Consensus Reality

Quote:

---

Consensus reality is an approach to answering the question "What is real?", a philosophical question, with answers dating back millennia; it is almost invariably used to refer to human consensus reality, though there have been mentions of feline and canine consensus reality.[1] It gives a practical answer - reality is either what exists, or what we can agree by consensus seems to exist; the process has been (perhaps loosely and a bit imprecisely) characterised as "[w]hen enough people think something is true, it... takes on a life of its own." The term is usually used disparagingly as by implication it may mean little more than "what a group or culture chooses to believe," and may bear little or no relationship to any "true reality", and, indeed, challenges the notion of "true reality". For example, Steven Yates has characterised the idea that the United States Federal Reserve Notes (not "backed" by anything) are "really worth a dollar" as "part of what we might call our consensus-reality, [not] real reality."[2]
The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or knowing, and therefore (it is often argued) it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[3][4] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this to practically guide us, either on the assumption it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world."[5]
Throughout history this has also raised a social question:
What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?
Children have sometimes been described or viewed as "inexperience[d] with consensus reality,"[6] although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired [disambiguation needed], or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of "objective" (though the nature of "objectivity" goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual's own director of the individual’s own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social-alienation to incarceration to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

---

So, it's not necessarily a new concept, but yesterday was the first time I've heard the term "Consensus Reality." It know it's something that has been argued (or at least vaguely referenced) in a number of threads, but reading about it has allowed me to understand some of my own thoughts on the issue, a bit better. I'd just like to get other people's opinions on the notion, as it pertains to how much or little we - as humans - do (or can) know about any "actual reality."

Do you believe the universe actually is the way you've been convinced that it is? Do you think science allows us to fully understand the true nature of a thing, or simply obtain a sort of limited perspective of it? How do people analyze the same subjects/topics/events, and come away with so many different conclusions - such a different handle on "reality?" What do you think of those 'crazy/eccentric/insane' people that don't agree with your consensus reality? Are they at fault, or are you just misguided?

I don't know, just random questions. Answer them if you can (assuming they make any sense), or ask your own. I've just always found discussions on the topic interesting. :)

Nobody thought that were moons around Jupiter until Galileo first looked up in his telescope. Now everybody does. How could they have been there for him to observe if, according to 'consensus reality' is I understand it, they didn't even exist?

This isn't worth giving much thought to.

Have you ever played a game like world of warcraft or whatever, and the build distance was set pretty low, so that you could see trees and landscapes coming into existence as you approach them? Those things were 'there' as a piece of information but not actually rendered as real until you arrived to observe them. The moons could have manifested in a similar way.

This stuff is interesting, but that will just make it fun to argue against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Have you ever played a game like world of warcraft or whatever, and the build distance was set pretty low, so that you could see trees and landscapes coming into existence as you approach them? Those things were 'there' as a piece of information but not actually rendered as real until you arrived to observe them. The moons could have manifested in a similar way.

---

How could you have left that post at 8:34 a.m. PT? I didn't read it until 9:03 PT.

Why are you going off topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucidness

Why are you going off topic?

---

If you understood my point, you would not have asked that.

Stop stalking me with stupid shit. Obviously you are pissed at me about something you are not mentioning. How many threads have you done this in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you understood my point, you would not have asked that.

Stop stalking me with stupid shit. Obviously you are pissed at me about something you are not mentioning. How many threads have you done this in?

---

Your point : Asking someone about the time on there post. How is that relevant to any of this, sir?

Because UM didn't know about it until he read it but it had existed since Xaq posted it.

Although it isn't the best example because at least one person, namely Xaq himself, knew it existed.

Quote:

---

Have you ever played a game like world of warcraft or whatever, and the build distance was set pretty low, so that you could see trees and landscapes coming into existence as you approach them? Those things were 'there' as a piece of information but not actually rendered as real until you arrived to observe them. The moons could have manifested in a similar way.

---

As far as I'm concerned this is just a spin on my example and is still contradictory to 'consensus reality'. Nobody knew that the 'moon information' existed either, if you want to put it that way.

I don't think I'm really going to bother to go into a long discussion about this if one arises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Although it isn't the best example because at least one person, namely Xaq himself, knew it existed.

---

Was that the case in my reality? (according to the consensus reality concept)

The idea of consensus reality doesn't really mean much.

If I see a chair and ask someone else if they see it, it's not reality because of the consensus, it appears to be reality because there's evidence for it. The other person claiming to see the chair as well is simply additional evidence of the chair's existence. This doesn't also follow necessarily in crowds due to crowd psychology.

This evidence isn't always good enough, and indeed can be highly flawed.

Quote:

---

Was that the case in my reality? (according to the consensus reality concept)

---

Well, the consensus reality concept seems more along the lines of 'if most people think it's true', not 'if you think it's true', so the purest counterexample would be something which nobody at all knew but which was later found to be true; and of course such counterexamples are easy to think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, the consensus reality concept seems more along the lines of 'if most people think it's true', not 'if you think it's true', so the purest counterexample would be something which nobody at all knew but which was later found to be true; and of course such counterexamples are easy to think of.

---

It takes at least two people to have a consensus.

Unless there are two people in the group, not that I see how that's relevant anyway, and not that I'm much bothered about it.

(Fixed a whoooole bunch of grammatical errors in that first post. Probably reads a lot better than before. :?)

And just to be clear, the whole 'consensus reality' thing goes beyond just the metaphysical "the universe is shaped by the observer" idea. It also covers the more psychological elements, like bias, and ignorance. The mental model of the world (socially, or otherwise) that people hold onto - regardless of whether or not things play out exactly as one perceives them to...

We are all blinded by many of our biases. Our models of reality are fundamentally different from others - if for nothing more than the fact that we interpret things differently than other people. How deep does that bias go? Really? I don't think it's any secret that we all should concede to the fact that we're significantly influenced by things like indoctrination and ego. But how significantly?

And if we don't know that much about ourselves (because, really, who wants to acknowledge how little they know about the universe and themselves?), how much do you think humans, as a species, know about 'reality', itself?

Of course it does also extend into the consciousness-creating-reality area (pretty broad term, now that I think about it. Haha), so that conversation is definitely still valid here. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Unless there are two people in the group, not that I see how that's relevant anyway, and not that I'm much bothered about it.

---

I don't know what you mean.

My point is relevant because, assuming Xaqaria was by himself when he left his post and nobody else saw it, there was one fewer person than what is necessary to form a consensus reality, according to the principle. So, when I saw his post, it was too late for us to have a consensus reality of the leaving of his post.

Also, as far as single observations creating reality, my lack of observation of the leaving of Xaqaria's post would mean that the event was not in my reality. So the reality of Xaqaria's post and his observation of it could not come about before I observed it. Before then, nobody observed his observing, so his observing did not exist. Then, nobody observed my oberving of the evidence of his observation, so my observation did not exist and therefore none of the rest did. This is of course a reductio ad absurdum of the concept of reality being observation dependent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

We are all blinded by many of our biases. Our models of reality are fundamentally different from others - if for nothing more than the fact that we interpret things differently than other people. How deep does that bias go? Really? I don't think it's any secret that we all should concede to the fact that we're significantly influenced by things like indoctrination and ego. But how significantly?

And if we don't know that much about ourselves (because, really, who wants to acknowledge how little they know about the universe and themselves?), how much do you think humans, as a species, know about 'reality', itself?

---

I agree with that much. Our pictures of reality are inevitably warped by biases, teachings, experiences, etc. I just don't agree with the idea that reality itself is shaped by our perceptions of it in any way other than affecting our beviors that affect reality.

I interpret this a little differently than most people here are. I find myself influenced by the writings of Kant to a pretty strong degree, and he argues that when we examine the world around us, we aren't really seeing things as they are, but only examining our perceptions of reality. Similar to what Plato argued, there is an "ideal" world of reality and then there is a different world of our perception of reality. This view is supported by quantum mechanics in that one cannot observe (as Kant puts it) "the thing in itself", we can only witness the interactions between things.

Under this interpretation, there is a personal perception of reality which would be an individuals own experience, but then there is the greater consensus reality as agreed upon by groups of individuals. I won't say that this groupthink type of perception has the ability to manifest things that do not coincide with the "ideal reality" but it definitely has the power to limit our possibilities. For the most part, we accept things as true and real because everyone around us accepts them as true and real. There are things that we can do now that just 100 years ago would have been impossible for most people to conceive of just because they weren't widely known.

A good example of this phenomenon is the ability to represent 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional surface. Before the italian rennaissance, things like linear perspective and shading to suggest depth were basically unheard of. Pictures were extremely flat, but people thought their paintings were accurate representations of reality. Then along comes Giotto, an italian shepard boy who is found drawing an incredibly life like picture of his sheep. He is accreditted to being the first person to discover ideas that we take for granted now because they are so well known.

We can't know what 'ideal reality' actually is. All we know is how we perceive reality, so those perceptions act as the actual reality that we operate in. It is defined by our collective acceptances and biases.

Also, UM; with your example of my post, a consensus reality wouldn't require that you witness my post as it happens it would only require that you accept that my post was made, which you have since you are the one that quoted the time it was posted. It may not have been part of your reality at the time of my posting but now it is a part of your reality that I posted it at that time since you accepted the evidence of the time stamp.

