I don't have faith in that. I believe everything is regulated by a central agency. Of course I am a conspiracy theorist. LOL

---- who believes in inner dimensional aliens. LOL

I would pursue science if I had the time, but I'm more interested in art and creativity. I do keep one of my eyes on science though.

I have friends at the PHD level, and they would laugh at that, they submit new research all the time. Some stuff that is so weird I read it and my eyes cross.

Took me 2 years to accept "retro causation" backward causation as anything but a joke, but it is the concept that may allow us to send message back into the past . . . .

Real stuff.

Yep, I believe that. I also believe that there is a machine that can 'see' the future.... but I heard that the use of this machine actually is detrimental to the fabric of reality and that they stopped using it. (Montauk Project)

The flip side of the same coin is that they could not make contact if they did not agree on something. And the only way to resolve both of those problems is by putting the “contact” and the “agreement” at the exact same instant in time.

(It occurs to me that the way you stated the problem is very similar to the problem of cause-and-effect vis-à-vis the “wave function collapse” in QM.)

Nothing at all. There’s nothing in the theory that requires them to have compatible pictures of reality before meeting up with each other. And there’s not even a requirement that their pictures of reality be 100% compatible after they meet up. How compatible were the “pictures of reality” of the missionary and the native when they first met up?

Ummmm….. Yeah. So what is “agreement” if not “knowing what each other has done”? All that says is “they can’t have agreed before they agreed” - which I will agree with.



If I could venture a guess, I’d say it’s more likely something “added” than something “missing”.

In every case I’ve encountered of an apparent problem with the theory, the illustrating example always starts with a statement of what the reality is, and then goes on to explain how the theory fails because there was no agreement.

So the real problem is that it’s necessary to have an agreement in order to prove that agreement is not necessary?

Yes, that is definitely a problem.

Skyhook: I think your concept of reality as formed by group consensus is correct as far as subjective reality is concerned.Just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave all agreed(and believed) that the shadows on the cavern wall were what is real.The one prisoner that escaped and went outside into the sunlight was the only one that knew the truth of objective reality.

I dont really care how off the wall or crazy something sounds, however it needs to be handled in a professional context with a thesis and premise. Just a lot of garbled crap on the net wont cut it for me. It might spark my interest on a personal level but it wont propel me into further investigation simply because nonsensical and unfounded assertions are a dime a dozen.

If you take backward causation seriously, then it seems to me that "first" and "last" have no meaning whatsoever. Back to platitude.

The sensation is the reality.

No problem there.

There is nothing in either the observer-created or agreement-created reality theories that requires the existence of "god".

Yes, I will agreee that the observer-created reality theory can't support more than one observer. But that's not the case with the agreement-created reality theory.

I agree that it seems a waste of time to you. So that "seeming as a waste of time" is reality. No argument there.

Jeannie said:Well I'm glad you've worked out your fears and I'm sorry you think I have some to work out. To that degree our personal realities are different.

If you postulate that there is a reality (humans in a room together) and also postulate a "no agreement" condition within that reality, then you have postulate a theory that is different from the agreement-created reality theory. I can't defend the theory if you demand that I use a different theory that directly contradicts the theory you want me to defend.

This is all explained by Plato's theory of Forms The Forms (of objective reality) enable us to establish group consensus of what we perceive.

Interesting....

I got lost around that last curve. But it was a fun ride anyway.

We seem to have a semantic problem.

I define subjective and objective as follows:

objective: having to do with material things like matter

subjective: having to do with non-material things like thought

So I'm having a hard time with the way Plato used them.

But aside from that, I don't see any compatibility problems between the agreement-created reality theory and Plato's Cave parable.

[edit: Sorry Sorry Sorry. I got the two words mixed up through a copy error. See new words/definitions. Again, my bad bigtime.]

This reminds me of something Jesus said:

"Anyone who is not against you is for you. Anyone who is not with me is against me. Anyone who is not against us, is for us."

I don't see any incompatibility between Plato's Forms and agreement-created reality. Although the argreement-created reality theory seems much simpler to me then Plato's Froms. And I like Occam's Razor.

Subjective is what we perceive to be true.But perceptions can differ between observers. Objective is what is ALWAYS true. Like 1+1=2.(For example)

Ok, I'll put it another way:

In that example, where is the reality that is/was not agreed upon?

The "people in the room" is agreed upon. The "disagreement" is agreed upon. What else is there that is not agreed upon?

got it

Take all of your observers sky and place them all in different universe parallel to each other.

When agreement, bam they are in the same universe. (When I say agreement I do not mean you agree with me that the flash of light was a UFO, but that we both saw it.)

This would be the many worlds interpretation.

Fun stuff, otherwise I just don't see how it works.


Couldn't agree more, if you don't have the evidence to pass through the gauntlet of peer review then your blowing smoke.

That is not to say you wont eventually create something from smoke, just don't bother me with your conspiracy till you have something tangible lol. ( this being an internet forum: you are not bothering me lol)

Sry.