Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Rajones]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I don't think you can attempt to view anything subjectively, for that is like the default way we relate to everything in the first instance - how we 'feel' about our existence/environment/events. Rather it's the objective perspective - the hard-core actuality which is far more fleeting to our attention.

I see your point, but im also pretty sure you can see what im getting at.
or can you?

[Apopohis Reject]

Thank you very much Luciddd. I hope you don't mind if I now deconstruct your post virtually sentence by sentence, and try and relate to it like a child (or perhaps moron)....

Originally Posted by Luciddd

NOTE, THAT I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE, MERELY ANSWER YOU FROM A SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

That brings up a very interesting observation with regards the difference between the objective and subjective perspective and the dissonance created by the two perspectives being perhaps out of order. For my intention was to ask about the objective - the 'truth of reality' so to speak, yet the subjective is probably what I initially really need, and as it's more immediate to the senses; also easier to explain, and in fact how we relate to our environment/experiences. Thanx for making that qualification and I hope my explanation is adequate.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

In the subjective reality framework, there are no "events" only experiences that happen one time after another.

Indeed, even though these experiences of reality would not be so much as made possible if they didn't have an objective reality to which to relate. I see it like this; a golfer hits a ball with his club - objective. But he relates not as he believes, to that objectivity, but rather to his subjectivity - how the result of the drive made him feel. So it was not a swing and hit (objective) so much as a great/good/sweet/exciting/horrid/infuriating, perhaps a hundred other emotions - *experience*. Are we resonating thus far?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

The physical world is constructed by your subconcious mind in the same way in a dream the subconsious is able to create entire worlds.

Interesting, yet there needs to be a pre-existing objective physical something for the subconscious to use for it's construction, right? The blue light waves, I (later) see.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

In our "physical world" things are solid and have coninuity, but its only the illusion of it, however at the end of the day said world is not bound by more rules than your nightly dreams. When you interact with other people you are merely exchanging experiences with other individualized consiousness. You percieve people that are only in tune with the reality you are experiencing.

So are you saying there are other people around the place who you do not recognise because they are not in tune with your reality? If this is so, surely it must be the opposite - you must lack a tuning with their subconscious reality.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

The physical world is constructed either by your physical brain doing electromagnetic interpretation,

When you say 'constructed', you are talking about the interpretation is constructed within the mentality rather than the external physicality being constructed from the subconscious, right? If so, the term 'constructed' is quite misleading. Yet now, after completing this post, I see you are most likely referring to the mentality actually creating the outside environment - my actual objective Maserati, for instance.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

or a mind that create said "objective" outputs, your brain then interprets what is written in said signals and shoot the "out there" reality, in the same way a projector shoot a movie to the screen. A good analogy would be a videogame, there is no videogame at all, merely a bunch of numbers and letters which the compiler "read" and then shoot into the scream the scenery and virtual reality of characters existing and fighting.

Whilst I find your analogy acceptable, the process dosn't sound to me so different than your first option (above).

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So about your parents and stuff, it isnt real at all. Merely these are a bunch of experienced which appear to be conected by continuity but arent really, just like a movie is conected frame per frame, but you could calmly delete a frame from the movie and it would still run. Basically experiences created second per second, given the illusion of continuity.

Again I get the last sentence, however you really can't delete a frame in the middle of a reel and continue to run if that deletion has in turn created a disconnect. Also in what way aren't my parents real? Not real people or not real in my mentality? Or both? I'm wondering at this point if you think I'm struggling with dissonance again - thinking I'm looking at your words re. the objective perspective, but it really is the subjective?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So you are born in the world, your parents had you. (so objectively and subjectively they are real. Whew, what a relief!) But actually you only exist right now, the previous moment is gone is not real (accepted), you had a reality as a child and now as an adult. But the illusion of continuity makes you think a sequence in time is the one responsible (due to subjective perspective), you are in tune with other consiousness that perceive reality in the same way as you do, which being a child that grew in time in an objective framework. All you have really are experiences.

Well our memory is about our subjective perception of our experiences rather than objective, as I see it. So I recognise harmony here and hope you do as well.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So in a subjective reality, you could in theory wake up tomorrow as an old man without having to age, be young again, wake up as a beggar or as the richest man in the world, as a prisoner or as a king.

But this is extremelly unlikely since the mind is likely to keep sending organized sequences that create an objective experience.

I think I can accept this theoretically, but again; does the mind also organise the objective reality apart from me? My Maserati for instance?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

At the end of the day in subjective reality if you could see things as they "really are" the only thing you would see in the entire universe more or less like this:

Ok, so my mind does organise the objective external hardware then - for me to relate to subjectively. My Maserati is objectively; simply empty blue waves?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Countless formless waves or formless light that is traduced as a physical enviroment.

Traduced? Misrepresented by the subconscious as physical?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Why then we perceive reality the way we do?

