Does matter exist? Revisited

This is in response to a hub done by Spirit Whisperer:

He didn’t leave his hub open to comment so in rebuttal I had to write a hub on the subject myself. Not that I mind. I somewhat cover this topic in the first hub I ever posted here: Observer Driven Reality Check.

I have to say at the outset that I agree with a lot of what he has to say on the subject, but I come to rather a different conclusion from the same evidence. I also want to say I respect him and his thoughts.

I will use his outline and titles to make the comparison of opinions clearer.

Opinions are not truth

“It doesn't matter how eloquent or beautiful an opinion like Quantum Mechanics or Relativity might be they are still opinions and ultimately fall short and fail to explain the Universe the Scientists are so keen to understand.

It doesn't matter how many people support an opinion to the degree that it is classed as a justifiable belief, in my books an opinion is still not truth.” - Spirit Whisperer.

I agree completely with the statement that opinion is not truth. However, QM and Relativity are not just opinions; they are models of reality based on experiment and observation. Science does not pretend to have all the answers yet and it knows it falls short of explaining reality. Hence the reason it continues to revisit models it has created and updates them on a regular basis. A model is not reality but it may represent reality if it actually reflects reality. That is to say a model has to be able to make predictions about behaviour and it has to explain it in logical terms.

QM makes exceptionally accurate predictions about the behaviour of the quantum, and we use those predictions in technology which is revolutionizing our way of life. Relativity has been proven true every time it has been tested and it has been tested most vigorously by people who wanted it to, or expected it to fail.

Why the quantum behaves as it does is still a mystery. But we can know how it behaves so we have a way to find the answer to why. Relativity may be shown to have flaws in the future, but that is to be expected. No answer in science is the final answer. Theories are built on as new evidence come to light. For example, the model of Evolution has changed a lot since it was first introduced by Darwin. But it is the details we discover over time while the basic model remains the framework. In other words, Darwin did not have the last word on the subject and he knew he didn’t. Same with Relativity and QM. They are works in progress.

Another thing Spirit Whisperer mentioned was the idea that no matter how many people believe something to be true, they will never make it true by their belief. He phrases it as: “It doesn't matter how many people support an opinion to the degree that it is classed as a justifiable belief, in my books an opinion is still not truth.”

I couldn’t agree more. Reality is not based on consensus or authority. Something either is true or it is not. It does not matter how many people believe it is true. If it is not then no amount of belief on its own will make it become true. But this opinion, which Spirit Whisperer is espousing as most of us do, is a problem for his whole line of thought; and I will show you how.

In general there are two opinions about reality. The one being put forth by Spirit Whisperer is that reality is created by mind. The other is that there is an underlying reality which mind, though unable to fully grasp due its subjective nature, can be observed and discovered. The underlying reality is objective and not directly, or at least very marginally affected by thought alone.

Yet if reality were created by thought as Spirit Whisperer and others who promote this idea of observer driven reality suggest, then it would seem that belief should affect reality directly. Truth would be relative to perspective. There would be no objective truth at all. And this is what Fredrick Nietzsche believed and thus started a philosophical school of thought known as Perspectivism.

Certainly seen in this light it seems that the opinion that consensus does not create reality seems to be a contradiction to the notion that reality is thought based.

Generating Right Brain Activity

“I then explain by means of a metaphor how I view the scientific approach to seeking truth by saying it is like asking a computer to describe its user.

Making a statement like this throws the analytical thinker into turmoil because it requires right brain activity and up to this point they have been tucked in safely behind their logical thinking comfort zone content with their limited knowledge.

I am now asking for both right and left brain to participate in the discussion.” - Spirit Whisperer.

Actually I would say it is more like the computer trying to describe itself. After all, we all not only live in reality we are part of it. But let’s stick with the computer/user analogy. The computer would have a good idea of what the user’s mentality is by observing what it forces the computer to do. What the user writes on the internet. What they buy or look at or the information they look for. In other words, by what they do. .

