Our Philosophy

Making human knowledge stable and accessible to all

SUNRISE Information Services (SUNRISE) is an Australian-owned and operated private research centre aimed at finding the most stable, interesting and easy-to-read educational and research information for the global community.

What we do

We perform the following functions:

  • To simplify existing information for easy assimilation and recognition of the core knowledge 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.
  • To give full references (and thus reliability and quality) to the knowledge where other people have contributed to the key aspects of the knowledge.
  • To ensure the core knowledge is all-encompassing to the point of being sufficiently unified to explain all things in the simplest way possible, makes common sense, and can be supported by observations and other forms of evidence.
  • To further the interests of others in getting to the essence of human knowledge as well as helping those who may be educationally disadvantaged in some way and/or need access education and new ideas.
  • To tackle the controversial subjects head on (i.e., to be open-minded and to make efforts to understand them to a deeper level).
  • To paint a brighter future of where we are heading with this knowledge and the kind of open and balanced society we can all reach for and is considered achievable and realistic for everyone.
  • To continuously improve on the quality of the educational and research information and software tools we develop and present as needed to approach a more stable and unified solution.

Where do we look to find this stable knowledge?

The best way to find stable knowledge is to focus on those controversial areas of science (and religion) that are likely to challenge and change existing concepts of how we look at the Universe, ourselves, and life in general, and to pursue those areas to their ultimate conclusion until the most stable knowledge is found. It is here, within these controversial areas, where new discoveries will be made, and with it the most original and stable knowledge of all.

At the same time, it is important to be aware of the most timeless existing knowledge that has been tried and tested by people (through experiments, thoughtful discussions conducted over a long period of time, looking at nature, and other sources) as this will simplify the knowledge or at least give us clues as to where the most stable knowledge can be found.

Why the capitalised SUNRISE?

This is really an acronym for Search for a UNified Religion in Information for Social Equality.

Why a religion?

The sum of all scientific theories from scientists, or religious laws from theologians, philosophers, great artists and certain well-trained religious leaders, are a body of knowledge that people have developed and distilled over time. Depending on how strongly the theories or laws are retained, they can become beliefs. This may not be such a bad thing if it means the beliefs are based on solid and highly stable knowledge. The only question is, have we reached the most stable knowledge? In reality, we don't know this for sure, but there are tantalising clues as to what this stable knowledge is about. Until we get to this ultimate, stable knowledge, we need people to challenge our existing knowledge. We call these people scientists. Yet even in science, there is knowledge so stable that scientists are prepared to call them laws, not theories. No amount of challenging the concepts can ever change them, not even through the most creative experimentation humankind can conjure up to help disprove them. Just like religious leaders, scientists do choose the term "laws" to describe some of their own scientific knowledge. As a classic example, we have the laws of electromagnetism to describe the world of electric charges and electromagnetic fields. No longer do scientists see electromagnetism as a bunch of theories needing to be challenged and tested with more and more experiments to see if the concepts stand the test of time. Enough testing has been done to the point where scientists are confident of having reached the fundamental essence, at least in this area of science. Yet the decision to see certain knowledge as laws and not to challenge them does make that aspect of science a religion, and the laws become beliefs for the scientists. At any rate, the totality of all such beliefs can form our personal religion for explaining the world. Should enough people support the same beliefs, we effectively have a movement of people following the same world religion. And whether the beliefs are challenged by asking appropriate questions or is accepted will decide whether people should be called scientists or religious leaders (and the body of knowledge is more scientific or religious in nature). If it is the former, we have another name for this religion: science.

Whether we call this body of knowledge science or religion, the ultimate aim of all knowledge is to simplify and see the the most unchanging patterns in the knowledge. And from there, we can answer the most complex and deepest questions possible.

Is there a benefit to simplifying knowledge?

Sure, information is changeable, and knowledge can be challenged from time-to-time by new scientific experiments and observations. Yet at the end of the day all knowledge, when brought to its absolute essence, should reach a point where the fundamental concepts never change. It is here where the essential patterns are made so stable and brought to the simplest level that it forms a special body of knowledge. To the scientists, the patterns are called laws. To the religious person, they are called laws or Truths. Furthermore, simplifying the knowledge to the most stable form has a way of uncovering a unifying feature in the knowledge, something that scientists are searching for in their quest for a Unified Field Theory. Do the same for world religions and it too 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 a way that makes perfect sense for both scientists and religious leaders.

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."

