You mention the film Mindwalk. I cannot find it on Netflix - has it just been released?
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > As far as I can tell, the universe is the > > > *cooperative* co-creation of all of the sentient > > > beings that compose it. Each of them contributes > > > a piece of the puzzle -- each perceiving and, on > > > a quantum level, bringing realities into existence > > > *by* perceiving -- but the puzzle itself has a > > > consensual existence beyond the individual > > > sentient beings. > > > > > > The universe is not going to miss you when you > > > are gone. And it won't go away. Therefore, you > > > do not "create" it. You merely perceive it, and > > > try to make sense of what you perceive. Again, I > > > have *no problem* with what you perceive being > > > totally different than what I perceive. But > > > neither what you perceive nor what I perceive > > > constitutes the whole. It's just two points of > > > view in a universe composed of the relationships > > > between an infinite number of points of view. > > > > What you are spinning here makes a lot of sense-- even could be seen > > as an answer to many questions, but I cannot buy off on it as Truth, > > something you regularly question yourself here. > > Nor did I present it as Truth, or even truth. > It is, like everything I say here, merely my > opinion. My argument is NOT with you, Jim, or > with the *perception* of Unity, if that is what > you are really having, it's with imprecise lang- > uage when trying to describe that perception. > > The "New Age" tends to throw "create" around > where they really mean "perceive." I think it's > not a favor to either word, or to what they are > trying to convey. > > > I can't say for sure what you are saying is accurate-- might be and > > might not be. Sounds like a really good theory and belief to me- > > seriously. > > Part of the last paragraph comes from the movie > I was watching last night while I was typing it, > Fritjof Capra and his brother's wonderful film > "Mindwalk." Capra IS a physicist, and the author > of "The Tao of Physics." He understands the rami- > fications of quantum theory better than most. And > while it may be "true" under quantum theory that > an electron doesn't really exist in a fixed, meas- > urable position in space until someone tries to > measure it (and thus *perceives* it), the percep- > tion DOES NOT "create" the electron. It has always > already been present as a kind of sphere of poten- > tialities and probabilities. All that the percep- > tion of the scientist does is to "freeze" it mom- > entarily in one position, *as if* it had been > "created" there. But it was always already present > in ALL positions around the nucleus. Perceiving it > in one position around the nucleus didn't "create" > it there. > > My point is that is may *seem* as if we "create" > the world when we perceive it, but I honestly do > not think that this is the case. We perceive the > world, and in so doing, "freeze" a part of an > infinite number of potentialities and probabilities > into a momentary configuration. That momentary > configuration "fights it out" with the momentary > configurations perceived by billions and billions > of other perceivers, and the result is what we > call the world. But the world was not really > "created" by any one of them, or even by all of > them working together. It has always already been > present, in a fluid, non-formed state of potentiality > and probability. > > Or not. :-) > > They're just theories, Jim. >