Some Athenian philosophies questioned the same thing. One answer they found was that since individuals are the means of measurement, that individuals are the means of perception and in turn reality in subjective. Just food for thought I guess.

Drawing somewhat on both Oneironaut's and Xaqaria's last posts, and also on the teachings of the Buddha and enlightened beings who have followed him, I would say only that we often overestimate the degree to which our consensus--not only on the facts of our existence, but what constitutes valid grounds for establishing the facts of our existence,--constitutes a genuine reality. In other words, the objective is still subjective on a larger scale, regardless of our certainty that we have determined how large a scale could possibly exist, and we are virtually doomed to take what is only true on a higher order of subjectivity for objective reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I interpret this a little differently than most people here are. I find myself influenced by the writings of Kant to a pretty strong degree, and he argues that when we examine the world around us, we aren't really seeing things as they are, but only examining our perceptions of reality. Similar to what Plato argued, there is an "ideal" world of reality and then there is a different world of our perception of reality. This view is supported by quantum mechanics in that one cannot observe (as Kant puts it) "the thing in itself", we can only witness the interactions between things.

Under this interpretation, there is a personal perception of reality which would be an individuals own experience, but then there is the greater consensus reality as agreed upon by groups of individuals. I won't say that this groupthink type of perception has the ability to manifest things that do not coincide with the "ideal reality" but it definitely has the power to limit our possibilities. For the most part, we accept things as true and real because everyone around us accepts them as true and real. There are things that we can do now that just 100 years ago would have been impossible for most people to conceive of just because they weren't widely known.

A good example of this phenomenon is the ability to represent 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional surface. Before the italian rennaissance, things like linear perspective and shading to suggest depth were basically unheard of. Pictures were extremely flat, but people thought their paintings were accurate representations of reality. Then along comes Giotto, an italian shepard boy who is found drawing an incredibly life like picture of his sheep. He is accreditted to being the first person to discover ideas that we take for granted now because they are so well known.

We can't know what 'ideal reality' actually is. All we know is how we perceive reality, so those perceptions act as the actual reality that we operate in. It is defined by our collective acceptances and biases.

Also, UM; with your example of my post, a consensus reality wouldn't require that you witness my post as it happens it would only require that you accept that my post was made, which you have since you are the one that quoted the time it was posted. It may not have been part of your reality at the time of my posting but now it is a part of your reality that I posted it at that time since you accepted the evidence of the time stamp.

---

Wouldn't that mean we are in a vicious cycle of altering each other's perspective in a chain-like reaction to cultivate each other's own perspective? Taking this into account, what is the origin of perspective? It could be said each individual, but everyone has a mother, even mothers too.

Makes it sound like the universe wants to perceive itself instead of us trying to perceive it.

Such a mix of Philosophy/Psychology. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I find myself influenced by the writings of Kant to a pretty strong degree, and he argues that when we examine the world around us, we aren't really seeing things as they are, but only examining our perceptions of reality.

---

One can think of colors as an example. Color does not actually exist in the way we perceive it. It is no more than an assortment of different electromagnetic wavelengths that our eyes receive and send to the brain for interpretation. When looking at the sky, for instance, some organisms may be seeing what we call the color red. The intuitive concept of matter, of stuff, is an odd one as well. There is not so much stuff in matter as there is empty space. This illusion of there being something there is created again by a combination of the light that interacts with it that then comes into our eyes, and by the matter's further interaction with the physical world around it (gravitational forces and so on). These already subatomic pieces of stuff can further be broken down into smaller things that interact with each other in such a ways as to make it seem as if this whole subatomic particle is really full of stuff, when, again again, there is mostly empty space. The world we think is there is not really the world that is actually there, physically speaking.

So what is real? Does the individual define it for themselves, or is reality something that "should" be agreed upon by the masses?

Consensus Reality, there so much you could say about it. While science can liberate us from consensus reality, like telling me my body right now is actually glowing and particles are constantly zipping right through me - it also creates a consensus reality with how it presents its information!

Information at the end of the day is 'false'. It's an abstract construct of the true reality, but it never is the reality it is describing. A picture of a cell in your biology textbook does a real cell no justice. Our age old textbooks created a disenchanting view of reality that made people lose faith that life is beautiful.

Thanks to modern digital animation, science has a new way to present this information while retaining the beauty of the reality.

Heres one of my favorite TED videos showing the power of how we present information directly influencing how we view reality

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/da...es_a_cell.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I've just always found discussions on the topic interesting. :)

---

Me too!
I think that we can all agree that there is an absolute reality, but we cannot all agree on what that is, probably for the fundamental reason that it is veritably inconceivable.
So we all kind of create a 'consensus' reality in order to function as individuals in a society and as a society made up of individuals.
It would, however, be a big mistake to confuse consensus reality with absolute reality. But it happens all the time with every single one of us constantly, because we don't know what absolute reality is.
So consensus 'reality' is a misnomer in a way, because it is NOT reality. But we mistake it for reality, hence the name: consensus REALITY.
Consensus reality is all the time being influenced and changed by dominant ideologies, and cultural paradigms. The consensus reality is actually made up of a loose affiliation of smaller consensus realities kind of in a gelatinous cohesion. For example: you have the Christians and the Jews and the atheists and they can basically function in the greater consensus reality. they may think that each other are crazy but for the most part the greater consensus reality goes on and includes them all. But then you get to some real anti-social behavior when different consensus realities aren't getting along. This happens with individuals as well and we call them "crazy". This also happens in relationships when we blame the other person for not living in 'reality' because there isn't a consensus between the two partners as to what reality is.
What should we do with the crazy people? We should try to understand their reality as much as possible. Because we need to remember that consensus reality is NOT absolute reality. The crazy people and the mystics and the poets and the artists and the lovers all kind of live on the fringe of consensus reality. And they remind us that there is other experiences outside of consensus reality.

But some people who have their own 'reality' might be WAY beyond the fringe, real FAR out so that the only way for these two realities cannot exist in the same place at the same time, then there is a violent reaction. Jesus, whether or not you believe in him or not or if he existed, is a good example. His reality and society's reality could not exist at the same place in the same time so he had to die. The individual reality will always have to yield to the consensus reality. But in the process, it may change the consensus reality, for better or for worse. It might expand consensus reality, which I think is good. Consensus reality will never encompass all of ultimate reality, but it should evolve towards that ideal.

But even if the individual is not 'crazy' but sees a more accurate version of reality, he has to not go beyond the fringe of consensus too far or for too long but must gently work to open others' minds and hearts to a more expansive vision of reality. This is good.

But what if he is just utterly absolutely bonkers and cannot be treated? What can we do but restrain him/her in the most humane way possible so that he/she doesn't hurt himself or others. What if he is absolutely sane but has a vision that sees a different part of absolute reality that does not include this consensus reality and refuses to be in tune with it or work gently to expand this? Well, as long as he doesn't disrupt the foundation of our consensus reality such as nonharming, nonstealing, etc. he should be allowed to be free, but if not, he should either go be a hermit or be locked away.

But we should all try to understand the crazy people. I work as a caregiver for people with mental handicaps like autism and down syndrome, and believe me, they have a different reality going on. It is my job to harmonize their reality with consensus reality and visa versa. But most people are unwilling to do this. These people are put into institutions, or grouphomes and basically kept out of sight and out of mind by consensus reality. But it is my job to make their lives the most meaningful as I can while not harming consensus reality. These people are the shadow of society. Society doesn't want to deal with them or acknowledge them, but somebody has to. If we can understand the crazy people we can as a society become more sane by including and integrating more pieces of our collective psyche.

Dannon, you preface your post with a contradictory premise. How can we all agree that there is an absolute reality if such a thing is necessarily inconceivable? To decide that there is an absolute reality is in itself a conception of such a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I think that we can all agree that there is an absolute reality

---

Whoa! Speak for yourself.

There is no such thing as absolute truth. That said, every I do think every different belief, viewpoint, conceptualization, are all perfectly valid. Valid, but not exclusive. Add up the sum total of every different reality and you end up with what I can only assume is the duality wave function, which I find easier to think of as an archetype.

Every single person creates their own separate reality, exactly like in a dream. The only difference between a dream and so called reality is the number of people you share it with. My signature is especially relevant here.


Here's a recent Coast to Coast episode that is somewhat relevant to this discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZzq...eature=related (12 parts)

I was just relistening to it and noticed he mentioned this about dreaming.

"I think the whole field of artificial intelligence is how to create thinking machines. In order to do that, we really need to figure out those algorithms that allow us to have what we call consciousness, and that again is understanding those rules that we use in our mind to construct space and time. Once we know how the mind works and how it's constructed, and that's the same way we construct it in our dreams, then we can modify that and create realities that exist outside the known physical universe."

OK, this is one of those things I guess I take for granted. I thought that we all thought that there is reality. If there is not reality, then why do we do reality checks?
I think that there is reality, but I think that it is bigger than our comprehension.
So, some of you don't believe in reality?
I find that hard to understand, but I am willing to try.
I can find it easier to understand that you don't
believe in consensus reality.
But even what you explained, CUSP, can't that be considered ultimate Reality? The archetypal duality wave function? I don't know what that is, I will watch the video and educate myself.
I agree that individual realities are dreams. We are all dreaming our own reality. Every mind is a world. And I agree that there is a collective dream that we call consensus reality. I was just saying that Absolute Reality is how things really are regardless of what we dream or not. And you explained what you thought that is. I was just saying that we all might not agree on what that is, but that doesn't change what it is.

