You can't. (One can't)



Yes, that is the acknowledgment. That is what is necessary for existence. To be aware of something other than our self. You are the observer, and you are apart (separate) from the observed.



This is also true because the Observer is only a single entity. A single entity or single observer cannot create other observers or their realities. Each observer has acquired a single individual point of view that arises from personal experience.

As long as it remains in that single point of view it can only observe others creations, it cannot create for anyone or everyone else.

Actuality is created by a combined collection of like minds, (points of view) not by a single entity.

When I say that "we" create reality I also mean that WE (everyone combined) plays a roll in the creation of actuality/reality.

Everything comes from the universal (combined) mind. This is the "thinking stuff" from which all things are made that Wallace D. Wattles talks about.

We are creators. Combined points of consciousness together have created this world and this reality. No single entity alone has created this actuality.





My way of expressing this is that I know I exist ... because I am acknowledged (seen and felt) by others.

Now you are talking my world, my language, and my belief. The first round goes on me

Yes, imagine a Christian or who ever dies and goes to heaven and meets what he is told is God or Jesus. Here are the questions:

What next?

What if God or Jesus is an ass hole who orders everyone around and demands worship and blind obedience? What if people want to just enjoy paradise and they are told they have to do as they are told and can't do what they want to do?

Also what is there to do in Heaven?

Do people eat and or have sex?

If people eat, do they go to the bathroom?

If people go to the bathroom, are there plumbers in heaven?

These are my questions.

Where are the toilets?

Knowing is what we believe to be truth, so only through one's own perception can one find true knowledge. In that, 2nd hand knowledge would'nt actually be knowing.

So what besides personal experience and innate knowing is not "2nd hand knowledge?"

'It takes one...to 'know' one....'

James...

Does anyone address what is written with any substantiation other than 'because I say so?'

You are quite freely extrapolating into directions and realms which my words do not indicate nor infer. Careful reading requires intent. Waiting for one's turn to speak is not listening, and likewise with writing and reading. I make no claims about 'right and wrong'.

That being said, because one is discussing a certain side of subject does not mean either that the author holds that side as an absolute, or holds it as true. The only safe assumption that one can have is that one is simply arguing or discussing that side at the time.

If one cannot effectively express what it is that they believe, they they do not understand what they believe.

I am failing to follow along with your claims. I give supporting evidence, whether it be through thought or whatever, which connects the dots along the way. I clearly clarified why actuality has been invoked, yet the clarification goes unnoticed. The conversation is still bound by the first impression.

That becomes and also quite clearly displays one of many problems that surround the perception equals reality claims. It necessitates the invoking of actuality. It is not the same as the many worlds interpretation, which I personally find to be rather useless...

I do believe that I know where you are coming from Michael. I understand your desire for foundation. I yearn for it myself. I think all rational thinkers do.

Einstein himself never accepted that "God plays dice". He died with the firm conviction that reality must be determinate.

Einstein never saw Bell's Theorem as he died before Bell came up with it. There is much controversy concerning what Einstein's reaction would have been.

Even John Bell himself favored Einstein's 'absolute reality' view. Most physicists and philosophers do. After all, we tend to like things that are absolute. It's give us a feeling of completeness. It's truly a vision of finiteness in a sense. Everything has a reason, everything has a logical explanation, and there are no loose ends that can't be tied together or explained.

But in truth, this is model of reality that is indeed self-complete. A universe that is pulling itself up with it's own bootstraps. Finite within itself.

But what if the universe is not finite? Not only in a geometric sense, but in the very essence of it's nature?

That would mean that it is beyond comprehension. It cannot be completely comprehended for the very reason that it's not finite. It's not possible to completely comprehend something that is truly infinite. For if you compeltely comprehend it, then you would know all of it, implying that it is indeed finite.

In fact, if "God" is truly infinite, then it would be impossible for even God to know all of itself, for if it did that would imply that there is an end to the knowledge.

So truly, from a purely philosophyical point of view without getting into any phsyics at all, we have the following to conclusions.

1. If the universe is completely knowable it must be finite.

2. If the universe is infinite then it cannot be completely knowable.

So this really comes down to struggling with the concept of the infinite.

