The Nature of Being: Direct Observation vs. Intellectual Interpretations of Reality

[Comment on List]: "I still find it hard to believe that it is impossible to prove i am real. I can only believe I am Real."

You can observe directly the fact that you exist without any form of reliance on any form of analysis. Or have you forgotten how to use your physical senses? Godel's Law shows that no self-referential logical system can prove its own existence, so your attempts to logically prove that you exist are predisposed to failure, according to Godel's Law.

Operationally, one should do well to recall Godel's Law and apply it to the operations of the human analytical system. Godel's Law also states, to put it in simple terms, that there is no logical system which can include all information regarding all things, while at the same time, there is no logical system which can be developed which is not paradoxical.

For example, evaluate the following expression:

"This sentence is true. The preceding sentence is false."

So, is the first sentence true or false?

It is a paradox.

The empirical approach is the only viable way.

[Comment on list]: Only if no observer effect occurs, reality maybe just a consensus of the beliefs of the group.

What you are describing is a process of intellectual interpretations of the reproducibly observable facts. Such analytical constructions are limited according to Godel's Law. There is no consensus "reality" in actual fact, due again to Godel's Law. Remember, beliefs may have nothing to do with facts. For example, if it is observably raining, one does not need to believe it is raining for it to continue to rain. Conversely, doubting that it is raining, does not seem to reliably cause it to stop raining. Thus, relative to the empirical facts, both beliefs and doubts are fictions.

What you are suggesting has brought about a vast array >of difficulties in the world, and you are suggesting that these difficulties should continue.

Empirical inquiry and exploration do not involve doubt. Where doubt should arise is when some paradigm has risen from the "consensus" which is contrary to the observable facts. Where beliefs are contradictory to the observable facts, it is the beliefs that should be abandoned, NOT the facts. Doubting what one is "told", is a valid tactic for an empiricist, who strongly prefers first-hand experience over any verbiage.

Regarding your other explorations, I found them delightful and refreshingly different concepts which may have some substance in fact. For example, you said:

"Does the observer affect the observed, If yes then think of how your thoughts effect the universe, your beliefs & Doubts. If the observer effect is true, then science is very much like religion , faith achieving expected results, Rules only being Valid till something better comes along to explain why they are wrong then the truth becomes false and a new rule dictates nature a new Truth created till something better comes along. If the observer effect holds true then any part of localized space can have different laws of physics compared to other parts, the rules being dictated by the observers in that part of space."

Does the observer effect the observed? Yes. And also, the observed affects the observer. Indeed thoughts, attitudes, emotional states, attentions, and intentions DO affect the universe. There is a physics for this, which is the energetic physics of Consciousness. In the most compact form, this physics says that the energetic of Consciousness is emanating and receiving symplectic electromagnetic radiations continuously, which radiations result in divergences in the quantum field, which field directly influences the outcome of any manner of event which involves probability.

However, please to keep in mind that, in these terms, human consciousness is not the ONLY form of consciousness involved in these equations. It seems that anything which has existence is either some form of consciousness, or is resulting from, some form of consciousness. For example, Bohm showed mathematically that electrons possess a rudimentary form of consciousness. (See "The Undivided Universe") And let us not disregard the data which inform us that even the vacuum has a memory, which implies the possibility that the Universe has/is a consciousness. Thus it seems that everything is involved with this aspect of reality. Now, with regard to some of the details of the QM aspects of this process, one might recall the recent paper by Henry Stapp on the topic of "quantum matter". Given that Stapp's expressions are accurate, it is a small step to realize that the quantum matter may have various phase states, rather like normal matter, and that degree of "solidity" of these phase states are indicative of the degree of malleability of the event(s) to be precipitated from the quantum information field. That is to say, that the "Observer Effect" to which you have alluded has some merit in reality, but please remember that these influences are not at all confined to human forms of consciousness, nor even to material forms of consciousness. Indeed, there are indications, that the purely energetic, non-corporeal forms of consciousness, may well be more efficient at influencing the quantum field and in trending the phase state of quantum matter toward the solid state, than are the corporeal forms of consciousness.

You said, "Rules are only valid until..."

Have you ever tried to understand existence without formulating ANY rules? This approach might be called the "Zen of Physics". Everything is just what it is and is just the way it is. And it is our task to simply observe and explore and discover all that is actually happening, at first hand. In this manner, we do not need "rules" or theories or beliefs or doubts. We are simply discovering what actually IS, in a Zen-like way, in a constant unceasing exploration of our reality. I try not to reach conclusions, because after all, there is a terrific amount of Universe to be explored. As a friend of mine once observed, "The funny thing about Infinity is, there sure is a lot of it!" :)

Finally, you suggested that the laws of physics might differ according to location. There is no empirical evidence to completely refute such a view. However, based on the observational data that is available, we can observe the fact that while, on the one hand, space is anisotropic and everywhere possessed of the quality of Uniqueness, on the other hand, we see no direct evidence that the fundamental equations of Maxwell are not valid at any particular location. On the third hand, there are a great many anomalies which cannot be explained other than by incorporating Consciousness directly into the physics.

At this point, my hypothesis is that the quantum potential, being superluminal, is the primary determinant. What is still at issue is in how many ways and to what degree the quantum potential is influenced. For example, there are indications that the information field may be influenced by consciousnesses inhabiting other universes and dimensionalities. If this possibility has any factual basis, then the physics become vastly more complicated. It looks to me, like this complication is actual, at this point, because of the facts of the hyperdimensional involvements in the normal expressions of the physics, such as the quaternionic basis of the Maxwell equations.