Of That Which Cannot Exists In A Reality Which It Observes
Perhaps the one question that is the easiest to answer is where it’s most difficult to believe the very answer.
Things are touching each other, everywhere and anywhere within the context of universe all things are right up against each other, within and dimensionally stacked on top of one another. This is what makes the universe so difficult to observe, everything is in everything sort of speak and so it is difficult to separate this from that, so much so that most of what science knows is based on observation, but observation not of what it claims to observe but rather of an indirect observation through the aspect behavior of something else.
Whatever scientists are telling us about the neutrino it’s not because they have seen one, it is because they have seen the results of neutrinos colliding with something else, not the neutrino itself! There have been reports that when a neutrino crashes against reality that it will scatter and produce nth number of decay elements or downwardly evolving energy properties that will be predictable and observable under very specific and detailed frames of references.
But every observation is merely a stack of interactions that have hardened in some conscious process. When scientists ask for funding for yet another more powerful super-super-hadron-collider what they are really asking for is for the ability to observe mightier and unchained energy reactions, that will invariably single themselves out through massive energy concentrations, read heat, to the point where it will all yield to the singularity of branching forces. That is to say that the assumption is made that the hotter things get the more and more they become as one, and that it is only cooling that separates all energy properties and forces so that at the highest possible temperature there is technically only one constituent elemental property; reaching the glorious assumption that the higher the energy the more together everything is until there is no separation or entity between things; that at last given maximum heat, the electromagnetic, the weak and strong force, and somehow even gravity will merge into one.
It is through this type of indirect observation, based on a hypothesis that can only be made through a normalization, i.e. ignoring the wrinkles, of what might be considered an intrusive reality, all that so as to observe and measure and thus to experimentally prove a less persistent or obvious but more genuine reality. Today we know about anti matter and matter largely because we have observed many indirect processes. And that leads us here to have to define an objective reality! Something which fools have stated has to be independent of us, that is that we may not exist in a reality that we can observe! This is why scientists like to reach absolute zero and absolute maximum temperatures, so they can know what being least like us is like, so that they can postulate a universe that is wholly empirically predictable.
Mind you however that in whatever guise our essence, we are energy constructs and so far no one has observed a none energy construct, nor gone outside and beyond the coldest and the hottest temperatures, nor have we ever found a genuine nothingness. Every thing in our universe radiates, ENERGY! That means we are like it and it is like us be us there or not; it all yields a closed system, any energy transformation arrived at through a sentient energy extinction would still have to an equivalence representation based on the principle of energy conservation. We then live inside of a box that is made of energy where its limits are defined by heat at one extreme and maximum pressure and at absolute zero which would result in the lowest possible pressure or no pressure, though we don’t seem able to reach either absolute and much less beyond our energy box, so that in conclusion we personify a radiation, and even as we are cool we are far from nearing the edge of an energy based existence. We might not be able to suffer an energy death.
What is real? Any valid empirical test of an objectified truth will be observable in the same light and manner from varying frames of references, once subtracted distortional properties have been normalized. This objectified principle will then produce the same general aspect observations and comments so that its independence from personalized judgment can thus be axiomatically constructed and reconstructed without the priori of judgment.
So we can easily postulate the emphatic outcry of those that would have a reality exists without us in it as: autonomous, all genuinely real things must exist independently of the observer and as independent from one another.
We are going to disrupt that fancy as axiomatically and truthfully maximally improvable. Imagine yourself swinging a bat at a ball, if you can then swing a bat at a ball it is because you can think it, thus the action and the bat and the ball are all mates in some context of existence and the entire process is interconnected but it unleashes a thread of interdependencies from parents creating a person that can slam a homerun, society evolving the mastery of carpentry to conjure the bat maker and the bat, creating the optimal physical version of the ball by turning raw material-mass into a set of temporal reality constructs that can be spun and arched through gravity, all the way down to the strategy laden baseball field, and the hotdog energy fed to the fans and players so they can slam and applaud the ball, and even the descriptive of the action, swing, strike, hit and run, is and are all the culmination of a wholly amazing dynamic that is constructed purely and entirely on the basis of friction and observation.
Someone observed that games could be played in a field, that bases and defining line markers could be put on grass, someone observed the bat idea, another person created the process for making bats and balls, yet another, intentionally and unintentionally conjured an entire distribution channel, etc; an entire dynamic and therefore not restricted to one particular cornerable realism mandate, reality must be autonomous, there is nothing autonomous in any of the processes that lead to a homerun, why the very act of slamming a ball with a bat is based on competitiveness, and baseball itself is a passion that fans all over the world desire to play!
