Non-duality and logic: is life a dream?

In the previous posts we talked about how a 5-MeO-DMT session pulls you out of the dream we call everyday life and reveals that everything is an appearance within one infinite awareness.

This raised the central question: If life is a dream, who is the dreamer? Am I the one dreaming it all, or am I merely a character in someone else’s dream?

We examined both possibilities and discovered they lead to the same dead end. Each view contradicts the direct experience of the other and cannot be proven. The question is unanswerable.

So we stopped looking for the dreamer and turned our attention to the dream itself. We discovered that every object — chairs, sounds, thoughts, the body — is finite and limited in space and time. Yet the “I Am”, the aware subject that knows all these objects, has no limits whatsoever. When all finite objects are removed, pure infinite awareness remains.

Most importantly, we saw that we never find any object outside of awareness. Everything appears within awareness. Just like in a nighttime dream, there are no independent solid things outside of the dream itself.

Life is therefore more like a dream than a real, separate reality. The dreamer cannot be pointed to because it is infinite. There is only one infinite awareness apparently appearing as billions of forms.

This is the living heart of non-duality teachings.

But all of this has been described starting from the point of view of experience. Does any of this make any logical sense?

The reason why we ask this is because it feels weird to think or say that objects are illusions. That they do not truly exist in the way we think they exist. Why does it feel weird? Because it feels like some kind of contradiction. We are talking about something (objects) that ultimately do not exist. This does not make much sense.

The next logical question would first be to ask: can we prove that objects are illusions?

Let's investigate. Let's take the example of a chair (object) again. Can we know if the chair exists (or not) outside the awareness (subject) of it? In other words, if there is no one to observe whether the chair is there (or not), could we with absolute certainty say that the chair is there (or not)? No, we can't. You need awareness to verify that the chair is there (or not there). The statement that there is truly a chair (or not) independent of our awareness of it is an assumption, not a fact.

Here we see that we cannot prove that an object exists outside of awareness (subject). Could we prove that the subject can exist without an object? In other words, can there be awareness without an object present?

Let's investigate. To know that awareness is present, it needs to express that knowledge somehow, right? In other words, it needs an object (like a body) to express that it is there at that moment. Without a body it could not say I am here (or not). It could be that awareness is there without an object, but we can't verify that with absolute certainty.

So we cannot prove whether objects are “out” there (or illusions or prior to the subject), and we cannot prove that the subject is prior to objects.

This is interesting, because from the point of view of experience it seems very convincing that objects are illusions, but when we look for proof we cannot find it. This also confirms the feeling we had that it does not make much sense to talk about objects that are ultimately nonexistent.

What could make more logical sense?

What makes more logical sense is that subject and object are somehow part of one system. Why? Because we know that both subject and object exist. We experience the subject (I am) and objects through our sense perceptions. So from that perspective it is logical to feel the need to put them in one system.

But here we run into a problem that has haunted philosophers and scientists for thousands of years. How can the subject live with the object in one system? In other words, how can matter (objects) interact with something that is aware (the subject), and vice versa? This is also known as the mind (subject) / body (object) problem.

What would such a system need in order for subject and object to live together inside it?

First, it is logical to build a system that is all-inclusive (comprehensive). Why? Because if it leaves anything out, it is incomplete. For example, we cannot leave the object out to solve the mind/body problem, and we also cannot leave the subject out. Both need to be inside the system. It needs to be all-inclusive.

Second, it is logical to build a system that is free of an endless chain of explanations. Why? Because if every explanation needs another explanation outside itself, the chain never stops. You never reach a real foundation. For example: someone says “awareness comes from the brain.” You ask “where does the brain come from?” They say “from physical matter.” You ask “where does physical matter come from?” They say “from the laws of physics.” And so on, forever. There is never a final ground. The system must be able to explain itself without endlessly pointing to something else.

Third, it is logical to build a system that contains no contradictions. Why? Because if one part of the system clashes with another part, the system falls apart. Everything inside it has to fit. For example: we cannot say that subject and object live together in one system and at the same time treat them as two completely different things that exist independently of each other. Those two claims fight each other.

