21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThe "something there that we acknowledge" is always a product of the interaction of our consciousness with the physical world that surrounds us, with our inner world and with the world of our ideas. These products of ours, turn us into products of our products😵
So if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it is still part of the whole is it
not, and any affect upon the whole touches all of its parts would it not? So all
things seen and unseen that have even the littlest part to play, plays a part
in all other things, correct? So if all of that is true, then nothing is without
a place in the universal play ...[text shortened]... thing, there is something there that we acknowledge, but do not fully grasp
nonetheless.
Kelly
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Yes😵
TW: With the clear understanding that 'observe' does not imply knowingly recognize, but rather 'be affected in some way'. So, for example if the sound in the forest causes a landslide which subsequently causes it to rain on the other side of the world and the observer experiences the rain, then the 'sound' has been 'observed'.
BB: Yes😵
JS: The human obs ...[text shortened]... by) the rain which observes the landslide which observes the sound of the falling tree.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAll of this exchange between TW and BB (an exchange I respect) leads me to think that a universe can be defined as the collection of all those things that "touch" on or are touched by other things in an interconnected network. A, B, and C could comprise one universe, and D, E and F could comprise another.
So if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it is still part of the whole is it
not, and any affect upon the whole touches all of its parts would it not? So all
things seen and unseen that have even the littlest part to play, plays a part
in all other things, correct? So if all of that is true, then nothing is without
a place in the universal play ...[text shortened]... thing, there is something there that we acknowledge, but do not fully grasp
nonetheless.
Kelly
In some universes, some A could be aware of touching and being touched, and could even develop a moral theory about the touches.
This idea is probably too far out in lala land.
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357I've never been a fan of another universe, I have enough to deal with in this one. 🙂
All of this exchange between TW and BB (an exchange I respect) leads me to think that a universe can be defined as the collection of all those things that "touch" on or are touched by other things in an interconnected network. A, B, and C could comprise one universe, and D, E and F could comprise another.
In some universes, some A could be aware of touching ...[text shortened]... n develop a moral theory about the touches.
This idea is probably too far out in lala land.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJaySure. I guess I was aiming the comments at TW and BB to see if I was correctly tracking what they said. The equation of "observe" and "be touched by" is new to me.
I've never been a fan of another universe, I have enough to deal with in this one. 🙂
Kelly
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Oh well!
Sure. I guess I was aiming the comments at TW and BB to see if I was correctly tracking what they said. The equation of "observe" and "be touched by" is new to me.
I thought I was talking clearly about a single Observer Universe that contains all the other observers, which are all interdepended.
I also talked about a Single Reality (the reality of the Physical World that surrounds us) that is decoded differently by each species of sentient beings, always according to their cognizance. So my point has to do with the nature of the different realities that are perceived from different observers within a single multidimensional universe, and not with the possible existence of parallel universes.
In this context, Kelly’s G-d (if G-d is indeed an existent epistemic object as it is described from the Christian religion) has to be an observer that not only collapsed the wf so that the observer universe came into being the way we can perceive it, but also has the power to boost and/ or alternate the way every other observer that is contained in the universe collapses its own wf.
It follows that Kelly’s G-d should also control the pool of the probabilities that is hidden in the quantum uncertainty, since this pool is just another way that G-d has, in order to collapse a wf of a higher order. In this context, the quantum potentialities and the differ ways the observers collapse the wf (which they unveil different realities, in other words different views of a Unique Reality when this Reality is observed by different observers and with different perspectives), are both an outcome of the will of G-d and at the same time the outcome of the free choice of each observer, since each observer collapses the wf according to its nature.
That being said, methinks Kelly believes thanks to his faith alone that his G-d is existent, whilst I cannot validate the existence of G-d because I am unable to observe such an epistemic object. We never talked about multiple universes
😵
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357By and large, with TW we were talking about the basis of the manifestation of the differ, finally macroscopic, physical phenomena: Each time, specific interdepended observers boost out of their interaction specific phenomena in flux (ie the birth of a tornado and its exhaustion, the birth of a rainbow and its exhaustion etc.). No multiple universes in there, too😵
Sure. I guess I was aiming the comments at TW and BB to see if I was correctly tracking what they said. The equation of "observe" and "be touched by" is new to me.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleIt was a digressive misstep on my part to get into universes, when my intent was to see if what you were saying could be used to define the universe as the collection of those things that "touch" one another, that is, that observe or affect one another.
Oh well!
I thought I was talking clearly about a single Observer Universe that contains all the other observers, which are all interdepended.
I also talked about a Single Reality (the reality of the Physical World that surrounds us) that is decoded differently by each species of sentient beings, always according to their cognizance. So my point has ...[text shortened]... se I am unable to observe such an epistemic object. We never talked about multiple universes
😵
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Yes. The observer universe contains all the observers😵
It was a digressive misstep on my part to get into universes, when my intent was to see if what you were saying could be used to define the universe as the collection of those things that "touch" one another, that is, that observe or affect one another.
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357The same way the differ realities that are perceived from the differ species are purely subjective and empty (without inherent existence), morality is an empty plexus of systems that are designed for the well being of the people that created them. I cannot see the slightest trace of “objectivity” neither in the differ realities, nor in morality😵
OK. Now I have no idea how this relates to the thread title.