Yet despite the different aspects of reality, science and religion will merge in certain key areas once we get to the fundamental knowledge linking all world religions and different scientific disciplines. In which case, 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 if we believe the knowledge can be challenged, or whether to simply accept the knowledge as being fundamental.

Where is the source of this knowledge?

Source of this knowledge is from observations of the Universe (the scientific approach) and experiments, and also through deep visualisation and thinking techniques (the religious approach) to help look beyond what we see and so uncover the deeper, more encompassing and often hidden and unifying patterns of greater stability.

What kind of knowledge is revealing itself to be stable?

For science, the laws of electromagnetism are showing itself to be the most stable (and hence are described as laws) and capable of unifying all of physics. In fact, the efforts of Albert Einstein to create a unified field theory based on electromagnetism when explaining all of nature, including gravity and universal gravitation and even, dare we say it, the quantum world, was attempted and he may well have achieved what he set out to do. We can expect further amazing scientific advancements to take place this century in this area of Einstein's work.

For religion, there are various important concepts to learn (or body of knowledge understood by the more knowledgeable religious leaders over many thousands of years). They include the principle of love, the concept of balance and unity (called the true unnameable entity for which highly communicative societies with a language still prefer to assign a word to this, which is God), the existence of opposites in the universe and their cyclic interplay over time, and the incessant way the universe and everything in it changes given enough time from the smallest to the largest scale (and yet all living things will still reach for some ultimate and stable goal through these changes, whatever that goal might be precisely and perhaps considered the closest thing we will ever get to understanding God), just to name a few. These are a few typical examples of extremely stable knowledge acquired from world religions that will not change no matter how many experiments and/or how much visualisation is performed to determine the truth.

What happens when we get to the fundamental knowledge?

There are at least two things that can happen. One is that the border between religion and science will get blurred. Then we are left with a situation where people have a choice of becoming more religious in retaining the fundamental knowledge, or they can muster all their creativity to find scientific ways to challenge the knowledge through experiment. But again eventually the knowledge will be brought to a stable form. So once more people will have to decide whether the knowledge is too stable and unchanging and so become religious in at least retaining the knowledge, or they have to be more creative in uncovering ways to challenge the knowledge. The second is that the knowledge can have a unifying ability to reach across various disciplines and seemingly separate branches of knowledge. There is a realisation that the knowledge is all-encompassing and able to link up to so many areas.

This is the thing. Once scientists reach the level of creating scientific laws in its scientific knowledge, we have reached the point of not being able to unravel deeper truths. Should scientists choose not to question the knowledge further and instead see them as ultimate truths (or act as though they are truths even if scientists call them theories), we enter the religious realm. As we know, religious leaders don't question things. They know it is the natural order of things. They can visualise and see the truth in everything they look at in the universe.

This tells us that whether something is scientific or religious is really a state of mind and an attitude of the person looking at or holding the knowledge. If people question the knowledge and rigorously test the knowledge because they believe there might be something more fundamental lying at the heart of all human knowledge, we call this science, and the people responsible for questioning, testing, gathering, uncovering, or refining the knowledge are true scientists. However, if we choose not to further question this knowledge and just accept it, we call this the true religion. A rational religion no doubt, but nevertheless a religion. And those who accept the knowledge are called religious people, or religious leaders if they go about teaching others the knowledge.

Scientists, in finding the true unified field theory (and more likely to become a law when we find it), must be prepared for the likelihood that they may not be able to disprove the knowledge. There is a goal at the end of all the scientific work. The goal is to find the unifying laws to explain everything. At some point, we must accept this knowledge as the best humans can achieve and is the most fundamental. In which case, we must also be prepared to act as religious people in accepting and supporting the fundamental knowledge once it is found. When that happens, science becomes a religion.

At the same time, we need to be careful not to accept blindly everything we see, hear, or learn. This is particularly true of world religions as we see them today given how fragmented they are (which they shouldn't if they are truly reaching for the true religion of God. It is clear these religions are not simplified enough to see the links between them all and so get to the heart of all religions, and with it the true nature of God. Religious people should not be totally accepting of the knowledge they are given by their religious leaders. We are not God. No one is perfect. We don't know the true religion unless we question the knowledge, see the links, and test the concepts. And that requires us to become a scientist. We need to question the knowledge and challenge it in order to make sure the knowledge is truly fundamental.

In the end, we have a choice. We can either choose to be scientific or religious in our work. The ultimate aim for all of us is to balance the two in our daily lives so that we can reach this fundamental Truth more quickly and effectively.


