Introduction

Logic as a terminology, is commonly associated with the computer world. Applications, programs and other artifacts written in the computer industry is mostly oriented towards commercialization and hence falls under the applied logic category. It is mostly used in a sense to automate repetitive tasks that are considered a drudgery for the human mind to do without errors. But, it should be recognized that in no way are these, what humans consider as common mundane tasks, really common mundane tasks. For example data entry is considered a common mundane task, but, strangely, this cannot be automated with any accuracy easily. For humans, common household tasks such as cleaning dust, cooking and so on are mundane tasks. While we can create robots that do these tasks, they are limited to actions such as cleaning accessible surfaces and need human intervention to get it done accurately. Hence, we need to recognize that computers and logic only helps automate repetitive tasks that can be represented with the deterministic logic that we have identified and can code using the processors that we have developed.

AI is a loosely used terminology to indicate “so called intelligence programmed into applications”. The amount of intelligence created is limited to the intelligence of the architect of the program and the “domain” for which the intelligence is programmed. We can call it a learning algorithm. But, it should be recognized that even a learning algorithm is trained only to the extent of the input data. Further it is only trained to the extent of the algorithm coded by the programmer represented with weights and mathematical function representations that bind the various pieces of information in the data that are recognized already by the programmer. The common sense of humans which is termed as AGI or artificial general intelligence is typically not automatically present in computer programs and is also considered to be highly difficult to program. It should also be recognized that we have no way of even accurately defining what “common sense” really means. We can only define it by describing situations where humans apply common sense. When such is the case, how can we code in common sense into a program?

When we view reality, we always view it as physics of matter, mathematical equations, chemistry of particles, atoms or molecules or biology of the cell that forms a living organism. According to modern science, logic has no place in the study of the observed reality. Logic is shelved to the world of virtual where some computer or processor follows a series of instructions to either reduce the work load of a human or for an entertainment experience by a human.

Yet, we find that, if we de-construct the working of any process in reality it just boils down to some sort of logic identified by us. For example we can express a logic when water is boiled as: “measure temperature of molecules. If molecule temperature excites molecule to have a force beyond the adhesive force between other molecules, then break the bonds. If bonds of molecules of water is weak then rise to surface. If molecule bonds can break surface tension, then break and rise into atmosphere. Surface molecules sink down to get heated.” And so on, at the minimum, a whole lot of rules (coded as if-else clauses) can be applied to understand the working of boiling of water, which is pure logic operating on an observable called water molecule.

We are forced to accept, albeit with a very high level of reluctance and resistance that the observable world around us is just a by-product of our brains creating “a world” based on both external and internal inputs which we are unable to perceive in the raw form. Many fail to even recognize or accept the truth of this. For example, while the input to the sense organ of the eye is light and translated to electrical signals, the output that we view is an image. Similarly while the input to the ears are sound waves translated to electrical signals we neither see the perceived waves nor the electrical signals, but have translated it as either music or words or higher level images formed by stringing together these words together. So, if these are not just a by-product of the brain, what else are they? A very revealing example can be seen in the binaural beats, where two known high frequency waves can be projected to our two ears and we translate it as a wave of the difference of the two wave frequencies.

Further, if, we accept that this is case, that what we construct of this world is just a translation of input signals, it needs to follow that each and every being within this reality can possibly have created a totally individual world very specific to the translative capacity of the brains they are equipped with. Even though a common rule can exist between the various beings, the worlds we are live in are distinctly different. As a proof, we just have to see the difference in reactions, descriptions and various other such parameters within human beings themselves to the same. Similar is the case with other living beings such as dogs, birds, insects and so on. Reactions to same events vary between each and every being. The same environmental disaster invokes varied responses in different beings, going on to prove that the world that we observe and describe to ourselves need not be the same as the world that another being observes and describes to themselves. We are hence forced to accept that, the number of observed realities has to be as many as the number of beings present in this universe.

A pale imitation of this can be seen in the varied data analytics programs that are written. Data analytics takes input data either from IoT sensors or from various interactions of the user with some application and this data is scrubbed, bucketized and knowledge searched in it. This sort knowledge is then used to achieve various results such as showing related advertisements, selling of relevant products and so on. Given that every human exists in a world created by their own brains, it should also be recognized that, the algorithm written by that human, tends to “mimic the logic” in their world and hence acquires the same or more limitations as set in their world. It is rarely seen that two programmers can come up with the same algorithm to solve a problem unless they are both taught the solution and the trained solution is re-created instead of writing an original logic. Even then if the solution training is in the form of a description of logic, then all the way from the pseudocode to the program written varies for the same descriptive solution. This goes to reinforce the fact that both programmers live in different worlds, the worlds reflecting their observation capacities of this reality around them.

