Making human knowledge stable and accessible to all
SUNRISE Information Services (SUNRISE) is an Australian-owned and operated private research centre aimed at finding and presenting the most stable and timeless educational and research knowledge for the global community.
What we do
Founded in 1999, the primary activities of SUNRISE are to conduct research into controversial areas of science, and to present new and more stable ideas or emphasise the core and most stable known concepts in an interesting and engaging way for educational purposes to the general public using the principles of accelerated learning.
To find this stable and essential knowledge, we perform the following functions:
- To simplify existing information for easy assimilation and recognition of the core knowledge (i.e., concepts) of greatest stability and usefulness for the 21st century and beyond.
- To apply well-established principles of accelerated learning to the stable knowledge.
- To discover original or new knowledge, insights, or ways of doing things that are likely to increase the stability and simplicity of the core knowledge.
Where to find the most stable knowledge?
The best places to find stable knowledge is usually in the most controversial areas of science (and religion). This is how we find new discoveries and uncover new knowledge. Beyond that, if the knowledge is already stable, this will be highlighted (such as the laws of electromagnetism). However, to be more confident in the stability of such knowledge, it is essential to challenge the concepts and to be prepared to make changes to the existing concepts.
Why the capitalised SUNRISE?
This is an acronym for Search for a UNified Religion in Information for Social Equality.
Why a religion?
While the act of challenging old concepts is essentially a scientific endeavour, the ultimate aim in all of this work is to find the timeless and changeless knowledge that explains everything, from the smallest detail to the largest scale. When this point is reached and no more can be done to challenge the knowledge and refine it, all we can do is accept, support, record, and teach the knowledge like those individuals do in religion. Then the body of fundamental knowledge may be considered a kind of religion, something that we must accept as the simplest, most stable and balanced knowledge available to humankind until someone else can find a way to challenge the knowledge and bring it down to another more stable level. So whether the body of knowledge acquired remains a religion or not is dependent on our attitude, how imaginative we are, and how curious we are to question and find ways to challenge that knowledge. Once we find an avenue to re-test the knowledge, only then can we call it scientific knowledge. If we cannot challenge the knowledge and must learn to accept it, then we call it religious knowledge.
The aim for SUNRISE is to find the laws of science and religion that are not going to change today, or in 500 years from now or beyond.
Are there laws in science that do not change?
Yes there are.
We know knowledge consists of concepts. In the world of science, we may also call them theories (or a congregate of concepts could form a theory). Or they may be called laws. A classic example of the latter would have to be the laws of electromagnetism. This is an area of science that no one, not even the scientists, can challenge or dispute the laws. The laws of electromagnetism are timeless and most stable. But if there is a chance that someone can challenge the laws, then the knowledge becomes a theory until it can be brought down to a more fundamental and stable level.
Laws are considered the closest thing to unchanging beliefs for a scientist (just like a religious person will have his/her own laws, and hence beliefs). Laws are things that essentially do not change no matter how much time passes and how much effort scientists (or religious people) apply to challenge them.
The same thing can occur in religion. So long as religious leaders have made reasonable efforts to get to the deepest level of all religious knowledge, they should be able to find the true laws that do not change no matter how people try to challenge them.
How do we know that we have reached the most fundamental and stable knowledge?
The answer is simply, we don't. And, there is a good reason for this. We are not perfect creatures in the Universe to know the ultimate Truth. How could we? We are not God as religious leaders would say. To be God is like being the ultimate scientist (or ultimate religious person). But who can say whether someone is truly the greatest person in the universe? No one can. We must consider ourselves as children in the Universe learning from the greatest Teacher and Classroom that is the Universe. There is a reason why we are here and how important it is to strive for a goal in order to become more balanced and knowledgeable creatures in the universe, as well as bring down our knowledge to the most important, unchanging and essential knowledge for all times.
Whether something can be considered stable and balanced is up to us to find out. There will be clues to help us along the way. Certain things will tell us we may need to look more closely and simplify what we know. Until we get to this ultimate, stable knowledge, we need people to constantly challenge existing knowledge until we get to the fundamental unchanging knowledge. The ones who will challenge our knowledge will naturally be the curious people. We call them scientists.
But once scientists have found the best and most fundamental knowledge possible. someone has to accept, remember, and teach the knowledge to others. We call these people more the religious types. Once religious people find these laws or Truths of the universe, they become beliefs for them, and so will be recorded and presented to others, just as religious teachers do.
Is there a benefit to simplifying knowledge?
Yes. Simplifying and getting to the deepest level of scientific (and religious) knowledge should result in uncovering increasing links between seemingly separate bodies of knowledge in different disciplines. It will have a way to ultimately find what we call the unified theory (and hopefully will become a law) for explaining everything. Similarly, when one does the same for world religions, we should reach a point where we will have the True Religion of God. And when we do, there should even be a link between religion and science. Only then can we answer whether there is a God in religion in a way that makes perfect sense for scientists as well.
For example, a study of Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory will reveal not only the importance of electromagnetic radiation (or light in its most general sense) and the electromagnetic laws in forming a true unified field theory for physics, but the concept of light also has remarkably similar properties to the concept of God when we listen to Eastern mystics. In particular, scientists know light is a paradoxical entity with properties such as a particle and a wave, visible and not visible, it is there and not there as the energy oscillates from zero to a maximum amount. Remarkably, Eastern mystics also describe the true "nameless" God of true balance from their perspective as being paradoxical, and will use statements and poems to help best describe this paradoxical nature of God.
Does this mean we have found a link between science and religion through light?
Is science and religion really meant to be different?
