No, everything that exists exists, whether we observe it or not. That’s because reality exists independent of conscious activity. That’s the most fundamental issue in philosophy. Reality does not depend on consciousness; reality has primacy.
1 Like
The only way that you can see,hear or feel anything at all in the physical is because binary data is converted into sounds ,visions and sensations…..so you need to ask yourself the question how is this binary data created in the cosmos.
This then becomes a huge challenge for presently accepted theories because they are unable to explain how balanced symmetrical forces produce that binary data.This is how we know that presently accepted theories are incorrect.
As there has never NOT been existence then you can’t cancel everything out proving that +=- and -=+ philosophy is incorrect.
To me this is as simple as needing a brain for it.
No brain, no dreams. As such for you to be able to dream you need the entire body, biology and shebang that belongs within this universe.
Now you can make all kinds of esoteric claims about how the matter and brain are not the origin and are just receiving and what not, but thats neither here nor there imo.
There is a LOT of confusion about what the/a universe is in this thread. Thats for sure.
I treat it more or less as the current scientific definition, which is the net sum of space, time, causality and quantum fields.
Meanwhile apparently some think it simply refers to “every and anything” as per the 2000 year old concept of it.
May or may not be the case. We might just not be aware of how physics work in higher dimensions.
I mean it was a trip to come up with the zero dimensional dot concept for the big bang as well.
Yeah but the problem is the Frame.
There is an “all that is” for inside a universe
And if such a thing exists then there is an “all that is” outside of the universe too.
Its like living on an island with nothing but sea surrounding you for 10’000km
Your concept of “all that is” can mean the things you have on the island, because those are the only things you have access to.
While someone sitting in a space station looking down at you from the orbit has also a different concept of “all that is”.
Like how humanity had a wildly different definition for “all that is” as it developed scientifically.
At one point we thought the land was infinite, then the sea, then we realized we are sitting on a sphere.
So “all that is” does not really help to alleviate the issue when the debaters are sitting in different scales/frames.
Its two types of information but they are codependent.
Your TV and speakers wont be outputting anything without the coding on the DVD, but your DVD wont be outputting anything without your TV and speakers either.
There is a transformation process as the data on the DVD gets read and transformed into sound and image. So the answer to your question is both.
The images and sounds of trees hitting the ground are literally present in the coding on the DVD, but they are dependent on the TV and speakers if you want to see and hear them.
And thank you for it. New angles and opinions are always appreciated.
1 Like
That’s just a matter of definition. ‘Universe’ has two different commonly used meanings:
- Everything, all there is. In this case there isn’t anything that isn’t the universe.
- Not everything, but say one big more-or-less interconnected system, of which there could be many. Say the world we observe is part of a universe, and there could be other universes, constituting a multiverse. In this case the other universes are not our universe.
2 Likes
The universe is a system comprising of vibrating matter (made up of balanced spinning particles with N and S poles) all of which emits varying frequency energy waves (dependent upon the spin speed of the particles) to the binary processing biological machine body antenna (receiver) senses. The biological machine physical body is an analogue to digital converter. It converts these varying frequency energy waves which contain unique binary code data into binary electrical signals. These binary electrical signals are then converted into sounds;visions and sensations such that the individual who resides within the metaphysical can interpret the external physical.The physical and the metaphysical is not the spiritual.
You won’t find anything in mainstream pseudoscientific text books about this because that nonsense is all founded upon an incorrect starting philosophy for actual reality science.
Blasphemy! 
That too is a matter of definition
1 Like
No, all the meanings are clear. One is right others are wrong. Period. Blasphemer repent!!
1 Like
I completely agree with the first and completely disagree with the latter.
Are you sure I have not address the same or more times? Look up ‘universe1’ and you’ll see. Your ‘extended specification’ is on you, not me. You define universe2 as you want, I define universe1 how I want. It has to be the same bar for each. For you to see I responded to you: Universe1 is defined all that exists, so there is something not in universe1, by definitinon of universe1, it doesn’t exist. It’s that simple.
I’m not referring to universe as everything that exists even outside the universe, because nothing can exist outside the universe, by definition. You can read all my instances of ‘universe’ as ‘universe1’, and it holds. The claim is based on the definition, it’s very simple.
