The observer IS the experiment

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "the observer IS the experiment" ...: how would this relate to the faciliator?

[Steve Saunders]

you're a very naughty person ... (LOL)

the client serves the facilitator by showing them what the facilitator needs to see, by bringing what the facilitator needs, ...

I have played with and tested the reality of this, by doing things like "waiting for the client to make a first move", "choosing a process in advance", "choosing a first question before starting" ... as you know ... every time it is accidentally perfect, and the chosen theory is validated ...

however, who says the facilitator is the observer? ;-)

[Corrie van Wijk]

All roads lead to Rome if that's where you need to be.

The facilitator can only return to the crossing if the client has chosen another fork in the road and try to catch up with them.

If the facilitator is the observer, the experiment is to watch and see if he follows.

[Steve Saunders]

but who is observing the fac?

"the only certainties in life: death and taxes"

[Corrie van Wijk]

the client is

what is certain if you don't know when or how much?

[Steve Saunders]

"When, where, who, what, how, and why? " The indices of direction ...

how do you know what is certain? Is my hand real because I see it and feel pain if I put a pin into it? Or is this the best of illusions?

[Corrie van Wijk]

If you "see it and feel pain" you are the observer.

Put another pin in your hand to find out if it hurts again.

[Steve Saunders]

"as shepherds watched their flocks by night, the angel of the lord came down, and said 'is that haggis that you're eating?' ..."

[Corrie van Wijk]

If it disappears, you know he's real.

[Olive]

And so, multiple observers and multiple simultaneous experiments (?), and a meta god consciousness observing its creations ? And anything to scale out to from that ?

[Corrie van Wijk]

David: "if this reality, this model of this person’s world, their inner world, has very little relationship to the real world, to their actual circumstances? […] then the things from their past […] will stop them from moving forward […] the goal keeps shifting, so you never quite get there."

Olive: "a meta god consciousness observing its creations": scaling out from God to meta God doesn't make it more real, neither does replacing consciousness for God.

So other than you, there isn't anything conscious able to observe anything, so you are the only observer in the experiment you've created yourself.

[Steve Saunders]

Nice one Corrie, could not put it better myself.

A Mobius strip represents infinity as a loop with only one side. Scale out enough and from within one emerges; until one is one.

One creator one observer, infinite observers infinite frames of reference, infinite parallel universes, one per sentient being ... one per aspect in a multiple being.

Steven

[phil]

Interesting how perceptual position affects the Moebius strip metaphor for infinity. If one accepts a proposed frame of, say, being on the strip and moving along it lengthways, it works. Turn 90 degrees and one soon reaches an edge and another side. At that edge, there is no sense of infinity, there is a strong sense of 'this side', 'that side' and 'edge'. Zoom out and look at the whole model in the glass case in the museum and it is finite, yet contains a model for infinity. Neat.

I would say infinite creators, observers, etc.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Olive: "And so, multiple observers and multiple simultaneous experiments": So how can anyone create an experiment to proove that we all observe the same things, yet may perceive them differently?

[Steve Saunders]

Corrie: "So how can anyone create an experiment to proove that we all observe the same things, yet may perceive them differently?"

is that the right frame or question? If we take a person and measure all the distances and angles, we have a precise objective measurement ... yet we will each 'see/hear/feel' something different because we cannot be in the same angle and direction and posture and someone else - even if we are time-offset watching a video in the same seat or space offset in different rooms watching a video, it is a different perspective in space-time ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when "we will each 'see/hear/feel' something different", we know we are all watching the same video.

Like the thirty-five thousand year old flute from the Aurignacien, found in Schwaben; did it's sound from the same cave, appear different to me last week at Nicholas Conard's lecture than to the one that carved it from ivory?

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when "we will each 'see/hear/feel' something different", aren't we participating in the experiment rather than just observing it? How does our perception feed back to the reality we are observing?

As I wrote some time ago in the thread 'To know or not to know' in the Emergent Knowledge section:

"If everything we perceive exists somehow or another independent of our
thinking, how much is our thinking capable to change things, or do they only change in
our perception? And if not through our thinking as such, is our interaction between our
perception of what we think things are and what they really are, of any influence on
changing what things really are?"