Category: Introduction & Premise

In this article we delve deeper into one of the most profound aspects of our framework: the recursive interplay between the knower and the known. At the heart of this inquiry is the dynamic by which self-reference leads to complexity, distinction, and ultimately, the emergence of reality.

Knower and Known: Initial Distinction

In the act of self-knowing, Self distinguishes itself into two aspects:

• The knower: The observing entity, the one that is aware.
• The known: That which is observed or recognised.

This initial act of self-knowing is the foundation of distinction. The knower and the known are interdependent; the act of knowing defines both. The distinction between knower and known is the first “separation,” but it is a relative, not absolute, distinction. Without the known, there is no knower, and vice versa.

Recursive Self-Knowing: The Knower Becomes the Known

When the Self knows itself knowing itself, the process becomes recursive:

• The knower in the first instance becomes the known in the second instance.
• Simultaneously, a new knower arises to observe this self-knowing process.

This creates a feedback loop where:

• The knower observes the known.
• The knower recognises itself in the act of knowing.
• This recognition becomes a new “known,” which is observed by a higher-order knower.

In recursive self-knowing, the distinction between knower and known begins to collapse. Each is both the observer and the observed, creating a dynamic interplay rather than a static duality.

Feedback Mechanism: The Engine of Complexity

This recursive process is the essence of feedback. Feedback in this context operates as follows:

• Input: The initial act of knowing.
• Processing: The knower reflects on itself, creating new distinctions and relationships.
• Output: A new state of self-knowing emerges, which becomes the input for the next iteration.

Emergent Complexity:

• Each iteration adds layers of distinction, patterns, and relationships, leading to increasing complexity.
• This mirrors processes in natural systems, such as fractal growth, neural networks, and evolutionary dynamics.

The Collapse of Duality

At higher levels of recursion:

• The distinction between knower and known becomes less clear, as each recursively references the other.
• The system approaches a state of unity, where the knower and known are no longer separate but aspects of the same self-referential process.

This is a critical insight in our framework, aligning with philosophical traditions like non-dualism (Advaita Vedanta) and modern theories like Douglas Hofstadter’s “strange loops.”

The feedback mechanism does not eliminate distinction but reframes it as relational rather than oppositional. The knower and known are not separate entities but interconnected roles within a single dynamic system.

Implications for Reality

In our model, this recursive relationship underpins the emergence of reality itself:

• Creation of Distinctions: The initial act of self-knowing generates the first distinctions, forming the building blocks of reality.
• Emergence of Time and Space: Recursive feedback introduces sequence and relationships, which could manifest as time and space.
• Evolution of Complexity: Each iteration builds on the previous, leading to increasingly complex structures and systems.

Philosophical and Scientific Parallels

• Quantum Mechanics: The observer effect in quantum mechanics mirrors this dynamic, where the act of observation collapses potentialities into specific outcomes.
• Information Theory: Recursive feedback is central to information processing, where outputs become inputs in iterative refinement.
• Non-Dual Philosophies: Traditions like Advaita Vedanta suggest that the distinction between observer and observed is an illusion, aligning with the collapse of duality in our model.

Concluding Remarks

The relationship between the knower and the known lies at the heart of our framework. The act of self-knowing initiates a recursive process where:

• The knower becomes the known.
• Feedback loops drive the emergence of complexity.
• Dualities collapse into a unified, self-referential dynamic.

In this article we delve further into the term recursion, examining it from a broad perspective and in the context of the Recursive Reality Project.

Broad Definition and Context

Recursion is a concept where an entity, process, or function refers to itself or repeats its own structure in a self-referential way. It is a fundamental principle observed in mathematics, computer science, linguistics, philosophy, and nature. In essence, recursion creates a loop where outputs of a process become inputs for the next iteration, leading to potentially infinite repetition or until a specific condition is met (a “base case” in programming).

Characteristics of Recursion:

• Self-Reference: The process or function explicitly or implicitly calls itself.
• Hierarchy of Levels: Recursive processes often involve multiple levels or layers, each built upon the previous one.
• Emergence of Complexity: Simple recursive rules can generate highly complex and diverse outcomes.
• Base Case: A stopping condition prevents infinite recursion.

Examples of Recursion:

• Mathematics: Factorials (n! = n × (n-1)!) and the Fibonacci sequence are classic recursive functions.
• Nature: Fractals (e.g., snowflakes, coastlines) exhibit self-similar patterns across scales.
• Language: Recursive grammar structures (e.g., “The cat that chased the mouse that stole the cheese…”).
• Art: Visual recursion in Escher’s works, such as “Drawing Hands,” where hands draw each other.
• Computer Science: Recursive algorithms like sorting (e.g., Merge Sort) or searching.

