Hi Dan
Dan:
That's my thinking as well. We create reality, not the other way around.
And those who fight against this notion are so convinced they are
independent observers of a separate reality it is impossible to reason with
them. They throw up a whole host of reasons why this cannot possibly be so.
Personally I would avoid saying we create reality, rather I'd say that the
only reality we directly know is
experienced reality. But where does this leave the idea of what reality
might transcend our individual
experience, or general human experience, or the reality that we assume
existed prior to human beings
or life on Earth. I know what status I give it, it is best approached via
science, that creates theories
and ideas that go beyond direct experience (by using equipment for example).
Now problematically
science takes this approach based on SO-Metaphysical thinking. I think
science can be re-conceptualised
using MOQ, but In do not think however that this removes the need to see
scientific theories and ideas
as about an independent reality that goes on with its processes with or
without human experience
'creating' it. Obviously you could respond that quantum theory does seem to
suggest such a requirement,
but this is controversial and I think misses the point about scientific
theories in general, many if which
are not based on QT, and the subjective observer-interpretation of QT makes
no sense without SOM,
and is really just a way of finding a way to avoid the uncertainty at the
heart of the collapse of the wave
function, and perhaps says more about DQ than it does about the relationship
between experience and
reality (ie suggesting that no processes take place without observation).
Again, I do agree that without experience there is no reality, but through
experience and via science
we can go on to create an understanding and ideas that allow us to make
sense of a universe that
is greater (transcends) what we can fully and directly experience and has
and will exist before and
after the lives of all human beings and our species (so rejecting the
anthropocentrism that DMB
embraces). To my mind a reconceptualised science in MOQ terms can handle
such a non-anthropocentric
reality, and MOQ can also help science to cast off the dualistic SOM
conceptual problems that currently hinder
it making progress in areas of dynamic openness and chaos theory and dynamic
and open conscious processes.
Regards
David M
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