Oh, you’re wrong there, it didn’t went out of date at all. It still holds. You can, tho, read that as universe1, and it’s alright. You read “universe” and replace it in your head for “universe1”. It’s enough.
Not at all, it hasn’t. Some people use the same word to refer to a part of the universe (‘universe1’, for you).
Exactly: where is the contradiction? Keep in mind that nothing can exist outside the universe (‘universe1’ for you) because of what that word refers to, yes. Precisely that.
Yes, a universe2 is defined as you wish, since you define it. Not a universe1. The time of the idea makes no difference, since you see that idea is still alive.
Exactly: in scientific theories, there are references to the observable universe.
You see, you can refer to ‘our universe’ as people can refer to ‘hidraulic cats’ - the name doesn´t make it the universe. Like people that say ‘my truth’ - that points that it’s independent from truth, it’s ‘my opinion’.
Now THAT is what I call a good question. If dreams exist (because those are perceptions we have), then dreams are part of the universe (‘universe1’ for @Nausamedu ). But what don’t exist are the things the dream refers to, much like a daydream or mirage.
If one is not cautious enough, one would say Santa exist because we think it. The thought of it exists, not Santa.
Yeah, I disagree! In common everyday parlance it is used as all that exists, as far as I’m aware. That’s why I’m using universe1 and universe2 for this, to not go one over the other.
Are you to Wigner’s friend with your DVD example? I have to say, I fail to grasp the relationship of the dvd and all with it. One thing is to be aware of reality, another is that something is not part of reality. Different stuff.
This is subjectivization. It is not said that it is ‘all that is inside x’, just all that is. You don’t even need to know all that is to talk about it.
But what IS a definition? Is that definition part of universe1 or universe2? If you are not aware of the definition… is it defined?
I see no reference to blasphemy in your response.
So thats it. We are running off of separate concepts and ideas and there is no connection between the two then.
No it doesnt.
The two definitions are used completely differently and also mean completely different things.
Like the word “universally” meaning everywhere/anywhere/across all/on all etc etc etc.
Yes. The definition you speak of still exists.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific concept of the universe which is a physical phenomena and not a linguistic stunt.
In short: You are absolutely not talking about the thing i am.
And they too are using the word wrong.
→ Observation is not required for existence
→ Nothing can exist unless i acknowledge it
There is your contradiction.
No. No universe 2. All and any universes are defined by their local frame.
Thats how a universe works.
Again, you are using a linguistic bs word that means “all” FOR a scientific definition.
Please for the love of f, pick one of the two, but not both. They are NOT the same thing.
Really.
Think that through again.
According to this logic individual objects cant exist because saying that an apple is an object consisting of all atoms that makes up the object, is subjective.
Because according to you there is only all atoms in existence, and whatever they make up would be subjectivity.
Sorry. No. Its not subjective to say that an apple is a collection of atoms which make up the apple.
Neither is it subjective to say that a universe is the net sum of all that constructs it.
It is in fact, the definition of objective.
I was in no way suggesting that the body and brain are not a part of this universe.
Indeed, without the pre-existence of the highly ordered material body and, especially, the brain, then that new and autonomous - bubble of reality* mentioned earlier, could never have awakened into existence.
* (By “bubble of reality,” I am of course referring to that closed “spatial arena” better known as the “mind” in which our “immaterial thoughts” and “immaterial dreams” are created and manipulated by the “I Am-ness” to whom the bubble [“mind”] belongs.)
However, in accordance with the concept of “Strong Emergence,” once awakened into existence, the new and autonomous “bubble of reality” (again, the human mind) seems to be something “wholly other” than that from which it emerged.
And in this case, we’re talking about something that is completely inaccessible (immeasurable) from the perspective of the metaphorical “womb” (the brain / universe) that facilitated its manifestation (emergence) into existence.
Now, if you insist that I am wrong and that our thoughts and dreams are indeed a tangible and measurable (inseparable) aspect of this universe, then have a look at one of my fanciful illustrations…
…and then tell me how any of our measuring devices could reach into that dream of a tropical island on the left and literally measure the height of the palm trees, or the length and width of one of the palm leaves, or the distance of the palm trees to the ocean?
Spoiler alert: They can’t!
Furthermore, they (our measuring devices) also cannot determine the ontological status of the “dreamer” of that dream.
