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 and presenting the most stable and timeless educational and research knowledge for the global community.

What we do

Founded in 1999, the primary objectives of SUNRISE are to conduct research into the more controversial areas of science, and to present new and stable concepts that are either emerging, or already exists and likely to be important for humanity over the long term (e.g., in creating a unifying theory because it lies at the core of all things).

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, observations, and 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 the essential stable knowledge is done by looking at a wide range of information sources, including the more controversial areas of science (and religion). Should we find the core and stable knowledge present in the information, such as the laws of electromagnetism in physics and their applications, or the concept of God in religion (or light in physics), we will emphasise this in our research work.

Why the capitalised SUNRISE?

It is an acronym for Search for a UNified Religion in Information for Social Equality. It is our attempt to find the most stable and often unified knowledge through a simplification of the information until the core aspects of the knowledge are identified like specks of gold in a pan after the mud of information is removed by the water. It is here, in the knowledge that has the potential to help a wider range of people to get to the essence of something and so make it easier to solve problems. Furthermore, such knowledge can give everyone the power to see to the very core of various subjects and realise they are not difficult to understand or learn, no matter how complex they may be presented on the surface by others. And, it can help to see a more unified pattern of explaining and linking many things, including the seemingly unrelated. For example, the ancient and fundamental wisdom and the concept of God expressed by Eastern mystics through their own religions can be used to understand the quantum world in physics as well as the paradoxical behaviour of light, or even help to develop a more accurate concept of God that can unify world religions more effectively.

Is science a religion?

Science does support aspects of religious knowledge, such as the concept of the one true God in religion with the paradoxical and ubiquitous behaviour of light in physics. But whether science is a religion depends on how strongly the people working in science maintain their scientific knowledge and whether they can challenge it through effective expriments and deeper thinking of the concepts.

Although it is essential to challenge the concepts and to be prepared to make changes to the existing concepts to help account for certain discrepancies that people will find from time-to-time, there will be a moment in history when such efforts will uncover timeless and changeless knowledge that explains everything, from the smallest detail to the largest scale. Wherever this point in the knowledge is finally reached, if we cannot use our imagination to come up with ways to challenge and refine the knowledge, then all we can do is accept, support, record, and teach the knowledge. Then we have a situation where the body of fundamental knowledge is closer to a religion in terms of its simplicity, stability and essential knowledge. And those who teach the knowledge without question are essentially religious people, or teachers. If we cannot challenge the knowledge and must learn to accept it, then we must call it religious knowledge.

Thus, the aim for SUNRISE is to find the laws of science (and of 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.

In the world of science, we know there is scientific knowledge described as laws. A classic example would have to be the laws of electromagnetism. This is an area of science (more specifically in physics) that no one, not even the scientists, can challenge or dispute the laws. Sure, 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 if no further efforts are found to require further refinement of the knowledge.

Laws are considered the closest thing we have got to representing unchanging beliefs for a scientist (just like a religious person will have his/her own laws, and hence beliefs, to help explain the unseen or hidden world). Laws are things that essentially do not change no matter how much time passes, or what we do to challenge the knowledge. 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 by challenging the concepts (such as the idea of what a true God is for Christianity, for instance, which would require the scientific side of religious leaders to question their 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?

We don't, and for good reason too. We are not perfect creatures to know the ultimate Truth of everything. 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 absolute precision and accuracy what will happen in the future like a perfect scientist. 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. Unfortunately, we are not perfect. Indications of our imperfection can be seen from the fact that we have no knowledge of how to stop death from happening in this real universe. We may be able to prolong our lives, but not cheat death. This is basically because of our limited knowledge of how to control this situation. In other words, do we truly know all the factors controlling the ageing process? Have we got ourselves to the deepest level in our knowledge and observations of the universe to truly understand what is happening?

This is the thing. No one is perfect. Not even the most advanced alien civilisations are "perfect" (who at times can make mistakes with their technology). All living things must see themselves as children in the Universe learning from the greatest Teacher and Classroom that is the Universe. Whatever the purpose of 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. Because with that knowledge we can achieve so much more, almost to being God-like in our understanding of the universe and our abilities to achieve certain goals of benefit to all living things, but never can we be truly God.

Whether something can be considered stable and balanced is for us to find out. It is all part of the journey of discovery. What is the essential knowledge? What do we need to know? Certainly there will be clues to help us along the way, and tell us where we 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.

