As I see it, the problem with accepting the “observer-created reality” is that in some cases it appears that “self” is cause, and in some cases it appears that “other” is cause.

I’ve dubbed this the “separate cause” problem.

And this separate cause is exactly what the “pure” observer-created reality theory says is not true.

This then leads to the search for “modifications” – like what has been called the “prenuptial agreement” and the “collective mind”. But to me, all those modifications do is push the theory farther and farther backward toward the deterministic view that the theory is supposed to free us from.

Now my main reason for leaning toward the “pure” version of the observer-created reality theory, is that it is the only one that has no problems with separate cause. And thus leaves no doubt as to who is responsible for what. (And thus no chance of “shifting blame” or “the victim mentality” or “passing the buck” or any other covertly unethical behavior that depends on denying responsibility for one’s actions. And that was the basis of the “emotional attachment” I had to the theory.)

But that didn't make the problem of “separate cause” go away.

So what if we replace “observe” with “agree”?

“agreement-created reality”: Reality comes into being at “agreement time” instead of at “observation time”

- It solves the problem of “separate cause” – prime cause is always shared equally by everyone who participates in the reality. (Hi Splendid )

- It explains how the “propagation” of reality works – the agreement is the propagation.

- It gives an exact definition for The Nature of Reality – “That which is agreed upon”.

- It points to precisely simple and workable definitions for “subjective” and “objective” (subjective = not agreed upon, objective = agreed upon)

- It doesn’t conflict with any scientifically demonstrable fact. In fact, it seems to be a fairly concise statement of exactly how the “scientific community” operates.

- It even supports some "fringe" ideas – like “multiple realities with only partial overlap”

Occam’s Razor likes it.

Is this the holy grail?!

If it was a demand I would have read all of it

Exactly how bored were you when you posted this

I'm not sure you deserve an answer since you didn't read all of it. But actually, I was quite excited throughout most of it. It's an idea that very elegantly consolidates some ideas and resolves some confusions for me.

yes but if it confuses everyone else, how can it be the wholly grill??? -

The more I read QM the more I lean toward cause being an illusion of 3D macro space.

the wholey grill:


exact definition for The Nature of Reality – “That which is agreed upon”.


nope - not all can be included in " prime cause is always shared equally by everyone who participates in the reality" there are others who donot share as you or i share, yet they are in this with us. to me that would lessen there reality as compared to ours if this was true - just a thought.

Yeah but when do people ever agree on what they have observed? All you need do is go sit down during court in session and listen to witnesses get examined and cross examined on the stand. Some of these people supposedly witnessing the same exact event. I probably just dont understand what you are talking about anyway but that was what popped into my mind.

Well, first of all, that's after the fact of the creation. However, it's still covered by the theory.

The simple fact that they are here in this reality with us means they agreed to it. That's what the theory says.

But I understand that there can be a problem with exactly what constitues agreement. (Which, according to the theory, makes the theory itself "unreal" to those who don't agree with it. WHich in turn just proves the theory! )

If you set up a device with a meter to take a measurement, when you look at the meter, you agree (or not) with the meter.

If someone agrees that what they see with their eyes is actually there, they are agreeing with the information their eyes are delivering to them.

In order to completely disagree with the physical universe, one would have to disagree with everything their five senses told them and every conlusion they had ever made that depended upon those five senses - not an easy thing to do for most people

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKK...........?

so if i'm readibg you correctly this theory has at it's core then that it is what has taken place or is taking place "after" >creation< - correct?
i'll wait for your response -

Uhhhh.... No. It's about the mechanics of the creation itself.

The reality that we perceive to be real is only the reflection of a higher reality of ideas.

Here it is explained by Plato

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/176305

Thanks Mirror. Personally, I think that's pretty close to the truth.

But the topic is really the mechanics of the creation of reality - how it comes into being, not the nature of the resulting creation.

It is the truth my friend.Just as Plato said it was.

Skyhook

Every cause creates an effect and every effect becomes a cause, therefore there is no first cause and no last effect.

Ecclesiastes 1:9: That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's a cute little platitude.

It seems to be pure logic.When has there ever been a first cause or last effect?Who says time is linear?

Skyhook,I agree with you in that we do indeed have have common consensual group perceptions of SUBJECTIVE reality, but Im not sure I subscribe to the idea that OBJECTIVE reality is shaped by our consensual group perceptions.

{quote]Sky wrote:

The simple fact that they are here in this reality with us means they agreed to it. That's what the theory says.

I'm afraid you've lost me Sky. But the above statement seemed to imply a "prenuptial agreement" again. You've even used the word "agreed" in the past tense implying that participations have previously agreed to something before they've even come into this reality.

How would that support a dynamic "agreement-created" reality? That sure sounds like a "post-agreement-created" reality to me. Which implies determinism which you seem to be trying to avoid.

I personally have no problem with *some* determinism. In other words, why does it need to be all-or-nothing? Can't there be a mixture of the two going on? A pre-determined substrate, with indeterminate flexibility?

In fact, this is precisely how I view it, and I have no problem with this idea.

The universe is like a toss of the dice. The numbers on the faces have been predetermined. So in that sense we have a 'deterministic' universe. However, the dice are still free to be rolled randomly, and that's where 'observer-creation' or maybe we should call it 'participant-creation' comes in to play.

And while it's random, it's not completely happenstance.