All this intricate layer of processes does effect the referee, as any referee will have a bias framed of reference, the only thing you can do is reduce that bias by policing the referee, but let us say more, the standards book of baseball guidelines and rules states that the referee must be neutral while passing judgment of competing teams, for it is assumed that fair judgment is a fundamentally independent property, that is it is autonomous, but let us take the referee in the context that he exists; in orbit around the baseball game a referee circumvents the fans, all the fans and the players and the baseball franchise owners are meeting a mutual interactive dependence that creates the game, that is to say you cannot have a referee independent of fan, team and franchise owners judgment nor would you want such thing; and therefore you cannot exist outside of the context of even something as removed as sport is from baseball or even further still humanity, and trees made of wood, or balls made of gut and leather, and you can even tie the baseball stadium all the way back to Greeks and Romans and before that, and so there is a whole solar system of activities that lead to the game and that lead to judgments about the game and that indeed effect the outcome of the day; if the lead pitcher had a fight with his wife that morning, he is not going to be playing his best, and when he arrives at the stadium he tells the first basement that “life is all screwed up” that will leave a lingering emotion that the first basement will carry through in the game and so the score.
Even if we assume, in some grandiose way, that realism applies at some massively cosmic level we only get everything wrong with it then. This is because when you macro-scale the universe you actually get less of it, everything is fundamentally based on atomic and subatomic principles which embody all greater principles so there is no point on postulating that baseball balls and baseball players and earth mass are autonomous when none of them are autonomous of quarks or of Up and Down and Charm and even baseball’s Hall of Fame depends on anti matter, all concepts which we only know and understand through a thing about little things, quantum.
We have to thus conclude that the only way there can be genuine autonomy in the earth and universe, is if we focus on just one isolated thing, and we are of course the one that can encircle it and sterilize it and make it autonomous with our thoughts. We may only do that with brain because brain has the capacity to categorize, isolate and sterilize, and so we can actually agree that there is something perilously autonomous, that is, brain is thinking autonomously, and we ought be worried about that.
It serves us here well to note that this is not to say that there aren’t realities that are indeed independent of us, wholly autonomous and truthfully real, for indeed there are, in fact probably most things that exists and have existed have no contextual need or association with us sentient beings, but these things we cannot recognize, these things that are autonomous of us are not observable and cannot even be discerned, the fact that we see means that we radiate, touch and effect, and there is an unseen touching, and an unseen subconsciousness, and we are just the surface result of so much more, but of that of which we are nothing, touches us not, needs us not, has no cognitive experience within our lot and wouldn’t even acknowledge us, at all.
Of that which cannot exists in a reality which it observes, cannot exist. Such it is.
Ricardo ©
Things are touching each other, everywhere and anywhere within the context of universe all things are right up against each other, within and dimensionally stacked on top of one another. This is what makes the universe so difficult to observe, everything is in everything sort of speak and so it is difficult to separate this from that, so much so that most of what science knows is based on observation, but observation not of what it claims to observe but rather of an indirect observation through the aspect behavior of something else.
Whatever scientists are telling us about the neutrino it’s not because they have seen one, it is because they have seen the results of neutrinos colliding with something else, not the neutrino itself! There have been reports that when a neutrino crashes against reality that it will scatter and produce nth number of decay elements or downwardly evolving energy properties that will be predictable and observable under very specific and detailed frames of references.
But every observation is merely a stack of interactions that have hardened in some conscious process. When scientists ask for funding for yet another more powerful super-super-hadron-collider what they are really asking for is for the ability to observe mightier and unchained energy reactions, that will invariably single themselves out through massive energy concentrations, read heat, to the point where it will all yield to the singularity of branching forces. That is to say that the assumption is made that the hotter things get the more and more they become as one, and that it is only cooling that separates all energy properties and forces so that at the highest possible temperature there is technically only one constituent elemental property; reaching the glorious assumption that the higher the energy the more together everything is until there is no separation or entity between things; that at last given maximum heat, the electromagnetic, the weak and strong force, and somehow even gravity will merge into one.
It is through this type of indirect observation, based on a hypothesis that can only be made through a normalization, i.e. ignoring the wrinkles, of what might be considered an intrusive reality, all that so as to observe and measure and thus to experimentally prove a less persistent or obvious but more genuine reality. Today we know about anti matter and matter largely because we have observed many indirect processes. And that leads us here to have to define an objective reality! Something which fools have stated has to be independent of us, that is that we may not exist in a reality that we can observe! This is why scientists like to reach absolute zero and absolute maximum temperatures, so they can know what being least like us is like, so that they can postulate a universe that is wholly empirically predictable.
Mind you however that in whatever guise our essence, we are energy constructs and so far no one has observed a none energy construct, nor gone outside and beyond the coldest and the hottest temperatures, nor have we ever found a genuine nothingness. Every thing in our universe radiates, ENERGY! That means we are like it and it is like us be us there or not; it all yields a closed system, any energy transformation arrived at through a sentient energy extinction would still have to an equivalence representation based on the principle of energy conservation. We then live inside of a box that is made of energy where its limits are defined by heat at one extreme and maximum pressure and at absolute zero which would result in the lowest possible pressure or no pressure, though we don’t seem able to reach either absolute and much less beyond our energy box, so that in conclusion we personify a radiation, and even as we are cool we are far from nearing the edge of an energy based existence. We might not be able to suffer an energy death.