It's difficult to accept the unembracable.

Infinity can not truly be embraced. Certainly not within its entirety. For if you've embraced it in its entirety you've embraced all of it, implying that it is finite.

I've come to accept that the universe is truly infinite, not merely in physical dimensions, but in the very essence of its existence.

Sure, we can talk about some things appear to have some sense of stablity. I believe in the evidence for evolution, for example, not only of the evolution of life, but of the evolution of the entire universe.

And if we want to claim that the Big Bang was the "beginning" of the universe, then we need to discuss what we mean by 'time'.

I have much to say about time. But I have no time to speak about it here.

I will however point out that General Relativity shows us that time as we know it is a property of space. In this sense then, time is not a property of actuality.

Of course, do you see the problem with these words already? We must ask, what do we mean by actuality. It's really no different from asking, "What do we mean by reality?"

Who's reality?

Our reality as percieved from within the universe?

Or perhaps some other reality as perserved from outside of the universe?

What would it mean to speak of being outside of the universe?

Can we even speak of such things in a meaningful way?

Well, yes, absolutely we can!

Hey! We found something absolute!

We know that virtual particles are constantly popping into and out of existence all the time. This implies that they are coming from somewhere outside of our universe. At least outside of spacetime as we know it. Yet spacetime is what we are claiming is indeed the fabric of our universe.

If the fabric of the universe comes into existence out of the void, then is the void now a part of our 'universe'?

This is getting super complicated!

The Inflation Theory of the Big Bang suggests that our universe did indeed come into being from the void. Yet that void was not truly empty. It may have been empty of spacetime as we know it, but clearly it wasn't empty of properties (magickal abilities). In fact, it evidently contains all the properties necessary for creating the entire fabric of spacetime out of nothing but properties of potentiality.

As physicists we've been studying the properties of potentiality. Quantum mechanics has shown us that spacetime is not all that exists. We now believe that spacetime arises from the quantum fields of the void.

And quantum fields are truly weird. Their behavior is far beyond anything that we might even remotely consider to be logical.

Why is that? Well mainly because we have come to think of the behavior of spacetime as being logical. But the quantum fields are not spacetime. They behave by weird rules of potentiality that have nothing to do with either space or time.

Moreover, using spacetime as a guide (General Relativity) we have recently discovered that spacetime and everything in it in the form of atoms and energy constitutes only 5% of actuality.

We have no clue what constitutes 95% of actuality. We call these things dark matter and dark energy.

It seems to me that now that we know that our knowlege of actuality is so scant if anything at all we should recognize that we basically know nothing of actuality.

How can we claim to know of actuality when we clearly only know 5% of it, and we don't even understand how that 5% actually works!

It seems to me that we should take our label of actuality and put in in drawer for safe keeping until we have something a bit more substantial to pin it on. Then maybe we can get it back out and see where we can pin it up.

I'm not saying that we may never have a chance to use it to some degree. I'm just saying that I see nothing tangible to pin it on at this time.

That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate your in depth response...

Knowing requires substantiation.

I will resign myself to only commenting upon the actuality/reality aspect of your response... for temporal reasons...

I want to say that I follow what you are saying. I would further comment that if we hold reality as an equal to personal perception, then what are we perceiving?

All of the questions and paradoxes contained, and I believe self-perpetuated in many cases such as dark energy and matter, reflect our lack of understanding. I realize that you believe that we cannot know everything, and I would not disagree.

Well, I don't go that far.

I'm not saying that reality is equal to personal perception. In fact, I have often debated the intricacies of that point with JB until I finally gave up.

Not because I was losing the debate, but simply because the debates were less than fruitful.

I won't deny that there is some element of actuality in the sense of physical phenomenon. On the contrary I demand that this must be the case. I also believe that Quantum Mechanics demands that this is partly true.

However, the very word "physical" can be elusive. Some people hold the life is a dream. I say, OK! However, if life is a dream it appears to adhere to certain rules, and it is those rules that physicists study and call the physical world. The fact that they are produced by strange waves of probability doesn't take away their essential concreteness.

However, having said all of that, it has become clear to me that these rules of probablity that create this apparent physicality of the universe are not the only cause of its creation.