Who knows, some would tell you is a random experience you picked up. (I don't accept randomness in any sense) Others that your previous "karmas" or experiences left an impression in you that makes you see reality as you see it.(If this is about reincarnation, I do not accept this) Others would tell you it is your soul or higher self which is sending this information to "you" to interpret reality the way you do. (So this higher self has Intelligence? It's sounding to me like we're getting closer)

Originally Posted by Luciddd

This is a possible explanation as to why for some people LOA works since is all a matter of interpretation, the question is, is it done at an extra-physical or higher self level and as such changes would have to be done at that level? or would changing the immediate physical output be enough to bring it into "real objectivization" or "actuality" as all levels are connected?

Well Luciddd, again I thank you greatly for your time and patience in this. However here is my biggest issue right now.... If my mentality is constantly creating my Maserati where there is blue light waves, I can accept that I might be able to get into the illusion of my making and drive across town, but how does this explain my child who was asleep when I picked him up and carried him out and into his seat, also being transported by my light-wave illusion? If you respond that he is also an illusion of my subconscious, you can come over and change his stinky dirty nappies.

Finally, I can also see how you have been trying to explain the objective reality through a subjective mindset. This is the same difficulty I've been having in trying to explain my scenario, because the relating doesn't only rely upon my objective reality perception as expressed through subjective interpretation, but also the reader/listener's same issue. Yet he most likely isn't even aware of this (my) struggle and therefore dissonance, which is in itself an even bigger hurdle than mine, but added into that equation that he is most likely to be recognising the two views simultaneously, and has even less awareness of his een greater dissonance being created by all that. How frustrating is communication then?

When we recognise all this, well we can begin to appreciate what a marvelous thing it is, that we ever understand each other at any level at all.

Thanx again.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Rajones

I see your point, but im also pretty sure you can see what im getting at.
or can you?

Hey Rajones, I don't know how it is for anyone else here, but here's my story of the moment ...

Right now it feels like I'm right at the cutting edge of a brand new way of seeing and relating to reality. I mean it is like we are discovering the universe for the first time - because man's perception has never previously been able to recognise it. As such, I am struggling continually to hold back the natural, normal, subjective way of seeing things to give myself a fighting chance to make the switchover - which hasn't happened as yet.

It is all quite frustrating for me and as well a little scary, but at the same time - exceedingly exciting.

So to answer your question in the most honest way I can - I think I might know what you're getting at, but so far, I'm no more or less sure about all that than I am about what I've been trying to explore. Further, as of around 4 hours ago, I've been running on severe sleep deprivation and overload, so I can't rightly say your observation is any more or less valid than mine, and I can't rightly say I feel confident to even attempt any such evaluation right now.

Not so conclusive I know, yet I hope that sufficiently explains it. And please if you will, try a second time to explain your post with a slightly different wording, and afford me another run at it.

Cheers.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well Luciddd, again I thank you greatly for your time and patience in this. However here is my biggest issue right now.... If my mentality is constantly creating my Maserati where there is no Maserati, I can accept that I might be able to get into an illusion of my making and drive across town, but how does this explain my child who was asleep when I picked him up and carried him out and into his seat, also being transported by my illusion? If you respond that he is also an illusion of my subconscious, you can come over and change his stinky dirty nappies.

In your nightly dreams, it's not that the dream character that represents you is more real than the dragon dream character. They are both characters in a dream, and the only difference is that you experience through the perspective of one and not the other, and so it seems to be you. You aren't actually IN the dream at all, you're just observing. Or we could say you are the dream itself, since the dream is the movement of the mind you take yourself to be.

So it's not that you are real, and that real you is manifesting an unreal Maserati that the other real person somehow experiences. All the objects and characters are equally appearances in YOUR waking dream, and you aren't any of them.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Also in what way aren't my parents

Your parents are basically made of some muscles, fats, bones, skin and hair.

All of those things are basically made of molecules involving combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen.

All of those things are basically made of atoms.

Atoms are basically a lot of empty space with a couple of electrons, neutrons and protons.

The neutrons and protons are made of even more empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence.

Therefore your parents are mostly empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence.

Essentially they are about the same as golf balls, Maseratis, babies and poop. It's all mostly empty space with a few subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence.

The behavior of those particles is either particulate or wave-like, depending on how they are observed.

Furthermore, before they come into existence (that is, before they blink in), they are best expressed as functions of mathematical probability.

Thus your parents and the golf ball are essentially empty space until the laws of probability flick them into existence, then flick them out, and in again.

[Apopohis Reject]

Thank you ALG, but may I first ask of you; in reading Luciddd's explanation of this - did you accept it all, or do you have an alternative explanation here and there. Notwithstanding your reply, I'll respond to each of your points in turn, as if you agreed entirely with Luciddd, ok?

