Realities Of The Divine

A recent thread titled The Case Against Reality by neonspectraltoast concerning one professor's theory of reality got me thinking. If as this Professor Hoffman suggests our reality is only our perception and that actual reality may be nothing like that perception, how do we then know what reality is outside of our perception? Do we even know that reality exists outside of our perceived notions of it? There is an old saying "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear does it make a sound?" What if reality is akin to the answer no? What if we essentially create the"sound" as we go along? Yet further possible evidence for this theory is the observation as stated in the article The Case Against Reality that quantum physicists wonder at the fact that quantum systems don't seem to be definite objects in space until we encounter them. Now if we then apply this theory to all things perceived by humanity we could surmise that all things only become definite once we encounter them. We could then say that all deities exist while perceived by the human consciousness. What fellow travelers could such thoughts entail?

 

If our consciousness creates reality, what was the 'reality' before humans evolved? Or before any kind of life that could be aware of reality?
Do we create a false picture of the past by creating fossils by our perception of them for instance? If we do create such 'realities' why? To fool ourselves?

 

One of the examples Hoffman uses in a TED talk as support of his theory, which I think is at best inconclusive and perhaps shows a flaw in his approach about some of these ideas, is an example of a moose or some large similar looking mammal, that is mounting a plastic moose as to have intercourse with it. Hoffman, IIRC argues that this animal is essentially "programmed" to see the likeness in shape, color, etc and is actually attempting to procreate with it.

I'd contend that it's possible that this moose is doing no such thing, that maybe the moose is doing something akin to the way that humans use dildos and fleshlights (Sex Toys), which I think we could all agree that humans realize at some level they are using for something other than an attempt to mate with.

I like some of his ideas in regards to intelligence not necessarily equaling fitness in evolutionary terms but Particularly with other recent findings suggesting complexity in animal's emotions, it may be that perhaps it is his perceptions that are off in regards to his estimation of animal's emotional and cognitive experience.

 

This was the problem that haunted scientists and lead to the multiple universe theory, which as an answer to allowing every potential quantum state for every quanta, becomes quite ridiculous.

Within the past few decades the theory of decoherence has come into play. It was not intended to explain the quantum wave collapse, but just part of the process, however it goes pretty far in doing just that (explaining that is). The quantum wave collapse, or probability wave collapse, is the point at which a particle goes from existing as just a wave stretching continuously through time and space, to a physical particle manifesting a specific position in space-time.

Most simply, we could describe this process of decoherence as when two quanta, as waves, interact in such a way that there respective positions are momentarily defined (because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that we cannot simultaneously know position and momentum). For that brief moment, the quanta no longer have momentum, but have a position.
How long does this brief moment last? COnsider that a wave of light moves at the speed of light, and even if it is slowed down by glass, water, crystal, etc, it is still moving at pretty much the speed of light. However at any point that decoherence occurs, the wave suddenly manifests as a photon. But the moment that it is a photon is so small, that it doesn't change the fact that it is moving at the speed of light. This decoherence could involve being absorbed into an atom, for example, but that does not mean that it has been destroyed, and it is still moving at the speed of light, even if that movement is a jittering motion within the atom---which are both super-positioned waves anyway----i.e. they are not really there until a collapse.

This decoherence is the natural way of nature. It is physical reality without the observer altering it. We could call decoherence the Tao. But in this way, a human, or even a sentient being as we understand it, does not need to be present for physical reality to manifest. A rock on the dark side of a cold dead moon on the other side of the universe still exists even though no one can see it or know of its existence.

(But if consciousness is the first cause of existence then there is a living force behind even decoherence, but that scares scientists who dogmatically embrace materialism.)

The conscious observer through his observation, can change how that quanta manifests.

But all of this suggests a reality that is holographic rather than physical in the sense that we understand it---a reality very different from the way we perceive it.

 

Perhaps reality simply was. In the sense that it was formless without any singular perception to make it manifest. I propose the theory of a single consciousness before, for whatever reason, that consciousness was splintered into the myriad we know now. This would explain why we as a species still hold primarily unified views of our percieved realities.

Personally I have yet to determine if consciousness came before existence but I doubt it

 

Exactly why I am a phenomenalist. As Kant said, we can never know the thing-in-itself---the noumenal world.


Though, I do think we can know a lot more about it then we used to-------through the math and science of Quantum mechanics. Some of the things we have been able to crack about hidden realities in Quantum Mechanics is pretty amazing, especially in recent years.