And again Quantum Physics supports this conclusion. In fact, Quantum Mechanics demands this conclusion.

This conclusion is demanded by QM through the law of complementarity. (also seen mathematically as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princple).

What Quantum Mechanics says (through the concept of complemtarity) is that when certain aspects of the universe are known, then there are necessarily other completmentary aspects that cannot be known.

In fact, it goes futher than this. It demands that not only can they not be known, but that they can't even be well-defined by nature. In other words, those properties of the universe actually become ill-defined. Even nature has no clue what they are because they basically don't exist at that time. They only re-emergy via totally random probabilites. And even nature has no clue which probability will be realized until it pops into actualization.

So in this sense, QM is actually saying that actualiziation has to actuality until is is actualized



Ok, that sounded funny, but I'm trying to be serious and I'm sure you've followed that.

And if you have followed it then you can see where actuality itself is indeterminant. Determinism has been lost through the law of complementarity.

This is the cruz of the EPR argument and this is Niels Bohr's answer to Einstein. Niels Bohr simply says, "It the law of complementaritry dear Einstein"

That's THE ANSWER!

That's Niel's Bohr's answer to the EPR experiment.

Bohr is basically saying that the fact of complementarity is the answer to the problem. And complementarity means that determinism is lost.

So then the question arises?

Is there another detemining factor? Or is it just random?

I think Bohr has accepted total randomness, but other people are attempting to place conscious observation as a possible guide for the re-creation of complementary phemonmena.

This would be a semi-determinate universe. One which is not rigidly defined as being predeterminate in a Newtonian clockwork sense. But instead it is determined by the psychic power of the observer.

Now clearly, this is open to anyone's guess and is clearly highly controversial. We could run an endless thread on this topic alone.

However, the bottom line is that the universe appears to be half-actual and half-random or half-determinate, and half-indeterminate.

Or half "Cause and effect" and half "Chaos".

However you want to think of it.

The biggest question that arises here is what happened before conscious observers?

This is a highly charged question, and can be answered in many ways.

Spiritually minded people will simply say that there was never a time when spirit was not aware of itself. And therefore the question is moot.

Athseist people have a bit more of a problem. They would have difficulty in understanding how order came into the universe prior to conscious guidance. Although this question is not entirely difficult to address.

The universe could indeed run effiencent on semi-randomness. After all, it's only semi-randomness not full randomness, and the reason is because of complementarity. At least half of the universe is always well-defined. Only half of it is random. And even the randomness is not total chaos but appears to behave by well-defined probabilies. Some things have a much greater likelihood of happening, whilst others almost never happen (given the random probablities as defined by QM).

So even without conscious observation a half-random, a half-determinate universe could unfold with a consistent structure without the aid of a conscious observer to guide it.

In fact, one could argue that the conscious observers are more than likely to screw things up! And we do a great job of that.

In any case, I'm done rambling here.

My main thesis here is that the answer is in the Complementarity of the universe. It's half determinate, and half indeterminate.

Half actual and half dreamlike.

This is what Quantum Mechanics is telling us, and this is what the Copenhagan interpretation is saying. (although the Copenhagan Interpretation itself does not say anything about conscious observers being able to guide the randomness. It just states that half othe universe is random, and half is determinate)

This is also a bit confusing because these "halves" are not constant.

In other words, either half of a complementary phenomenon can take on the deterministic characteristic or the random characteristic at any time. So there is no anchor. It's not like half of the universe is never random. It's a dynamic thing.

The entire universe is a wholistic mixture of semi-determinate-random events. It's all jumbled together. It's not like it has a deteminate aspect and a random aspect. The whole universe is randomly-deterministic if you get my drift.

Think of it this way. Imagine that each standing wave (or particle) in the universe is represented as a PAIR of dice. If you want to experience that particle you must grab onto ONE of the DIE and read what number comes up. When you do this the other DIE is spinning so fast that it virtually has no readable numbers on it.

However, you can grab EITHER of it's single die and read them. But you can never read both dice at the same time.

Not only can you not read them at the same time, but they never both have values at the same time. When one die is being read the other die becomes a pure white sphere with no dots on it's face. It has no value.

