All truths are true?

[Lavazza]

Does it really make sense to think about what exists outside your framework if you know in advance that your framework makes it what it is? I know this is an insane concept. But think about it. If your mind dictates what you see, how can you even ask yourself what the reality is like without the mind?

It's not that insane, in fact Alan Watts made use of this thinking quite often in his writing. He makes a good point in saying that the concept of seperate objects is an illusion created by our society. You could never, for example, describe an ant colony without also describing it's environment. In much the same way I can see your point in this. Without brains, eyes, ears, taste buds, etc. the "reality" is nothing more than various complex patterns of vibration, which runs right in to your next point:

A table is a massive wooden object. A table is mostly a vacuum filled with moving points of energy. A table is a wave form. A table is an intellectual idea, a table is a place to exist at. But what ever a table is... you need someone to see it as such before it is guaranteed to be anything at all.

Not just a vacuum but almost completely a vacuum. The whole of creation is in much the same way- a massive and highly sophisticated, complex pattern of atoms, which are nearly entirely devoid of matter to the point where describing the universe as matter doesn't make nearly as much sense as describing it as energy, patterns, etc. When Confederation entities call our physical reality an illusion they can now be proven correct by cutting edge, and even 20th century physics.

I have started to look at this differently. Her perspective is limited. But that does not mean she sees more or less. She just sees differently. You know how saints and mystics explain to us how time and space are products of our minds? So how can something be a sphere, if we create it's sphereness during our act of "existing in relation to it"?

Although I still can't accept certain things as being possible (at least in my reality, ha!) I also understand that if they were true, I would not be able to understand how they could be. But just because I take that approach does not mean that my interpretation is the correct one. On the other hand, I can intellectually accept that the concept of infinity in terms of other realities implies that every possible combination of things actually exists. (On a side note this is somewhat disturbing when I consider that the events in James Cameron's 1986 'Aliens' actually took place in some other reality). Of course I still can't understand how in an infinite combination of realities there is a reality where people go to hell, or that god doesn't exist, etc. Paradoxes abound.

I would also like to underscore once again that I can only just grasp this sort of understanding, but that I'm cool with that. Here's an amazing article about a theory of Steven Hawkings', in which he explains how the universe may have retroactively selected it's own evolution in order to come in to existence (the observer effect in quantum mechanics requires an observer for things to come in to existence. For the big bang to happen would require an observer of which there were obviously none pre-bang. But if you toss out the concept of time it is possible.)

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617

It's exciting to me that physics can confirm our esoteric conjectures.

Can you imagine two playing fields in two separate universes? Sharing one soccer ball? Can you imagine that it would be possible for four teams to play with the ball at the same time without noticing something is wrong? All kicking and movement of the ball is synchronized and exactly the same in both universes. All teams feel they're in control. Yet in one universe the end score is different than in the other! Because the score is dictated by the spectators and the teams. And only "almost completely" by the movement of the ball.

Note that there is only one ball, it is shared by universes and bridges these universes together.

It seems impossible, the odds against this working out in a classical understanding are astronomical.. But odds are relative to our world. Not relative to the larger psychoverse. This is the essence of synchronicity. It drives creation.

Pyschoverse! I love that term, I may have to use that later I can understand how that ball example would work, considering infinity. In the face of infinity, the odds of that happening are overwhelmingly likely. Not just with four different games, but trillions of them. Even that would be a mote. Numbers fail utterly in the face of infinity.

Thanks for humoring me on this subject. Infinity is fun.