 

That is an interesting take on it.

Do you think that reality is still formless in itself, or do you think form arises out of existence instead of the other way around?

I am an essentialist, so I believe essence comes first---but I place essence as consciousness. It is not exactly like Platonic or Aristotelian form----rather it is the encoded probability (the quantum information) that is in the probability wave---in other words the quantum information that determines where the greatest probability of the location will be when the quanta converts from a superposition to a single position.

Superposition of subatomic particles in itself is pretty amazing---as a wave it stretches simultaneously clear across time and space, without a beginning or ending, and yet it exists as a field clear across space, in other words, when it manifests as a physical subatomic particle, it could happen anywhere across the universe, but it will most likely happen at the point where it has the greatest probability. Therefore each object has its own unique shape based on a unique essence---the probability of where each particle will manifest with a specific position in time and space.

My philosophy, which I have explained somewhat in a number of threads on this forum, posits that only the physical particle or subatomic particle is real in a physical sense, and only for the almost infinitely small moment that it manifests. The other side of reality---the super-positioned wave is non-physical and of the 4th dimension. Time does not exist—or at least in the sense that we understand it. Physical reality exists only as the present—the Quantum Now, which is space-time appearing and disappearing as this infinitely small moment---One Planck Length at One Planck Time (One Planck Length being approximately 20 quintillion times smaller than the width of a proton, and One Planck Time being the time it takes for a photon to pass across One Planck Length, in other words the space and time below which the differences between Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s theories of Relativity make the physical reality of space and time impossible). Therefore each physical point of reality is only a point of physical present—it has no history, it is only now as all the simultaneous probability wave collapses clear across the universe. This is the hologram.

The non-physical 4th Dimension is timeless, though being the realm of light energy we perceive it as the dimension of time. But at the speed of light, all of time happens within an infinitely small flash. Since the hologram arises out of the 4th dimension, it is 3 dimensional with the appearance of a 4th dimension (time), as opposed to holograms we understand arising out of our 3 dimensional reality, which are 2 dimensional with an appearance of a 3rd dimension. While the physical present has no history, the probability waves have historicity—the quantum information encoded in the probabilities. Therefore history is transferred from one Quantum Now to the next.

Physical reality is therefore the perception of phenomena---as Berkeley said, “esse est percipi,” ‘Existence is perception.’ We perceive time, that is, remember the past, anticipate the future, exercise volition, and perceive the present, because our conscious selves transcends the physical present. Mind is therefore of a higher dimension. Our ego—that Jungian filter with the purpose of maintaining a consistent personality, filters out all nonessential information and therefore keeps us trapped within the conscious physical present.

Archephenomenalism in the spirit of multiplicity allows such a concept, though to do so requires ignoring certain aspects of the philosophy. Archephenomenalism returns the focus back to the subjective---each point of the Quantum Now representing a point of subjectivity. Each point therefore has an intended object (as consciousness can only be conscious of some thing). The encoded probability is this intended object—the form. Within the Quantum Now there is perception as decoherence, and then there is the production of phenomena as the quanta reverts back to wave form. Each subjective point is therefore an object to every other subjective point in the universe. In a manner of Derridean Deconstruction, every point is therefore both subject and object, even as my philosophy deconstructs objective reality into the subjective.

This fits very well with Eastern Philosophy, and in the spirit of mulitiplicity that too is included. Though it would require ignoring the focus my philosophy places on individuation and the individual.

But my philosophy is heavily influenced by existentialism, and therefore one could argue that existence comes before consciousness much like Sartre does.

However I believe that our existential freedom largely stems from our ability to alter reality as the observer, as discussed in the article mentioned in the OP. If our observation (awareness) can alter reality, it seems more likely to me that consciousness is a-priori to existence, rather than Sartre’s argument that consciousness is positioned to prior existence. On the other hand, materialists argue that such examples, as the double slit experiment, only make us think that we are changing reality as observer because it is the physical measurement that actually causes the probability wave collapse. I argue that there is always a probability wave collapse because we are only perceiving the phenomena (because there is no physical presence unless the wave collapses to a particle therefore we can never actually experience the wave itself). I therefore say that the decoherence of the measurement is not relevant because there is always decoherence present.

