bufoman wrote: However much of what QM says is that the very view of the external world is an illusion, it only exists as we think it does (as a 3-D cartesian coordinate system of space and time) when we are observing it...otherwise it is information, fields of information or matrixes.
That's an interesting idea and seems compelling even without QM but isn't this just a philosophical language trick? I mean things like X,Y and Z are defined by humans. These do not exist as such in the absence of humans. However, asteroids moved through these coordinates and impacted the moon long before any consciousness observed it. They left craters.
The language trick is that 'craters' and 'mass' are both defined by human in consciousness only. They are constructs that exist only in the human mind. In reality it is just as you say, interactions between information in the field(s) changed that information from the perspective of a fixed trajectory through time. This kinda breaks down because both 'information' and 'fields' require consciousness too.
So the true ontologny of the cosmos cannot be known. The best we can do is make our consciousness based model of the cosmos have the most predictive value. If we achieve this 100% there will be just as much information in consciousness as in the rest of the cosmos but it will not be the same information. It will always be a representation.
If I am missing something please educate me (I love learning about stuff like this) but I don't think you should credit QM with this idea. It seems more fair to credit Kant and friends in the 18th century. This notion was vital for the birth of modern science. QM is only another observation based predictive model that gives the illusion even more predictive power.
bufoman wrote:
Stay away from the math however as the math is even harder as there is no way to picture it or explain it it is the way it is...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/080d0/080d02859fe9173765296cb383ab3d77e7bd533c" alt="Laughing"
Yeah that's the hell of it eh. The math is best (only?) way to understand it but the people who truly understand the math will almost always say that it is virtually untranslatable into the language of common experience. So the educated layperson has to settle for his own interpretation of a crappy translation.