Acting Like Godot:
* Your parents are basically made of some muscles, fats, bones, skin and hair. (I'm thankful for that, at least, and no issue so far)

*All of those things are basically made of molecules involving combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. (As normally accepted)

*All of those things are basically made of atoms. (Beautiful)

*Atoms are basically a lot of empty space with a couple of electrons, neutrons and protons. (Of late I question the electrons, neutrons and protons bit, for these also are constituted of fused/compressed light, but ok so far)

*The neutrons and protons are made of even more empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (And the electrons? In any case, I'm relatively comfortable to this point)

*Therefore your parents are mostly empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (as is all 'matter')

*Essentially they are about the same as golf balls, Maseratis, babies and poop. It's all mostly empty space with a few subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence. (Kool)

*The behavior of those particles is either particulate or wave-like, depending on how they are observed. (The nature of light has been shown to fit both definitions, even though that seems to be an impossiblity - without finding a new dfinition I guess)

*Furthermore, before they come into existence (that is, before they blink in), they are best expressed as functions of mathematical probability. (Or alternatively, I would expect; light)

*Thus your parents and the golf ball are essentially empty space until the laws of probability flick them into existence, then flick them out, and in again. (The complete entities themselves flick in and out of existence? Or the sub atomic structure does - likely at differing moments - thereby maintaining the apparently 'solid' nature?)

Now ALG, back to my initial question; I might say the above is far more in tune with what I previously understood, yet it doesn't seem to resonate so much with my perception of Luciddd's account.

Simply trying to get a better grasp on this now, in your opinion, so does all that make yours and his contridictory, do you think?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So it's not that you are real, and that real you is manifesting an unreal Maserati that the other real person somehow experiences. All the objects and characters are equally appearances in YOUR waking dream, and you aren't any of them.

Well that might make sense to everyone else on this site, but how again aren't I me? How does the above harmonise with ... ALG, who seems to indicate that my parents were 'them', and their "muscles, fats, bones, skin and hair" are/were all real? ALG seems to accept 'real', but you do not?

Or are you both applying different definitions to this term in the hope I'll die of confusion and cease to be 'real'-ly on this site?

[Acting Like Godot]

[QUOTE=Apopohis Reject;1022597]*The neutrons and protons are made of even more empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (And the electrons? In any case, I'm relatively comfortable to this point)

The electrons are already blinking in and out of existence and are made of nothing more fundamental than themselves.

However the neutrons and protons are made of even smaller particles called quarks,

That is what we call the Standard Model. If instead you prefer string theory, then immediately we can start talking about other dimensions.

*Thus your parents and the golf ball are essentially empty space until the laws of probability flick them into existence, then flick them out, and in again. (The complete entities themselves flick in and out of existence? Or the sub atomic structure does - likely at differing moments - thereby maintaining the apparently 'solid' nature?)

To understand your parents, you have to note that they are mostly empty space.

They are like our solar system. Vast distances between the planets. And the planets rapidly blink in and out of existence. But most of the solar system is just empty space.

Also, you are made of the same stuff as baby poop. And golf balls.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

*The neutrons and protons are made of even more empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence. (And the electrons? In any case, I'm relatively comfortable to this point)

The electrons are already blinking in and out of existence and are made of nothing more fundamental than themselves.


However the neutrons and protons are made of even smaller particles called quarks,

That is what we call the Standard Model. If instead you prefer string theory, then immediately we can start talking about other dimensions.

My model is a little different. I've no interest in scientific models at this level, for they are all guessing, so I figure my guess might just be equally or more valid than any, if I learn to trust sufficiently in myself at least. That is - myself to find answers in the infinite objective storehouse rather than accept guesses of those who do not even know of, much less respect the infinite objective storehouse. But all that is another discussion and probably a thread or two. Yet no-one would be interested in it, so what the heck?

Anyways, my model does not necessarily include such as protons, neutrons, quarks, neutrinos, leptons, for beyond all particulate matter, is light itself. So even the densest matter is at it's core, nothing more solid than compressed under fusion - light.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

To understand your parents, you have to note that they are mostly empty space.

No problem there, as (again) even the densest matter is mostly empty space. I've lived with such particular connection re. existence for 30 years.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

They are like our solar system. Vast distances between the planets. And the planets rapidly blink in and out of existence. But most of the solar system is just empty space.

??? The planets blink in and out of existence??? Not come across that before now. Are you suggesting they are not planetary rocks per general scientific guess?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Also, you are made of the same stuff as baby poop. And golf balls.

Indeed - it's called planet Earth. Or if you like to take it to the next level - the rock of planet Earth, or to the deepest level - light.

If you don't mind me saying my friend; all this is going in the wrong direction, for you are now explaining basically what I've understood - per my subjective/objective perception mix at least; for decades. It's really the stuff of Luciddd's post that is quite new/interesting for me now, and especially how his explanation differed from yours to some extent and Arc's at some level; from both.

[Acting Like Godot]

Try googling "blinking universe". I'd write more but it's inconvenient. I am typing on an iPhone.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Try googling "blinking universe". I'd write more but it's inconvenient. I am typing on an iPhone.

Thanx again, will do. Right now, I take it this to be a newguess as to why why stars are constantly 'blinking', as once guessed to be debris throughout the universe 'floating' (as if there were air on which to float), and cutting across the light path between the stars and earth. But that was all related to stars, not planets.

I'll sure be interested to have a look at a new model (may I say guess) as to this phenomena.

thanx again ALG.