What is a thing besides what it does? This is our problem. We can never talk about what something is directly. The word Electricity conveys a concept. It tells us about a real phenomenon. We use it every day. But what is it? We can describe it accurately as electrons moving through a wire. But what is an electron? We can tell you what it does in several different ways. But you can always come back to ask: What is it? As deep in the explanation as you want to go you never get to what it is. You only get to what it does, how it behaves, how it behaves in relation to other things and its physical attributes. But never to what it is. Or is what it does what it is? A friend of mine once observed correctly: “We can never talk about something. We can only talk around it.”

Science cannot tell us what something is beyond what it does and what its physical characteristics are. What is a human cannot be come to outside of what its biology is and how it behaves relative to other things. So if the computer was sufficiently advanced it could know more about the user than the user does just by observation and reaching rational and logical conclusions about them, and perhaps eventually predict it’s individual users behaviour accurately through statistical analysis.

But what is Spirit whisperer trying to say by right brain left brain? An internet medical journal says this:

The right brain hemisphere processes information from the whole to the parts. In other words, it sees the "big picture" before the details. It's the part of the brain that deals with subjective skills and creative abilities. This hemisphere of the brain helps solve problems via hunches, examining patterns and similarities.

The left brain hemisphere processes information from parts to the whole, taking pieces of data in an orderly arrangement before drawing conclusions. It's the side of the brain that functions in rational thinking, rather than intuition. This left side of the brain works with definite and established information, solving problems logically and sequentially.”

Now I posted this so as not to have to write it all out in my own words, and because it conveys exactly my understanding of the situation as it is now thought to be.

So Spirit Whisperer is asking us to use intuition as well as logic. Of course I would argue that any good thinker does that. Intuition and logic actually go hand in hand. What drives us to do research is the intuition that there is something to find. A critical thinker cross references information in both directions. You have to make sure things make sense in both directions; that is to say from parts to the whole and from the whole to its parts. For information to be fact, both parts and whole have to match.

But intuition is a tool like logic is. Intuition is also known as instinct. As spirit Whisperer points out, language is the vocalization of thought. But language is much more than that. What is thought without a way to communicate concepts, even just to yourself? One of the main reasons we are so advanced mentally is because we have a method of creating and standardizing complex concepts through the use of models or symbols. A word can mean one thing or it can be a complex combination of ideas, like the word religion.

So is what meant by instinct? Instinct is raw natural reaction usually associated with ideas like the fight or flight response. But most of us will agree that once we know more about a subject or a danger, we can modify our response and act outside instinct.

But that is not possible. We have to act on instinct in all cases because thought is too slow. If you think about every move you make on a bike you will fall off or crash into a parked car. If a kung fu master had to think while he was fighting he would be paralyzed. So what thought is for, is educating the instinctive response.

Same goes for the hunch or the intuitive. The intuitive is educated through logical deliberation. The more rational and logical the better it works when it is needed.

So yes. We must use both sides of the brain. But it is a common mistake to believe critical thinkers only use the left side of the brain. It is also a mistake to concentrate on the right side as so many mystics and religious people do. We need the instinctive, but we can’t use it raw. It needs to be educated and we do that best through logical thought.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

“Just as quickly, I return them to their comfort zone and talk about Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explaining how the act of observation affects the results of all experiments. I bring in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here because I want to show how scientists continues to chase after clouds even when the evidence is staring them right in the face telling them that they have reached a cul-de-sac.” - Spirit Whisperer

Here is my problem. The double slit experiment is the root of the idea of Observer driven reality in the modern age. It is likely the most misunderstood and misrepresented idea in all of physics. Again, my Hub called Observer Driven Reality Check goes into great detail about this subject so I won’t repeat it all here. But the main point of the matter is that no one actually observed anything. A sensor is added to the equation and it changes the nature and results of the experiment. That is all that can be concluded. A sensor is not a human observer, so perhaps we should conclude that sensors are sentient and have wills of their own? I don't think so.

The uncertainty principal does not rise or fall by the idea that the observer directly affects all experiments and contrary to popular belief Schrodinger wrote his cat analogy as way of criticizing the idea and showing how absurd it is that it appeared to be true.

