All events are maximally conjunctive

[Loren Booda]

In other words, what we observe is the intersection of at least two worldlines macroscopically, or the interference of a plurality of quanta microscopically. We have no unique experience - i. e., one unrelated to another.

Observers have evolved to seek patterns of multiple relationships in the environment. The process of participation between observer and object exemplifies the duality fundamental to all measurements. To test reality we must experiment utilizing an interaction of a minimum couple of particles.

The cosmos tends toward an increasing possible number of states, representative of the exponentially increasing connections amongst them. Our world appears preferentially where the utmost entanglement resides.

 

[katelynndevere]

Hi Loren,

Responding to one of your posts feels rather like trading in my intellect for gambling chips then betting the whole lot on a red seven, but it's such a deliciously terrifying challenge that I am unable to resist; or as others might put it: fools rush in...

Your postulation seems to draw upon chaos theory, causal probability theory and quantitative possibility theory.

Precisely how do you propose we test reality; is it in fact possible to do so, given the unavoidable duality you describe?

Kate.

 

[Loren Booda]

Since observed reality here would manifest those effects which infer the most causes, a unique motive might refer to a physical singularity - real yet not "naked" (e. g., inaccessible black hole geometry). The ultimate, big bang singularity is the progenitor of all cosmological interactions, but is also the remotest event when it comes to retrospect.

 

[moving finger]

In other words, what we observe is the intersection of at least two worldlines macroscopically, or the interference of a plurality of quanta microscopically. We have no unique experience - i. e., one unrelated to another.

Observers have evolved to seek patterns of multiple relationships in the environment. The process of participation between observer and object exemplifies the duality fundamental to all measurements. To test reality we must experiment utilizing an interaction of a minimum couple of particles.

The cosmos tends toward an increasing possible number of states, representative of the exponentially increasing connections amongst them. Our world appears preferentially where the utmost entanglement resides.

Amazing insight - if I knew what it meant?
I am put in mind of some of Bohr's writings, of which it has been said :
"I have been getting sporadic ashes of feeling that I may actually be starting to understand what Bohr was talking about. Sometimes the sensation persists for many minutes. It's a little like a religious experience and what really worries me is that if I am on the right track, then one of these days, perhaps quite soon, the whole business will suddenly become obvious to me, and from then on I will know that Bohr was right but be unable to explain why to anybody else."

MF

 

[katelynndevere]

Since observed reality here would manifest those effects which infer the most causes, a unique motive might refer to a physical singularity - real yet not "naked" (e. g., inaccessible black hole geometry). The ultimate, big bang singularity is the progenitor of all cosmological interactions, but is also the remotest event when it comes to retrospect.

Hi Loren,

I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling dwarfed by your loquacity.

Anyway, so we can only test reality by observing a singular event, one unfettered by the causality of previous events, and such an event is only to be found in the instance of the original 'big bang' (if such a singularity exists).
Well, even if I can get there, I take myself with me, and since 'I' am the product of millions, trillions of years worth of causality, we have a perfect and unbreakable circle, don't we? Bugger!

So, it would appear that your original postulation represents a consistent system of logical argument, demonstrating that reality is untestable and therefore unknowable - maybe we are all watching shadows on the cave wall.
Except that, I think, therefore I am (at least, I think I am).

I'm as confused as ever.

Kate.

 

[Enos]

I always saw the saying "I think therefore I am" quote of a probability kind of statement rather that an absolute statement. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light through vacuum so thinking must follow that speed limit also. Therefore the only way to convert that statement into an absolute statement would be to say "I think therefore I was." As for the micro marco differences, one can only try to understand the rules that both worlds use and attempt to make sense of them using a complete set of rules which apply to both of them.
Don't mind my rambling because I was born a rambling man.