And no, fMRIs, or similar devices, are utterly incapable of doing any of that.
As much as I am reluctant to use the following example,…
(and that’s because I think the MWI is nonsense)
…for illustrative purposes, I nevertheless suggest that once formed (as in once birthed into existence from our brains), our minds are like the parallel universes depicted in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics –> universes that, after allegedly branching-off of this universe, are from then on completely inaccessible to each other.
Again, if you doubt that, then take a crack at measuring one of those palm trees in my little thought experiment.
From my vantage point, my “esoteric claims” are infinitely less outrageous than the claims made by those who believe that the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics somehow grabbed hold of the random and chaotically dispersed quantum phenomena that allegedly resulted from the explosion (Big Bang) of an infinitesimal genesis point,…
…and without the slightest notion of what the end product would be, nevertheless, caused those random bits of quantum gibberish to coalesce (self-arrange) into highly correlated patterns of information that,…
(again, without the slightest inkling of any guidance, or teleological impetus, or the vaguest understanding or ability to visualize what the patterns of information represented)
…somehow managed to turn out to be this…
…and this…
…which amazingly (by sheer chance) just so happened to be the absolute perfect (fully-equipped) setting from which life, mind, and consciousness could not only effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself,…
…but a setting that is fully capable of sustaining innumerable lifeforms for billions of years into the future.
Ah, but all of that is “neither here nor there,” right? 
Not at all, it’s nothing about linguistics at all, it’s a way to point to all that exists.
I agree: I have been telling that quite a lot of times. That’s why I used universe1 and universe2, see?
I think you meant the contrary. Those people use ‘universe’ to refer to a part of universe1 (all that exists). If they are using the word wrong, you would be using the word wrong.
Do you think I said that? I said exactly the opposite. If you point to me where I did, I can correct it (perhaps a typo?)
Yes, all and any universe2s are defined by their local frame, that’s how a universe2 works. That doesn’t work for universe1 (there are no ‘universe1s’ nor have local frames and so)
Not at all, quite te contrary. We can at some other point talk about the scope of science and so, but it’s out of the topic.
That’s why I’m pointing out universe1 and universe2.
How come? It’s quite the contrary.
LOL. Not at all, I don’t know where you get that. If you are thinking that, that’s on you, not me.
Exactly: the universe (for you, “universe1”) is the set of all that exists. All which exists is part of the universe (for you, “universe1”), and nothing is outside it. It’s precisely what I wrote since mostly the beginning
I’d say some development into neuroscience would amaze you, ones that do point out to the contrary. There are indeed experiments in which dreams and imagination are depicted on a screen. With big errors, but still
If you will, do resurrect one of that threads abour ‘intelligent design’ or the like
I took this issue up with AI Copilot…
Me:
Have there been any experiments where scientists (of any stripe) have been able to peer into a person’s mind while the person is asleep and experiencing a vivid dream, and literally see what the dreamer was seeing from the dreamer’s first-person perspective of the dream?
Copilot:
Short answer: Scientists have managed to decode fragments of dream imagery using brain‑scanning and AI techniques, but no one has ever literally “seen” a dream from the dreamer’s first‑person perspective. What we have today are rough, blurry reconstructions or category‑level guesses, not cinematic dream playback.
What scientists cannot do
No experiment has ever produced:
A literal first‑person replay of a dream
A faithful video of what the dreamer “saw”
A continuous narrative reconstruction
A high‑resolution image matching the dream’s actual appearance
Even the most ambitious recent work—such as attempts to create coherent video narratives from fMRI—remains experimental, low‑resolution, and heavily dependent on language models filling in gaps, not true dream capture.
Bottom line
…no one has ever seen a dream from the dreamer’s own perspective.
So, no, neuroscience has done nothing to disprove my assertions regarding our minds existing as separate and autonomous bubbles of reality relative to the bubble of reality (this universe) in which they were conceived and momentarily reside.
Again, our minds are like the MWI version of branched universes in that their interiors are completely separate from one another.
If you don’t mind, would you please clarify what it is you are requesting of me in that quote?
Well… personally i am not going to insist that you are wrong.