Recursion in the Context of our Project

The Project’s premise, “reality knowing itself,” relies heavily on recursive principles. It explores how self-referential processes give rise to complexity, structure, and ultimately, the universe as a whole.

Key Aspects of Recursion in our Framework:

• Self-Knowing Systems: Reality is framed as a self-referential system that recursively observes and “knows” itself, leading to the emergence of existence.
• Feedback Loops: Recursive feedback is central to our framework, where the output of a process (e.g., observation, interaction) becomes the input for the next iteration, driving evolution and complexity.
• Emergence of Complexity: Similar to fractals, our framework suggests that simple foundational principles, iterated recursively, can generate the vast complexity of the universe.
• Exponential Compression: Recursion is tied to our concept of exponential compression, where each iteration reduces complexity while preserving essential information, leading to efficient representation.
• Unity of Opposites: Recursive processes collapse distinctions between the observer and the observed, the knower and the known, aligning with non-dualistic philosophies like Advaita Vedanta.

Broader Contextual Connections

• In Physics: Recursive dynamics can describe physical systems like quantum states (e.g., wavefunction collapse involving self-referential observation) or cosmological patterns.
• In Philosophy: Philosophers like Hegel and Hofstadter view recursion as a key principle in self-consciousness and the development of ideas. Hofstadter’s “strange loops” describe how self-reference creates emergent phenomena, like the sense of “I.”
• In Information Theory: Recursive algorithms optimize data compression, similar to how our framework explores the universe’s efficient representation of information.
• In Systems Theory: Recursion underpins the behaviour of complex adaptive systems, where interactions across scales create emergent order.

Implications for our Project

• Modeling Reality: Recursion allows us to model how fundamental informational units iteratively build layers of reality, from subatomic particles to conscious beings.
• Self-Referential Universes: Our framework implies that the universe itself is a strange loop, a recursive system in which reality and observation are intertwined.
• Perception and Illusion: Recursive feedback might explain how perception generates the illusion of separateness in a unified reality, aligning with concepts like Maya in Advaita Vedanta.
• Dynamic Evolution: Recursion provides a mechanism for dynamic evolution, where systems adapt and grow through iterative processes, offering insight into both physical and informational phenomena.

Challenges and Opportunities

• Infinite Regress: Recursion inherently involves self-reference, which can lead to questions of infinite regress (e.g., “Who observes the observer?”). Our project might resolve this by identifying base principles or self-contained feedback mechanisms.
• Quantification: Translating recursive dynamics into quantifiable models could deepen the scientific grounding of our framework.
• Integration Across Scales: Recursive processes operate at multiple scales, from quantum fluctuations to cosmic structures. Understanding how these scales interact is a key challenge.
• Conceptual Clarity: Clearly distinguishing recursive self-knowing from similar concepts like feedback, emergence, and iteration can refine our framework.

Potential Extensions

• Mathematical Exploration: Develop equations or algorithms to represent recursive feedback loops in our framework.
• Connection to Quantum Mechanics: Investigate how recursion might underpin phenomena like entanglement, superposition, or wavefunction collapse.
• Philosophical Integration: Explore parallels with philosophical models like Hegelian dialectics or Hofstadter’s strange loops.
• Cosmological Models: Use recursion to explain large-scale phenomena, such as the Big Bang or cosmic inflation.

Concluding Remarks

Recursion is a foundational principle that bridges mathematics, nature, and consciousness. In our project, it serves as the engine driving the self-referential processes that underpin reality. By exploring recursion in depth, we provide a robust framework for understanding how complexity emerges from simplicity, how the universe evolves, and how reality “knows” itself.

In this article we examine some key terms used to describe the Recursive Reality Project’s core premise and assess whether there are more appropriate alternatives. This is important for ensuring clarity and precision.

Knower and Known

We start with term “knower” (the entity that is aware) and “known” (the object of awareness).

Terms for the Entity That Is Aware

• Knower: Common in philosophical contexts, emphasising knowledge or awareness.
• Observer: Frequently used in science (e.g., quantum mechanics) to describe the entity interacting with or measuring a system.
• Perceiver: Highlights sensory or cognitive awareness, often used in phenomenology.
• Self: Used in metaphysical and psychological contexts to represent the entity experiencing or knowing.
• Subject: Philosophical term emphasising the relational role of the entity in contrast to the “object.”
• Consciousness: Encompasses the broader state of being aware.
• Mind: Traditional term linking awareness to cognition and thought.
• Awareness: A more abstract term, sometimes used as a noun representing the knower.