There are dozens of alternative explanations as to why the double slit experiments with a sensor show what they show. Included in those is the Feynman theory of “all possible histories”. There is no particle wave duality. A particle takes all possible ways to get to through a double slit and creates interference with itself creating results that look like a wave, Hawking favours this model and it explains the reality we see just as well as Heisenberg did.

But there are dozens of explanations and models now. As Spirit Whisperer would surely agree, they can’t all be truth. And his idea that the Copenhagen interpretation is the right one could be seen as an argument from authority, which is just as much fallacy as the argument from consensus.

It either is true or it is not. Just because many people prefer the idea of observer driven reality doesn’t make it the truth.

Again, all these interpretations are just models of what we observe with QM. But QM does not rely on any one model or indeed any model at all. It is a mathematical tool that does not contain any interpretation in its matrix.

The truth is, we do not know what is going on yet or why. But we can predict the behaviour of the quantum world very well with QM. That is the only truth of the matter at this point in time. Anything else is pure speculation including all known interpretations.

Spirit Whisperer and I agree that all is connected. All fields of science point this out rather dramatically. But we do not agree that there is a universal mind. So far there is no logical reason to assume there is. It is one thing to follow a hunch but it is another to assume your hunch is right before you have concrete evidence for it.

He asks: Is it therefore such a leap in thinking to hold look at yourself in the mirror and appreciate that your physical body is a creation of mind materialised out of the vibration of thought?

To me it is a leap. It is as good as saying we don’t exist. We are a product of mind. This leads inevitably to the extreme idea that there is nothing but mind. The universe is a manifestation of a cosmic mind, existing only in that universal mind and we as individuals are also illusions of or a product of that mind. We have no mind of our own at all, it is part of that one mind.

This is no different than the Hindu belief that all this and of course all of us, exist only in god’s dream. And while Spirit Whisperer may not have meant the idea to go to this extreme, it goes there naturally on its own. It is implied in the idea of observer driven reality.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am under no delusion that what we see is all there is. It is obvious that from the perspective of the quantum world a human does not look like a human. It would likely be hard to tell where a human starts and where the outside ends. And it is not like I am saying we are really solid individuals.

It is obvious that we are a collection of atoms and cells. An ever changing system. And it is likely that the only thing which gives us continuity as individuals is memory. It is likely that the “I” or self is shaped by needs, imperfect senses, and an illusion of complete isolation. But we are truly individuals at the same time.

My problem is with assuming that the subjective is all there is.

Matter is thought materialised

“We are stuck in the illusion because we choose to believe in the illusion that keeps us separate and in conflict. We continue to hold fast to beliefs that no longer serve us and in doing so we imagine that matter really exists because the mind that created the illusion continues to feed us the thoughts that maintain the illusion and protect the ego which is its ultimate goal.

Matter is an illusion created by mind and the stuff of matter is thought. It is the frequency of thought that dictates the appearance of matter. The connection between thought and matter is clearly demonstrated by science which has shown that when we interact with matter through observation we affect it. I also propose that we also create it.”

We do affect matter with thought, but not by thought alone. We think and then we have to reach out and do something in order for our thoughts to become reality. Does our “thought vibration” affect matter all on its own? It is not without possibility. Thought is a quantum process as well as a material process. In fact it is the quantum that makes matter. But the strange quantum effects are filtered out by the process of mergers which turn the micro in to the macro. This was also something predicted by Heisenberg and the uncertainty principal. According to him we should never see quantum strangeness in the macro world.

What we do see are the laws of chaos which are a direct result of the quantum, and a manifestation of those strange non-local events having influence in local events. The Butterfly Effect is one good example. The fact that opposites cancels out is another.

Chaos breeds order. That’s the strange thing we have found about the macro which corresponds exactly to the micro.

But whatever influence thought alone might have on the macro world through the micro, it is mitigated by events not happening due to a mind, and is likely minimal at best.