I am more often than not a worshipper of the proverb “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance”. Im agnostic, and i simply handle topics like these with absolute objectivity. If we can prove it, then its a yes. If we cant, then it remains a possibility regardless of plausibility, if we can disprove it, then its a no. And thats that.
What we can affirm we will affirm. What we cant, we shouldnt make factual claims about.
Just for the purpose of the argument, we are making some advances in this direction.
With that being said however, there is little to no point in arguing the specifications of a subjective dream world that is to begin with unspecified.
How deep is that ocean? It might be knee deep and you could still dive into it within your dream and emerge on the other side of it in candy land bordered by hell with god and satan having a pizza eating contest.
But i get your point. Thats why i am not going to pro or contra it.
You might be right. You might be wrong. There is absolutely not enough evidence to decide either way.
Hmm.. maybe, but personally i think that the overwhelming majority of people have this… not even instinct but need to push Anthromorphization and pareidolia on everything. Or maybe thats the only way for them to interpret things, i dont know.
Point is, people think that reality has to have intent and purpose because otherwise how would we be here.
I am no materialist/naturalist. I do not think that matter is the be all and end all of existence.
However, i also do not think that we need to give all kinds of awareness, consciousness, intent or anything the like to reality around us.
I am more inclined to believe that the universe has its own (for the lack of a better word) melody and flow which can under circumstances manifest borderline unthinkable concepts such as self-aware life.
There are an estimated 1 septillion (1’000’000’000’000’000’000’000’000) planets in the observable universe. 1 made it in the lottery, who knows how many didnt.
Chance is like that.
Sometimes you hit your mark. Sometimes you hit someone’s eye. And at other times you miss 10^24 times.
It is. At least in my opinion.
1 Like
Yes. A way to point to all that exists. Linguistically.
Yes. I bought that up, and then you have taken it and started to use it for something entirely differently from what i was talking about.
Again, thats not what universe means. You are not using a scientific definition or concept.
Its not a typo. You keep on repeating that nothing can exist outside of universe 1.
Because why? On what basis?
10 times i have asked this now.
What you just said: “Yes all and any things you are talking about works like that. But it doesnt for the thing i am talking about which (btw) doesnt exist and has no definition either or attributes either”
How in the f would be the very thing that the topic discusses, out of the topic?
”What is not the universe” → “The universe is out of the topic”
You progressively make less and less sense.
If you wanna talk about “all that is” then remove the “universe” from the title of the topic.
“Here is the concept i fail to define and discuss correctly. I now made a copy of it so its okay”
I have no idea what you are doing at this point, but you are clearly not responding to anything i am saying.
Thats literally what you said dude.
”This is subjectivization. It is not said that it is ‘all that is inside x’, just all that is.”
A set having elements that belong to said set, is subjectivation according to your logic.
Everything appearing on the right-hand side of that video is indeed a part of this universe.
It is created from the interpenetrating (entangled) physics that binds the bubble of this one particular universe together into one seamless whole.
However, it is not (nor will it ever be) what is literally appearing before the mind’s eye of the dreamer of the dream.
Exactly, as “dog” is a way to refer to my dog.
I don’t get what you mean by that
How come universe2 is not a part of all that exists? Remember: it’s not ‘all that exists for me’, it’s all that exists.
Yes, because it makes sense: by definition universe1 is all that exists, all that is outside of universe1 doesn’t have the property of existing, so nothing exists outside. That’s the basis, I already answered you 10 times. What is wrong in there? Keep in mind not to confuse “all that exists” for “all that exists for me” or something else.
What? When did I write that?
Do you think that such is what the topic discusses? We can talk about the scope of science in some thread apart from this.
I want to talk about the universe, as it is used as “all that exists”, for sure, that’s why I use that word (Remember: replace it mentall by universe1)
How come universe2 is a copy of universe1?
I agree. That’s why you think the next:
See? You think I didn’t, when I did.
Not at all. What you did, going from, for example “all that exists” to interpreting that as “all that exists for me” is what I’m pointing out that it is subjectivization. You took something objective, interpreted it as subjective, then when being reminded it isn’t about that subjective thing, you insist on it being subjective and that what has asked has been subjective, when it hasn’t been so. See?
Sorry i will drop out of this thread. We cant even match our definitions about the word the topic is supposed to be about.
This went on for way too long anyway.