 

It is understood that sane people can differentiate between reality and fantasy. We may create our own reality, but it is a reality rooted in the real physical world. How do we know there is a real reality? Because there is consistency, even if we don't understand or accurately interpret what we experience. Real objects continuously demonstrate predictable and peer verifiable experiences. If you think you have a baseball, you can confirm it looks and feels just like it did yesterday. You can show your baseball to a friend, "look at this nice white baseball". You can receive confirmation, "Yeah, that is a nice white baseball". Now if someone responds, "Why are you holding that severed cat's head?". You just might be having a psychotic delusion, either that or the person you are talking to is psychotic. Seek out another opinion.

Understanding, education, peer review and confirmation are large factors in how close 'your interpreted reality' is to actual physical reality. Humans as groups or individuals have varying levels of grips toward reality. Recluse loners may have a looser grip on reality from lack of peer confirmation. Remote uncontacted tribes with their lack of understanding might collectively decide that planes in the sky are Gods or spirits. The more educated of us know that this is a primitive human tendency, Gods, religion, superstition... "last time it thundered, a young girl died and the tribe ate well. Next time it thunders we should kill a young girl to please the thunder God and pray we eat well". The reality is that the thunder shower could have fed plants or driven prey nearby to be hunted easily, but the superstitious primitive humans were oblivious to that reality.

What then is the divine reality? GOD is the Grand Old Delusion. A residual ignorance from tribal times. You have a conversation with a baseball and everyone agrees that you are insane. Have a conversation with your fantasy superego that you call God, and that's the accepted norm! How do we know this is an ancient superstitious delusion that we've hung on to and not actual reality. Lots of reasons but lets consider consistency, GOD is not consistent like a real object. Every theist, every sect has a different set of attributes to THEIR GOD. And God always happens to want what they want, and God is on their side, and the other side has a fake evil God. GOD is not "I has a baseball and you can't prove that I don't". GOD is a billion different theists can't even agree what size and color their baseball is.

 

There is certainly enough disagreement among mental health professionals over what being in touch with reality is that I wouldn't give much more credence to their opinions than I do those of the theologians. From and evolutionary standpoint,I suspect that there's come correspondence between our sensory constructs of reality and "objective" corrolates "out there". Otherwise, we'd be making lots of mistakes dangerous to our health and survival I don't think there's any way to tell whether or not we're just brains in a jar or characters in a computer simulation. I go on the basis of postulates and assumptions that seem reasonable because they're consistent with other assumptions. This is "animal faith" as Santayana describes it. It doesn't matter a lot to me whether the sky is actually blue or the table is solid as long as I can function adequately within my cognitive net.

 

Are you saying that if someone gains knowledge from an alternative reality that they are not sane?

While it is true that there were tribes that upon seeing airplanes for the first time thought that they were of the Gods, the ridiculous example you give is completely ignorant of the way indigenous people think and what phenomena they have access to in order to shape their ontology. No tribe would ever make the connection you describe here. And indigenous people the world over would take such comments to be racially prejudiced just as what was once a common belief that African-Americans could not be educated.

I don't blame you, this is a very common train of thought among Western Man who is the result of a long cultural tradition that has carried us deeper and deeper into an objectivist reality focused solely on the conscious mind and its adherence to physicality. Even the religious tradition we have to connect us with any alternative reality has, from the very beginning of Western culture, for purposes of political control, been positioned squarely in the mundane.

If we were to measure the level of advancement based solely on effectiveness, we would find that science has only relatively recently caught up to many indigenous healing practices, and that in some areas, such as dealing with the mentally ill, we are way behind. If we were to base the level of advancement on invasiveness and physical impact to the body, we would find that it is modern medical science that is primitive.

But there is justification for such ignorance in Modern man's own history. There was a time when Modern Man, believing that ignorant rationality was superior to intuition, did base his healing practices on a trial and error basis, and false understandings of causality. Until about 1880 science believed in the miasma theory regarding the spread of disease. In other words, they believed that disease was spread by foul air, bad smells, and night air. Even obesity, for example, was considered to be caused by the smell of food.

Now before you argue about how could that be any different than a belief that evil spirits, witchcraft, the breaking of more's or other superstitious acts could cause illness, you must consdier that indigenous people use ecstatic experiences to heal, or to learn of methods for healing. Their ability to heal based on such ecstatic experiences is very high. The trial and error methods used by science was legitimized by a cult of intellectual superiority (determined by institutional certification) and a rational dogma. Therefore you had examples such as a doctor who believed in the amazing healing powers of mercury, and continued to champion its usage, despite the fact that all his patients either died quickly from mercury poisoning or gradually succumbed to the suffering of chronic mercury poisoning. (Indigenous people, by the way, have never used the trial and error method that modern science assumes they did in order to gain all their plant knowledge. That is a more rational means of trying to determine what works.)