What I am saying is that there is one reality, but it is a combination of all layers of reality. It is a combination of objective and subjective. The perspective of the mind can either reflect the underlying reality or it can ignore reality and create its own. But its own interpretations of reality can be dead wrong. Spirit Whisperer would no doubt agree.

The problem with saying that there is no objective reality is that people saying it are telling us it is objectively true. That makes no sense. We see truth as objective, so telling us there is no objectivity is saying there is no truth. This negates the possibility that their statements are true by default. You can see the problem with that line of thinking. And again, I address this in the Hub Observer Driven Reality Check.

That’s what we are looking for, the objective truth, Subjectivity is part of that but it isn’t all there is. If it was then nothing would make sense. Science might as well pack up and go home. In fact, Bell asked this very question. Is there a realty to study? His conclusion through experiment was that there is.

So yes. Matter exists outside the mind and its existence is not due to mind. Rather mind is due to matter/energy which is the only substance that exists and which all things are formed from. That at least, is the working model the findings of science imply. If that was not the case we would live in a universe where our wish was its command. We would all be rich and healthy just by believing we are. But it doesn’t work that way. The mind and body have to work together. The subjective and objective are part of all humans. The left and right brain have to be used together in critical thinking. Thought is a tool for educating the instinctive and the intuitive. Without "doing", thought is a prisoner.

More by this Author

  • Pantheism vs. Catholicism

    It is interesting to look at how others see us. While doing a search for Pantheist web sites on the net, I ran across the Vatican’s own definition and rebuttal to Pantheism.

  • There Is an Exception to Every Rule

    There is a big problem with some sayings that seem perfectly logical. Let’s look at this common example: There is an exception to every rule. Most people would just start thinking of all the rules they can recall to...

  • The Bible and the Oppression of Women

    The feminist movement has made a lot of inroads in the last century, but it is difficult to fight literally centuries of being considered inferior and even evil by men in society. It is even harder to fight the...


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Hi Slarty:

Damn! I am impatient! :):

It took too darned long to get to this:

"Matter exists outside the mind and its existence is not due to mind. Rather mind is due to matter/energy which is the only substance that exists and which all things are formed from."

And, of course, if their were not a left and right brained life form to make sense of it all, it'd still "exist!"

In my "weird" brain, mass might exist within mass, within mass!

That is, our universe and all its existing "mass," may be part and parcel of the QM of a wad of bubble gum that some kid may be chewing who exists in a cosmos rife with "mass" which in truth exists in an environment containing more space than than that which constitutes its mass...where the hell am I going with this?...:lol: :lol:

I can't disagree with it Slarty,'s a Good hub usual :):

Voted up!


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

You have very eloquently and in a balanced way expressed your opinions in this brilliant hub. I am flattered that my hub prompted this rebuttal and I thank you for taking the time to respond as you did. Voted up and awesome!

qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

My pleasure Slarty...:):


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author


Sorry for not getting to the point any quicker. lol... It wouldn't have rated as a hub if I had just come out and said it from the beginning. And I had to lay the groundwork, right?

Thanks again for your continued support of my hubs, my friend. ;)

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Spirit Whisperer

I'm so glad you took it in the spirit it was written. As I said in the hub, while I do not always agree with your views I respect them as coming from someone of intellect and honesty.

Observer driven reality is a favorite subject of mine. I very much enjoyed your hub and wanted to add my two cents.

Thanks again for reading this. ;)

qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Slarty, join the club! Yer just a loquacious nerd! :)


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Slarty, bravo. Nicely done.

Scientists have been finding proof of Relativity for nearly a century -- from the bending of starlight around the sun during an early-20th century Solar eclipse, to the astronaut's clock slowing down in one of the Gemini flights in the mid-60's.

More than a dash of intuition with your logic, Einstein swore by "imagination" and used it heavily in his development of Relativity. As the epitome of genius, he naturally wanted to use the whole brain, not just half.

Reality is one of my favorite subjects -- perception, delusion, creation, truth and relative truths. Perhaps we can never fully know "truth," but we have many wonderful "relative truths" learned through science.