As Kieran Kirk wrote on 12 August 2015:
"Science asks and can get answers for the 'Hows' and the 'Whats'. However, science is also limited in the sorts of questions it can answer. Science can have no answer when it comes to the 'Whys' and the questions of purpose in the universe, as these are questions that will not have answers in the physical natural world. This is where philosophers and theologians have done the bulk of their work throughout history. Questions like "What is the meaning of life?", "What is my purpose?" or "What is my responsibility to those around me?" have always been and will continue to be the domain of the philosophers and theologians. So rather than the battle being described as Science and Religion pitted against each other, the actual scenario is that they describe different aspects of reality."
Until we see this link and get the knowledge to its fundamental level, science and religion must pursue their own seemingly separate areas until it eventually sees this link. For religion, it is to seek the large scale, reproducible and hidden patterns of the universe that is not directly observable through the eyes. For science, it is to see the specific, reproducible and observable patterns of the universe. Observable in the sense that scientists can see them with their own eyes and/or instruments.
Yet despite the different approaches to reality focussed by each discipline, science and religion will, if we get to the deepest and most stable knowledge, merge in certain key areas once we get to the fundamental knowledge linking all world religions and different scientific disciplines. Once we see this, the only difference between science and religion is going to be in our attitude to solving problems and the decisions we make to see problems and solve them if we believe the knowledge can be challenged, or whether to simply accept the knowledge as being fundamental.
Our attitude will, in the end, determine whether we become scientists or religious people.
But if we are to be balanced and to quickly reach the core knowledge, we need a combination of being religious and scientific in our work.
The importance of being balanced
By being balanced, it also helps to be careful not to accept blindly everything we see, hear, or learn, especially from religious leaders. This is particularly true of world religions given how fragmented they are (which they shouldn't if they are reaching for the true religion of God). World religions have yet to reach a truly simplified and stable position in order to see the links between all the religious (and scientific) knowledge. If done right and people pursue it in this manner, the true nature of God should reveal itself. And even then, no one can be called God. No one is perfect and all-knowing to the deepest level. We don't know the true religion unless we question the knowledge, see the links, and test the concepts. And that requires people to also become a scientist. We need to question the knowledge and challenge it in order to make sure the knowledge is truly fundamental.
The same is true of science.
In the end, we have a choice. We can either choose one or the other. Or we can choose to be more balanced in the scientific or religious approach to our work.
The SUNRISE aim
At SUNRISE, we seek a balance between curiosity of questioning things, and learning to maintain the knowledge created by humankind until we find the most stable and balanced knowledge, and especially those concepts that are useful in the 21st century and beyond.
How do we find the fundamental and stable knowledge?
The first step is knowing how to communicate, both verbally and in writing. If we don't know how to communicate, we can't explain the patterns we see to others, let alone record what those patterns are or likely to be..
The second step is the thing scientists are highly skilled in doing, which is to use the senses to "observe" the universe, especially through the eyes. We observe by listening with our ears, looking with our eyes, tasting with our nose and mouth, touching with our hands, using more sensitive instruments to perform these human functions, and eventually recording all this information somewhere for future reference when we need to analyse the information gathered and find unseen patterns. Yet this is not enough to get to the essence of everything we observe.
The third step is best appreciated by the more creative and religious types: the use of our imagination and visualisation skills to not only recognise familiar and observable patterns, but also to go beyond to see in our minds what is less familiar but no less common. For it is in this hidden realm of the human mind do we begin to see the true fundamental patterns within the information, and with it the insight into the true and absolute unifying religion we are seeking.
The fourth step is to continually simplify and question this knowledge. Ask yourself, what is really important and unchanging in this knowledge? And is the knowledge correct? It is only when we do this simplification and getting to the essence of all knowledge that we discover certain unexpected benefits. For example, one such benefit in simplifying things is that virtually anyone with basic communication skills can quickly understand the knowledge, and communicate it well to others, no matter how diverse or difficult it may seem. As Albert Einstein once said:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
The other benefit of this simplification process is to uncover a hidden pattern that allows people to unify many concepts within the knowledge.
And the final step is to record the stable knowledge. You need to keep a record of this knowledge for people to see and refer back to it, so they may challenge the knowledge or learn to accept it if it is truly fundamental.
Is knowledge a privilege, or a right?
We often hear certain people say that knowledge is a privilege, mainly from the R-wing types. For example, former Australian Education Minister Brendan Nelson was reported by the media as saying:
"I think education is a privilege." (2)
That is not true, especially when it comes to fundamental knowledge. Once you get something to its deepest level, its simplicity and power cannot be hidden or kept to a select few. The reality is, people who believe in this view are the ones who wish to exploit the knowledge for their own personal gain (mainly financial) in the hope of maintaining their position of power and wealth. Unfortunately, taking on this view will only deny others the opportunity to use the fundamental knowledge for solving problems of benefit to everyone (and hence potentially reduce costs to society). At the same time, you cannot expect that knowledge to be hidden forever. People will find out while they have some semblance of curiosity within themselves. If they question things and try to get to the truth, they will eventually see the fundamental knowledge. It is just a question of time.
True knowledge, when brought down to its very essence, is something that is too simple and all-encompassing to be hidden away. Many people will be able to quickly learn what this knowledge is. You cannot force people to be religious in the hope no one will find out. And at the same time, we have the right through the knowledge to use it to help us solve problems. No one should be denied access to this knowledge. It should be available to everyone.
True knowledge of the fundamental kind, the one that does not change, has always been the great power equalizer. It ensures people are on an equal footing and with no disadvantages for all. Getting to the core knowledge of anything has a habit of doing just that for anyone who pursues this area.