But when it reappears (your let go of the first die and grab onto the second), that die instantly become a cube with some number of dots on the face that you are reading. But when you weren't reading it, it had no dots on any face. In fact it had no face at all. It has no actuality until you read it.

That's what QM has to say about the universe. Actuality is lost in Complementarity.

Complementarity is the dragon you would like to slay Michael.

Bell's Theorem is the road that leads to the castle where that dragon lives if you would like to face off with it in a battle to the death.

I am going to assume you meant that: "that actualiziation has NO actuality until is is actualized."

This is a statement I recognize as true, but I would word it this way:

Everything is "probability" until it is experienced or chosen.

Experience is the actuality. All paths through the matrix are probable paths created by mind, but if these paths are not taken they do not actualize. The paths not taken fade away. The path taken actualizes. (Becomes reality.)

Life and reality are "LIKE" dreams that become real and actual by the shear force of the number of thinking centers who choose to agree on what is real. These agreements become laws.

By the way, I have some ideas on how the Dragon of Bell’s Theorem might be slain.

It’s a complex process though. Very complex, which requires also slaying a few dragons in the best of modern mathematics as well.

I’ve noticed that there is an opening for a mathematical argument that could defeat Bell’s Theorem. It’s based on many things.

The first thing is the fact that fermions are 720 degree particles.

I’m not sure if you are aware of this. What this means is that if you take a fermion, an electron say, and walk around it 360 degrees it doesn’t look the same mathematically as it did when you were last standing in front of it. You need to walk around it again before it appears exactly the same. So an electron has 720 degree symmetry instead of the normal 360 degree symmetry of things in the macro world.

Mathematically this is known as “The world’s most important minus sign”. This is the minus sign that gives rise to the Pauli Exclusion principle. Without this very important minus sign the entire universe would collapse to a singular point. This is the magic that creates the physical universe as we know it.

All because fermions are 720 degree particles.

Now Bell’s Theorem does not take this 720 degree symmetry into account. It doesn’t need to because of the way that observational probabilities work out. The minus sign does not affect probabilities. This is because the probabilities are determined by squaring the absolute value of the wavefunction. So any minus signs involved make no difference to the probabilities, and Bell’s Theorem is a statement about observations.

However, if this 720 degree symmetry could be accounted for, the results of Bell’s Theorem would be different, and would potentially match up with the observations of QM. I’m not saying that they would, I’m simply saying that they might work out that way. And of course, if you can get Bell’s Theorem to correctly match observations of QM then you will have restored a solid deterministic actuality. And Bohr’s idea of complementarily will have been defeated.

However, this is truly silly because if you defeat complementarily you will have also overturned the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In short you will have totally slaughtered Quantum Mechanics itself if you beat this dragon!

Moreover, this explanation for Bell’s Theorem would also need to explain the mysterious behavior of the collapse of the wave function in interferometers. In other words, if you slay Bell’s Dragon you will have completely defeated the entire kingdom of Quantum Mechanics!

None the less, this may be possible.

However, in order to do this you would need to become well-versed in the mathematics of Group Theory and Symmetry. Moreover, you would need to first slay their Dragon and topple the entire Cathedral of Mathematics to the ground to become a massive rubble of stones.

Again, this is not entirely impossible.

In fact, I have reason to believe that this particular dragon is about to have a heart attack on its own if someone doesn’t soon slay it.

I know where the magic sword that can defeat the Cathedral of mathematics is kept. It’s locked within the chamber of the Empty Set. There is a fatal flaw in set theory that was formally introduced by Georg Cantor only a few hundred years ago. He has been heralded as the hero of mathematics, yet he has introduced the most deadly virus ever created by mathematicians. It resides in his set theory and has become the foundation of the modern cathedral of mathematics. You must first slay this beast, then rebuild the mathematical temple based on a sound Set Theory that does not contain the paradox of the Empty Set.

This will automatically redefine Group Theory which will drastically change the mathematical rules of symmetry which will topple the Dragon of Bell’s Theorem and crush the Kingdom of Quantum Mechanics thus restoring actuality to it’s rightful place on the Throne of Determinism.