The data analysis is done by our thoughts on the properties detected from the truth and the result is this observable world around us. So, it should be recognized that none of this perceived world around us is the truth, but is just a palatable version of the truth given to us in a smoothed fashion rendered by the brain. Studying and changing anything in this world is just like trying to change one rendered UI for the same program that runs on a single server.  Unless, the change that is rendered in the UI is not translated to the server program via API, the change is temporary and is lost once the UI is quit. Similarly, physics, chemistry and so on science that we have in the modern world is just a study of the specific rendering by a single being extended to an observation and rendering by other beings. It just modifies temporarily the rendered world around us rather than the underlying truth that renders this world. So, how do we understand and change the real truth that renders this world, if even it see and study the world all we can do is see is a rendering?

Hence, the Kena Upanishad as aptly asked the question:

na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati no manaḥ |

na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt || 3 ||

Translates to:

Images cannot capture it, words cannot describe it, mind cannot grasp it nor can wisdom understand it. Then who or how can this be studied?

As I have said so in many of my blogs and books, this is the core of all the problems that we have. How can the truth be studied if every time we try to study it all that happens is the formation of a thought which brings us back to square one where this rendered world is formed.

We also need to understand that we have no clue as to how our actions impact the underlying truth and in-fact if it impacts anything at all in that underlying truth. We tend to conduct experiments to prove our theory and call it a proof for a theory. But what should be recognized is that if the “brain” is translating and creating a world around us, then it is quite possible that conducted experiments and their outputs also have to confirm to the world that is created by our brains. It does not prove the theory one way or the other. It just goes to show that the illusion of the created around is completely and absolutely holistic and cannot be cheated in any way to reveal its secrets. This is beautifully explained in the Bhagavad Gita verse which all of us know with a totally different explanation:

karmanyevadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana

ma karma-phalahe-turbhur ma te sangostvakarmani

Translates to:

Always the result is bound to work invoked by the order, advancing the bound result of the order further only binds that accompanying to non-order.

What this is telling us is that while a “work done” in the underlying truth to cause an “order in the unordered truth” always causes a result, the reverse is not true. By changing the advanced result in the form of some imagined “work done” does not change the order in the underlying truth and it still stays in an unordered state. This in-fact is another question that is asked in the Kena Upanishad which says this:

śrotrasya śrotraṃ manaso mano yad

vāco ha vācaṃ sa u prāṇasya prāṇaḥ |

cakṣuṣaścakṣuratimucya dhīrāḥ

pretyāsmāllokādamṛtā bhavanti ||2||

Translates to:

It is said by ear we hear, by mind we think, by speech we speak, by eyes we see and by breath there is spirit. I, embracing what in this world, thereafter imperishable, exists steadily

This brings out the problem correctly. What can I embrace in this world that I have created which will get imprinted on that truth from which this world is created. If, as we saw previously anything acted upon on the result will not change the truth, then the question is what will? How can we experiment to know the truth? The experiments that we conduct are just on the result of the order and hence should not change the truth in anyway.

So, why is it important for us to know the underlying truth and the way this reality around us works? After all if everything is just a rendering and I can render what I chose to believe, then I should be able to render what I want and forever live in this illusion I have created around me? The point becomes more and more important when we start writing the AI algorithms. The reason these algorithms fall short every time is because our brains are highly sensitive and can detect fake very easily. While the brain deceives us into believing this world around us is the truth, it is very difficult for us to fool our brains into believing anything and everything to be the truth. To develop a true AI we need to be able to understand and mimic the steps that the truth has taken to create this model within us. 

Learning from the restrictions around us

The precision of measurements vary by the instrument used for measuring. For example, if we use the standard ruler that has a minimum measurement of a millimetre and a maximum of 32 cm, to measure length, then the precision of the length measured is only up to one millimetre, anything less cannot be measured. But, if we use a micrometer to measure we can get a precision of micro-meter. The technique used to measure also determines the accuracy with which measurements can be done. Thus, we find that, by understanding the limitations of the instrument that we are using to measure we can glimpse the data that we are missing out, even if we did miss out the data.

To understand the limitations of the measurement instrument, we need to understand what is the measurement instrument that we are looking at, when we study reality around us. To do this, rather than study of reality around us from intently experimenting with the external, we need to change the perspective to studying the relation of “ourselves” to the external, because the observation is done by us. When we do this, we realize that “this body(for now)”, can be considered as a measurement instrument. The question then arises, what is it measuring? The answer has to definitely be “some set of properties of that which is rendered as this reality around us”. That which renders as reality around us, we call as the “underlying truth”. These measured properties of that underlying truth are analyzed by us and conclusions drawn which forms “the individual world” of reality that we perceive and believe to be reality.