What is real? Any valid empirical test of an objectified truth will be observable in the same light and manner from varying frames of references, once subtracted distortional properties have been normalized. This objectified principle will then produce the same general aspect observations and comments so that its independence from personalized judgment can thus be axiomatically constructed and reconstructed without the priori of judgment.
So we can easily postulate the emphatic outcry of those that would have a reality exists without us in it as: autonomous, all genuinely real things must exist independently of the observer and as independent from one another.
We are going to disrupt that fancy as axiomatically and truthfully maximally improvable. Imagine yourself swinging a bat at a ball, if you can then swing a bat at a ball it is because you can think it, thus the action and the bat and the ball are all mates in some context of existence and the entire process is interconnected but it unleashes a thread of interdependencies from parents creating a person that can slam a homerun, society evolving the mastery of carpentry to conjure the bat maker and the bat, creating the optimal physical version of the ball by turning raw material-mass into a set of temporal reality constructs that can be spun and arched through gravity, all the way down to the strategy laden baseball field, and the hotdog energy fed to the fans and players so they can slam and applaud the ball, and even the descriptive of the action, swing, strike, hit and run, is and are all the culmination of a wholly amazing dynamic that is constructed purely and entirely on the basis of friction and observation.
Someone observed that games could be played in a field, that bases and defining line markers could be put on grass, someone observed the bat idea, another person created the process for making bats and balls, yet another, intentionally and unintentionally conjured an entire distribution channel, etc; an entire dynamic and therefore not restricted to one particular cornerable realism mandate, reality must be autonomous, there is nothing autonomous in any of the processes that lead to a homerun, why the very act of slamming a ball with a bat is based on competitiveness, and baseball itself is a passion that fans all over the world desire to play!
All this intricate layer of processes does effect the referee, as any referee will have a bias framed of reference, the only thing you can do is reduce that bias by policing the referee, but let us say more, the standards book of baseball guidelines and rules states that the referee must be neutral while passing judgment of competing teams, for it is assumed that fair judgment is a fundamentally independent property, that is it is autonomous, but let us take the referee in the context that he exists; in orbit around the baseball game a referee circumvents the fans, all the fans and the players and the baseball franchise owners are meeting a mutual interactive dependence that creates the game, that is to say you cannot have a referee independent of fan, team and franchise owners judgment nor would you want such thing; and therefore you cannot exist outside of the context of even something as removed as sport is from baseball or even further still humanity, and trees made of wood, or balls made of gut and leather, and you can even tie the baseball stadium all the way back to Greeks and Romans and before that, and so there is a whole solar system of activities that lead to the game and that lead to judgments about the game and that indeed effect the outcome of the day; if the lead pitcher had a fight with his wife that morning, he is not going to be playing his best, and when he arrives at the stadium he tells the first basement that “life is all screwed up” that will leave a lingering emotion that the first basement will carry through in the game and so the score.
Even if we assume, in some grandiose way, that realism applies at some massively cosmic level we only get everything wrong with it then. This is because when you macro-scale the universe you actually get less of it, everything is fundamentally based on atomic and subatomic principles which embody all greater principles so there is no point on postulating that baseball balls and baseball players and earth mass are autonomous when none of them are autonomous of quarks or of Up and Down and Charm and even baseball’s Hall of Fame depends on anti matter, all concepts which we only know and understand through a thing about little things, quantum.
We have to thus conclude that the only way there can be genuine autonomy in the earth and universe, is if we focus on just one isolated thing, and we are of course the one that can encircle it and sterilize it and make it autonomous with our thoughts. We may only do that with brain because brain has the capacity to categorize, isolate and sterilize, and so we can actually agree that there is something perilously autonomous, that is, brain is thinking autonomously, and we ought be worried about that.
It serves us here well to note that this is not to say that there aren’t realities that are indeed independent of us, wholly autonomous and truthfully real, for indeed there are, in fact probably most things that exists and have existed have no contextual need or association with us sentient beings, but these things we cannot recognize, these things that are autonomous of us are not observable and cannot even be discerned, the fact that we see means that we radiate, touch and effect, and there is an unseen touching, and an unseen subconsciousness, and we are just the surface result of so much more, but of that of which we are nothing, touches us not, needs us not, has no cognitive experience within our lot and wouldn’t even acknowledge us, at all.
Of that which cannot exists in a reality which it observes, cannot exist. Such it is.
Ricardo ©
posted by Ricardo Correa at 4:12 PM
<< Home