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 stable ideas or to emphasise the core and most stable known concepts in an interesting and engaging way for educational purposes.
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). Otherwise, if the knowledge is already stable, such as the laws of electromagnetism, we will emphasise this in the knowledge.
Why the capitalised SUNRISE?
This is an acronym for Search for a UNified Religion in Information for Social Equality.
Why a religion?
Although it is essential to challenge the concepts and to be prepared to make changes to the existing concepts, there is a time when such efforts will eventually uncovers timeless and changeless knowledge that explains everything, from the smallest detail to the largest scale. Wherever this point in the knowledge is finally reached and there can be no more challenging and refining of the knowledge, all we can do is accept, support, record, and teach the knowledge, just like those individuals do in religion. Then the body of fundamental knowledge is closer to a religion in terms of its simplicity, stability and comprehensively balanced knowledge. And those who teach the knowledge without question are essentially religious people. If we cannot challenge the knowledge and must learn to accept it, then we call it religious knowledge.
Thys, 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 as the Universe itself. But if there is a tiny 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 that brings it back to a law.
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. For scientists, the same situation is also true.
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, nor are we like the ultimate quantum computer with a self-conscious that can calculate with precision and accuracy what will happen in the future for scientific leaders. Our brain is not big enough. To be God is like being the ultimate scientist (or ultimate religious person) with all the knowledge to know how to survive for eternity and see the past and future. The main indication we are not perfect is the fact that we all die eventually because f our limited knowledge. Indeed, who can say whether someone is truly the greatest person in the Universe? No one can. Not even the most advanced alien civilisation can be described as "perfect". We must consider ourselves as children in the Universe always 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 for all times.
Whether something can be considered stable and balanced is something we have to find out for ourselves. What is the essential knowledge? What do we need to know? 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 (also called teachers). 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 in its original form, 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 soon 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 for both science and religion, 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, and vice versa.
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 focused 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 come down to our attitude to see a problem and how we choose to solve it. Either we believe the knowledge can be challenged, or we accept the knowledge in its current form as being fundamental.
Our attitude determines whether we become scientists or religious people.
But if we are to be balanced and to quickly reach the core and stable knowledge that we can describe as laws, we need a combination of being religious and scientific in our work.
The importance of being balanced
It is all about being balanced. A balance of not accepting blindly everything we see, hear, or learn, especially from religious leaders until we challenge the beliefs and find out if it is true. 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, both in a scientific and religious sense. 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 behave like 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, a balance is sought between curiosity of questioning things, and learning to maintain the knowledge created by humankind if it is stable and is the most stable and balanced knowledge we have, and especially those concepts that are useful in the 21st century and beyond.
How do we find the fundamental and stable knowledge?
We need a combination of strong visual skills and the ability to communicate, both verbally and in writing, the essential concepts in a simple way. If we cannot visualise the concepts, we cannot simplify them to their very essence. And, if we don't know how to communicate, we cannot explain the essential patterns we see to others.
But before that knowledge even arrives, the first step is to use the senses to "observe" the universe, just as many scientists do. Our primary sense is the eyes to do most of our observing, but it isn't the only way to gather information. We can also "observe" by listening with our ears, as well as tasting with our nose and mouth, touching with our hands, as well as 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 all this is not quite enough to get to the essence of everything we observe.
The next 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. Indeed, we must use the mind to go beyond what is familiar to see the unfamiliar, or the one pattern that we have not seen and could explain many things and potentially better than any theory in the past. For it is in this hidden realm of the human mind do we begin to see and identify the true fundamental patterns within the information, and with it the insight into the true and absolute unifying religion (or science) we are seeking.
The fourth and final 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 from all this work. At some point, you are going to need to keep a record of this knowledge for people to see and refer back to it, so they may either challenge the knowledge or accept it and teach others 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 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. All it takes is time and a curious mind.
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.
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.