Oh I agree that there is reality, I just don't agree that it is absolute; or perhaps a better way to put it is since any such absolute reality is necessarily inconceivable, we cannot really comment on such an absolute reality at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is no such thing as absolute truth. That said, every I do think every different belief, viewpoint, conceptualization, are all perfectly valid. Valid, but not exclusive. Add up the sum total of every different reality and you end up with what I can only assume is the duality wave function, which I find easier to think of as an archetype.

---

There is no doubt an Absolute Truth, and that does not negate the fact that every different belief, viewpoint, conceptualization, are all perfectly valid unto themselves. Why is it you think they cannot co-exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Oh I agree that there is reality, I just don't agree that it is absolute; or perhaps a better way to put it is since any such absolute reality is necessarily inconceivable, we cannot really comment on such an absolute reality at all.

---

Do you mean by not being able to conceive the Absolute, that it cannot be known? On another note, if we cannot comment on it, doesn't that mean it most definitely exists?

I mean that the only interaction with the world that we have is a subjective one. I don't believe it is possible to even really understand an objective reality from a purely subjective perspective. I guess we can 'conceive' of an absolute reality since we are now talking about that concept, but our conception of it is definitely wrong. Since we can't even know how close our conception is to the True Nature of Reality, it is about the same as not having any conception at all.

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

---

I think the mirror analogy is better than the canvas one. A canvas is a distinct surface even if it is blank. A mirror is truly nothing without the consideration of the reflection. You can talk about the glass or the shiny metal, but those aren't really the mirror, since if its not reflecting anything its not a mirror, its just glass and metal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I mean that the only interaction with the world that we have is a subjective one. I don't believe it is possible to even really understand an objective reality from a purely subjective perspective. I guess we can 'conceive' of an absolute reality since we are now talking about that concept, but our conception of it is definitely wrong. Since we can't even know how close our conception is to the True Nature of Reality, it is about the same as not having any conception at all.

---

I see what you're saying. The funny thing is though, that there is no possible reality that is independent of subjectivity. In other words, no "independent objective reality" exists. There is no way to know of anything if there is no subjective context.

I'm not saying we can't be objective or rational about things, but what I'm saying is that objective reality cannot be separated from pure subjectivity, in which case it is most possible that we can know of an Absolute Reality. The paradigm is though, that it cannot be known through the mind or via concepts. This means that, in order for it to exist, it must already exist beyond conceptualization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

---

Hahaha, nice explanation. :shadewink: The thing in bold though is something that doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It is true that we cannot know the Absolute via the mind. However, the Absolute rests in a deeper paradigm of knowledge. Our consciousness is what it takes to know of reality, and because of this, consciousness must rest in the Absolute. Our consciousness is the mirror and the canvas. That there is an Absolute reality "out there" that "cannot be known" is a projection of perception, which in the long-run, contradicts itself.

Really, one of the main reasons why many of your posts rub me the wrong way is because you speak in assertions without offering any reason why the things you say are true, as if you posess some knowledge that is hidden to the rest of us. You are talking about The Absolute as if it is something that you have intimate knowledge of. If that is the case, then fine but it doesn't really mean much in terms of a discussion. If you are an enlightened being then you should be able to explain The Absolute in a way that I can understand and accept its existence. If you don't have hidden knowledge, then what exactly is it beyond your beliefs that convince you it exists and is knowable?

Reading back over this post, it sounds sort of hostile but that wasn't intended so please don't take it that way, since I can't think of any other way to word what I want to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Hahaha, nice explanation. :shadewink: The thing in bold though is something that doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It is true that we cannot know the Absolute via the mind. However, the Absolute rests in a deeper paradigm of knowledge. Our consciousness is what it takes to know of reality, and because of this, consciousness must rest in the Absolute. Our consciousness is the mirror and the canvas. That there is an Absolute reality "out there" that "cannot be known" is a projection of perception, which in the long-run, contradicts itself.

---

HaHaHa! Very good, grasshopper!:shadewink: I agree wholeheartedly! Reality is one. It is not split into subjective and objective. The concepts of subjective and objective, howsoever fundamental to our consensus 'reality', are one in the Absolute Reality.

That is why Reality is both dependent and independent of subjectivity. (I need to catch up to myself here)

There is always this fundamental paradox that the Absolute Reality loves to throw at us as if it is mocking our attempt to understand it from whichever angle we come from. But really it is because, like you said REALLY, that it is impossible to understand Reality with the mind.

However, as you so eloquently pointed out, consciousness can know Reality. How? Why?

This is THE mystery.

To understand this we will first have to understand and agree on what we mean by 'consciousness' and 'mind'.:shadewink:

I love how all the shadewinks wink at the same time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Really, one of the main reasons why many of your posts rub me the wrong way is because you speak in assertions without offering any reason why the things you say are true, as if you posess some knowledge that is hidden to the rest of us. You are talking about The Absolute as if it is something that you have intimate knowledge of. If that is the case, then fine but it doesn't really mean much in terms of a discussion. If you are an enlightened being then you should be able to explain The Absolute in a way that I can understand and accept its existence. If you don't have hidden knowledge, then what exactly is it beyond your beliefs that convince you it exists and is knowable?

Reading back over this post, it sounds sort of hostile but that wasn't intended so please don't take it that way, since I can't think of any other way to word what I want to say.

---

I'm not offended, but for me to "offer" a reason to believe what I have said is to mistake that it is an intellectual conclusion. I.e. That I have arrived at the conclusions through reason and proof. I will say that I have no hidden knowledge that has some sort of implied specialness. What I'm saying is more like wisdom (it really is nothing original on my part) rather than trying to prove something. Despite this, it is a spiritual understanding that is rendered into intellectual terms. If you still don't see reason to believe something, perhaps it is more than that?

Also, I am no enlightened being and there is nothing I say that is really that grandiose that nobody else can understand it. It may seem that way because of the innate authority of the concepts in and of themselves. What convinces me of such a reality, is seeing this for myself. It's generally rock solid in terms of concepts, but more importantly that it is facilitating an experiential awareness.

Back to address the topic: The fundamental premise is that all reality is contextualized in subjectivity. Do you see no reason to believe this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

However, as you so eloquently pointed out, consciousness can know Reality. How? Why?

This is THE mystery.

To understand this we will first have to understand and agree on what we mean by 'consciousness' and 'mind'.:shadewink:

I love how all the shadewinks wink at the same time!

---

lol.. I'm glad you get the gist of it.

Well traditionally (throughout history/spirituality) it seems that consciousness encompasses all reality in its manifest expression, as the essence of life or cosmic intelligence. The knower and the known are the one identity, which you may already be alluding to! Consciosuness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas. I'm pretty sure No-mind is much like consciousness, if you've heard of that term.

Great thread!!

I don't have any great thoughts to throw out here, but just an analogy or two - well, and my own opinion on the matter:

I think there definitely is a concrete reality, and that for the most part we can all comprehend it and agree on it... but there are parts of it that are still hidden from us due to the limitations of our senses (even when amplified by scientific apparatus) and our understanding, and the fact that much of what we perceive is strongly influenced by our individual backgrounds/ beliefs etc.

Ok, now the analogies:

Does a dog perceive the world the same way we do? Their eyesight is pretty poor, but their sense of smell is incredibly sensitive, and in fact it's known canines have an area of the brain that builds a "smell picture" of their surroundings that's at least as powerful and complex as the "sight picture" our minds create from the data collected by our eyes. One major difference... vision is one-directional... you don't see all around your head, and you can't see things that are behind other things. Smell is different... a dog can smell things all the way around, and can tell exactly where the scents are coming from.

How would a dog's concept of your yard differ from your own? To you it's mostly a visual experience, though spiced up with smells (faint... the dog laughs at your puny olfactory abilities!), sounds and maybe the feel of the breeze on your skin etc. To the dog it's a vivid maze of trails made by all kinds of tiny animals you can't see... and he even is aware of the ones that passed by a while ago - not at all existing in your present image of the yard.

Thinking about this helps to understand to what extent perception affects our idea of 'reality'. I think for the most part there's a lot of overlap in human/ canine perception... he can smell the pile of dog crap you just stepped in, and you both know what it is... so the two worlds aren't totally different... it's mainly just a different perspective, which can reveal very different aspects of the world. There are things the dog is very strongly aware of that totally escape your notice, and vice verse.

Some people seem to believe that if a tree falls and there's nobody to hear it that it really doesn't make a sound. I guess it depends on what you mean by sound. I'd say it definitely vibrates the air at a frequency that a human ear would translate into the sound of a tree falling... whether or not there's an ear there! So you could get all nit-picky and say "But it isn't really a SOUND... it's just vibrations!". True, but that's all sound is, vibrations picked up by an eardrum and fed to the brain to be processed. So saying it doesn't make a sound to me is just semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Well traditionally (throughout history/spirituality) it seems that consciousness encompasses all reality in its manifest expression, as the essence of life or cosmic intelligence. The knower and the known are the one identity, which you may already be alluding to! Consciosuness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas. I'm pretty sure No-mind is much like consciousness, if you've heard of that term.

---

Nice try! But not good enough for me! (They should have a zen master smiley that hits the other smiley with a stick) I know that this is the trickiest and slipperiest of subject to speak of. Or even think about or comprehend. Because it is of the No-mind! You have to have a No-mind to no-think about it in order to no-understand it and to be it.

