The what counts as "observers" I do find as a worthwhile question; is a sensor acting as an observer, or is it holding some quantum state potentials until an observer comes in to collapse the wave. How about the single celled organisms? They must be observing their own environment, even without the eyes to see.
The cocreation you mention, I like that word, the concept would help explain why the objects in the physical world don't collapse into new positions. If we are talking about a cocreative agreement (way below consciousness).
I've absorbed alot of the woo woo stuff too (what the bleep do we know), but the one that really hit was one called "my big TOE" (theory of everything), which was written by a physicist who had an OBE and then began studying the non-physical that he could no longer deny because of experience.
The idea I got from several directions is that everything is consciousness.
Reading on evolution, as, for instance, Richard Dawkins nicely describes it: a photosensitive spot might increase the chances of noticing a predator (shadow? difference between light and dark) and therefor increase the chances of reproduction, leaving that particular feat to descendants.
So, indeed, what is observing exactly? When we, as sentient beings, observe an event unfolding without judgement, and thus without intent, does that change the outcome of the event? It seems to be the case that observing that way, without judgement, leaves the event intact.
Anecdote:
When my daughter was very young, her mother brought her down the stairs one morning, and said: Let's open the curtains together. And when they were done my daughter looked outside. The world had changed. Our garden was totally covered with white stuff.
While I watched that scene, without any judgement, neutral, without words. I heard her mother say: look snow!
At that point I could not suppress a: Damn you ruined it!
Later on I asked her, how it went. So, she told me, they had played in the snow, giggling, wonderful. Then I asked: what would have happened if you had not said anything? IF you had not named it? If you had not framed it in frequency and vibration?
She looked totally shocked and could not follow. You, I said, could have listened and watched what our daughter really had done. You would have seen, she did not need a name to enjoy the moment! By naming it, you tried to program her into our system, whereas she is young enough to live without. As long as either of us, and preferably we both hang around.
When you have 6 billion people living in fear based on programming and judements... is that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
It seems, from several double slit experiments, the intent of an observer (the state of the observer) changes the outcome.
The experiments (I mentioned elsewhere here) was the ones where they were trying to see if people's intention could have an impact on random number generators. The results have consistently shown that this does in fact influence the RNG to produce more 0's or 1's than random variation and in the anticipated direction.
This even happened where they ran the RNG and printed the result in a room where nobody saw it, THEN performed a repeat of the experiment and it had the same levels of influence.
The term used is "small, but statistically significant effect", I believe there have been similar results with experiments concerning prayer, I don't remember if that was actual studies though.
The what counts as "observers" I do find as a worthwhile question; is a sensor acting as an observer, or is it holding some quantum state potentials until an observer comes in to collapse the wave. How about the single celled organisms? They must be observing their own environment, even without the eyes to see.
The cocreation you mention, I like that word, the concept would help explain why the objects in the physical world don't collapse into new positions. If we are talking about a cocreative agreement (way below consciousness).
I've absorbed alot of the woo woo stuff too (what the bleep do we know), but the one that really hit was one called "my big TOE" (theory of everything), which was written by a physicist who had an OBE and then began studying the non-physical that he could no longer deny because of experience.
The idea I got from several directions is that everything is consciousness.
Reading on evolution, as, for instance, Richard Dawkins nicely describes it: a photosensitive spot might increase the chances of noticing a predator (shadow? difference between light and dark) and therefor increase the chances of reproduction, leaving that particular feat to descendants.
So, indeed, what is observing exactly? When we, as sentient beings, observe an event unfolding without judgement, and thus without intent, does that change the outcome of the event? It seems to be the case that observing that way, without judgement, leaves the event intact.
Anecdote:
When my daughter was very young, her mother brought her down the stairs one morning, and said: Let's open the curtains together. And when they were done my daughter looked outside. The world had changed. Our garden was totally covered with white stuff.
While I watched that scene, without any judgement, neutral, without words. I heard her mother say: look snow!
At that point I could not suppress a: Damn you ruined it!
Later on I asked her, how it went. So, she told me, they had played in the snow, giggling, wonderful. Then I asked: what would have happened if you had not said anything? IF you had not named it? If you had not framed it in frequency and vibration?
She looked totally shocked and could not follow. You, I said, could have listened and watched what our daughter really had done. You would have seen, she did not need a name to enjoy the moment! By naming it, you tried to program her into our system, whereas she is young enough to live without. As long as either of us, and preferably we both hang around.
When you have 6 billion people living in fear based on programming and judements... is that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
It seems, from several double slit experiments, the intent of an observer (the state of the observer) changes the outcome.
The experiments (I mentioned elsewhere here) was the ones where they were trying to see if people's intention could have an impact on random number generators. The results have consistently shown that this does in fact influence the RNG to produce more 0's or 1's than random variation and in the anticipated direction.
This even happened where they ran the RNG and printed the result in a room where nobody saw it, THEN performed a repeat of the experiment and it had the same levels of influence.
The term used is "small, but statistically significant effect", I believe there have been similar results with experiments concerning prayer, I don't remember if that was actual studies though.