At SUNRISE, we seek a balance between curiosity of question things and holding onto the most stable knowledge created by humankind. At the same time, we look for new and original knowledge or in extracting the absolute stable knowledge in things we already know, and in presenting (and hence accepting to a certain extent) the stable knowledge we can see so as to help other people to know where we are heading (or most likely to be heading). Then we encourage people to apply their own curiosity to help further refine the knowledge until they can see the absolute truth in their own way so as to approach this absolute true in religion/science more quickly.

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.

The second step is what scientists love to do, which is: to use our senses to "observe" the universe. 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 recording all this information somewhere for future reference when we need to analyse the information gathered. Yet this is not enough to get to the essence of anything we observe.

The third step is best appreciated by the more creative and religious types, the true leaders in this field: the use of our imagination and visualisation skills to not only recognise familiar patterns, but also to go beyond what we see and are familiar with. 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.

And the final step is to simplify this knowledge to its very essence. Ask yourself, what is really important and unchanging in this knowledge? 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 is that virtually anyone with basic communication skills can quickly understand the knowledge 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"

Another benefit of this simplification process is to cover a hidden pattern that allows people to unify many concepts within the knowledge.

Acquiring information is just the beginning

One fact must be understood: information on its own is never useful to anyone. It is just the raw ingredient to a much more important and useful discovery or insight (i.e., the pattern or patterns). Until this information is distilled and transformed (or chipped away like the chisel of a sculptor on a rock) into knowledge (i.e., the recognition of patterns), the information remains essentially useless to us. And we all know the effects of having too much information. It can easily stop many people from seeing the essential patterns and their relationship with each other in the information that could have enormous and positive benefits to solving an essential problem for humanity.

Furthermore, certain knowledge can still remain as information because we can still see the knowledge changing over time and, therefore, is no where near the fundamental level all this knowledge needs to be (i.e., unchanging for all eternity). That is why we need curious people, or scientists, to simplify the knowledge and present what is truly stable.

What is SUNRISE seeing from its research?

Our research is indicating a way for science (and world religions) to get to this fundamental knowledge. More remarkably, this knowledge will support a unifying entity called God (1) in religion, but it will require people to define God in a different way by applying a specific natural phenomenon described in the laws of electromagnetism.

As for religion, there are several essential concepts that need to be understood. Beyond that, it is up to you to decide whether you believe in things like life after death, a single unifying force of the Universe, the cyclic interplay of opposites, and so on. And that will depend on how much visualisation you do in your life when seeing these hidden religious patterns.

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)

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.

But can true and fundamentally stable knowledge be hidden away by a few "privileged" people that you must pay for? No you can't. It is too easy to understand and too powerful and accessible to everyone who is willing to open their eyes and minds and learn.

True knowledge, when brought down to its very essence, is something we quickly learn is a right for all to enjoy and benefit. It is available to everyone who is willing to listen, learn, record and maintain for all times, as well as for those who wish to be curious and want to improve the knowledge. And most importantly, the knowledge is there to solve problems for the benefit of everyone. Furthermore, if the knowledge is fundamental, it tends to solve a greater number of problems to the deepest level and in a permanent way. Because of the power this kind of knowledge can bring, it can never favour any one individual or corporation. It is there for the benefit of everyone and everything. Not only that, but there is absolutely no reason why you can't improve on that knowledge if you see a better and more simplified way. You have the right to get the knowledge into a more stable and simpler form for the benefit of everyone.

True knowledge of the fundamental kind, the one that does not change, has always been the great power equalizer. It is the key to creating great change leading to a new and more stable society, and a better one at that, and so bringing to everyone the necessary social equality we are looking for. Yet it is change we must have for it pushes us in the right and more balanced direction. And then things get more stable. Yes, the world still changes, but it will be understood in a way that helps people to see the true stability in all the changes. People with such knowledge will quickly understand how the changing world works and soon the stable core knowledge will see through the changes and no longer be seen as changes. Others will create changes (includng the great marketers of the business world), but the ultimate goal is to create stability. Anything that does not do this is not heading to the ultimate goal. It is more like marketing. There is no ultimate goal in marketing other than to constantly get you to buy this or that all the time.

In the end, the truly fundamental knowledge ensures people are on an equal footing and with no disadvantages for all.

As they say, we only change when we know it will bring greater stability. Getting to the core knowledge of anything has a habit of doing just that for anyone who pursues this area.