By this reasoning your conclusion breaks down if you consider how universally common and in agreement indigenous spirituality and its concept of the divine actually is. Despite the many different methods and local customs, traditions, and understandings, they are all based on surprisingly common understandings, concepts, and modes of attaining ecstatic experiences. They may each have their own unique rituals, but indigenous people never disagree on matters of belief. To write off indigenous beliefs as primitive because of its animistic language and understanding is to miss how complex it really is. Quantum Mechanics and Modern science has only been rediscovering over the past 100 years what they have been saying for centuries.

 

I don't believe that adjective goes with that noun.

 

I was asking Perfect Disorder what he meant by formless. Your question might be a more clear way of asking it. Reality-in-itself would be reality qua reality---I guess that is a bit pompous.

Here I am talking about form as essence, so if reality is formless, then one would deny that objects have an inherent essence, which is what I wanted to clarify if that is what Perfect Disorder meant. Philosophy traditionally always held that essence preceded existence, in other words that there was what the Ancient Greeks termed eidos, which meant, idea, appearance, shape, form, beauty, notion, kind, species, description, and nature. We get our modern word idea, and idealism from this. To Plato and Aristotle, a table, regardless of shape, was a table, because it had tableness, which was a perfect metaphysical reality or form. Being metaphysical (above physical) it preceded existence. Philosophy always had some concept of this form or essence preceding physical existence, until modern philosophy reversed that position. Today the form or essence is within the existence. This is the primary precept of materialism. Most existentialists believe this, and Sartre posited this as one of the definitions of existentialism----that existence is the ground of all being, not essence.

As an essentialist, I argue that there is ‘something (form)’ before the physical existence. In my philosophy I have defined the wave of wave-particle duality as non-physical. We perceive physical reality in Newtonian terms, i.e. that of classical physics. We see everything, every object in the universe, as having a relatively fixed position in time and space, and being concrete, material, and real. Quantum Mechanics however presents us with a side to reality (the wave) where everything is super-positioned (as I explained in the previous post) as a field of presence stretching all over time and space as opposed to a single position in space-time.

The Platonic form could be argued as an independent object of sorts (though it too was nonphysical) with an inherent (but non-physical existence). I don’t see it exactly in that same sense, mainly because non-physical reality is not a reality of ‘things,’ and because each physical object is a unique object in itself. Quantum Mechanics (through Quantum Information Theory) tells us that there is quantum information within each quanta which cannot be destroyed, (but it can be altered), which translates a quantum reality into classical reality. Quantum Mechanics is not saying that a table has tableness, but it is suggesting that an object maintains a specific shape due to information coded into the wave which determines the probability of where particles are most likely to manifest as particles. Modern cosmology suggests that there is also a field that gives objects shape---whether it be the Higg’s Field or the Zero-Point Energy Field of the God Theory, or something else. But these too may represent a non-physical, or even physical sense of form.

This is why a ball is always a round ball, or a table is always of that shape it was built as, or the shape it has become after the damage it may have sustained-----moment after moment after moment… Even while each subatomic particle within that table is only manifesting in a physical sense for the briefest of moments, while existing as a wave all over the universe and through time.

Yes, I take it further and add a higher dimensional consciousness---my philosophy is one of idealism. This is again part of essentialism.

Western man, without realizing it still sees the world through the faults and fallacies of essentialism. Prejudice for example is based on an essentialist assumption—that those of an inferior race are inferior because it is their nature, which is to say, it is of their essence. I do not take essentialism down that path. With mind as essence, there is a whole freedom of potentiality, and this too we garner from Quantum Mechanics. All phenomena move from actuality (a source) to potentiality (a target).

Yes, though I would also clarify that to, not the smallest atomic event, but the smallest quantum event. If One Planck Length is 1 Quintillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton (I correct myself if I said 20 earlier---but a quintillion is a 1 followed by 20 zero’s). But reality, in most cases does not need an actual whole proton, only the phenomena of a proton. It also makes sense from an empirical philosophical standpoint---that is, the Anglo-American tradition of philosophy, which assumes an atomistic reality. On the other hand, the timeless 4th dimension makes sense of the rational or Continental Philosophical tradition. Therefore Archephenomenalism blends together the roots of empirical and rational philosophy---uniting once again the Anglo-American with the Continental tradition.

