That could be explained by Plato's Theory of Forms. And subjective reality versus objective reality (Plato's Allegory of The Cave).

I think you got it because you asked about the very thing that I is the most difficult for me to wrap my own wits around.

The thought process goes something like this.

1. There was an event. (The reality.)

2. People saw it. (Observation)

3. People don't agree as to exactly what happened. (No agreement)

The lack of agreement at step 3 seems to prove that agreement was not necessary for the reality at step 1.

But the unreality in step 3 is not disagreement about the event. It is disagreement about the details.

There is agreement that something (the event) happened at step 1. So the event is real.

Its only the details that aren't real because of the lack of agreement.

This sound like Quantum Mechanics.

Everyone agrees that's something's happening. But no one can agree on the details of how it happens.

Perhaps time is circular then. LOL

Since reality is created by agreement, there is no difference between a "prenuptial" agreement and an "on-the-fly" agreement. They both create reality.

There are no real details to address regarding Tribos post, so I can't address any details. All I can say is, the theory states that the agreement creates the reality. So the reality couldn't exist before the agreemnt. Thus the use of the past tense. For it to be real "now", the agreement had to happen at or before "now"

Realities exist inside of other realities.

1.)Everyone has their own personal reality. This is their perceptions, feelings, beliefs etc. If their personal reality does not agree to some extent with the reality of the environment or society, they may be deemed by (others) to be delusional or insane.

2. Every reality has its own separate spacetime. This means that even though we keep track of the time in our shared reality, sometimes our own perception of time does not agree with that, but we forfeit our own perception in favor of the agreed upon perception.

Example:
(Boy how time flies, I did not realize how late it has gotten.)

A shared reality has agreements which are 'laws.' These laws are in place before an observer soul (higher self or spirit) incarnates into that shared reality and this reality has been created (manifested) previously.

It would be like entering a virtual reality computer game. The game has a set program and rules. If you want to play the game, you agree to the rules. You are not permitted to reprogram or "hack" the game.


JB

Yeah that idea has been floating around in my head all day.

In the case of the courtroom scenario, you could actually say that the reality was just a set of probabilities made up of the opinions of the witnesses. Or even that the reality existed in several different states simultaneously - each state represented by the opinion of one witness.

That's so similar it's almost scary.

I think you should define "reality" here.

I define "reality" as the experience and perception of the observer(s).

If experience and perceptions are shared and agreed upon that reality is a shared reality. But if you and another person are seeing two completely different things, that is not a shared reality.

Example:

I am standing on a beach talking to you but you are not seeing the beach. You are in a park. Yet we see each other and we can talk to each other. I mention the seagulls and you think I am hallucinating. You mention the squirrel in the tree and I don't know what you are talking about.

The only true reality in that scene are the observers observing each other. The rest is their personal reality.

A shared reality is that everyone on the beach sees the beach and agrees that they are at the beech.

Think of reality as a dream. In a dream, you see space and objects, mountains and sky. But when you wake up they are gone. Who created that dream reality? Your mind did.

If you could invite me into your dream and I agreed to see your vision and accept your rules, then I would be in your created reality.

The only thing difference from a dream and this shared holographic type reality is the duration and the agreeing participants who have entered it.

We could simply be inside of someone's dream.

Yes, it's logical if you accept the premise that proves the result. ("There is no first cause because there is no beginning to time.") But I don't see a reason to accept the premise that there was no first point in time. That's all.

Fair enough. This is just a theory and I've only been exploring it for about 16 hours so far. It could completely fold up at any time. The last one I had took a few days before it fell apart. (Thanks to Abra's disitegrator ray.) I'm hoping this one will last a little longer.

Absolutely no disagreement there.



There is no incompatibility with the agreement-created reality theory here.

However, the agreement-created reality theory does not require there to be any laws in place "before" incarnation. Nor does it specifically prohibit "hacking the game".

Of course the concept of "before" requires a spacetime environment.

What theory are you referring to? Is this your theory?

The definition for reality has to be "that which is agreed upon". No other definition would be consistent with the theory.

Every person has their own reality consisting of the things they have agreed to. You call this "personal reality".

Then there is a subset of those agreements that is shared with someone else. You call this "shared reality". And there is a different "shared reality" for every relationship that any person has with any other person.

So If you're inside of someone's dream and you both see a pink elephant, then it's real!

No problemo. No conflict with agreement-created reality theory.

Ummmm....

The thread is about my agreement-created reality theory.

But my use of the word "before" was intended to be within the framework of your statement
However, I may have misunderstood you and used it incorrectly.

Perhaps one of the reasons we seek others who agree with us is that we desire to share our reality with others.

This is a good example of "like attracting like."

When enough observers are gathered together who agree on enough things their 'environment' takes shape.

Then again, it could be just a cult forming.

I know I personally enjoy watching these types get torn a new one on the stand. It got to the point where I could tell which ones would crumble pretty easily. Now would that be referred to as "predicting outcome"?

That's my job in life.

I go around bursting eveyone's bubbles.

I've been trying to burst Jess Lee's bubbles for years now, but she refuses to blow any.

People like Lexfont and Redykeulous won't blow any bubbles either. They stay solidedly grounded in the mundane world of pragmatism.

They have no romanctic notions to burst.

I have an unburstable romantic notion.

I am that I am.

Period.

Whatever will be will be.

Que Sara Sara

No explanations required.

It was your insistence on pointing out that the observer-created reality theory couldn't support more than one observer that forced me to junk it and look for something else. The agreement-created reality is a lot more solid, a lot simpler, explains a lot more, and is more compatible with everything - especially QM.

Or at least it seems that way 20 hours into it.

I still fail to see how the notion of 'agreement-created' reality solves the problem for isolated societies.

They wouldn't be able to agree until after they made contact with each other. So what would prevent them from creating two entirely incompatible pictures of reality prior to meeting up with each other?

They can't be in agreement until they know what each other has done.

So I still fail to see how this solves the problem.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

If you take backward causation seriously its not just a cute lill platitude.

Also what would cause the sensation if the observation creates the reality?

Your back to god did it. I dont really get philosophizing within a system that requires prime cause ie god.

Seems to me to be a waste of time.