In other words, it's just like tossing real playing dice. We have a pair of dice. Each die has six numbers ranging from 1 to 6. The pair of dice can randomly roll anything from a 2 to a 12. And any whole number in between. You'll never roll a number less than 2 or more than 12. And you'll never roll a fractional number. So in this sense your rolls are 'deterministic'. However, what is not deterministic are the actual whole numbers that you roll with any given toss. Those numbers are totally random and indeterminate.

So in other words, the physical laws of the universe are the dots on the dice. But those laws don't determine the roll. They only determine the possibilities.

Humans, and dinosaurs, and all complex life forms (and even the precise arrangement of solar systems as they are formed) are the totally random numbers that are coming up on the dice.

So in this way the universe is simultaneously predetermined, yet indeterminate.

In other words, the evolution of human beings was not predetermined. It was merely a random number that came up a particular roll of the dice. Just like a 7 might come up on a roll of playing dice. It was never predetermined that a 7 would come up before the roll, but it was predetermined that 7 was a possible outcome of a roll.

This mixture of predetermines and randomness also allows for FREE WILL in a partially determinant universe.

Free Will is nothing more than a purposeful arrangement of what comes up on the face of the dice.

For example, consider that we were shooting craps, and I called out an eleven. Then instead of rolling the dice I methodically set them down placing one of the die with a number 6 face up and one of the die with a number 5 face up.

You'd instantly call me a CHEATER! But have I broken any fundamental deterministic laws of the dice. No I haven't. I didn't make them show an impossible combination (like a 13 for example). I used what was on the dice and produced an 11. Where I "cheated" was by purposefully arranging the dice rather than just randomly rolling them.

This is how Free Will works. You like to use sports analogies. Let's imagine a fair football game. Nobody knows what the outcome will be because both teams are attempting to win. The outcome will truly be random and indeterminate.

However, if some unscrupulous players decide to 'throw' a game. Then that is like purposefully setting the dice down to come up the way they want them instead of just rolling them randomly. They have the Free Will to cheat.

The dice allow for cheating.

Of course, 'cheating' in the universe doesn't always need to be wrong. It can be the very best thing that could happen!

Imagine that in your travels you see an accident. A car crashes and bursts into flames. A mother and her children are in the car. You have a 'choice'. You can choose to just allow that random event to continue as is and stand there and watch them burn up or you can cheat the universe and run over to the car and pull everyone to safety. Cheating in the universe doesn't automatically equate to 'evil'. Doctors cheat disease out of a chance to gain a foothold in their patients everyday, and no one thinks badly of doctors for being cheaters of the universe.

They are just purposefully arranging the dice to force the outcome that they'd like to see.

Having said all of this. There is a restriction to how you can arrange the dice. First, you must be able to cheat the universe. This means that the numbers that you want to come up must already exist on the faces of the dice. For example, you can't choose to walk up the outside wall of a sky scraper without special equipment. Because the law of gravity will not permit that to happen. Those numbers simply aren't available on the faces of the dice.

Also, in order to cheat the universe you must be able to control the roll. In the heroic example I gave where you saved a mother and children from a burning car, that was only possibly because you could do it. But what if you had been disabled and incapable of doing that. Maybe you are confined to a wheel chair and you're driving your van with your wheelchair in the back and you come across the same accident. Then you physically couldn't become the hero, all you could do is frantically call 911 and hysterically plead with the operator to send help ASAP whilst you watch the victim burn.

Sorry for the gross example. But I think it drives home the point that you must be able to affect the roll of the dice if you are going to change the outcome. If you can't change the random roll then you're stuck having to watch whatever came up randomly.

When we think about this in terms of life in the universe, we see that in the observable part of the universe there are over 70 sextillion stars. That 70 sextillion rolls of the dice.

Or 70 thousand million million million rolls.

How often do humans come up on those rolls? We clearly know that humans are a possible outcome of a roll in this universe. We are living proof of that. What we don't know for sure is just how many other possible numbers can come up. On our planet alone we have almost 2 million species of animals that have evolved and are alive today. Plus many more that have evolved and then became extinct.

But how many possibilities are their really? Are we close to having seen them all. I seriously doubt that. We have probably only seen the mere tip of the iceberg. There may be as many possibilities as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

Humans just happen to be what came up on this planet.

Before I end this post let me explain something to you personally that you might possibly be misunderstanding about me and my position.

I don't claim that we live in a completely 'observer-created' reality. And therefore I have no need to believe in a shared subconscious mind to make the universe work. This is because I'm totally comfortable with the idea that the original dice were indeed deterministic in what they have on their faces. Yet I don't see this as requiring that the universe be deterministic in precisely how it unfolds.

So often times when I speak to issues on the forums I speak to those issue within the context of their premises. In other words, I might say something like, "In a completely observer-created universe there must be a collective subconsciousness in order to make it work"

That doesn't mean that I believe in a completely observer-created universe. I'm just addressing that scenario on a 'what-if' basis.

Like I say, from a personal perspective I believe that the universe is partly deterministic and partly indeterministic. I see no reason why it can't be a hybrid of both. So I wasn't necessarily saying that I believe that must share a subconscious mind. Although I do tend to believe that this may be a possibility in any case. After all, I do believe that we are all spiritual beings ultimately. And let's face it, we really don't know precisely what that would entail. It's an intuitive idea, not a scientifically well-defined idea - yet.