OK, just for fun, I think I've hit upon a way of explaining the "mulitple- and separate-reality" model to those who prefer to believe that when it comes to Reality, "There can only be One."
My idea (and remember, this is just for fun) is to try to explain to those who are not database dweebs the difference between hierarchical and relational databases. My opinion is that the problem with most religious or spiritual models is that they are hierarchical, whereas the universe they are trying to describe or "define" is relational. >From Wikipedia: "A hierarchical data model is a data model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_model> in which the data is organized into a tree <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_data_structure> -like structure. The structure allows repeating information using parent/child relationships: each parent can have many children but each child only has one parent. All attributes of a specific record are listed under an entity type." [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hierarchical_M\ odel.jpg/320px-Hierarchical_Model.jpg] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hierarchical_Model.jpg> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hierarchical_Model.jpg> Notice the tree structure? Now put "Brahman" in the top (parent) box and everything else in the lower (child) boxes and you have the Vedic or Hindu view of the universe. Put "God" in the parent box and everything else in the child boxes and you have Judaism and Christianity and all theist religions. And, in my opinion, you *also* have the basis of their view of what "Reality" entails. In their view, "there can be only One" because they perceive the universe hierarchically, all "descended" from one "parent" that resides at the top of the tree structure. Again, from Wikipedia: "The relational model for database <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database> management is a database model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_model> based on first-order predicate logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic> , first formulated and proposed in 1969 by E.F. Codd <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd> . Its core idea is to describe a database as a collection of predicates <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28mathematical_logic%29> over a finite set of predicate variables, describing constraints <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_%28database%29> on the possible values and combinations of values. The content of the database at any given time is a finite (logical) model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28logic%29> of the database, i.e. a set of relations <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28database%29> , one per predicate variable, such that all predicates are satisfied." [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Relational_Mod\ el_2.jpg/280px-Relational_Model_2.jpg] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relational_Model_2.jpg> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relational_Model_2.jpg> In the relational model, different elements are *not* necessarily bound in a parent-child relationship. Any type of relationship is possible, including equal-to-equal. The links between different tables (elements of the database or, in this analogy, elements of creation) exist only to provide access from one element to another, not necessarily to define any kind of hierarchy or dependency. I think that the universe is relational, not hierarchical. I think the same thing about realities. That they all exist, as separate elements, linked only by one's ability to access one from another, not by any kind of hierarchy or parent-child relationship. In a relational universe, the fact that one person (call him a "seer" in the Vedic or mystical sense, in that he "sees" things differently than others around him, and talks about it) perceives the universe differently than others does NOT imply that he is "seeing" the top level of a hierarchical tree, the "Brahman" or "God" box in the tree structure. It merely implies that he is perceiving the universe differently, on an equal-to-equal basis with how others around him are perceiving it. His view of reality is not Reality, or "better" or "higher" or "more evolved" or "more accurate" than anyone else's. It's just another table in the database. That's my shot at explaining my affinity for "multiple realities" vs. "One Reality perceived multiple ways." I'm not trying to sell my affinity for this view to you, merely explain it. Your mileage may vary. In fact, if I'm right, it should, because you live in a different reality than I do. :-)