It’s a lot of work, but someone’s got to do it.

I wish you the best of luck Michael.

If you are caught by the Queen of Randomness and interrogated as to your plans, I will disavow any knowledge of your mission.

This post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

4

3

2

1

Empty Set!

Yes, that's precisely what I meant!

I hate typos! But I make many of them.



Experienced? Yes.

Chosen?

That's open to debate.

The idea that you can choose what you will experience is NOT resolved nor even implied by Quantum Mechanics.

Obviously we can CHOOSE how we will react to things. And we can even very pragmatically can see that our reactions have affects that affect how things will unfold.

But we even believed that in Newtonian times.

Even if we believe that the universe is completely physically deterministic, if we believe that we have spiritual free will then we can beleive that spiritually we can introduce causes into this predetermined universe and thus have an affect on it.

QM doesn't necessarily support an atheistic spirituality.

Ok, that's getting really weird, and I'm tired, but the bottom line is that QM does not suggest that things are controlled by observation. All it truly suggests is that the unvierse is not deterministic. It has a random element.

It would seem to me that if we are to have FREE WILL the universe MUST have a random element!

God threw dice to give us free will. Without randomness there could be no such thing as free will.

How could we have free will if we lived in a universe that was COMPLETELY determined?

Something's got to be random if Free Will is to be permitted.

But QM most certaintly hasn't established that we necessarily CREATE reality in it's entirety.

I personally feel that JB and CS are both taking extreme positions and the truth probably lies somewhere between their extreme views.

JB would like to believe that we are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to us. Personally I don't see how that could be possible without complete solipsism.

If we all have equal roles in affecting the universe then we must also be equally affected by the actions of others, and therefore we cannot possibly be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to us.

By "chosen" I mean the path we chose and the decisions we make. Don't get so excited.

I have stated before that the appearance of "randomness" is simply the combined confusion that happens when everyone has free will and everyone has different thoughts and make different choices.

It is not random, it just appears so because of the infinite possibilities. Everything has cause.

You misunderstand me completely when I say that we are responsible for EVERYTHING. We are only responsible for our own choices and decisions and must acknowledge the truth that the consequences that arise from those choices may sometimes not be what we would like or want, but that we were PART OF THE CAUSE of them.

If you do not accept that responsibility then you have DECIDED to be a victim and to think of yourself as a victim.

Well, you know in the past we've had unending debates concerning the concept of whether or not we are responsible for everything that happens to us.

You refused to budge on that issue. You're claim was that we are indeed responsible for everything that happens to use based on your belief and understanding of the Law of Attraction.

I still hold that even this concept of a partially random universe that permits free will to take place cannot be used to justify the idea that each individual is completely responsible for everything that happens to them because that would be ignoring the fact that they aren't the only person affecting the universe.

In fact, this idea that we all may be affecting the universe demands that we cannot possibly be responsible for everything that happens to us as long as other people within this same universe are to also retain their free will as well.

So I just want to make it clear that QM does not support your extremism.

No emotional distress required.

Oh baloney!

You were very demanding that if a person gets raped or abused, or robbed, or crashes in an airplane or anything like that, they were indeed responsible for that event.

I wholeheartedly disagree and even suggest that these conclusion of QM actually support my position that many things that happen to you in this life are totally beyond your control.

The only thing that is within your control is how you react to accepting that they have indeed happened. But that's not at all the same as being responsible for the fact that they happened.

I don't get into quantum mechanics much but I know that there are two different takes on it.

I don't hold a lot of interest in whether or not you think it supports or does not support the law of attraction.

Read my above post about how we are responsible for our experiences and what randomness is. Randomness is created by or IS in fact, the "free will" aspect of consciousness.

If you don't take responsibility for your decisions by realizing that the consequences for your thoughts and actions may not be to your liking, then you have DECIDED that you are a victim of circumstance. You have taken on the roll of the victim.

That's okay if that is what you want to be. We all take on rolls of victim and hero all the time. That's life in the matrix.

If you live your life with this mindset, then you live your life with the mindset of a victim who has no power or control of his life circumstances or what happens to him. This is a person who will always seek to blame someone or something else for every little thing that happens to them.