The limitation that we need to realize in this setup is that this measurement instrument called “the body(for now)” and the analytical output and conclusions drawn are based on the properties that can be measured. This is the capability of the being. Thus we can only know as much as we are capable of reading the truth. It should also be understood that a perception of a property can only occur once the truth has acquired the given property and there has been a change from some original value of that property. If a change does not occur or a potential change can occur, we do not have a way to perceive it.

So, how can we change this which is stacked against us, in knowing the underlying truth?

We need to recognize that while the limitations of the measurement instrument limits our perception of the underlying truth, studying the logic that we apply to understand the reality around us should provide us clues as to how our own analytical engines work. An understanding of this logic should help us reverse apply the logic to see the raw data on which this logic was applied to get at the conclusions drawn.

Looking for cracks in facade of the created world

The modern world is built on the descriptive intelligence of our being. We need to realize that this is so integrated in us that we do not stop to realize the various individual steps involved to come to a conclusion or a final description that we perceive. For example, when we see “that it is raining”, though, we do know that it involves a path that goes through “the process of evaporation of water from various sources on the ground, a collection of these into clouds and a precipitation of that water from the clouds”, we rarely remember or observe that entire path when it rains. When it rains we just observe the consequences of rain such as a wet road, a flooded street, destruction of houses by a cyclone and so on.

It should also be recognized that when we search for proofs related to the reason for the “falling of the rain”, that the “reasoning” also goes via the analytical engine that defines us as a being, and creates this façade world of reality. Thus, the experiments that we run, the reasoning that we come up with, the results that we observe and the description given to the observed results, all has to hold together to support the analytical analysis, output and conclusions reached by the analytical engine that forms us, as beings. Thus, using such a methodology of experimentation with the external world, we cannot find the raw data that is used in the analysis, the underlying truth from which the raw data was perceived to form the analytical output nor the logic or threads that leads to the analysis output and conclusions.

Hence, a conscious experiment of any nature cannot lead us to an understanding of the underlying algorithm nor the underlying truth. If we need to understand the underlying truth by observation of the external, we need to find cracks in the façade that the analytical engine has created. These need to be cracks where the data perceived falls through without any analysis performed on it.

The characteristics of a data that falls through cracks in the façade, is that all beings should perceive such a data without processing and observe it in its raw form. It should also be noted that such a data that falls through the cracks tend to be concepts that adopt the qualities of the observation rather than have an inherent quality of its own. For example, when we recognize that there is a concept called “space”, “space” itself has no attributes or qualities associated with it and is “visible” due to the presence or absence of matter in it. Thus space has adopted the qualities of matter when perceived rather than stand out as an individual entity with characteristics. We find that “time” is also one such entity where “time” has adopted the quality of change in the subsequent “space frames” rather than stand out as an individual entity by itself. Hence, any being that perceives “space and time” irrespective of what type of being they are, follow the standard principles of adopting the perceived qualities of the contained matter or change in matter in “space” and “time” respectively. Thus, pondering on what space and time is should allow us to look through a crack in the façade by the analytical engine.

The next aspect to look at to find such cracks is related to the working of the analytical engine itself. As, I had indicated in my book Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality, typically the data that is analyzed for which an analytical output is given is that data which is perceived to be closer in distance to us as a being. As the distance radiates out, with us as the center, we find that we do not analyze it because there is not enough data to analyze. Typical analysis is done only for data that is considered to be something that will affect our existence as a being. This means that when we look outside the earth itself and look at the stars and the planets we should not be analyzing the data more than the minimum of fitting the observation into our known concepts. Hence, these can also be used as cracks in the façade to understand the underlying truth.

It is sad that we try to break this inherent barrier to our analytical engine by adding external perceivers such as sending satellites and drones to these planets and stars to study just the observable properties, rather than using these barriers to enable us to see beyond the analytical engine and understand the logic of the paths of the truth or the raw data that drives that logic. The Sanskrit literature has done just this. Many of the Sanskrit works attributed to astronomy and astrology have studied these external elements to enable the inherent barrier to the analytical engine act as an enabler to view beyond the analytical engine that creates the description of the concepts.

Why do I think the Sanskrit literature should be correct in its explanation?

So, why do I think that what is explained in the Sanskrit literature should be more closer to the truth rather than what we have found using what we call “science”? The explanation is best given by comparing the evolution of reality around us to the evolution of various technologies that we develop. “Evolution” is another concept in modern science that has been applied without any context, and applied only to just the observed matter and forms that we observe around us using external senses. Hence it has become difficult to envision it when the question arises, “How did an ape suddenly by itself start walking on two legs, expand its brain to contain a frontal lobe that can do analytical thinking and in the process wipe out a whole lot of other beings. It becomes difficult to imagine the probability of all the required elements coming together to start off the formation of what is called a living being within the short time that we see as the origin of the universe.” Hence a number of objections are raised to the theory of evolution that is alternated with the creationism theory.