You say that consciousness encompasses all reality, why? how? That would not convince a materialist who thinks that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain.
I am alluding that the knower and the known are one, but what does that mean? Does that make sense? Someone might think that you are just saying that because you heard it said without understanding it. What is your understanding of that statement?
And you say that consciousness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. I have followed you up until this statement. What is the difference between consciousness and awareness? And, is consciousness an energy? If so does it have a wave frequency that can be measured? What the source of this energy? Can energy be a substrate?
This statement is good: "The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas". But, go on... What is the mind made of? Where is it?

Only if we are able able to see past individual reality and consensus reality and all relative realities and know an absolute reality firsthand would we be able to understand consensus 'reality' objectively
And you say that it is possible with consciousness? How to realize the No-mind? :shadewink:

Dannon Oneironaut, I PM'd you. My post got a bit long and predictable for in here I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

---

Is that absolutely true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that absolutely true?

---

Absolutely not!

Well, the way I currently like to think about things is well... tricky. As to be expected. :P But I'll try my best to summarize things here.

For starters, I believe that there is some sort of absolute, objective reality, but currently believe that reality encompasses anything and everything imaginable, contradictory or not. So the whole waveform reality, as I suppose it's called.

I can never make up my mind on whether perception actually CREATES reality. I usually lean towards no, though. The way I see it, perception serves as a "filter" for reality, more than anything else. We only tend to see what we are looking for. It's our necessarily limited human perceptions that prevent us from seeing the whole of reality as it really is. And when you are filtering down from a waveform reality, it doesn't really matter that you can't create reality, because everything imaginable was there for the seeing, to begin with.

Even if objective reality does not contain all possibilities, our own subjective realities certainly do. And truthfully, that always seemed to matter so much more than objective reality, if you stop to think about it. Regardless of whether or not you have XYZ psychic ability, for example, if you truly believe you do, and live as such... well, that's your reality. Even if it isn't a consensus reality. And like Dannon said, we should let them be, if they aren't hurting anyone. Let them enjoy their own little realities.

My ideas are never set in stone, of course, and I'm always game for a fascinating discussion. So if anyone has questions or rebuttals, by all means. :)

The Hubble Telescope focused on one little area of space that could be seen between some stars in our galaxy and took a picture.

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/a...1.06-09-18.jpg

You cannot make out any individual stars in that picture. What you see are galaxies.

Humans don't mean shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Hubble Telescope focused on one little area of space that could be seen between some stars in our galaxy and took a picture.

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/a...1.06-09-18.jpg

You cannot make out any individual stars in that picture. What you see are galaxies.

Humans don't mean shit.

---

Actually, humans being the only entities to our knowledge that "mean" at all, nothing means shit without humans.

"Mean" also means "matter" or "have relevance or significance".

"I think she's cheating on me. There was a car in her driveway."

"A car in her driveway doesn't mean anything."

Also...

"There are some guys sitting in the very back at the U.N., but they don't mean anything."

And...

"There are humans on a spec of dust in the universe, but they don't mean shit."

Let's not split too many hairs over one of the words I used. I think you get the point I made in that post. Do you agree with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Mean" also means "matter" or "have relevance or significance".

"I think she's cheating on me. There was a car in her driveway."

"A car in her driveway doesn't mean anything."

Also...

"There are some guys sitting in the very back at the U.N., but they don't mean anything."

And...

"There are humans on a spec of dust in the universe, but they don't mean shit."

Let's not split too many hairs over one of the words I used. I think you get the point I made in that post. Do you agree with it?

---

All the variations you present support my original point. One meaning "meaning" does not have is relative mass or volume. We can look out as far as we like from where we are and find more "stuff," but we're still looking out from where we are. All meaning we attribute to our surroundings, including that meaning that minimizes our own import, comes from us. Time, matter, and objects, do not exist independent of our observation--not to overstate our role, but simply to acknowledge that we, the conscious, as part of our universe, do exist. Consciousness is an aspect of the universe. It's a conscious universe. We can only quibble over degree.

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

---

Really? Time operates independent of observers how, now? You can extrapolate any quantity of time into a bottomless navel from the point of view of any given observer, but how exactly does one extrapolate from our existence a real system in which past and future exist without an observer to determine what is present?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Really? Time operates independent of observers how, now? You can extrapolate any quantity of time into a bottomless navel from the point of view of any given observer, but how exactly does one extrapolate from our existence a real system in which past and future exist without an observer to determine what is present?

---

We die out, and time goes on without us just like it did before we existed. Didn't we get here as a result of processes that happened in time? Minds are necessary for analysis of time, but not for its existence.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it,
does it make a sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

---

The universe "carrys on" regardless of what dies and what lives, and you cannot describe how it does this without humans, because essentially we are part of the universe in either case. The universe is not a separate thing and has no capacity to care for you; that is a just projection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We die out, and time goes on without us just like it did before we existed. Didn't we get here as a result of processes that happened in time? Minds are necessary for analysis of time, but not for its existence.

---

Time has quite limited meaning outside the context of observation. Everything that has happened to you has definitely happened, but everything that has not happened has happened as well, just beyond your purview. It falls within your capacity to literally choose your universe, and various particulars of it, but also to engrave certain eventualities more surely upon your neighbors, who have whatever connection to you, be it a third cousin or an internet forum.

There are real, physical consequences to the meeting of observers, and the carving out of a shared reality they establish between them.

Is this like Schrödinger's Cat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it,
does it make a sound?

---

Yes, but not a perception of sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The universe "carrys on" regardless of what dies and what lives, and you cannot describe how it does this without humans, because essentially we are part of the universe in either case. The universe is not a separate thing and has no capacity to care for you; that is a just projection.

---

Like I said, humans are necessary for analysis of time, but not for time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Time has quite limited meaning outside the context of observation. Everything that has happened to you has definitely happened, but everything that has not happened has happened as well, just beyond your purview. It falls within your capacity to literally choose your universe, and various particulars of it, but also to engrave certain eventualities more surely upon your neighbors, who have whatever connection to you, be it a third cousin or an internet forum.

There are real, physical consequences to the meeting of observers, and the carving out of a shared reality they establish between them.

---

That's pretty out there. Can you prove it?

How old is the universe? How old is Earth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Is this like Schrödinger's Cat?

---

Yes, that's what it is. I don't see it as anything more than interesting science fiction.

I think I should post this again.

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/a...1.06-09-18.jpg

Galaxies in a relatively narrow frame. We came from that kind of stuff. It was around long, long, long before we were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like I said, humans are necessary for analysis of time, but not for time.

---

What does that mean? Time only exists in perception, much like space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

What does that mean? Time only exists in perception, much like space.

---

Where do you get that?

How old is the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/a...1.06-09-18.jpg

Galaxies in a relatively narrow frame. We came from that kind of stuff. It was around long, long, long before we were.

---

In what sense does it negate us? We exist in a universe in which consciousness DOES exist. How is any universe without consciousness a real one from the frame of reference we inhabit and cannot escape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In what sense does it negate us? We exist in a universe in which consciousness DOES exist. How is any universe without consciousness a real one from the frame of reference we inhabit and cannot escape?

---

We can imagine not existing. Even if we couldn't, it used to be the case that we did not exist. The universe does just fine without our opinions.

How old is the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Where do you get that?

How old is the universe?

---

You can arbitrarily say how old or new things are, how long things last, etc. This is a limited view. It's a projection of the perception of time.

Are you saying that we are not part of the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We can imagine not existing. Even if we couldn't, it used to be the case that we did not exist. The universe does just fine without our opinions.

---

The universe also does fine with our opinions. What's your point?

Aaah!!! A universe without consciousness is not a universe at all! Imagine if a whole universe existed and died without ever once having life anywhere at all in it. And all the matter and energy got crunched back into before the big bang and there was no trace of it and no perception ever of it. Would it have existed? Or would it have been only a potential dream undreamed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You can arbitrarily say how old or new things are, how long things last, etc. This is a limited view. It's a projection of the perception of time.

Are you saying that we are not part of the universe?

---

Am I saying we are not part of the universe? Uh, no. Why?

How old is the universe? Answer it this time, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

The universe also does fine with our opinions. What's your point?

---

That we are miniscule, insignificant, and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Aaah!!! A universe without consciousness is not a universe at all! Imagine if a whole universe existed and died without ever once having life anywhere at all in it. And all the matter and energy got crunched back into before the big bang and there was no trace of it and no perception ever of it. Would it have existed? Or would it have been only a potential dream undreamed?

---

Isn't your premise that it existed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We can imagine not existing. Even if we couldn't, it used to be the case that we did not exist. The universe does just fine without our opinions.

How old is the universe?

---

The past is less imaginary than the future? From any perspective of existing, causes will be manifold--infinite, under any serious consideration--while effects will seem constrained. This effect is only from facing out into the event horizon from where you are now, a condition that exists for every being, but only every being, in an infinite universe.

There is a perspective from which nothing is changing and nothing can change, but to even call it "a perspective" is personification. It is our perspective, of course, to the degree that we hold it, and to that degree may ease our passage as we move through this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Am I saying we are not part of the universe? Uh, no. Why?

How old is the universe? Answer it this time, please.