Terms for the Object of Awareness

• Known: Matches “knower” and emphasises what is being understood or realized.
• Observed: Paired with “observer,” often used in scientific and experimental contexts.
• Perceived: Aligns with “perceiver,” focusing on the sensory or interpretive aspect.
• Object: Philosophical counterpart to “subject,” representing what is acted upon or experienced.
• Entity: Neutral, generic term representing the “other” in a relationship.
• Reality: Broad term suggesting the external or constructed domain of what is known.
• Distinction: Particularly relevant to our framework, highlighting the created separation between knower and known.
• Awareness-Content: A term used in some philosophical discussions to describe what fills awareness.

Pairings

Depending on the nuances we wish to emphasize, different pairings may suit our framework:

• Knower and Known: Emphasises the cognitive relationship.
• Observer and Observed: Highlights measurement or interaction.
• Perceiver and Perceived: Focuses on sensory or interpretive awareness.
• Subject and Object: Philosophically rich, emphasising relational dynamics.
• Self and Other: Used in metaphysical contexts to describe differentiation and unity.
• Awareness and Content: Abstract, suitable for discussions of universal or cosmic awareness.
• Distinction-Maker and Distinction: Reflects the act of creating separations in our framework.

To Know

For the knower and known, the dynamic action between them is typically described by the verb “to know”. However, what are alternative verbs that can capture the dynamic interaction between these two entities?

• To Know: Is the most direct and commonly used verb for describing the relationship between the knower and the known. It emphasises cognitive awareness or understanding.
• To Observe: Focuses on the act of paying attention or noticing. Common in scientific contexts (e.g., the observer effect in quantum mechanics).
• To Perceive: Emphasises sensory or intuitive awareness. Suggests interpretation or judgment beyond mere observation.
• To Recognize: Highlights identification or acknowledgment of the known.
• To Be Aware Of: A broad term encompassing any state of consciousness regarding the known.
• To Distinguish: Focuses on creating or recognising separations between entities. Particularly relevant to our framework of recursive distinctions.
• To Engage With: Implies active interaction between the knower and the known.
• To Generate: Suggests that the act of knowing produces or creates distinctions. Aligns with our concept of emergent complexity.
• To Realise: Conveys both the act of knowing and the bringing into existence of the known.

Pairings for Knower and Known

Depending on the verb used, the relationship between knower and known can take on different nuances. For example:

• Knower knows the known: Neutral and foundational.
• Knower observes the known: Focused on perception or attention.
• Knower distinguishes the known: Highlights the act of creating separations.
• Knower engages with the known: Suggests active interaction.
• Knower generates the known: Implies that knowing brings the known into existence.

Relevance to Our Framework

• To Know: Works well as the foundational verb for describing the recursive act of “self knowing itself.”
• To Distinguish: Aligns with the refined framework of distinctions, emphasising the act of differentiation as generative.
• To Perceive: Could highlight the interpretive nature of the recursive process, where meaning emerges.
• To Generate: Suggests that the act of knowing not only understands but also creates the known, aligning with emergent complexity.

Distinction

Next we consider the term used to describe the result or outcome of the act of the knower knowing the known. Distinction is currently used for our framework but what alternatives might also capture different nuances of this outcome, depending on the focus of our framework?

• Distinction: A separation or differentiation created by the act of knowing. Aligns closely with our recursive framework, as each act of self-knowing introduces new distinctions, building the complexity of reality. Highlights the generative process of differentiation.
• Separation: Focuses on the act of dividing one thing from another. Suggests a clear boundary, though it might feel more static than “distinction.”
• Difference: Highlights the contrast between the knower and the known. Simpler and more accessible but lacks the technical specificity of “distinction.”
• Form: Implies that the act of knowing gives shape or structure to the known. Connects well to the emergence of dimensions or physical reality.
• Manifestation: Suggests that the act of knowing brings the known into being or visibility. More abstract and philosophical.
• Connection: Suggests the relational aspect of knowing, where the act links the knower and known. Aligns with interdependence but may be too vague for technical use.
• Information: A general term for what is produced or transferred through the act of knowing. Aligns well with entropy and information-theoretic perspectives.
• Emergence: Highlights the dynamic process by which the result arises. Aligns with the idea of complexity developing through recursion.