You’ve got it---as I said, the present has no history. We are back to Hegel’s dialectic of ‘being’ and ‘nothingness,’ and reality is always moments of ‘becoming’ (Hegel’s synthesis of this dialectic).

Is this really so strange though? Consider how you perceive light: It leaves a light source—the light source is bright. But you do not see it as it travels between that light source and your eye. As you stated yourself, we only perceive the phenomena. There is not a piece of the light source that physically enters your eye (as some philosophers argued at one time), there is only the phenomenon of the light source. And you cannot see it coming to you---you only see it as it is absorbed into an atom within your eye (and actually you perceive the electron moving between the synapses of the vision center of your brain). Traveling at the speed of light, the actual perception of that photon happened within an almost infinitely small flash. (It actually happened over many Nows---many Quantum Nows, because there were multiple points where decoherence would cause the photon (a physical particle) and parts of the atom to manifest in a physical sense through decoherence as the photon is absorbed into the atom, and likewise for a photoelectron to be emitted and subsequent electrons to be absorbed and emitted within the nerves all leading to the brain).

With each point of Now---each Quantum Now, wherein all simultaneous particles that are to manifest within that moment, collapse from their quantum waves and manifest—clear across the universe, physicality as the 3 physical dimensions, rises up from the 4th Dimension of light (electromagnetic energy)

If the past has physicality, where does it exist? Where did it go? To the best of our knowledge, there is no longer a physical past. There is no way, for example, that we can place a beacon marked to a specific time, and leave it in that time, such that it would disappear with the moment, and exist in some previous moment of the universe. Even when we look into a telescope at a star 4 million light years away, we are not seeing the past; we are seeing phenomena in the present representing the past. The phenomena itself carries the history into the physical present, it is what Sartre would call, each particle’s, and by extension, each physical object’s ‘historicity.’ The past is gone, but it is an actuality that emitted past phenomena---the quantum information. (Sartre however never incorporated Quantum Mechanics into his philosophy.)

But consciousness as well transcends the physical and we understand reality moment to moment. Consciousness, like the wave, is of a higher dimension (or perhaps we should say, consciousness sans ego—the ego focuses consciousness into physical reality). So as much as a phenomenon binds one moment to the next, so does consciousness. We understand time as moment to moment through a process that Husserl called retention. We therefore can enjoy music, for example, through Husserlian retention. Without retention we would have to somehow re-experience the whole song up to that present moment with each new moment.

Our physical bodies and the whole universe and every object within it is nothing more than a hologram. In any given moment nothing is even wholly physically present—only those subatomic particles that have manifested through decoherence—the actual total object, or the total universe, in each moment is only partially present, and is always in a state of becoming, as Hegel determined.

Consider light as a wave again---and we will say that it is the light moving from that star 4 million light years away. From our understanding, our existential reality if you will (i.e. our understanding from human existence within the physical world), the light that we see has traveled for 4 million years at the speed of light to us. As a wave traveling at the speed of light, however, that light is simultaneously at the star, at our eye, and all points in between----in fact it is simultaneously stretching from the beginning of the universe to the end (and probably beyond on both sides). The wave exists in zero-time (Einstein). All along the way there are probably points of decoherence, but we can simplify that down to two critical points: 1.)the decoherence when it left the surface of the star (i.e. that moment when it’s position was temporarily determined at the surface of the star, which is when it gained quantum information of that star). And, 2.) the decoherence at the point at which it is absorbed into the atom within the vision cell of your eye (i.e. the moment when it’s position was again determined and its quantum information was transferred). At these two critical points it had a single position in physical space-time, meaning that it had a physical existence.

We can rationalize that there is light somewhere out there in space traveling to us from that star at the speed of light----it only makes sense in the way we perceive the universe to be physical. But there is no way for you to perceive any single photon of that light coming to you. We can’t send out a signal to reflect off of one of those light waves (turning it into a photon) and then have that come back to us to indicate that there is a photon out there approaching us. There is no way to perceive any of that light except what is in our present. And my philosophy states that only the present exists in the physical sense. The speed of light is the speed of time. That light is approaching us from our future (ironically to show us a star as it was 4 million light years ago). And our future does not yet exist in the physical sense.

In all practicality, that light out there in space, or even one inch in front of our eyes, does not yet exist in our reality. Therefore, we can argue that it is nonphysical.

The relationship between the two is that when position (a requirement to physicality) is defined through decoherence, the nonphysical becomes physical; but only in the present, the essence determines how that happens, or the observer (consciousness, or conscious awareness) may alter that. Now tell me what is lacking in the relationship between the two. (I don’t mean this as a challenge or an argument of debate---seriously if I am leaving something out I want to know. It may be something I have not explained yet, or it may be a point I myself have missed or I need to work on!)