---

If you think we are part of the universe, then saying that the universe carrys on without us implies that we were separate from it. That is no different than saying planets are minuscule. "Look at how many planets there are! When that planet dies, the rest will carry on without it." It's only a limited perspective of the universe. Life and death are part of the universe. It's all the same. That doesn't negate the importance of meaning in the bigger picture.

I don't know how old the universe is. About 14 billion years or something. My point is that age doesn't matter; time is an illusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That we are miniscule, insignificant, and unnecessary.

---

Well! That must be your opinion!

Taosaur, how old is the universe? You are playing dodgeball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If you think we are part of the universe, then saying that the universe carrys on without us implies that we were separate from it. That is no different than saying planets are minuscule. "Look at how many planets there are! When that planet dies, the rest will carry on without it." It's only a limited perspective of the universe. Life and death are part of the universe. It's all the same. That doesn't negate the importance of meaning in the bigger picture.

---

No, I'm not saying we are separate from the universe. I am saying we could be nonexistent and it wouldn't make a shit.

How do you reconcile the next two quotes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If I don't know how old the universe is. About 14 billion years or something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

time is an illusion.

---

:whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I'm not saying we are separate from the universe. I am saying we could be nonexistent and it wouldn't make a shit.

---

I know. I am saying so what, basically. It's just a perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:whyme:

---

Ergo 14 Billion years is a limited concept that, in the bigger picture, is an illusion. Sure it's pragmatic or useful (or whatever) in science. But this is not about science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I know. I am saying so what, basically. It's just a perspective.

---

It's also a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Ergo 14 Billion years is a limited concept that, in the bigger picture, is an illusion. Sure it's pragmatic or useful (or whatever) in science. But this is not about science.

---

Isn't the truth of it what makes it so useful in science? Could they just as well go with the idea that the universe is 20 years old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's also a fact.

---

"and it wouldn't make a shit." and "That we are miniscule, insignificant, and unnecessary. " are your conclusions, which are not facts. They are perspectives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Isn't the truth of it what makes it so useful in science? Could they just as well go with the idea that the universe is 20 years old?

---

You tell me. Why is it of value in this discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

"and it wouldn't make a shit." and "That we are miniscule, insignificant, and unnecessary. " are your conclusions, which are not facts. They are perspectives

---

Then tell me about the effects the extinction of humanity would have on the galaxies in that picture I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You tell me. Why is it of value in this discussion?

---

I am illustrating that the universe is much older than we are, which means that we are not the basis of the universe.

What is you answer to the question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am illustrating that the universe is much older than we are, which means that we are not the basis of the universe.

What is you answer to the question?

---

For all 'lly's "fluffiness" in communicating his position, I can't deny his essentially accurate vision. While your 14 billion years are accurate within the context that they have meaning, that context is wholly dependent upon where we fix the present moment, and by what means. No means that we can employ are independent of consciousness--our consciousness, specifically. There are no objects within a universe without observers, no past and no future. The physical does not supersede the experiential; to favor it is merely a bias.

A materialist and a spiritualist can agree on what, essentially, is happening, and vary only on the weight they assign various actors.

You are talking about analysis of time again. I know that a human or other intelligent being is necessary for calling something the present and talking about the past. That is beside the point. The present is what it is and the past was what it was even if we never recognize it. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and humans have existed for about 100,000 years. That means the universe existed for many billions of years without humans. Did it not?

Again, I am not calling into question who can recognize that. I'm just saying that it is a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are talking about analysis of time again. I know that a human or other intelligent being is necessary for calling something the present and talking about the past. That is beside the point. The present is what it is and the past was what it was even if we never recognize it. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and humans have existed for about 100,000 years. That means the universe existed for many billions of years without humans. Did it not?

Again, I am not calling into question who can recognize that. I'm just saying that it is a fact.

---

Your "fact" requires that the linearity of time persist in the absence of an observer, that the past persist independent of a present. No such scenario is testable or otherwise possible in the universe we actually inhabit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Your "fact" requires that the linearity of time persist in the absence of an observer, that the past persist independent of a present. No such scenario is testable or otherwise possible in the universe we actually inhabit.

---

It can argued by logic and math. Of course testing requires people. That doesn't mean the universe does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then tell me about the effects the extinction of humanity would have on the galaxies in that picture I posted.

---

There would be very little "effects", but you cannot say that if there were no humans than it wouldn't change anything. Remember that the scope through which you're observing the universe is the scope of meaning that you will comprehend.

The universe is defined to include all things that exist. Describing a small part of the universe, such as the human species, is nothing but that. That is just one perspective. If you want to narrow down the potential meaning it is to exist as a human as such, than you may as well go and bury your head in the sand. However, you can instead realize that you are part of all of this, or rather, at one with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am illustrating that the universe is much older than we are, which means that we are not the basis of the universe.

What is you answer to the question?

---

In case you didn't get the message, the age of the universe doesn't mean anything to me because I don't believe in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

There would be very little "effects", but you cannot say that if there were no humans than it wouldn't change anything. Remember that the scope through which you're observing the universe is the scope of meaning that you will comprehend.

The universe is defined to include all things that exist. Describing a small part of the universe, such as the human species, is nothing but that. That is just one perspective. If you want to narrow down the potential meaning it is to exist as a human as such, than you may as well go and bury your head in the sand. However, you can instead realize that you are part of all of this, or rather, at one with it.

---

I know that we are a tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny part of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

In case you didn't get the message, the age of the universe doesn't mean anything to me because I don't believe in time.

---

You said the universe is 14 billion years old.

Okay, I will admit to being rather confused right now. What exactly is it that we're debating here? I certainly understand that we're relatively insignificant compared to the rest of the universe, by sheer amount of volume and range of effect. Nothing we do can physically effect what goes on halfway across the universe, at least with current technology. I understand this. Yes, the universe was around before us, and will go on after us.

However, if you believe, as I do, that all consciousness is somehow intertwined at a base level -- that consciousness may, in fact, be one of the basis factors for our universe -- then suddenly we do have some importance on a grand scale. Our existence, or lack thereof, as a species has some effect on the other conscious, living beings in our universe, whether here on earth, or in distant galaxies. Perhaps minute, or even unmeasurable, but it's an effect nonetheless.

And meaning is a subjective, and entirely human, quality to project on to things. There is no objective meaning in anything. Personally, any universe, no matter how fascinating and complex, is rather meaningless if there are no conscious beings to be aware of its existence. From our perspective, with no observers it might as well have never existed. Would you agree with this? Whether or not the universe goes on without us is relatively unimportant, and indeed, impossible to say for sure. I couldn't care less what happens to the universe after all consciousness is gone... because I won't be around to see it. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are talking about analysis of time again. I know that a human or other intelligent being is necessary for calling something the present and talking about the past. That is beside the point. The present is what it is and the past was what it was even if we never recognize it. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and humans have existed for about 100,000 years. That means the universe existed for many billions of years without humans. Did it not?

Again, I am not calling into question who can recognize that. I'm just saying that it is a fact.

---

I'm backing up because you're misunderstanding our position at a pretty fundamental level, here. 'lly and I are not talking about analysis of or symbolic reasoning about time. When we talk about observation or experience, it's not something happening in or to the universe, separate from it; observation or experience is the process that generates the local appearance of solid forms relating in space and time. The universe is not, in any fixed or complete sense, a collection of masses under the influence of physical forces operating in space and time--only from our incomplete perspective.

The point is not that humans or sentients in general are the super awesome center of the universe, but that the universe as we know it is only as much as we can see from where we are, a vision not only incomplete but in some fundamental respects, delusional. What you're suggesting is that in the absence of the madman, the hallucination would persist.

No, I do not think the hallucination would persist. The universe would. Our fuzzy understanding and questionable observation of it would be gone. IT would not.

And there are other sentient beings in this universe besides humans. Even without humans there is still consciousness. So even if humans died off, there would still be a Universe conscious of itself. The Universe has consciousness, in animals, plants, etc. And some believe as I do that all matter and even space/time is made of a field of consciousness that manifests as energy and matter. I know that science has not proven much in regards to this yet, but it is still a viable hypothesis that science is researching and learning about.
My point in my previous post was that if a Universe to exist it necessarily has to be conscious of itself, even if that consciousness is in still expressed as a subconscious. Nature and evolution has operated under subconscious impulses on Earth up till now with humanity having the potential to be fully conscious at this stage.
Humans are still evolving very slowly, however, the next great leap in evolution will be in consciousness consciously.
I believe that the ultimate goal of evolution is to evolve consciousness. Just like when dinosaurs died out new greater organisms filled in the vacuum left by the dinosaurs. Then warm-blooded animals and deciduous plants became the dominant lifeforms. So when or if humans die out something greater in consciousness will take our place. Either that or we will evolve into greater consciousness. Therefore the Universe will continue to be conscious of itself.
What is the meaning of the Universe then? The Universe may be a consciously evolving being. Sure we are just a cell in the body of the Universe, and the cell can die and the organism of the Universe will continue to exist, but the cell will be replaced by another cell or a better cell. But the universe cannot survive without any cells.
So how does this all tie into consensus reality? Each consensus reality may be a cell of the Absolute reality, whatever that is.

UM, you don't seem to be listening anymore. We'd appreciate if you also put more effort into your responses, and explain or elaborate like we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singularity125

Okay, I will admit to being rather confused right now. What exactly is it that we're debating here? I certainly understand that we're relatively insignificant compared to the rest of the universe, by sheer amount of volume and range of effect. Nothing we do can physically effect what goes on halfway across the universe, at least with current technology. I understand this. Yes, the universe was around before us, and will go on after us.

