PsiPog.net

Alrighty, here's the conflict:

There are two models for reality, both which make sense in their own ways. Somehow, I believe both are true, but I'm not sure how that's possible . (1) Reality is inherently subjective, and (2) Reality is inherently objective.

By nature of the claims, they are impossible to test. This leads me to suspect they are the same claim, even though they sound contradictory. So what exactly are these claims, and how do they relate to psionics?

(1) Reality is inherently subjective. This means that it's impossible for you to experience an objective reality, because it doesn't exist. When you look at something "outside" of yourself, you are still looking at a creation of yourself. Basically, you're living in a dream world, where the dream characters try to convince you that the dream world you create is objective (when it really isn't).

(2) Reality is inherently objective. This is the "normal" belief. This model says that there is a reality outside of your mind, and that you can experience this objective reality, and try to figure it out. For example, I believe that plants function outside of my mind, so if I want to learn about plants, I can go up to a plant and poke around inside of it with some scientific tools.

The problem is that both models have evidence. And any evidence you can find for one model, can be re-interpreted through the other model. For example, let's say you are walking down the street, and you find $5 on the ground. In the objective model, that $5 existed outside of yourself, and through some form of coincidence or synchronicity, you came about discovering this $5 on the ground. Sounds normal.

Or, in the subjective reality, you created the $5. Your beliefs about reality allowed for the $5 to exist, and you created this bill based on the rules you have for your reality.

But now you can argue: ok, so reality is subjective. But isn't that statement itself an objective truth about reality, then? If reality was truly subjective, then it would only be subjective when your rules about reality defined it as subjective. Is that confusing? Let's try again: the subjective reality model states that there aren't any fundamental truths - all fundamental truths are beliefs in your reality. However, isn't the statement "there aren't any fundamental truths" then considered a fundamental truth?!

It seems like a loop. It all comes down to answering the question: what are fundamental truths? Do they exist outside of your control, in a reality that you are playing a part in? Or do you create these fundamental truths, and therefore, create your entire experience in your fabricated dream reality? And if you are creating these fundamental truths, wouldn't it be fundamentally true that you create them?

Lots of logical philisophical enigmas.

I think the conflict exists in defining who "you" are. This is how both models can be true at the same time. Here's my conclusion on this conflict (which I've come to realize while writing this post):

---

I think we can all agree that when we keep zooming in on reality, eventually we get to cells, then molecules, then atoms, then some quantum field of some sort... but eventually everything is made of the same stuff (or maybe you disagree?). Let's call this stuff "energy". Sounds good so far.

So, we are all connected. We are all made of the same stuff, and division is just an illusion. I'm energy, made of energy, in a field of energy, surrounded by other energy-things, all connected and functioning as one. You can't have something that exists outside of this, by nature of it's definition. We have defined "energy" (in this context) to mean the stuff everything is made from. The minute you say, "well wait a second, THIS isn't made of energy!", I will say, "of course it is, because it exists, and by definition it's made of energy".

Next comes the question: what/who are YOU? Well, the most obvious answer for myself, is that I'm Sean Martin Connelly, and right now I'm sitting in front of my computer, typing away at this long post. But also, by definition, I'm energy that is interconnected to everything else.

If you define yourself as energy, then you are forced to believe in the subjective reality model. Because there is nothing outside of energy... just as there is nothing outside of the subjective model of reality. Everything is subjective, experiencing itself.

If you define yourself as a portion of the energy, (i.e., "I am Sean Martin Connelly"), then you are forced to believe in the objective reality model. There is you, then there are things outside of you. So, both are true! I am energy that is interconnected with everything else. And I'm also Sean Martin Connelly.

In conclusion, the question of "Is the subjective reality model correct? Or is the objective model correct?" is the same question as, "Am I energy in a sea of energy? Or am I an individual?" Rephrased like that, it seems obvious.

So the answer is: both. Reality is 100% subjective, and 100% objective. It's the same thing.

~Sean