal Now' and the 'Forever Here', which is Weyl's 'intuitive' continuum. This is what is discovered in meditation. Thus Meister Eckhart warns us not to become entangled in time. .

[/quote]That's not mystical and it may also not be of much importance, especially in the macroscopic life of a human. Exactly how important it is to the existence of a quark or any quantum field excitation or the information held inside a black hole or in the case of quantum fluctuations or the 'information state' that exists between two entangles quanta, remains unknown. I still don't see where the word 'mystical' is of use here, other than as a placeholder for 'it's still a mystery to us.'[/quote]

It's not a mystery, but it's a mystery in physics. You seem to forget (as does David Chalmers) that an information theory requires an information space. As Schrodinger observes, as well as the multiplicity of space-time phenomena there is the 'canvas on which they are painted'. The Perennial philosophy is an information theory, but the information would be dream-like and only the information space would be real. .