However, if you believe, as I do, that all consciousness is somehow intertwined at a base level -- that consciousness may, in fact, be one of the basis factors for our universe -- then suddenly we do have some importance on a grand scale. Our existence, or lack thereof, as a species has some effect on the other conscious, living beings in our universe, whether here on earth, or in distant galaxies. Perhaps minute, or even unmeasurable, but it's an effect nonetheless.

And meaning is a subjective, and entirely human, quality to project on to things. There is no objective meaning in anything. Personally, any universe, no matter how fascinating and complex, is rather meaningless if there are no conscious beings to be aware of its existence. From our perspective, with no observers it might as well have never existed. Would you agree with this? Whether or not the universe goes on without us is relatively unimportant, and indeed, impossible to say for sure. I couldn't care less what happens to the universe after all consciousness is gone... because I won't be around to see it. :P

---

Nice post - Exactly, there is no objective meaning. I think that's one of the issues we're debating. There is no independent objective universe either. It's really about coming to acknowledge the prevailing importance of subjectivity and consciousness; the subtler qualities of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I do not think the hallucination would persist. The universe would. Our fuzzy understanding and questionable observation of it would be gone. IT would not.

---

It's not a matter of "fuzzy understanding"--what we take for reality, particularly our experience of time, is founded upon and driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here. Independent of our delusion of time and specific, exclusive events, the universe is complete and nothing is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

UM, you don't seem to be listening anymore. We'd appreciate if you also put more effort into your responses, and explain or elaborate like we have.

---

That's an awesome post that gets us really far, but could you be a little more vague?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's not a matter of "fuzzy understanding"--what we take for reality, particularly our experience of time, is founded upon and driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on here. Independent of our delusion of time and specific, exclusive events, the universe is complete and nothing is happening.

---

A delusion, huh? When did you leave that post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind;

A delusion, huh? When did you leave that post?

---

Concurrent with all possible happenings in the ground lumonosity of being.

Perhaps we can look at this another way. The materialist model of reality is grounded in observation, is it not? One must observe a phenomenon in order to study it scientifically. Therefore, this perspective is fundamentally tied to the act of observation. How then do you propose to study "the universe" defined by a lack of observation? To say, "I am going to scientifically study the universe as it is in the absense of an observer" is absurd. It can't be done.

Instead maybe, you would like to deduce the state of the universe in the absense of an observer using logic and math. This isn't viable either, since here you are, still observing, just with different tools. Not only that, but whatever it is you come up with is even more of an illusion than what you might observe in the present since all of the logic and math exists only in your own mind, and I think with a little introspection anyone can come to realize that fact.

When all of your knowledge of 'what is' is dependent on not only "the thing" but also yourself, removing yourself obliterates the knowledge. The illusion is the perceived ability to know "the thing" when in reality, all you know is your knowledge of "the thing". The thing, which is all of the universe, is fundamentally outside of you, and yet your perceptions of the universe are fundamentally inside of you. They are forever seperate.

You can say that without an observer the universe persists, but this perspective is not compatible with the scientific method since science requires an observer in order to study phenomena. Scientists do not speculate about the existence of something that they cannot observe, so why then would a philosophical position based on science choose to speculate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Concurrent with all possible happenings in the ground lumonosity of being.

---

What time was that? Please be specific.

Do you ever try to find out what time it is? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You can say that without an observer the universe persists, but this perspective is not compatible with the scientific method since science requires an observer in order to study phenomena. Scientists do not speculate about the existence of something that they cannot observe, so why then would a philosophical position based on science choose to speculate?

---

What about evolution and the big bang? Through observations, scientists learn how the universe/reality works and then deduce what happened in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do you ever try to find out what time it is? Why?

What about evolution and the big bang? Through observations, scientists learn how the universe/reality works and then deduce what happened in the past.

---

That question is a great one, because it illustrates the point perfectly. Why try to find out what time it is? The only reason is because it is useful when operating in a consensus reality. Knowing the time is useless unless it is a time that is accepted by other people.

What about evolution and the big bang? These are just ideas. Evolution, less so because it is a much broader idea that still applies to phenomena that we observe in the present. Even the model for the big bang accepts that it is just a model. Even from the evidence we have, the theory admits that we can only deduce up to a certain point after the big bang supposedly happened and that before that there were no laws of reality to make sense of whatever it was that existed with.

Even still though, these concepts are based on the assumption that our perception of reality is synonymous with absolute reality, which I showed to be untrue. We can model the world very usefully, but we can never hope to know how it actually is.

A theory is not just an idea. Scientists have very strong and supported theories about what things were like before there were humans and before there were any organisms.

We ask what time it is or look it up because it is not something we just make up. It is objective reality. Time does not matter to anybody if there is nobody, but it still exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Time does not matter to anybody if there is nobody, but it still exists.

---

Prove it.:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Prove it.:?

---

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/i...-earth-history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/i...-earth-history

---

Do you exist when you read those websites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you exist when you read those websites?

---

:wtf:

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:wtf:

Yes.

---

So how does that have anything to do with "if there is nobody, it still exists"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So how does that have anything to do with "if there is nobody, it still exists"?

---

Was anybody around for the big bang or the events between the big bang and the formations of the first observers? There is strong evidence that those events happened in time and that no observers existed yet. The big bang happened about 13.5 billion years ago.

Perhaps you could dream that scientists have figured out that the big bang happened 3.5 million years ago but that 'objective' reality is dependent on the dreamer who dreams it up.

What we call reality is a small range of frequencies in an infinite spectrum of frequencies of energy. There are infinite frequencies of energy and we cannot ever know them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What we call reality is a small range of frequencies in an infinite spectrum of frequencies of energy. There are infinite frequencies of energy and we cannot ever know them all.

---

Wow. :boggle: That just really tripped me out. I don't know how much I agree with it, but I love it.

I am glad I finally tripped you out! Lol

Quote:

---

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -Einstein

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Was anybody around for the big bang or the events between the big bang and the formations of the first observers? There is strong evidence that those events happened in time and that no observers existed yet. The big bang happened about 13.5 billion years ago.

---

If there are no observers, the "the big bang happened about 13.5 billion years ago" relative to what?

Haha! "If there are no observers, the "big bang happened abput 13.5 billion years ago!" Very good!

You see, we WERE the big bang! I am the big bang, you are the big bang, we all were the big bang. And all time is foreplay to another Big Bang.

:goodjob:

And our growing understanding of the universe is actually creating the knowledge that we understand. The universe was created long ago, but it is still being created, even in our mind.
At first, all energy exploded and then a half second later it condensed into heat and plasma and then a fraction of a second later it became hydrogen. And then helium, etc. Stars were born, the ambient temperature cooled and stars created heavier elements, matter formed, living beings formed, minds formed, knowledge formed, now minds create. Mind is a force of nature now and now mind is evolving. Objective reality is giving birth to subjective realities. Subjective realities form consensus realities and consensus realities are evolving back to absolute reality. What next? Spirit? And then another Big Bang? Maybe the moment all consensus realities unite with Absolute reality there is an orgasmic Big Bang again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

If there are no observers, the "the big bang happened about 13.5 billion years ago" relative to what?

---

You asked that question relative to what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You asked that question relative to what?

---

Relative to an observer who presumes the existence of time. It doesn't look like you have answered the question. Do you know what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Relative to an observer who presumes the existence of time. It doesn't look like you have answered the question.

---

You didn't ask your question until I read it? I think you posted it while I was at Wal-Mart.

It doesn't look like I have answered the question? What if I answer it next week? Wouldn't that mean, according to you, that my answer to your question is real now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Do you know what I mean?

---

Do I know what you mean relative to what?

I don't think your issue of "relative to what" is valid. The particles involved moved relative to each other. They didn't have to collectively move relative to another thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You didn't ask your question until I read it? I think you posted it while I was at Wal-Mart.

It doesn't look like I have answered the question? What if I answer it next week? Wouldn't that mean, according to you, that my answer to your question is real now?

---

Whatever happens, it occurs now. When you refer something that "happened" even that occurs in the only reference point: now. Even now is a reference point, so really there is only timelessness. The past, present and future are projections of perception.

Time exists while it has pragmatic use but it is ultimately an arbitrary description of events.

Quote:

---

Do I know what you mean relative to what?

---

Don't be redundant. Relative to your interpretation.

Quote:

---

I don't think your issue of "relative to what" is valid. The particles involved moved relative to each other. They didn't have to collectively move relative to another thing.

---

Particles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Whatever happens, it occurs now. When you refer something that "happened" even that occurs in the only reference point: now. Even now is a reference point, so really there is only timelessness. The past, present and future are projections of perception.

Time exists while it has pragmatic use but it is ultimately an arbitrary description of events.

---

Then why did you say I hadn't answered your question even though it's right here? Yes, I understand what you mean, but I don't think the issue your raise is valid. There's my answer to your question, but you said I hadn't answered it. Why did you say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Don't be redundant. Relative to your interpretation.

---

Redundant? :? What does it mean for me to know what you mean relative to my interpretation? What is that? Is it possible for me to know that my interpretation that I still have is wrong and that some other interpretation is correct although I hold on to the other interpretation? If I did that, how exactly would the idea I know is wrong still be my interpretation? Once I know an interpretation is wrong, it is no longer my interpretation. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Particles?