[Acting Like Godot]

No, you're on the wrong track.

Let me give you a simple illustration. A snail's nervous system is very slow. So suppose a stone is a short distance in front of the snail. The snail sees the stone. Then you quickly put your hand in and take the stone away, in less than half a second.

To the snail, it will appear that the stone had mysteriously disappeared, all by itself. This is because your hand has moved too fast for the snail to perceive it.

You quickly dip your hand in, put the stone back, and withdraw your hand. Once again the snail cannot detect your hand. It will just appear that the stone has mysteriously reappeared.

So it is with the universe. Everything around you, including yourself, is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. Your nervous system is too slow to detect it, that is all.

From quantum physics, we know that the entire universe (or rather, those parts of it which are not empty space) is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. For that is the nature of all matter.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well that might make sense to everyone else on this site, but how again aren't I me? How does the above harmonise with ... ALG, who seems to indicate that my parents were 'them', and their "muscles, fats, bones, skin and hair" are/were all real? ALG seems to accept 'real', but you do not?

Or are you both applying different definitions to this term in the hope I'll die of confusion and cease to be 'real'-ly on this site?

Hehe. No murderous plot here, as far as I know.
ALG is analyzing the constituent components of the 'dream' as though they are objectively true, concluding that matter is mostly empty space wavicles blinking in and out of existence. I'm not real sure what the significance of that is except maybe he's not differentiating between objects.

I'm saying it's all an appearance appearing to YOU, and YOU aren't appearing at all. Your dilemma seemed to be that some of the appearances are 'real' (the people) and therefore share the experience of their actuality, while other appearances are 'manifested' by you (Maserati) and this manifested thing is also shared somehow, making it a manifestation for others as well.

All of it is equally appearance and nothing is more actual than anything else.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

At the end of the day in subjective reality if you could see things are they "really are" the only thing you would see in the entire universe more or less like this:



Countless formless waves or formless light that is traduced as a physical enviroment.

Why then we perceive reality the way we do?

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well Luciddd, again I thank you greatly for your time and patience in this. However here is my biggest issue right now.... If my mentality is constantly creating my Maserati where there is blue light waves, I can accept that I might be able to get into the illusion of my making and drive across town, but how does this explain my child who was asleep when I picked him up and carried him out and into his seat, also being transported by my light-wave illusion? If you respond that he is also an illusion of my subconscious, you can come over and change his stinky dirty nappies.

Luciddd can correct me if I am wrong, but the image he has uploaded appears to be that of an "interference pattern" in the photographic emulsion of a laser hologram.

If it is indeed an interference pattern in a laser hologram, then shining a laser into the pattern (a laser of the same frequency that created the hologram) will explicate a 3-dimensional optical replication of whatever object(s) is encoded in the pattern.

See illustration below:



What humans deem as being "reality" is represented by the explicated key, die, and paperclip (something recognizable and tangible to the five senses of consciousness).

The point is that it is the conjoined relationship between the laser and the correlated patterns of information in the emulsion that produces the 3-dimensional reality of the "separate appearing" objects suspended between the two.

Now, imagine that the interference pattern in the photographic emulsion represents the subatomic or quantum underpinning of all the objects in the universe (including your body).

Next, imagine that the laser represents our "consciousness" shining into the interference pattern.

From that we can conclude, that just like in the laser hologram, it is the conjoined relationship between our consciousness and the correlated patterns of energy and information in the quantum that subsequently "creates" (more at "reveals") what we call "3-D reality."

Where confusion arises in the "subjective/objective" debate is in thinking that we humans are anything other than that subsequent laser on the right hand side of the illustration, shining into the already established patterns of information that were already in place before any of us arrived on the scene.

In others words the "laser" of our consciousness merely explicates reality into its 3-D formations from a "field" of pre-existing and "evolving information" (Luciddd's interference pattern).

I am talking about patterns of information forming the conditions that had to be in place "prior" to our arrival within the field, in order to pre-create our bodies that literally "house our laser"; a body that then introduces it (our consciousness "laser") into the field of information (the universe).

The ultimate point is, that none of us literally "create" the reality of this universe – not our cars, not our houses, not our bodies, etc., etc., in the same sense that the laser on the right hand side of the illustration does not create the key, the die, or the paperclip who's explicate reality was already implicit in the patterns of formation.

(Look into physicist David Bohm's theories on the "implicate/explicate order" of the quantum.)

A crucial element that I want to bring to light in this post is to have everyone get a clear visualization of there being a distinct difference between that of consciousness (the "laser") and that of matter (the informational essence of "reality" represented by the "interference pattern").

(One final note: if you turn your "laser of consciousness" inward, then the same process of explicating "reality" from a "field of information" occurs in the same manner as above, revealing your thoughts and dreams.)


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, you're on the wrong track.

Let me give you a simple illustration. A snail's nervous system is very slow. So suppose a stone is a short distance in front of the snail. The snail sees the stone. Then you quickly put your hand in and take the stone away, in less than half a second.