Many in the religious community seem to ignore the fact that science is batting close to 1000 (has high marks, for those who aren't familiar with American baseball jargon). When the so-called "fundamentalists" ignore science, they're ignoring our shared reality, and that's tantamount to delusion.

Perhaps all of the great religious thinkers understood this, and there have been damn few of them, it seems.

The American CIA tried to make remote viewing work. That would've been cool for the spy business (also a little scary for privacy freaks). The CIA couldn't make it work, partly (perhaps even wholly) because of the attitude of some of the scientists. The observer effect in this realm is readily apparent. Why? Because the typical SOP for scientists is skepticism (which includes a healthy dose of doubt).

This is like throwing a slab of sodium in the aqueous solution of your experiment. If the explosion doesn't kill, it will certainly destroy whatever experiment you were working on. Wrong ingredient! If you're exploring the effects of ice on certain arctic lichens, you don't go applying a bunsen burner. And that's the sort of thing scientists were doing in this CIA research.

The reason why we don't have any adverse effects from this phenomenon in most sciences is that most sciences study only the realm of continuity (physical law). A scientist's skepticism will have no effect on continuity. In fact, it may actually reinforce it.

Doubt in an experiment requiring perfect confidence is similarly disasterous. No wonder the CIA project failed. Perhaps that's a good thing. But I met someone in 1971 who could do remote viewing. The guy was likely born in 1900 or even the previous century. He had pure white hair and his apartment was filled with bones and artifacts. He was an archaeologist. I wonder if his extrasensory talent helped in his job. But he was part of a set of experiments in the mid-1950's. In one, he described a room he had never entered, including reading off the titles of the books on the bookshelf. In another instance, he was "tricked" into revealing the location of some Spanish gold, south of Phoenix, Arizona. I say tricked, because the experimenter said he would return the gold to its burial place. He did, but later went back to claim half of it. A few months later, he murdered his partner and remembers nothing about the gold or why he killed his friend.

Why would I believe this old man? Partly because I've experienced crystal clear sight while not in my body, which BTW was wide awake and alert just before I left it.

And my "miracle" on Wilshire Boulevard in 1977 was no fluke or delusion. Statistically, such things are impossible as a random occurrence. This was an instantaneous, cause-and-effect coincidence of the predetermined kind. In other words, creation of a "miracle." And not the mamby-pamby beautiful sunset kind of a miracle. In other words, circumvention of physical law, and no purely physical being can create that kind of effect.

Most of us spiritual beings are sound asleep, and when we create from the spiritual "hip," we usually only reinforce the status quo -- the current "inertia" of reality. So, most of us are usually never impressed, because nothing changed.

That last paragraph may sound like a leap for some. Perhaps it is. I'm only assuming that all of these Homo sapiens bodies have a spiritual component associated with them. And I assume that because of my own experiences and experiments.

Does matter exist? The next time you stub your toe, ask that question! Of course it does. Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Pretty nice. There's a guy who did pretty good with logic and imagination.

lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Goodness gracious! Sorry for writing a Hub there. It's after midnight, here, and I guess my brain got carried away. How's that for a nice delusion?

Again, thanks for the hub!

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

"Does matter exist? The next time you stub your toe, ask that question! Of course it does. Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Pretty nice. There's a guy who did pretty good with logic and imagination."

Indeed he did. For the most part anyway.

I wrote a parody combining a few of his philosophical views.

I know I exist. I must. It's obvious when I fart. Something stinks. Something that does not exist can not stink.

I'm not sure what you are but you are something. The probability is you are some one. Unless the universe

is a test for me alone, a rat maze, and all of you are just props. I exist as something regardless of what it is. I think.

Unless only you exist and I'm a prop in your test. But then... what stinks when I fart?

Can we not think of that which there is no greater that farts? If we can it must exist and so must we.

I am. Therefore I stink.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author


Feel free to make your comments as long as you like. Thank you for reading. ;)

d.william profile image

d.william 5 years ago from Somewhere in the south

Excellent article. Can't wait to read more of your works.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author


Thank you so much.

Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

"Does matter exist? The next time you stub your toe, ask that question! Of course it does. Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Pretty nice. There's a guy who did pretty good with logic and imagination."