I can understand that it seems unnecessary, but it plays a critical role in that it provides a doorway to the non-physical. By placing, for example, a part of Kant’s noumenal existence of the thing-in-itself (which is what quantum mechanics is really demonstrating to us) into the nonphysical realm, we are closing the wedge he created between the metaphysical and the physical sciences (a wedge that has served its purpose but now in the face of the Post-Modern crisis needs to be closed). We are bringing back together the two traditions of Western philosophy (Anglo-American and Continental). We are attempting to revive inherent value in an overly objectivist and nihilistic post-modern world that is starved for meaning and value. And then---I am trying to explain why, in a yuwipi ceremony, for example, I can stand next to a wall in the pitch black, and be touched by wings, and hands, and so forth, not only from in front, but from behind—where a wall should be, while lights and sparks dance all over the room and around me.

On the other hand, it explains problems we have in quantum mechanics. For example, consider two entangled electrons, traveling away from each other. Because they are entangled, if we change something, such as the spin of one of the electrons, we know that immediately it will change in the opposite the other electron. The problem is that the farther they move from each other the faster the information must be exchanged----paradoxically---faster than the speed of light once they have moved too far from each other. But this is a paradox only because we think of it in physical terms. If they are a part of the nonphysical timeless 4th dimension, it is no longer a paradox---even if one of the pair has temporarily manifested physically which is what would happen if we were to create decoherence (define a position) by changing the spin or other characteristic of one of the pair.

 

I can understand that---I used to think that the only authentic alternative reality was one that was drug induced. Or perhaps the reality experienced by a schizophrenic, for example.

But now I would say, it is just something you would have to experience yourself, if it is that important to you.

Unless you are speaking grammatically, in which case I would have to wonder, 'Is that not a phrase anymore?'

 

We are all a little bit insane, some just more than others.

 

Reality being defined as "The state of things that actually exist", or "All that which is", I don't understand what an alternative reality would be aside from a thought experiment. It is literally inconceivable and nonsensical, and not in a spooky spiritual way, but in a "square circle" kind of way, a mere liberty we take with language to construct a grammatical object which has no bearing on anything outside language.

TLDR: Whatever you're thinking of when you think "alternative reality", thats just stuff thats, by definition, in Reality.

 

reality isn't that we shouldn't be nice to invisible things that might or might not exist.
reality is that we don't need to keep pretending to know things about them, that no one has ever known or ever will.
and even more, that it is highly unlikely, that using what we pretend to know about them,
as an excuse to create conditions which cause each others suffering,
is highly unlikely to be pleasing to them, if it should happen that they do.

that's the reality of belief.

the best definition of reality there is, is that it is still there, whatever anyone believes or not.
that it is not changed by what anyone thinks or wants to think about it,
that it is completely independent of any belief or lack there of on the part of any one or any one thing.

unlike invisible things that might or might not exist,
the reality of reality is something that we can know something about.
first and foremost being that it is greater and more diverse then we can even begin to imagine
and second, that it doesn't give a shit what we think we know about, nor does it in any way need to.
and it will go right on being worse then the worst we can imagine, better then the best we can imagine,
and more then we can imagine between the two,
no matter how much our petty little egos scream and cry about never being able to know all of it.

so expect the unexpected, but don't expect the unexpected to be what happens most of the time,
unless you're too self involved to even imagine any thing can be different then you imagine it to be,
and you can expect the scientific method to create more useful knowledge and understanding,
then trying to pretend beliefs that contradict it, are rooted in some "authority" that has anything to do with reality

its really cool that invisible things might exist
its really cool that they might be nice to us if we're nice to them.
that's FINE. so be nice to everything. or everything you want to think is nice, or what ever.

but don't be un nice to things you don't think are nice because you imagine yourself to be doing something nice for nice things by doing so.
does it really take rocket science to see that it doesn't work that way?

and if you (generic you who know who they are) want to pretend, that invisible things, that might or might not exist, are all having some big war with each other,
i'm sorry, that's not my problem, and its not reality's problem either. (and it probably isn't the problem of those invisible things that might or might not exist either,
it is only the problem of people who want to see things that way)

reality is not being crewel by not giving a dam what we believe.
reality is being kind by not giving a dam what we believe
because by doing so, it gives us hope, that there might just be something we can't screw up.