To the snail, it will appear that the stone had mysteriously disappeared, all by itself. This is because your hand has moved too fast for the snail to perceive it.

You quickly dip your hand in, put the stone back, and withdraw your hand. Once again the snail cannot detect your hand. It will just appear that the stone has mysteriously reappeared.

So it is with the universe. Everything around you, including yourself, is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. Your nervous system is too slow to detect it, that is all.

From quantum physics, we know that the entire universe (or rather, those parts of it which are not empty space) is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. For that is the nature of all matter.

I'm sorry ALG but I just don't buy it. This is merely a new theory/model about the nature of matter; another Big Bang, which respectively changes completely over time whilst the name remains the same, for scientists had hoped no one was quick enough to catch the big hand snatch away the subjective stone (model) placed in front of us, and just as quickly replace it with a different subjective stone. For they will tell us over and again it is the same objective stone and has neither moved nor changed.

Objectively speaking - all that to say the least, is not especially honest, and is to me looking increasingly like religious sleight of hand manipulation designed to keep the income stream flowing whilst coping with necessity to update the dogma.

Hey I admit I don't objectively know about the nature of matter, for I'm not a scientist so my livelihood doesn't depend on repeated proclamations of objectivity in understanding. Yet I've worked out the nature of subjective scientists, of which you may well be one, so I really don't mean to offend at all. Scientists have a great penchant to talk about whatever model to which they currently adhere as if it is the entire show - the objective truth according reality. You just did it with "For that is the nature of all matter.' re your current flavour.

So whilst I earnestly respect and thank you for sharing, this is yet another observation of the difference between objective and subjective perception of reality. You will likely tell me you have a whole range of associated evidence to over and again prove the validity of this theory to your objectivity. But similarly to the evolutionsists, big bangists and string theorists who believe beyond doubt in their objectivity per their adherence to their respective religions, sorry models, yet it just plain is NOT objective.

There really is an unrecognised dissonance going on. In the end that is all they are - models, and subjective ones at that, despite proclamations to the contrary. And all subjective models by their nature will blink in and out of existence and flavour and focus and continue to be proclaimed with an iron fist from the pulpit as objective, when honestly speaking; they simply are not.

So tell me as earnestly as you like that it is "that model to which you (subjectively) adhere right now", but please don't tell me it is "the nature of matter" (objective). And please don't tell me that you know (objective) it is, especially when it goes against what I am able to see for myself (admittedly subjective), especially without some really heavy duty evidence, and btw, be reminded; the relationship your and my awareness will have to all of that, will also remain subjective.

Regrets to you if any of the above presents in any way painful to read.

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I'm sorry ALG but I just don't buy it. This is merely a new theory/model about the nature of matter; another Big Bang, which respectively changes completely over time whilst the name remains the same, for scientists had hoped no one was quick enough to catch the big hand snatch away the subjective stone (model) placed in front of us, and just as quickly replace it with a different subjective stone. For they will tell us over and again it is the same objective stone and has neither moved nor changed.

Objectively speaking - all that to say the least, is not especially honest, and is to me looking increasingly like religious sleight of hand manipulation designed to keep the income stream flowing whilst coping with necessity to update the dogma.

Hey I admit I don't objectively know about the nature of matter, for I'm not a scientist so my livelihood doesn't depend on repeated proclamations of objectivity in understanding. Yet I've worked out the nature of subjective scientists, of which you may well be one, so I really don't mean to offend at all. Scientists have a great penchant to talk about whatever model to which they currently adhere as if it is the entire show - the objective truth according reality. You just did it with "For that is the nature of all matter.' re your current flavour.

So whilst I earnestly respect and thank you for sharing, this is yet another observation of the difference between objective and subjective perception of reality. You will likely tell me you have a whole range of associated evidence to over and again prove the validity of this theory to your objectivity. But similarly to the evolutionsists, big bangists and string theorists who believe beyond doubt in their objectivity per their adherence to their respective religions, sorry models, yet it just plain is NOT objective.

There really is an unrecognised dissonance going on. In the end that is all they are - models, and subjective ones at that, despite proclamations to the contrary. And all subjective models by their nature will blink in and out of existence and flavour and focus and continue to be proclaimed with an iron fist from the pulpit as objective, when honestly speaking; they simply are not.

So tell me as earnestly as you like that it is "that model to which you (subjectively) adhere right now", but please don't tell me it is "the nature of matter" (objective). And please don't tell me that you know (objective) it is, especially when it goes against what I am able to see for myself (admittedly subjective), especially without some really heavy duty evidence, and btw, be reminded; the relationship your and my awareness will have to all of that, will also remain subjective.

Regrets to you if any of the above presents in any way painful to read.

Beautifully stated!


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by seeds

Luciddd can correct me if I am wrong, but the image he has uploaded appears to be that of an "interference pattern" in the photographic emulsion of a laser hologram.

If it is indeed an interference pattern in a laser hologram, then shining a laser into the pattern (a laser of the same frequency that created the hologram) will explicate a 3-dimensional optical replication of whatever object(s) is encoded in the pattern.

