Sounds like the many worlds interpretation has some similarities to agreement-created reality.

The difference seems to be that in the many worlds theory, the agreement moves the observers between universes, whereas in the agreement-created reality theory, the observers are in the same universe and the agreement simply creates (or changes) that one common universe.

What is "Passing through the gauntlet of peer review"?

Is it anything more than "peers agreeing"?

So you're saying that it's not "real" until people agree with it?

I agree!

Sorry I can't provide something tangible, but the theory itself says that if you don't agree with something, then it's not tangible.

(Not trying to goad anyone here. Just toying with the implications of the theory is all.)

You may be able to understand an agreement created reality more if you knew more about hypnotism.

There has to be more to it than simply an agreement if you are defining the observer as a human being in a body of flesh.

For example, lets say I lived in a card board box in an alley, along with a few other homeless people and we decided to 'agree' on a new reality; one where we were really living on a tropical island.

So we found a way to truly convince ourselves that we could do that and lets say we were successful. Suddenly we were on a tropical island.

Did we really transform our reality or are we simply delusional? Does it matter?

How long can we sustain the delusion if it is a delusion?

Or how long can we sustain this new reality if it is real?

All realities are temporary.

How long can we sustain this one?

JB

You get big angry and frowny faces for not knowing what I meant by peer review.

Scientific peer review.

If reality is created after the observation of said event . . . . . I am missing how you are not describing retro causation . . . .

Don't be angry at my ignorance. Help me to understand. So what exactly are the requirements for passing peer review?

The theory is that the reality is created at the instant of agreement. Not after it.

Not sure what you mean by "retro causation". Could you clarify for me?

[edit]
Ok I found retro causation. Baiscally, "the cause comes before the effect."

I don't think that applies because there is no time between the agreement and the reality. The agreement and the appearance of the reality are simultaneous.

So if we see a light in the sky, the light was not real until we agree?

So the light never traveled from its origination? It just poof'd into existence the moment we both saw it?

Is consciousness needed to be one of the agree'ers?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scientific peer review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

First it has to be falsifiable. Start there, if we cant test it, its useless as science, just like string theory right now.

Its a great idea, but not science yet.


If this is what your really talking about then I think im done with this convo, tell me it aint so sky.

I think everyone has tried this lol, we all do when we are kids, in fact if this where true, kids would rule the world. MUAHAHAHAH Heck kids even believe it!

If a tree branch falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If I kick your ass in the woods, can anyone hear your screaming?

if every time your in the woods and a branch breaks and you hear it, then whether someone is there or not it will make a sound. its like a distant thunderstorm to far away to hear the thunder but close enough to see the lightning, we know every time there is lightning there is thunder, so things like that through having experienced them thousands of times gives answer to the question. yes.

It is a very serious question. The only thing that makes this reality any different from a dream reality or a holodeck is duration, integrity and the enhancement of the senses.

Take any dream and increase its duration, give it sustaining integrity, and enhance your own five senses and you have reality.

1.) Increase the length of the dream
2.) Increase the integrity of the environment of the dream
3.) Increase your five senses in the dream.

Then the dream is no different from any other reality. (Or indistinguishable from any other reality.)

This reality is simply an enhanced, lengthened, stabilized DREAM.


JB

no matter how long or how enhanced the environment or senses may be - a dream is a dream is a dream -----------------------------------

you want to escape what your expieriencing and call it a dream or hologram, but this is real, it's neither a dream or a hologram, i dont feel pain in dreams i fell pain in life. i can fall from a tall buildig and land on my feet unharmed i cannot do that in reality. and neither can you or anyone else."let go luke - and use the force!!"

What make you assume that I want to escape what I am experiencing?

What makes a dream a dream?

1.) It ends when you wake up. (Duration)
2.) It is not as real as this reality. (Enhance the senses)
3.) It fades away and keeps changing. It is not stable. (So stabilize the dream environment)

Presto! Reality as we know it.

If your senses are enhanced and the duration of the dream environment is lengthened and the integrity of the environment is a stable you could be completely convinced that you your are experiencing your true reality.

Vivid dreams have space and time and objects and landscapes. Sometimes you can feel pain in dreams. I once tasted chocolate in a dream. I once fell off a cliff in a dream and hit the bottom. It woke me up with a start and I felt as if someone had hit me in the chest.

So row row row your boat gently down the stream.....
Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily, life is but a dream....

How do you know, beyond conjecture? With no recording device and no one to hear it,how do you know? I didnt come up with this, its an Einstein thought experiment.

Yes.

If that’s the agreement then yes.

I think agreement must to be defined in terms of two “consciousnesses” making the same decision at the same time. So I would think that consciousness would be a requirement for agreement.

Although there are some interesting things implied by “agreeing with a measuring device”.

But for now, I think I’ll stick with “Yes. Consciousness is required for agreement.”

I’m not sure if it is falsifiable or not. I don’t think it is. So at this point it’s not useful to science.

It aint so.

Answer this one and you'll have your answer to that one...

If a tree branch falls in the forest and someone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Im assuming that if a person heard it,then it made a sound. But if noone is there to hear it and no device recorded it,then how does one truly know it made a sound (beyond conjecture)?

If you assume that it made a sound when they were there, then why not also assume that it made a sound when they weren't there?

Both are assumptions. No reason to assume one and not the other.

Well, according to Einstein, there is no way to know if it made a sound or not beyond making an assumption. But assumption aint science.

Did Einstein ever go into a forest and NOT hear a branch make a sound when it broke? have you? if this is true of all who have done so, then it holds that it would be the case. i don't here the frogs croak when i'm not around them but i assure you whether i'm there or not they do. I don't here the wind blowing through the trees whaen i'm inside but as soon as i open the door i do. Einstein was very intellegent but not always full of common sense.