---

The pieces that exploded outward in the big bang. Quark-gluons and other elementary particles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why did you say I hadn't answered your question even though it's right here? Yes, I understand what you mean, but I don't think the issue your raise is valid. There's my answer to your question, but you said I hadn't answered it. Why did you say that?

---

You haven't actually answered the question. Also I don't know why you disagree (that's not much of an answer).

Quote:

---

Redundant? :? What does it mean for me to know what you mean relative to my interpretation? What is that? Is it possible for me to know that my interpretation that I still have is wrong and that some other interpretation is correct although I hold on to the other interpretation? If I did that, how exactly would the idea I know is wrong still be my interpretation? Once I know an interpretation is wrong, it is no longer my interpretation. Right?

---

To be more clear on what you're saying you should actually elaborate in more detail on what your interpretation actually is. Besides that, it appears you're missing the point and playing semantics games again.

Quote:

---

The pieces that exploded outward in the big bang. Quark-gluons and other elementary particles.

---

What are you talking about now? The chemistry/physics of the big-bang? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the view of time and space according to an observer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You haven't actually answered the question. Also I don't know why you disagree (that's not much of an answer).

---

The question is nonsensical, as I have illustrated. I haven't answered it relative to what? :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

To be more clear on what you're saying you should actually elaborate in more detail on what your interpretation actually is. Besides that, it appears you're missing the point and playing semantics games again.

---

My interpretation? You asked a question that doesn't make sense. Then you asked if I know what you mean, and I illustrated the nonsensical nature of your question by asking if I know what you mean relative to what. You said my interpretation, and I illustrated the absurdity of that concept. Then you copped out by saying I am playing semantic games instead of countering my point. That is where we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

What are you talking about now? The chemistry/physics of the big-bang? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the view of time and space according to an observer.

---

And I am saying that there wasn't and didn't have to be an observer. I am also saying the big bang didn't have to happen relative to anything else. The particles involved in it acted relative to each other.

Are we going to need to do another recap?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cusp http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif
There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that absolutely true?

---

Isn't that a clever play on words. But the archetypal waveforms I was referring to can not be completely defined. Trying to debate the matter is arguing in circles, and that's not something I wish to participate in.

There is no such thing as consensus reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are we going to need to do another recap?

---

To make sense of it, yes. You have yet to actually explain why you disagree and make a readable post, like the rest of us. Otherwise you just ask a pile of seemingly rhetorical questions where I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Also let's try not to go back to one-liner explanations either, shall we? Let's go back to #94

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Isn't that a clever play on words. But the archetypal waveforms I was referring to can not be completely defined. Trying to debate the matter is arguing in circles, and that's not something I wish to participate in.

---

So why bring it up? An Absolute must exist before there can be any relative differentiation. All that is being described or argued about exists within an objective paradigm where there is limited concepts and ideas that separate this from that. An Absolute would unify and contextualize this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

To make sense of it, yes. You have yet to actually explain why you disagree and make a readable post, like the rest of us. Otherwise you just ask a pile of seemingly rhetorical questions where I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Also let's try not to go back to one-liner explanations either, shall we? Let's go back to #94

---

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

---

You really only speak for yourself here.

Are we trying to come to a consensus on the nature of reality? Are we trying to create a consensus reality? Give it up. Because, this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is no such thing as consensus reality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You really only speak for yourself here.

---

You two are speaking different languages here. That is why each of you is projecting on to the other. You two don't understand each other. You need to understand each other before you either agree or disagree.

If I may try to paraphrase each other's position in a way that can help understanding, I would say that REALLY is saying that all things begin and end in eternity and eternity is only now, not in the past or future. This is a mystical viewpoint where one's relationship to time is a vertical one where time is horizontal. It could be thought of as time is the rim of a wheel, not linear. The eternity is not on the rim, however, but in the hub. From the hub, there are spokes going to all points on the rim. So each present moment in time we are on the point where a spoke (eternity) meets the rim. This is the wheel of time.

UM is thinking of time as linear, and that the present moment is between the past and the future, and that time flows from future to the past and the present moment keeps moving into the future turning it into the past. And eternity is infinite past and future.

Is this true? Am I understanding your viewpoints?

I studies a little of hypnotherapy and neurolinguistic programming. It should come as no surprise that there are different ways people look at time. Some people visualize time as a line going from left to right in front of them at about belly button level. Others visualize time as as line from behind them stretching out in front of them. These are just a few ways of looking at time, but they affect how one perceives the world and how effective or happy one is in relationship to time. People who view time going from left to right in front of them are very good at planning, as they can see the past, present, and future right in front of them. They are usually very successful at their jobs. But they are always scheduling and planning and worrying about the future. They are never in the moment. They are never here/now.

People who see time as stretching out in front of them and the past behind them, are usually very carefree and happy people, but can't quite plan things that well. They are very here and now. They are very spontaneous. But they usually are not as effective in society. So being flexible in how one sees things conceptually one can be the most effective and happy. And we can understand each other by being a little flexible and seeing that the way we choose to see reality is through a conceptual filter that isn't the absolute truth.

Through NLP and/or meditation we can change how we conceptualize reality in order to be more successful, happy, and wise. Which ways do you view time? How do you symbolize time to yourself? How do you conceptualize time?

Keep in mind that Reality is not a concept.

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

---

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

---

No, I am analyzing those events now. Knowledge and understanding are not the same as observation. Also, humanity collectively doesn't know the full details of what happened in those events, not even a trillionth of a percentage of the full details, yet the events led/lead to where we are now. Did the events we don't specifically know about happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

---

I said I used to believe it. I don't now and didn't two years ago. I also said your idea is interesting, which it is. What I was expressing was an understanding of where you were coming from and a reason for not telling you about it at first, but I was not expressing actual agreement.

I know you dislike quantum mechanic, UM, but there is a famous thought experiment that was later verified that proves the point here.

It is called "Wheeler's delayed choice experiment".

In the double slit procedure, one can set up a monitoring device at the slits that 'sees' which slit the particle goes through. Making this observation collapses the waveform and no wave pattern is created on the back wall. If the device in on but isn't recording anything which makes observation impossible, a wavepattern is created again. This shows that it is not the device effecting the outcome but the observation. Wheeler postulated that if one could set up a situation in which it is possible to delay the moment of observation, as in choose to either read the data recorded by the measuring device or not and just look at the plate at some later time, the outcome remains undecided until that moment of observation.

He even went as far to say that if one were to use the light coming from a distant star that past close enough to another star that it was bent around it (like this), one could "choose" to look millions of years after the light actually past the star and yet their observation would still affect whether the light was observed to pass on one or the other side of the star.

You should look it up, and like I said; this phenomenon was verified experimentally. What it means is that even though our view of time leads us to believe that the light past on one or the other side millions of years ago, it is really the observation in the present that decides the outcome of the experiment. Even though it appears as though the event happened in the past, things only really 'happen' in the present moment.

So there is a way to observe a star to make it where it went one way around a star as opposed the other way? Can I go outside right now and observe it in such a way that it went around the other side? How did Wheeler prove that the observation determines what happened millions of years ago? I want to look up his full explanation some time. Can I do something like that to the Sun and make where humans never existed? Or is it just the first observation that counts while the rest don't?

I want to get my hands on the drugs that guy was doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So there is a way to observe a star to make it where it went one way around a star as opposed the other way? Can I go outside right now and observe it in such a way that it went around the other side? How did Wheeler prove that the observation determines what happened millions of years ago? I want to look up his full explanation some time. Can I do something like that to the Sun and make where humans never existed? Or is it just the first observation that counts while the rest don't?

I want to get my hands on the drugs that guy was doing.

---

Yeah, my explanation assumes that you will do some further reading; its clear from your interpretation that my explanation alone is not adequate in order to understand the concept. It would probably help if you saw a diagram of the apparatus that is suggested in order to test the proposition.

Here is the Wiki on the delayed choice experiment

Here is a page that explains the situation with a distant star pretty well

Here is the abstract for an article about the experimental verification of the phenomenon

Didn't you say that the observation determined how things happened millions of years earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Didn't you say that the observation determined how things happened millions of years earlier?

---

Ahh, this is the real foundation of the disagreement I believe. The observation determines what happens. It only appears as though it happened millions of years earlier, when in reality something only happens in the present moment; at the time of observation. What it proves is that you can't even talk about what happened 'in the past' scientifically, since the actual happening only exists at the moment of observation which can only exist in the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Ahh, this is the real foundation of the disagreement I believe. The observation determines what happens. It only appears as though it happened millions of years earlier, when in reality something only happens in the present moment; at the time of observation. What it proves is that you can't even talk about what happened 'in the past' scientifically, since the actual happening only exists at the moment of observation which can only exist in the present.

---

Scientists agree that the star just passed the other one? They say that even though you are seeing the light of it from millions of light years away? If you asked a room full of prominent astronomers when a star that Bob discovered passed another one, they would say, "When Bob discovered the star."? What would they say about the fact that Bob saw the light of something millions of light years away?

The star just passed the who? The star isn't passing anything. The light from the star is being bent by a gravity well (a galaxy or black hole, or a very close star like the sun) so that photons coming from that star can either pass around the left or the right and still be observed at the earth. You can't observe the star as it was in the past, you can only observe photons from the star as they reach you in the present. How you choose to observe those photons is what dictates whether they came around one side of the gravity well or the other, or if they came around both sides. This is true even when looking at a single photon at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

He even went as far to say that if one were to use the light coming from a distant star that past close enough to another star

---

Modifier ambiguity.