Ahhh, now that really is interesting. A little like those wall hanging monstrosities a few years back, which upon focusing at a certain angle revealed a hidden image of the entire Battle of Hastings from start to finish.

But really, this is terribly exciting to me, as it suggests the link I've been referencing between our consciousness and the infinite warehouse of spiritual objectivity in which we exist. I further reason that this 'warehouse' is really the electro-magnetic spectrum (light), in which is encoded all objective data re. all existence - past, present and future.

After only an admitted cursory reading (thus far), it would appear to me in a similar way to a prism splitting light and focusing our attention on it's various incorporated wavelengths, the laser light here is *possibly* in some manner focusing our attention on a portion of this encoded data within the electro-magnetic spectrum - the same as that into which the Intelligence within our consciousness taps whenever we make a conceptual connection with (objective) reality.

I'll be exceptionally keen to read the rest of Seed's post and look into all of that real soon, but unfortunately right now I've need to be signing off for the day and heading out for some essential and pressing urgencies.

Thank you so very much ALG and Seeds. This is wonderful, exhillerating, suggesting the most excitement my being has enjoyed in years.

Originally Posted by seeds

See illustration below:

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I'm sorry ALG but I just don't buy it.

Then you have to decide which is the point you don't buy it.

- Your parents are made of muscles, bones, skin etc. Do you buy this or not?

- Muscles, bones, skin are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms in different combinations. Do you buy this or not?

- C, H and O are made of atoms. Do you buy this or not?

- Atoms are mostly empty space and some electrons, protons and neutrons. Do you buy this or not?

Etc. Therefore your parents are mostly empty space. Do you buy this or not?

The reason why you have difficulty buying it is that the "real world" - as you observe it to be - is so very, very different from what I am telling you.

What you may not be grasping at this point is that that's how formidable your powers as a creator are. You have perceived into existence a "real world" .... out of empty space.

Thus to the extent that you can alter your perception (and your thoughts) about the "real world", it will change. I mean, you already created it, as it is, out of empty space. What else couldn't you do?

Not to say that there are no limits, of course. There are huge limits. The limits are what you can do with your mind.

I would like to leave you with a quote from Professor Bernard d'Espagnat. Firstly, his CV so that you know that he is not a quack off the streets.

D'Espagnat obtained his Ph.D. from the Sorbonne at the Institut Henri Poincaré under the guidance of Louis de Broglie. He was a researcher at the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique CNRS, 1947-57. During this period he also worked with Enrico Fermi in Chicago, 1951–52, and on a research project led by Niels Bohr at the Institute in Copenhagen, 1953-54. He then pursued his scientific career at the Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Nucleaires (CERN) in Geneva and, as a theoretical physicist, at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, 1954-59.

From 1959 until his retirement in 1987, D'Espagnat was a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Sciences at the Sorbonne University. He was director of the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics and Elementary Particles at the University of Paris XI (Orsay), 1980-87. He was a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Austin in 1977, and at the University of California - Santa Barbara in 1984.

Now, for the quote. This is taken from his paper in Scientific American in 1979.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Read that sentence carefully, a few times, and let the enormity of it sink in.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

This is merely a new theory/model about the nature of matter

Actually this is known as the Standard Model. The least controversial one of all.

Quarks were discovered in the early 1960s, so it's not exactly a new thingie. Only about 40 years old.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

ALG is analyzing the constituent components of the 'dream' as though they are objectively true, concluding that matter is mostly empty space wavicles blinking in and out of existence. I'm not real sure what the significance of that is except maybe he's not differentiating between objects.

The significance is that it's all appearances and nothing is more actual than anything else. Blue feathers are no different from oceans and cities, just a lot of empty space and infinitesimally tiny particles popping in and out. So if you can manifest a blue feather, you can make oceans and cities. It's all just appearances.

If you can get this far, then you see, the concept of objective reality all comes crumbling down. It's all subjective.

[Acting Like Godot]

Here's a quick grab I made, off the Internet, to give you some idea of what I mean, when I say that matter is "mostly" empty space. Below the writer uses the hydrogen atom to illustrate. Hydrogen is used as a proxy for "all matter", because it is the most abundant element in the universe.

The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. The hydrogen atom, like all atoms, is composed of a nucleus orbited by a(n) electron(s). The most likely orbit of the electron in a hydrogen atom, according to the Bohr model, is about 5.3 X 10-11 meters. The volume of the hydrogen atom then is about 6.24 X 10-31 cubic meters. The single proton that makes up the nucleus of the hydrogen atom has a volume of about 4.19 X 10-42 cubic meters. Hydrogen's single electron's volume is approximately 9.2 X 10-44 cubic meters. If we compare the sum of the volumes of the electron and the proton to the volume of the entire hydrogen atom, the proportion of that atom that is empty space is 99.999999999314%!

So that's your back-of-the-envelope figure. Matter is generally 99.999999999314% empty space.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The significance is that it's all appearances and nothing is more actual than anything else. Blue feathers are no different from oceans and cities, just a lot of empty space and infinitesimally tiny particles popping in and out. So if you can manifest a blue feather, you can make oceans and cities. It's all just appearances.