"Indeed he did. For the most part anyway.

I wrote a parody combining a few of his philosophical views.

I know I exist. I must. It's obvious when I fart. Something stinks. Something that does not exist can not stink.

I'm not sure what you are but you are something. The probability is you are some one. Unless the universe

is a test for me alone, a rat maze, and all of you are just props. I exist as something regardless of what it is. I think.

Unless only you exist and I'm a prop in your test. But then... what stinks when I fart?

Can we not think of that which there is no greater that farts? If we can it must exist and so must we.

I am. Therefore I stink."

I just couldn't leave this without adding my tuppence worth!

You are both coming to conclusions based on what your senses are telling you. The stubbed toe at the end of the day is a perception based on electrical impulses received by the brain. The operative word here is perception. The same can be said of the fart which is also perceived in the brain. All perceptions are experienced in the brain and you are basing your conclusions about matter based on these shadows.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Spirit Whisperer

But they correspond to reality and others can experience my fart. So they are not just perceptions.

Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

Here is a more detailed explanation of what I mean:

I hope this clarifies things.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

I get it, which is why I say there is an underlying reality which our perception interprets The interpretation may reflect the underlying reality and it may not. So perception and interpretation can not be trusted. The subjective mind can not be trusted on it's own to root out what is going on.

But the patterns of reality exist and they can be studied. Which is why I advise studying the patterns and ignoring interpretation.

The I is an illusion and at the same time it is a fact. My mind does not create me. Without a brain I would still exist as meat. A physical pattern.

I don't think I disagree with a lot of what is being said here in your link. But I do disagree with any philosophy that implies that the subjective creates reality on it's own.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

“In the same way your brain creates sound, touch, smell and taste from the electrical impulses it receives and we actually experience the pain we imagine we feel in our stubbed toe in our brain. The sound we imagine we hear outside is actually being heard in our own brain. In fact every experience we imagine we experience externally is in fact being experienced internally in our brain. We are in effect making judgements about ourselves, others and the world based on how the brain decodes the electrical signals it receives. This also means that though we never actually directly interact with the images we create in our brains some people still emphatically state that matter exists!”

The strange thing about this whole blog and this entire idea is that the writer bases their evidence on physical material processes. Electrical signals are matter. Notice they claim there exists a brain to think all this within but it isn’t matter?

What is it we “imagine” we hear? What produced the sound? Did we stub our toe or was it an illusion? What actually happened? Or did anything happen? Or is the author saying it is all an illusion and we live in a dream?

If the Author of his is right then he doesn’t exist and nether do you dear reader. I am writing this to myself because I am the only thing that exists, and I myself am an illusion. Of course if you are reading this then you must be the only thing that exists with your non-material brain.

It is a wonder people who believe this nonsense don’t go completely insane. Perhaps they do.

I am perfectly aware that what we see and perceive may not be what is actually happening in all cases and at all levels. Obviously we do not experience electrical impulses as electrical impulses. We can’t count them as they happen. But we do experience them. Our sensors are limited and they may give a completely skewed representation of what is out there, but they do give a representation of reality even if it does not correspond to it completely.

They give a model. And coincidently that is what science works with. It works with models of reality. One model may be almost as good as another if it correctly predicts outcomes of events.

In the “mind makes matter” model no predictions are possible because there is no reality other than imagination. Not a very effective nor convincing model, particularly since it uses conventional material processes in its explanation and then renders them illusion, leaving the hypothesis with no basis, or a basis that contradicts the model.

The model that many have had is that what you see is what you get. That one doesn’t wash either.

The only model that so far seems to explain the situation is that of one underlying reality which is not directly affected by perception or thought alone. Our limited senses produce a universe for us which we as humans can share in and communicate in. That universe is based in reality but skewed and clouded by imperfect knowledge and imperfect perception.

By knowing this we eliminate a lot of interpretation and try to get to reality directly through the patterns of existence. Science and the scientific method are good tools for this kind of thing. As long as we know that our philosophies are models of reality and not the reality itself, we can learn a great deal about the underlying reality, and we have.

Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

You have gone to a lot of trouble to read what I have said I appreciate that. At the end of the day all we have are our opinions and perceptions and as you rightly point out none of which can be trusted.

Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

I have wrestled with observer driven reality most of my life. As a very young man I always the feeling that something was not right with the world. I felt as if the reality I saw was an illusion and that I was perhaps, as I said earlier, in a rat maze where everything but me was a prop. Life was a test so to speak, or I was a lab rat for some scientist in another more real dimension.

This was when I was around 8 or 9. I dismissed the notion only because, for one, there was no way for me to know if I was right or not, and secondly because it scared me. That’s where my comment about people going insane due to such thoughts came from.

I can’t help thinking that people through the ages have had the same sort of thoughts and that is partly why they started believing in unseen spirits and gods. Perhaps this is where the notion the Hindus have of us being god’s dream comes from.

But the thought would resurface again through science and the double slit experiment which caused all sorts of new age religions and philosophies to emerge.

So I did a great deal of research on the subject and a great deal of thinking about it. Hence the position I have to now take. Not because the idea scares me anymore, because it does not. I do not care what the truth turns out to be. But because the model I now have seems to not only explain the situation in real terms, it also explains why we have those feelings in the first place, and why observer driven reality is untenable.

However, the reason I wrote all this was partly because I like to debate ideas and test my models. So while I appreciate and applaud your attitude, you aren’t defending your position and that is disappointing.

Obviously you do not have to. We can leave it at that. But it means that unless someone else takes up the challenge I won’t have any feedback on my thoughts.

So thank you again for not being offended by my take on things. But if you feel so inclined, please feel free to tear my objections apart.

Perhaps Hub Pages needs a structured debating forum?

Rohit 2 years ago

Од dyexuapypsusy 22 November, 2012 - 3:07 amcilfoialfy the Republic of Indonesia (Indonesian: Republik Indonesia Indonesian articulation: p?bl?k ?nd?n?s?a]), is a homeland in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Indonesia is an archipelago comprising around 17,508 islands.] It has 33 provinces with during the course of 238 million people, and is the the world at large's fourth most populous country. Indonesia is a republic, with an elected legislature and president. The state's super town is Jakarta. The fatherland shares property borders with Papua Unique Guinea, East Timor, and Malaysia. Other neighboring countries take in Singapore, Philippines, Australia, Palau, and the Indian territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indonesia is a founding fellow of ASEAN and a member of the G-20 chief economies. The Indonesian conservation is the community's sixteenth largest sooner than represented GDP and fifteenth largest by purchasing power parity. The Indonesian archipelago has been an high-level business locality since at least the 7th century, when Srivijaya and then later Majapahit traded with China and India. Neighbourhood rulers gradatim alumnae concentrating inappropriate cultural, precise and political models from the at daybreak centuries CE, and Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms flourished. Indonesian history has been influenced next to outlandish powers fatigued to its natural resources. Muslim traders brought Islam, and European powers brought Christianity and fought one another to monopolize job in the Spice Islands of Maluku during the Life-span of Discovery. Following three and a half centuries of Dutch colonialism, Indonesia secured its self-assurance after Humankind Fighting II. Indonesia's summary has since been turbulent, with challenges posed by way of natural disasters, corruption, separatism, a democratization activity, and periods of hasty trade change. Across its many islands, Indonesia consists of hundreds of distinct constitutional ethnic and linguistic groups. The largest and politically paramount ethnic set are the Javanese. A shared identity has developed, defined during a nationalistic idiom, ethnic variety, spiritual-minded pluralism within a majority Muslim populace, and a narration of colonialism and insubordination against it. Indonesia's inhabitant slogan, "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" ("Concord in Deviation" exactly, "tons, later equal"), articulates the distinctiveness that shapes the country. In the face its beamy denizens and densely populated regions, Indonesia has voluminous areas of wilderness that support the world's younger highest level of biodiversity. The countryside has superabundant natural resources, until now scarcity remains widespread

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article