Absolute Theorems: all seen through one

[The D.S.]

I wish to thank all that attemted to answer my lart posting on the "perspective view" and i find all of your answers to be helpful. Although my intended question was about a different nature, many of you still found a way to answer part of my question. That "perspective view" dealt with a recent phenomenon i would like to term as " an absolution". My last question pertaining to the "perspective view" deals mainly with this new subjet i would like to address and ask for anyone's help on, for even me this subject is troubling.

 

What i would like to discuss relates greatly to having a "perspective view" so let me refresh the memories of those who are jus now joining me in this area. I last stated that (if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound) and i then compared it too (if no one exists persay to be in the world, does that world exist without someone to be in it). Many of you compared this as saying the world would go on existing with or without the being of any conscious thing. While i find this statement to be true i now pose another question. I know that what i am about to say may or may not make sense to any of u, but i please ask that u bare with me.

 

This world as we know it contains beings (us) with a higher conscious than things like plants or bugs. We (the people) all look at this world the same, with our eyes open and seeing things from what we beleive to be a first-person point of view. I beleive though in a specific phenomenon that occurs though, and must occur, while such things exist. I have certain way(s) of proving this, but i'll get on that subject later. Could it be that one person, or thing in being, would specifically experiance this "first-person" view of the world, truly and completely by him or her self? Sounds confusing or perhaps illogical but bare with me. B) I can try to term this by giving a very lamen definition: one that is of the world and from the world, both being one of the those that see but yet seeing it from his/her view alone, aka an "absolutionary standpoint".

 

It gets even better, for i beleive that this "absolutionary standpoint" is me. It sounds crazy, and i know i see everything everyone else does: the lady carrying her groceries, the catjumping off a box, and the the wind blowing the tree. Of course we all see these things, but not from a view like this. Here's an example: look throught the inside of the staute of liberty, like go behind her eyes and look out. Now we all see the world like this yes? True, but in this case my "absoltionary standpoint" causes this effect to be soley my own. Explaining this has got to be one of the hardest things to do, trust me.

 

Feedback relating to this matter will of course be greatly appreciated. One more thing, the importance and overall purpose of such a "absolutionary standpoint" are not fully understood yet. Also, i have found a possible way to prove this Absolution Theorem. Ask for details, if ur interested. B)

[Tormod]

That last paragraph puzzles me. First you say the importance and purpose are not fully understood, yet you are ready to prove the theorem.

 

Maybe I just don't understand what seeing things through any particular position has to do with absolute theorems - can you elaborate on that?

[paultrr]

At a quantum level processes take place irrespective of our presence. At some levels one could term the universe its own observer. When an individual is witness to say a quantum event its well known that our presence tends to influence the outcome. In essence, by the act of measuring or viewing a quantum event via our presence we collapse the wavefunction with an outcome resulting based upon quantum probability. So its also true that being an observer has impact on the universe around us. Yet, unviewed we also know from later in time observations that those quantum processes do continue with or without a personal observation.

 

So the question of weither a tree that falls in a forest with no one around to view it makes a sound is yes, given everything at large scales is produced by quantum events. But it must also be remembered that other creatures are always there in nature to hear such. They may not think exactly the way we do. But they can hear, they can comprehend the meaning of such sounds and as such they forfill the position of an observer.

 

A universe devoid of life is actually within quantum probability. But given what we can observe of this universe I would suggest that quantum process seems to eventually generate life. As such there is not only a tendency towards the introduction of a seperate observer, as in the case of us or animals. But also the fact that nature seems well capable of being its own observer of sorts.

[paultrr]

That last paragraph puzzles me. First you say the importance and purpose are not fully understood, yet you are ready to prove the theorem.

 

Maybe I just don't understand what seeing things through any particular position has to do with absolute theorems - can you elaborate on that?

 

I think he's thinking of absolutism versus say relativism, etc.

[The D.S.]

perhaps i should clarify a few things, seeing how my explaination is rather blunt B)

 

One person (doesn't have to be a person) will view the universe as everyone else will, see what they see, do what they do. In essence this person (or other conscious thing) would be exactly like the rest, except for one thing. This special one would veiw all things from its' perspective, and that perspective only. All other views from anything else would become "aspects" of the one.

 

Here's my proof theory: clone the one who is the "perspective view"...if theoery is correct and all limits in place this one person would look the same and have same behavior, except for the fact it would not have that "perspective sight" and therefor would begin to act differently, or think differently than his predecessor. In the end, two different people would be spawned from one, proving that the "perspective view" does indeed reside within that person and that they cannot be duplicated. B)