If you can get this far, then you see, the concept of objective reality all comes crumbling down. It's all subjective.

Yes, we agree. It's all subjective.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Here's a quick grab I made, off the Internet, to give you some idea of what I mean, when I say that matter is "mostly" empty space. Below the writer uses the hydrogen atom to illustrate. Hydrogen is used as a proxy for "all matter", because it is the most abundant element in the universe.



So that's your back-of-the-envelope figure. Matter is generally 99.999999999314% empty space.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say the other .000000000686% consists of?

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by seeds

Luciddd can correct me if I am wrong, but the image he has uploaded appears to be that of an "interference pattern" in the photographic emulsion of a laser hologram.

If it is indeed an interference pattern in a laser hologram, then shining a laser into the pattern (a laser of the same frequency that created the hologram) will explicate a 3-dimensional optical replication of whatever object(s) is encoded in the pattern.

See illustration below:



What humans deem as being "reality" is represented by the explicated key, die, and paperclip (something recognizable and tangible to the five senses of consciousness).

The point is that it is the conjoined relationship between the laser and the correlated patterns of information in the emulsion that produces the 3-dimensional reality of the "separate appearing" objects suspended between the two.

Now, imagine that the interference pattern in the photographic emulsion represents the subatomic or quantum underpinning of all the objects in the universe (including your body).

Next, imagine that the laser represents our "consciousness" shining into the interference pattern.

From that we can conclude, that just like in the laser hologram, it is the conjoined relationship between our consciousness and the correlated patterns of energy and information in the quantum that subsequently "creates" (more at "reveals") what we call "3-D reality."

Where confusion arises in the "subjective/objective" debate is in thinking that we humans are anything other than that subsequent laser on the right hand side of the illustration, shining into the already established patterns of information that were already in place before any of us arrived on the scene.

In others words the "laser" of our consciousness merely explicates reality into its 3-D formations from a "field" of pre-existing and "evolving information" (Luciddd's interference pattern).

I am talking about patterns of information forming the conditions that had to be in place "prior" to our arrival within the field, in order to pre-create our bodies that literally "house our laser"; a body that then introduces it (our consciousness "laser") into the field of information (the universe).

The ultimate point is, that none of us literally "create" the reality of this universe – not our cars, not our houses, not our bodies, etc., etc., in the same sense that the laser on the right hand side of the illustration does not create the key, the die, or the paperclip who's explicate reality was already implicit in the patterns of formation.

(Look into physicist David Bohm's theories on the "implicate/explicate order" of the quantum.)

A crucial element that I want to bring to light in this post is to have everyone get a clear visualization of there being a distinct difference between that of consciousness (the "laser") and that of matter (the informational essence of "reality" represented by the "interference pattern").

(One final note: if you turn your "laser of consciousness" inward, then the same process of explicating "reality" from a "field of information" occurs in the same manner as above, revealing your thoughts and dreams.)


seeds

1) Yes it is an interference pattern.

2) If we dont have influence in the interference pattern then how could the "unexplianable" specially people with special abilities, could be explained?

According to a theory I saw (dont know if true) if you made even a dent in the general pattern, the general pattern changes. So either consiousness can create a little interference patter that becomes mingled with the greater pattern, or these things are done in another level, aka when the consiousness is able to somehow go to the "implicate" level.

3) What I think right now, is a halfway of what you think. I think we can create reality at least to some degree even at the human level (I think that on other levels we absolutely create reality). But in the even we dont (in the human level) I have the theory that if not create we do "choose.

I dont think we actually "translate" everything from the interference pattern, but only a part, in the same way we cant actually see physically all the electromagnetic color spectrum. I think all "alternate realities" on this model, at leas when we see everything as simply interference pattern, arent actually systems far apart from each other. But simply are other patterns we arent reading, the reality we the "lasers" (human level consiousness) are reading is a very small part of the whole.

So while at this level if we dont create, we do have a choice. Of course to do so, you would have to learn how to cease to read what you are reading and read the specific interference pattern you are willing to experience.

My 2 cents, among many things.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Just out of curiosity, what would you say the other .000000000686% consists of?

Quarks, neutrinos and a couple of other things that blink rapidly in and out of existence.

Quarks normally have a lifespan in the Highly Ridiculous range - a thousandth of a billionth of a second, that sort of thing.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Quarks, neutrinos and a couple of other things that blink rapidly in and out of existence.

Quarks normally have a lifespan in the Highly Ridiculous range - a thousandth of a billionth of a second, that sort of thing.

And those are what? Energy patterns?

[Rajones]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Hey Rajones, I don't know how it is for anyone else here, but here's my story of the moment ...

Right now it feels like I'm right at the cutting edge of a brand new way of seeing and relating to reality. I mean it is like we are discovering the universe for the first time - because man's perception has never previously been able to recognise it. As such, I am struggling continually to hold back the natural, normal, subjective way of seeing things to give myself a fighting chance to make the switchover - which hasn't happened as yet.