As for Wheeler's claim...

:poof:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Modifier ambiguity.

As for Wheeler's claim...

:poof:

---

hard to keep it all straight when we're talking about something that supposedly passed in the past.:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

hard to keep it all straight when we're talking about something that supposedly passed in the past.:banana:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYpp...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I know you dislike quantum mechanic, UM, but there is a famous thought experiment that was later verified that proves the point here.

It is called "Wheeler's delayed choice experiment".

In the double slit procedure, one can set up a monitoring device at the slits that 'sees' which slit the particle goes through. Making this observation collapses the waveform and no wave pattern is created on the back wall. If the device in on but isn't recording anything which makes observation impossible, a wavepattern is created again. This shows that it is not the device effecting the outcome but the observation. Wheeler postulated that if one could set up a situation in which it is possible to delay the moment of observation, as in choose to either read the data recorded by the measuring device or not and just look at the plate at some later time, the outcome remains undecided until that moment of observation.

He even went as far to say that if one were to use the light coming from a distant star that past close enough to another star that it was bent around it (like this), one could "choose" to look millions of years after the light actually past the star and yet their observation would still affect whether the light was observed to pass on one or the other side of the star.

You should look it up, and like I said; this phenomenon was verified experimentally. What it means is that even though our view of time leads us to believe that the light past on one or the other side millions of years ago, it is really the observation in the present that decides the outcome of the experiment. Even though it appears as though the event happened in the past, things only really 'happen' in the present moment.

---

I don't know very much about QM, but tell me if this is right:

- If you send a beam of particles through a double slit, without trying to observe which particles go through which slits, you get an interference pattern.

- If you send particles through one by one, and make a record of each new screen (with 1 particle, 2 particles, and so on) you still get an interference pattern, so the particles are somehow going through both slits and interfering with themselves.

(This is essentially superfluous, because there is no real distinction between a 'beam' of particles and 'sending particles through one by one'; the former is just the same situation with more particles at a greater rate?).

- However, if you try to observe which particles go through which slit, you get no interference pattern (because the waveform is collapsing at the slits, not on the screen?).

Now, this is what I'm confused about:

- Is it essential that the data at the slits is observed by a conscious being?

If you were to set up the equipment so that it measured which particle went through which slit, but then the data was stored in a cardboard box, what would you see on the screen?

If it is dependent on a conscious person observing what is in the box, I don't see how that could play out. Because when you observe the screen, it must be an interference pattern or not. But then you still can choose to look in the box, or to burn it.

Feynman used to say that you could explain the entire field of quantum
mechanics, just by Young's double-split experiment. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know very much about QM, but tell me if this is right:

---

As I understand it, the moment you observe or measure the phenomenon,
the electron behaves like a particle, if you don't you get the interference
pattern of a wave. So you basically understand correctly. To really recall
all the details, I'd have to re-read that chapter on it in the elegant universe.. :D

A little later de Broglie found out that this wave-particle dualism is correct
for all materia, btw. (Which was later yet proven by experimental data)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Now, this is what I'm confused about:

- Is it essential that the data at the slits is observed by a conscious being?

---

No, I don't think so... didn't it have something to do with light?

Edit: This is a little bit vague, but I remember reading that you only got the interfernce
patterns, in a very carefully isolated experiment. As soon as you observe or try to measure
it, you'd have to "shine light at what you want to look at" (in lack of better wording), which
is when the wave-pattern brakes down and behaves as particles. I might be wrong, though.

But as far as I remember, particles only behave like waves in a completely unobserved environment,
which is impossible outside of the lab. I don't think it's limited to a conscious observer..

Quote:

---

If you were to set up the equipment so that it measured which particle went through which slit, but then the data was stored in a cardboard box, what would you see on the screen?

---

But if you measure it, you'll get a different (particle-)result.
So, I might be wrong, but I would guess you'd see this: | |

I'm not sure, if I understood the questions :?
now I do want to reread that stuff again..

Thanks for bringing that up Xaqaria, this is the crux of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

- Is it essential that the data at the slits is observed by a conscious being?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If you were to set up the equipment so that it measured which particle went through which slit, but then the data was stored in a cardboard box, what would you see on the screen?

If it is dependent on a conscious person observing what is in the box, I don't see how that could play out. Because when you observe the screen, it must be an interference pattern or not. But then you still can choose to look in the box, or to burn it

---

First, we must understand that looking at the screen is an act of observation, it collapses the wave-function.

If you are collecting the data in the experiment, and if the information is available, one will see the two slit pattern. If the information is not available at the time of observation, an interference pattern will occur. One constrain the probable future of the probability distribution by measuring the photons at the slit. When you understand that everything is probability distributions, it won't seem that strange, when you understand that consciousness is fundamental in the equation, it will be the solution instead of a problem.

As an extension to Xaqaria's post, I can provide some modified experiments and the results.

1. The electron detectors at the slits are turned off, everything is intact but there is no detection.

The result is an interference pattern at the back wall, so we can rule out the mere passage as significant to collapse of wave-function.

2. Have the electron detectors on, but not gathering the information. The electron detectors do exactly the same as always, but in this case we do not look at the results of the detectors nor record it. In this way we cannot obtain any information of the which-path of the electrons.

The result: An interference pattern. Even though the electron detectors are fully functioning, and detect the electrons.

3. Record and gather information at the slits, but erase the information before looking at the back wall. The information is available, but it is destroyed before the collapse of the wave-function.

Results: An interference pattern. Note that it the exact same procedure as the initial experiment, but instead we removed the information before looking at the results. This is not retro-causality, but could appear so from a classical point of view. Simply, the probability distribution is changed back again since the information is not available. The result is no longer constrained by the measurement, as the measurement never really happened as there was no conscious observation. Things only happen in the present as Xaqaria wrote.

4. The experiment is arranged in such way that a choice can be made after the experiment is "complete", to whether or not use the information gathered by the electron detectors.

The information is recorded, so the results are available if we choose to look at them.

The information available will be manipulated in different ways.

4(1). The information is mixed with additional irrelevant garbage data as it is recorded. It is thus incomprehensible.

4(2). We design a program to analyse the data coming from the slits and either: A: Filter the garbage data so the information is readable again. B. Analyse the the mixed-up data so the results can't be obtained.

Get some random person to make the choice, it can be days and even years after the experiment.

Results: 4(2)A: A two slit pattern appears. 4(2)B: An interference pattern appear.

See this, the physicist Thomas Campbell explains a part of it, with excellent slides. The visual makes it easier to understand. http://vimeo.com/10778333

From 28:00 to some minutes forward. If you want to understand why it is such, see the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

If you were to set up the equipment so that it measured which particle went through which slit, but then the data was stored in a cardboard box, what would you see on the screen?

If it is dependent on a conscious person observing what is in the box, I don't see how that could play out. Because when you observe the screen, it must be an interference pattern or not. But then you still can choose to look in the box, or to burn it.

---

This is a really interesting question, and I don't have an answer for you. let me try to find one.

And somehow this is relevant to consensus reality?
By observation...
Reality is shaped by observation....
And expectations...
So what the majority believe to be reality
manifests to confirm their expectations?

Wow. I'm really surprised to see how active this thread became. Heh. Haven't been able to read much, but I'll have to get caught up soon. :)

No takers on post #128?

:sleeping:

Oh, I looked at that post this morning. Haven't watched the slides you linked to yet though, I've been busy. I have heard of this experiment before, and it's always fascinated me. I honestly don't know what to say about it. By all accounts it seems to suggest that our observations can change the past, but some part of me really can't fathom that. It's a tough one to wrap your brain around, that's for sure. :)

That is hard.
But our thoughts definitely change the future.
But how can anything change the past?
I've tried to change the past after I did something extremely stupid or harmful that I regret or when I lost someone that I love, but never did manage to change the past.
Has anyone? If nobody has done it then it must be impossible.

My take is that we're not "changing the past," simply choosing which of the photons' pasts to observe. The classical assumption is that the photon has a fixed path regardless of whether it is observed, and observation simply discovers a fixed value that was always present; this hypothesis does not stand up to testing. One interpretation of the experimental outcomes--the one that yields the "changing the past" confusion--is that the photon does not have a fixed path before observation, but does afterward, implying that observation somehow caused the photon's actions retroactively. There is another possibility: the photon has no single, fixed path either before or after observation. Instead, the photon is always taking all possible paths, because neither it nor anything else in the universe was ever a single, discrete object to begin with, and what changes due to observation is simply how much of the photon we can see. Before the observation is made, we can "see" a wider range of the proton, but only dimly, whereas after the observation we can see and interact with only a narrow subset of the total proton: what the classical model would take for the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

And somehow this is relevant to consensus reality?
By observation...
Reality is shaped by observation....
And expectations...
So what the majority believe to be reality
manifests to confirm their expectations?

---

The reality that is viewed is shaped by the viewing. The reality that is looked for is shaped by expectations. Expectations are created by ideas and interpretations of what has been viewed. Collectively accepted ideas and interpretations are expected to be closer to what has been viewed and what can be viewed, and so we only look for those things that we know most people collectively expect to find, and therefore that is what we see when we observe.