Do we need a fourth or a fifth requirement? Maybe. But any extra requirement that is truly necessary for one closed system seems to fall back into one of these three. If it leaves something real outside, it is not all-inclusive. If it points to something outside itself for its foundation, the chain starts again. If one part fights another part, it already contains a contradiction. So these three are the basic tests.

How can we solve the mind/body problem without failing these three tests?

Let's investigate.

The three tests already tell us what we cannot do. We cannot leave the subject out. We cannot leave the object out. We cannot point to something outside the system. We cannot treat subject and object as two completely different things and then ask them to interact.

So what is left?

This means, first, that the system must have no outside. Why? Because if there is an outside, something real can be left out, and that would make the system incomplete. Second, we cannot point to something outside, otherwise we never have a final ground. We would go into endless chains of explanations.

Is “the system must have no outside” the answer to all three problems? No. It is not. A system can have no outside and still treat subject and object as two completely different things sitting inside it. Then they still need a way to meet.

Where can that meeting-place be?

If the system has no outside, the meeting-place must be the system itself, right? Where else could it be?

What does that mean?

If the meeting-place is the system itself, subject and object cannot first exist as two separate worlds and only later come into contact. They already belong to one and the same system. There is no gap between the two that still needs to be filled. “I am” (the subject) and the chair (the object) are two sides of one system, like two sides of one coin. The subject is the system knowing itself. The object is the system appearing to itself. The system is self-processing.

That is the solution. Not mind instead of matter. Not matter instead of mind. One closed system with two sides.

Let's make this clear with an analogy:

Imagine the whole system as a book with no outside.

If the book has an outside, someone else would have to write it, print it, hold it, and read it. That “someone else” would then be a second reality next to the book. But we already saw that the system cannot have an outside. If it does, something real is left out, and the system is incomplete. The chain of explanations also starts again: who wrote the writer? Who reads the reader? So there cannot be an author standing next to the book, and there cannot be a reader standing next to the book.

That already forces the next step. If there is no outside, the book must write itself and read itself.

The words on the page are the objects: the chair, the sound, the thought, the body. The reading of those words is the subject: “I am.” Without the words, there is nothing to read. Without the reading, the words are not known. They are not two worlds that later try to meet. They are two sides of the same book.

That is what “self-processing” means. Author, word, and reader are one activity.

Let's go back to the heart of this investigation. Does it make any logical sense that life is more like a dream than a real, solid world independent of our awareness of it?

Let's check. We already saw in the previous blog what a dream is: While it lasts, it feels like a real world with real people. When you wake up, you see there was never a world outside the dream. It was only mind appearing as a world.

Now look at what we found in this blog. A complete system cannot have an outside. If it did, something real would be left out, the chain of explanations would start again, and subject and object would still have to meet across a gap. There can be no outside.

So the answer is yes! It also makes logical sense that life is more like a dream than a real, solid world independent of our awareness of it. Not because we proved that objects are nothing. Because a complete system can have no outside. And that is the same structure a dream already has: while it lasts it feels like a real world out there, but nothing stands apart from the system itself.

This is mind-blowing stuff. Life is more like a dream than a real, solid and independent world — the way we normally think of it.

But another great discovery is appearing now, while we wrote this blog. This could also help you if you struggle, for example, with non-dual teachings. Let's explore that in the next blog: Conclusion

Disclaimer:

The part of this work that approaches the mind/body problem from logic is not my invention. It is based on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) of Christopher Michael Langan. If you want to know exactly how that model is built technically, read his work, starting with The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory, and his collected papers.

The CTMU has its own terminology. It was written by someone whose IQ is commonly reported in the 190+ range. I cannot explain that system in its full technical form.

I explained it with my own terminology. The self-writing book analogy is what i added myself. I use it because it is the clearest way I have found to show what that kind of closed system amounts to. It is a teaching image, not a substitute for Langan’s formal terms, and not a claim that I have improved or completed his theory.

CTMU, its terms, and Langan’s texts remain his intellectual property. My use here is attribution and explanation, not a presentation of the CTMU as my own system.

© 2026 Robin Hartings. All rights reserved.
This text may not be copied, republished, or used in any form without prior written permission.

Email

contact@robinhartings.com

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Hartings Coaching · Baroniestraat 28, 4876 VS Etten-Leur · contact@robinhartings.com · KvK 42188848