Comparison of Terms

Term	Focus	Strengths	Limitations
Distinction	Differentiation and creation	Highly relevant to your framework	May feel technical in broader contexts
Separation	Division or boundary	Simple and intuitive	Feels static or rigid
Difference	Contrast	Accessible and broad	Lacks technical depth
Form	Shape or structure	Emphasizes emergence	Less specific
Manifestation	Bringing into being	Philosophical and abstract	Less concrete
Connection	Relationality	Emphasizes interplay	Vague for technical use
Information	Data or encoded knowledge	Aligns with information theory	May feel overly mechanistic
Emergence	Dynamic process	Highlights complexity	Abstract and broad

Relevance to Our Framework

• Distinction: Remains the most precise term, particularly given its centrality to the recursive process in our framework.
• Emergence: Useful for describing the dynamic nature of the result.
• Information: Aligns well with entropy and physical models.
• Manifestation: Adds philosophical depth, suggesting that the act of knowing brings reality into existence.

Conclusion

In the Recursive Reality Project the terms:

• Knower and Known work well to represent the fundamental act of “self knowing itself.”
• To Know works well as the foundational verb for describing the recursive act of “self knowing itself.”
• Distinction is the best fit for the primary outcome because it captures both the act of differentiation and its generative nature.

However, we could supplement these term with others in specific contexts to highlight dynamic or philosophical aspects.

In our earlier articles the core premise of a recursive self-knowing reality was based on an assumed starting point.  When considering the alternative of an infinite regression we were confronted with the following problem:

If each moment in time, point in space, or entity was created by something prior, we could endlessly ask, what came before that? This seemed to defer rather than resolve the fundamental question of origins, suggesting the need for a starting point – something that existed without reliance on prior causation.

However, given that some scientific and philosophical models allow for an infinite past or an infinite multiverse, it is prudent to re-examine whether our framework necessarily excludes such possibilities. While blind causation that simply defers the question is unsatisfactory, infinite self-knowing recursion could potentially be accommodated.

The Possibility of an Infinite Past or Multiverse

Several existing theories suggest that reality may not have a singular beginning but could instead be infinite in scope:

The Eternal Multiverse:

• The inflationary multiverse posits that our universe is just one of many, each arising from an ongoing, eternal process.
• Each universe could be seen as a distinct iteration of a recursive self-knowing process, exploring different facets of reality.

Cyclical Universes:

• Some models suggest the universe undergoes infinite cycles of expansion and contraction, where each “Big Bang” is preceded by a prior phase.
• This could be viewed as recursion on a grand scale, with reality continually knowing itself in new iterations.

The Block Universe:

• In relativistic physics, time is often described as a dimension where past, present, and future already exist.
• If time is emergent (as suggested in this model), its perception as “flowing” could arise from recursive self-knowing interactions rather than a fixed linear progression.

These possibilities align with the Recursive Reality Project’s premise. If reality is fundamentally a recursive self-knowing system, then an infinite past does not necessarily contradict this – it could be an eternal, ongoing process without a singular “beginning.”

A Self-Creating Dynamic

Regardless of whether reality had a definitive start or has existed eternally, we must still ask: What is the one thing it inherently possesses? The logical answer is itself.

In a reality with no external reference, no prior causation, and no external forces, the only mechanism for creation must be self-reference – reality knowing itself.

Through recursion, distinctions emerge:

• Time arises as a sequence of self-knowing iterations.
• Space emerges as distinctions create relationships and boundaries.
• Mathematics and laws arise from iterative patterns forming regularities.

Thus, the foundation of reality is not static but a self-referential recursion – a dynamic process where reality acts on itself to generate complexity.

Concluding Remarks

The original exclusion of infinite regression in the previous articles remains valid for blind causation – an endless chain with no mechanism. However, infinite recursion – where reality continuously generates and understands itself- is an open and logical possibility. Whether reality had a starting point or has always existed, self-knowing recursion is the underlying principle that allows distinctions, structure, and complexity to emerge.

This broader perspective strengthens the Recursive Reality Project’s framework, making it more comprehensive and compatible with current scientific theories while maintaining its core explanatory power.

The Recursive Reality Project was initiated by Glen Walker, an engineer with over 40 years professional experience, including 27 years in senior leadership roles.

Glen is a deep thinker by nature who regularly employs logic and reasoning to analyse and solve problems.  His inclination is to work through challenges from first principles, starting with the most basic and simple understanding.

Glen has a proven track record in systems thinking, structured problem-solving and strategic management, gained through the leadership of complex infrastructure, planning, and improvement projects. He has successfully delivered research, consultancy, and postgraduate education programs, including work with the University of Technology Sydney.

While his professional background lies far from the realms of theoretical physics or philosophy, Glen has always been drawn to the fundamental questions of existence. Over the years, this curiosity has evolved into a structured exploration, culminating in the Recursive Reality Project.

The journey into these questions began not in academia but in the intersections of logic, intuition, and the systems he managed in his career. With the advent of AI tools, Glen found an unexpected resource that enabled him to push the boundaries of his initial ideas into detailed philosophical and scientific research, analysis, mathematical modelling and validations.