there is no objective reality?!
There is no objective reality
The mind is in the superposition...
The colours we see are the same light as others see but viewed from our perspective, where a thousand people with cameras could look at the same thing yet see a different image. They can zoom in/out and track an objects movement, a enumerable amount of possible perspective views being available to them.
This perspective based 'physical' reality is what the minds eye sees. That vision being observed and experienced [or not [i.e. like a camcorder]] exists in a superposition. the light in the world – the primary position prior to superposition.
Essentially, if you agree that our vision [what we are seeing] is in superposition [not the same as in the world], then it must surely follow that the consciousness experiencing it is equally in superposition.
More fundamentally, reality is both positions; imagine a transparent human head and as an instrument a bit like a camcorder, that it is relaying informations to the mind. Now as a perceptual object remove thattransparent head to reveal only informations communicating, and the actual image we are seeing.
This analogy is my attempt at revealing the layered nature of reality, remembering that the image we actually see ~ the colours [formerly colour qualia] are 'energy' acting according to informations. Energy changes form according to behaviours, and here I believe the macroscopic perspective based vision [what we lit see], is in the superposition.
We can image the whole thing easily if we think of the brain and eyes as like a camcorder, and that the image we see [being composed by the brain much like a computer/camcorder can draw 3D images] is what's on the view-screen of said camcorder. The only difference is that there is no view screen in the objective world, instead reality is composed of an almost infinite amount of layers, worlds and individual observational perspectives. Mostly to each individual, there is what I call inner and outer world-layers, the inner world is what we actually see [is the view screen] and the outer world is the objective one.
I say 'objective', but each world is equally 'physically real'. Its not just going on in our minds either; if you place a thousand cameras along a shore line looking at the sun at sunset, they would each see a different sunset. If you composed a single image from all the different images, then you would see a large segment of golden coloured sea where the sun shines upon it from all the perspective [instead of a thin strip of sunlight that a given individual/camera usually observes].
In short physical light changes relative to perspectives, and in relativity all things change when observed. The real physical and objective world is never the same to any given observer or observing device.
So what is the objective world?
Well, we may imagine a 3D drawn world with objects in it, much like a world drawn by a computer. In that world there would only be the universal perspective and no sunsets. However, I don't think the universe has a universal observer, to begin with it would require an edge to the universe ~ which doesn't actually have an edge. The universe is as if like drawn upon a sphere [has no edges] then it is bent as if you have deflated that sphere and crumpled it all up such that space is curved.
Here I am taking that idea one step further and stating that the only way to fully resolve our reality, is to add perspectives to that curve. We are the evidence for this [because we see reality differently in real terms not just imaginary ones].
It may be so that only light works in this way? And that an objective reality may be found in terms of atoms. Thing is, atom is just a label.
Energy >is< these things...
energy is something [an emptiness?] which acts in a given behaviour, and when it does, it changes into something we call an energy version e.g. electricity, light, colour, sound, information, knowledge and consciousness.
Feel free to consider any energy form you so wish to imagine, but we have to say that everything we experience is something that energy changes into.
At some level of change, energy is transformed from electrical signals and electromagnetic forces [forces – no labels initially required]. We can see that when in the form of a photon, energy literally becomes light and colour, and when it changes its behaviour into consciousness ~ it is then consciousness.
This may or may not, only occur at the macroscopic level, but what is the difference? At all levels and stages of change for energy, we see it becoming a given something simply by changing its behaviour. Those 'somethings' do not [here] exist as something, they are only energy transformed into that thing.
Here I am not asking why or how, a behaviour or pattern [electricity, thoughts etc] of energy can become light/colour, I am just accepting that it does. Indeed 'energy' should here become an archaic term, because we don't think of it as a 'thinking' thing, we think of energy as a physical entity [not including consciousness and thoughts?].
Should we discard the term due to its connotations, or change the way we think about it?
Or should we keep the term as representing so called physics? Isn't that a failure to provide a term that represents everything we know to exist? To wit we Must then have 'something else' to describe reality and its aspects?
I cannot find anywhere to make a division!
The universe: an organic computer?
Looking at any frequency on a screen, I am lost wondering just how that can literally be information. I still cannot philosophically transcend the gap between shape/object and mental information, and for that matter anything I would consider to literally be information i.e. an object cannot be directly transformed into information, except in a representative fashion [hence our subjective nature].
However, a computer can form macroscopic objects on our screens, and it does that with its language ~ binary code. The switching between 0's and 1' create patterns which collectively build into the information required to compose an image.
Here I am considering the idea that the universe is doing the very same thing but in tertiary fashion i.e. 3 integers instead of 2. everything in the universe moves between the three polar positions [positive/neutral/negative], and so equally creates patterns and alignments which literally draw what the consciousness and the world is.
_
Reply With Quote
