(Permalink)(Was chapter 29 in version 1)
(Permalink) The universes (physical or psychical) predicted by our theory, appear as «tangible», «concrete», «observable», to an observer immersed in one of them, connected to it by sensory organs.
So, we may be induced in thinking that a given universe exists relatively to the observers it contains. However, if we look from an absolute point of view, independent of any given universe, then any logical system, coherent in the sense defined in Chapter III-3, able to auto-generate something similar to a space and a time, exists as a logical system. Thus all the possible universes should exist. Do not exist only those which are logically inconsistent (or which cannot generate time and space, and therefore are not «universes»).
It is however difficult to predict which will actually exist, and what they contain. The reasons are that choices such as «creative absurdity» may condition their existence, or their evolution. We do not know either the role that could play an eventual God creator, whether he is a character or a more abstract metaphysical entity. Their contents may also differ according to their own choices about the self-generation laws, such as our quantum random or the running of the dream engine in the psychical universe like the Bardo of becoming. Only an exploration would allow to know. It seems impossible to design a physical mean which would allow to visit all the universes. A psychical mean would allow at least to explore those which contain conscious beings.
(Permalink) Before closing this part, we can see that since some years, a number of thinkers of different backgrounds, scientific in the inner circle or protesters, attempted to relativize the notion of reality, while pointing out that, depending on the sensory organs we have, or according to our way of «questioning» the world and of interpreting our observations, then we would not have the same perception of this world.
Indeed, it is obvious that a synchrotron offers to the physicist an access to an unsuspected reality, but that it is an horror to the eye of the poet, who enjoys words and feelings which have no meaning in physics. So there really are various ways to perceive the world.
But some merrily jump the step and say «everyone his own reality». As considered higher, this expression is, at best, an abuse of language. We should better say «everyone his perception», because these different perceptions relate anyway to the same external objects! It should be even better to say that it can exist various visions of the world, because such visions are not inevitably inherently dependent on such or such personality: We can be at the same time a scientist and a poet, like me, and it is thus laughable to pretend that different visions cannot communicate together! These visions are shareable. Simply a matter of communication, to live in reality, not to refuse what the others do, to share this so invaluable experience of life and its facets in an infinite number. A little more serious obstacle is the fact of not having the same basic concepts, the same axiomatic systems, the same logic (within the meaning of chapter I-3) to apprehend the world. But this is not really a serious problem: here too, any normal intellect has the capacity to explore any though system other than his own, as I explain in chapter I-9. It is even a constant enrichment, which largely pays off the efforts and obstacles of such a path, and which gives a much greater value to our individual life, and to what we can offer to others.
Having myself tried to perceive the world in the way others do, I did not encountered any fundamental obstacle to such a sharing, and cannot admit the view (basically racist) as what some people would be so fundamentally different from the other human beings, that they could never share their way of seeing and interpreting the world: people who spread such theories are people who themselves refuse others! I am completely able to work with enthusiasm on the synchrotron, while listening to the birds chirping on the roof. The only thing I am unable to share is the pleasure of doing evil. But I do not pay much effort for this... I dislike very much when I cannot share a field of consciousness with other persons who specialised in theirs, because they voluntarily wear blinkers which hide them all the others fields. But it is not «my» «personal» problem. I like the scientists, but what a pity to be only a scientist. The same with the poets, and also with the ecologists, the naturists, the vegetarians, the Buddhists, etc. What a pity to enclose oneself for life into only one system! Wake up! The world is vast! This sharing of the various cultures, of the various visions, is one of the most enthralling human experiences!
We reach the real and serious problems only between persons who do not have the same basic conceptions of life, for example those who grant a value to the human being, and those who deny any value to him. Then «Everyone his reality» becomes frankly guilty, especially when one comes to «everyone his truth» in the field of morals, politics or even in physics. That is to disavow any concept of objective reality, any notion of science, but also any notion of respecting the human person. This is not my theory, because in my theory various observers immersed in the same universe perceive the same thing: each universe has its internal objectivity (the objectivity the physicists experience when they observe matter, or the objectivity journalists or police officers look for when they disentangle a complex case). Whatever its absolute or relative existential statute as a whole, our universe is objective to the point of view of its individual inhabitants, unlike the dream or the Bardo which are individual, subjective experiences. So, to deny any concept of interindividual reality is a mind control method, alas common in the «teachings» of the «New Age» and cults. It is especially conveniently to withdraw oneself from the obligation of respecting ethics and others, it is to disavow that we all have to share together a life and a common experience in this material universe. Rather than having «my truth», I far much prefer to live in the truth of everybody, which is certainly not always what I should like, but at least I can meet other human beings here.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.