It is all quite frustrating for me and as well a little scary, but at the same time - exceedingly exciting.

So to answer your question in the most honest way I can - I think I might know what you're getting at, but so far, I'm no more or less sure about all that than I am about what I've been trying to explore. Further, as of around 4 hours ago, I've been running on severe sleep deprivation and overload, so I can't rightly say your observation is any more or less valid than mine, and I can't rightly say I feel confident to even attempt any such evaluation right now.

Not so conclusive I know, yet I hope that sufficiently explains it. And please if you will, try a second time to explain your post with a slightly different wording, and afford me another run at it.

Cheers.

hmm i am in a very similar situation, except i seem to be doing the opposite, as in fully embracing the subjective viewpoint. i feel this is a bolder and riskier way of going about things, but i find that the rewards are worth it. rewards like finding that switchover a bit faster.

to explain my post better:
The stronger I believe my reality to totally subjective, the more meaningful it becomes.

for example:
I listen to a song, believing reality objective.
I hear: some person, singing about something.
I feel: typical music euphoria.

But listening, believing reality subjective:
I hear: God, singing revelations to me.
I feel: strong euphoria, sense of peace.

to me, this can only mean 1 thing.

[Apopohis Reject]

Thank you my friend for coming back on this....

Originally Posted by Rajones

hmm i am in a very similar situation, except i seem to be doing the opposite, as in fully embracing the subjective viewpoint. i feel this is a bolder and riskier way of going about things, but i find that the rewards are worth it. rewards like finding that switchover a bit faster.

to explain my post better:
The stronger I believe my reality to totally subjective, the more meaningful it becomes.

Ah yes indeed, it seems more meaningful in that we seem to be in closer harmony with it, especially if all that promotes a warm fuzziness, akin to how we felt as young children upon first waking Christmas Day - sweet anticipation, effervescent glee, abounding squeals of delight.

However we are no longer 8 years old, and the work (actually delusion) in generating joy in the face of a harsh reality of surviving our existence daily under the debt, expectations and derision of society becomes an increasingly burdensome and unrewarding task. So what is one to do?

It's like an alcoholic who became so in the expectation the bottle contents would indefinitely continue it's (seeming) success in it's original task towards emotional escape. Yet with every (subjective) bing comes sobriety, withdrawal and alas - REALITY (objective)! So time for another counter attack of subjectivity; another bing and the cycle continues in ever decreasing circles, until ***** (please fill in as you will)

This, then becomes a progressively asphyxiating (subjective) approach to dealing with the emotional pain, and in the end - no-one wins apart from the liquor outlet owner. Another bloke will man-up, will refuse to shut-out his loved ones, will face the inherent turmoil head on, will seek and develop intrinsic courage, will be regarded a pillar of society for his resolve, will hold his head higher while walking down the street, will be a whole lot more objective towards his similar pain.

Have a guess which of the above, I would select for my epitaph?

Originally Posted by Rajones

for example:
I listen to a song, believing reality objective.
I hear: some person, singing about something.
I feel: typical music euphoria.

But listening, believing reality subjective:
I hear: God, singing revelations to me.
I feel: strong euphoria, sense of peace.

to me, this can only mean 1 thing.

Ah, I see.

The issue with the above I have, is the following;
Reality itself cannot ever be subjective. Reality is always objective - for such is it's inherent nature, even if subjectivity generated it.

It is our perception that relates to the (objective) reality, as either objective or subjective. Yet indeed we constantly have both perceptions about all reality upon which we focus for any time. The point here, is that we strongly favour our subjective perception over the objective, whilst thoroughly believing it to be entirely objective.

Quite a dilemma happening there, and some serious cognitive dissonance to boot.

It's like I'm driving along the road enjoying some tranquil tunes and suddenly some 'jerk' suddenly 'cuts me off' so sharply I need hold my breath whilst swerving and braking heavily in order to avoid hitting his and other cars.

It happens all the time, so I ask - is the above sentence objective or subjective? Well it is both, but predominantly objective, however it just happens to be the two subjective pieces I've placed in 'inverted commas', that the reader will most relate to, even though he doesn't ordinarily recognise this. So he will go away and remember something about; a 'jerk' 'cutting off' someone, because the subjective aspect is what resonates with the heavily dominant subjectivity in our perception, and so we habitually gloss over the objectivity, for it 'feels' unnecessary or boring or some such evaluation negative.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

a harsh reality of surviving our existence daily under the debt, expectations and derision of society becomes an increasingly burdensome and unrewarding task.

I bet that you even believe that your statement is objective.

[arpee]

I'm not really sure what's going on now, but going back to the original post...


objectivism - Existence of truths independent of the mind or perception

subjectivism - Knowledge & value are dependent♥on and limited by your subjective experience


So, if subjectivism is true, that would mean that the war doesn't even exist until you personally hear about it.

If objectivism is true, the war is going on whether or not you know about it.

So objectivism/ objective reality would not mean that the person created that war...