Yet a time will come when even the scientists will not be able to make the knowledge more fundamental. It becomes too difficult to challenge the knowledge. Therefore. someone has to accept, remember, and teach this knowledge to others. We call these people more the religious types (also called teachers if you wish). Once these religious-like people find laws or Truths of the Universe that are timeless as the universe itself, they become essentially beliefs for them, and so will be recorded and presented to others in its original form, just as genuine 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. Eventually a unified theory will be uncovered (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 where the knowledge to live harmoniously with one another and a deeper understanding of the purpose of the Universe and our place and what happens along our journey will become clearer. 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.

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, many people supporting science or religion must pursue what they believe and think are seemingly separate areas. Unless they get deep enough into a topic to see this link, sometimes lifetimes are too short and we may choose to stick to what we believe. Whatever we do, aim of religion 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. Once we see this, the only difference between science and religion is going to come down to the attitude of those who support their preferred discipline and how they wish to see a problem and choose to solve it. Either they will believe the knowledge can be challenged, or we must accept the knowledge in its current form as being fundamental.

Our attitude pretty much 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. As Fritjof Capra wrote in his highly acclaimed book, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism:

"I see science and mysticism as two complementary manifestations of the human mind; of its rational and intuitive faculties. The modern physicist experiences the world through an extreme specialization of the rational mind; the mystic through an extreme specialization of the intuitive mind. The two approaches are entirely different and involve far more than a certain view of the physical world. However, they are complementary....Neither is comprehended on the other, nor can either of them be reduced to the other, but both of them are necessary, supplementing one another for a fuller understanding of the world....Science does not need mysticism [or religion] and mysticism does not need science; but men and women need both. Mystical experience is necessary to understand the deepest nature of things, and science is essential for modern life. What we need, therefore is not synthesis but a dynamic interplay between mystical intuition and scientific analysis." (Capra 1975, p.306).

The importance of being balanced

Being balanced in how we approach life and the universe. A balance of not accepting blindly everything we see, hear, or learn, especially from religious leaders until we properly challenge the beliefs and find out if it is true. This is particularly true of world religions given how fragmented they are (which, technically speaking, 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 eventually scientific) knowledge. If the work to unify the knowledge had been done right, the true nature of God should reveal itself, both in a scientific and religious sense, as well as see a distinction in the type of God Judaism and Christianity has discovered from its past and the true unnameable God of Eastern mysticism. Yet we must be humbled by the fact that no one can be called God. No one is perfect and all-knowing to the deepest level. No one, not even SUNRISE, knows the true religion at its most fundamental level unless we question the knowledge, see the links, and test the concepts. And even then, it will not be perfect. However, we will get to a deeper level. A position where we can have considerable insights to help everyone to see where we are going. 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. Eventually, if we work far enough in either direction, we should see how science and religion are linked.


At SUNRISE, we seek a balance between curiosity of questioning things, and finding and presenting the essential knowledge.

How do we find the fundamental and stable knowledge?

We need a balance application of visual skills and the ability to communicate externally, the essential concepts in the simplest 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. As Albert Einstein once said:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

To find this stable knowledge, the first step is to use all the senses to "observe" the universe, just as many scientists do. Our primary sense is the eyes. We do a lot of 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 will help us to recognise familiar and observable patterns, but also the unfamiliar and unseen 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 next 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? And what is the simplest way to understand and explain the knowledge? It is only when we do this simplification and getting to the essence of all knowledge that we begin to discover certain unexpected benefits. For example, one such benefit in simplifying things is to cover new patterns not seen before by others. Another benefit 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. And yet another benefit of the simplified knowledge is that it can save time and money to learn the ideas quickly and easily.

And the final step is to record the stable knowledge after performing all this work. At some point, you are going to need to keep a record of this knowledge for you and others 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. Any attempt to restrict this knowledge to a few are only there 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. And if we cannot let people solve problems for themselves (or let others solve the problems for a price) more effectively through education, the cost to society will be far greater than we imagine. We have to realise that we cannot expect 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 absolute essence, is something that is too simple and all-encompassing to be hidden away.

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. The true social equality we all seek. Getting to the core knowledge of anything has a habit of doing just that for anyone who pursues this area.