It is strange that when we think of evolution, we always only see the body or the matter and think of it as the only one that is evolving, rather than the whole being, which is everything from knowledge, intelligence, awareness, consciousness along with the body. We just don’t seem to want to account for any of the hidden elements at all. We seem to believe that all these automatically developed by the right mix of matter, which is where we are made our first mistake. Hence, we have the creationists trying to say that these were created by some external being called “God” or in some cases an alien, without taking into consideration that even if an external being created all this, how did that external being evolve or get created?

If we take an example of AI’s evolution, we find that we are trying to develop the algorithm first before giving it a body in the form of a robot. As I have explained before, we are always limited by the instrument that we use to measure. But, that is not all. Our logic should also be limited by what we are and what we have embedded within us. It has to be an indication of how we evolved or how we are built. We are not capable of logic beyond what we use to live ourselves. We need to start considering the fact that evolution did not start at material, light or any of the observables that we can observe in this reality around us, but at a totally different unimaginable point of some unmanifested, unordered indeterminate truth, as I have explained later on.

To understand this, we just need to pick up the latest technology that has evolved namely the computer industry. Anything related to computer industry was not present and that is where we have to start. The computer industry itself should have started with formation of the hardware that allowed us to do simple computations such as the calculator. From there it progressed to a more sophisticated processor that could handle complicated data. During all those times, we had to understand the underlying working of the hardware to write any sort of meaningful program. From here the operating system got written which freed the programmers to write program without understanding the hardware, but had to understand the OS concepts. And so on it has progressed, till when modern programmers have no clue about the hardware, the OS, the compilers and many such internal concepts that has led to the scripting languages which make it very easy to write a piece of code. It has progressed now to a point where the UI or the rendering for the backend code is given prominence and importance. The internals of the computer is a knowledge that is right now restricted to a very few programmers, where as when the computer industry began, all computer programmers knew it and used it. But, the UI programming itself was something which at the beginning given the least precedence. We can see similar is the case even with electronics. Evolution does not start on the outside and go internal, but starts evolving at the internals and adding step upon step over it, it spreads out to the external. So, why do we expect any different from nature and the evolution of beings?

We need to start asking ourselves if reality is not the same kind of evolution. Is it not possible that the underlying internals should have been the first to evolve and then the materialistic world evolved? Which implies that in whatever “form” our evolutionary ancestors may have had, they definitely should have had much better understanding of the internals of the working of reality, because this was necessary for evolution. I believe it goes to explain the reason why spoken language evolved before written language. It also goes to explain why the Vedas and Upanishads were infact transmitted by word of mouth rather than by written language, because that is the evolutionary path that got followed, description by thought, then mouth, then written language.

So, yes, I believe the Sanskrit literature must be more or less accurate when it comes to describing the internals of the working of reality. It also goes to explain why none of the Sanskrit literature talk too much about the material world and matter. It neither talks about our modern science such as physics nor of mathematics or any such science as it is claimed. It is purely the evolutionary path that has been traversed to get to this point in reality.

There was a time and I have mentioned this in my previous books, where I wondered “how is it possible that the ancients were able to hold their thoughts so steady that they are not mesmerized by this object world around us and are able to see the deep internals?” But, now it becomes clear, because they have traversed the path without the completely evolved fifth dimension to distract. Hence, it is simply a matter of documenting that which was the path at any given point in time. Just as how the concepts of OS evolved without the distraction of easy programming of scripts, but the easy programming of the scripts were a vision that the programmers of OS wanted to achieve.

So, rather than seeing evolution of “matter” and transformation of one classification of being into another classification, if, evolution theory had looked at the evolution of just a “human” from that unmanifested, nonexistent to what they are now, then the path would have been different from what is suggested of it evolving via fish and apes. The resemblance to fish and apes would just have been an adaptation of thoughts, rather than hierarchical.

In this book I explain via the verses in Surya Siddanta and the BHPS, the algorithms proposed in these literatures for the working of this reality around us. I also compare these concepts to what we have currently present in computers and explain how they are different from what is explained in these books and why the concepts we have in computers and the way they are implemented, are not sufficient to create the cognitive AI that we want to create. Further, I try to put down my thoughts on how or what can be done to create a system that can be used to implement a cognitive AI system.

Buy book at

Read More at


The algorithm of the Universe (A new perspective to cognitive AI)

There are many attempts to explain the existence of the universe. Even the observable universe around us is filled with unknowns and numerous unexplainable phenomena, let alone the unobservable universe. Each and every theory proposed is just trying to find an explanation for the existence of the observable universe around us, ignoring the fact that… Read More

%d bloggers like this: