In God's Image

Religion and Secularism
162
Absolute Being = Condition
Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space
I interpret that to mean; Potential, Brahman, Absolute Being, Condition, can never express themselves directly in our Reality. Thus the terms like, "acts of God", 'miracles', or "hand of god" are false. It is all part of a continual mathematical process. The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future. Thus it must also be a property (a potential) of the Wholeness. Consider: when/where mathematical function fails, the result is either chaos or nothing. Don't misunderstand, with the term Mathematics I am not referring to our invention of mathematical symbols as a universal language. It is a Function in the dynamic wholeness. Can it be otherwise? I highly doubt it. The mathematical function (in the abstract) is a perfect function for processing "packets of information", physical or metaphysical. We even use it to create AI.
I would be more inclined to say Absolute Being = Primal Awareness. Why does it need to be "aware" (in human terms)? Did the mathematical function exist before the invention of the computer? Did man invent the mathematical function? Did God or Brahman or Atman invent the mathematical function? It is precisely the opposite, those gods were invented by humans , because we observed the mathematical function and assigned a motivated intelligence to it, because that is how humans function. We are motivated and act with purpose in mind.
If you reference Brahman, what then about Atman? (and what does this imply for AI?)
Does an AI have primal awareness? As I understand it, Atman speaks about the human soul (spirit), not specifically about a selforganizing metaphysical condition. But if you look at the illustrations of scripture, we can see how these gods were viewed. Picture of humans, animals, strange imaginary creatures which have absolutely nothing to do with reality, only with the morality of reality. That's it. Then came the objective descriptions of QM and GR and the world changed from that point on. We had found the explanation of HOW the universe functions down to Planck scale, where we start encountering chaos.
The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future.
Yes, but the function arises with the first thing. The function is a result of the primal cause.
Why? Why can it not be just an emergent mathematical latency (potential) for transferring packets of energetic information? What if the primal cause is just a ripple in the metaphysical condition, starting a mathematical progression, evolution, resulting in this Universe? Why is that an unacceptably simple solution and needs to be imbued with properties it does not possess.
I understand that the function is not the language, but nature itself. Primal Awareness compounding in increasingly complex combinations. Like a hall of infinite mirrors. But there must first be something to reflect and to reflect upon.
Is an unfolding fractal aware? If a mirror reflects an image, is it aware that it does so? Does it reflect the human's consciousness or just its physical image? I personally see a mirror function as a potential of the meta-physical condition, but only as an inherent state of balancing positive and negative. The mirror "entanglement" of positive and negative.
My emphasis on "awareness" seems to be a source of difference between us. It reminds me of my own critique of the Deistic apartheid. Whereby the primal cause resides somewhere else, disassociated from the results of it's causation.
Yes, it seems natural (from our point of view) that an ordering from chaos would need an motivated, intentional causality. But I disagree with the notion of an aware but disinterested causality. That just confuses the issue even further. But ask if awareness is an unavoidable result of complex mathematics, or an emergent property in sentient organisms. When we look at a fractal, do we say "watch this intelligently aware thing (a triangular iteration) create the most astoundingly beautiful compositions". Do we then say the fractal function is artistic or just a beautiful (to us) geometric complexity?
My understanding would be that we humans particularize miracles as events. The hand of God, as actions in time. In "truth" though, the "miracle" is a constant state. A steady stream.
That seems reverse reasoning to me. Humans see events as miracles, not the other way around. Stop the mathematical function and those miracles result in unintelligible chaos. We are the ones calling the mathematical functions Gods. But the steady stream of quantum events does not in any way lead to a conclusion of intelligence or awareness.
Residing in that awareness is enlightenment. The realization of Atman. Non-differentiation. Original nature.
Ok, but that assumes "awareness" as a given quality to the universe. Is that necessary? The mathematical function is but a potential (an efficient natural metaphysical framework or geometry for transferring data). Bottom line, the mathematical function is not aware, or part of any greater awareness. It is just a function, no more no less. The problem arises when humans try to understand the reason (meaning) for this function. A subjective personal wish to see aomething wich applies directly to humans. And of course this wish is in the "direction of greater satisfaction", why else did we invent heaven and hell? IMO, the search for and identification of a greater causality is a human enterprise only. As every human being has their own specific "point of view", this subjectivity has given rise to ALL theologies. Thus, which one is correct? Brahman, Atman, God, Zeus, Chronos, Chaos? Or is it just an implaccable function of the geometric nature of our universe. 1 + 1 = 2 is not intelligent, it is a mindless mathematical function, and it works! Love, Hate, Motive, Intent, are properties of living organisms, not of an Implaccable meta-physical construct. We need not assign supernatural, motivated, intentional, EMOTIONAL properties to the initial causal concition. It is just not necessary (Ockham) and only tends to "confound the language". The term "awareness" is an ambiguity. As a boy, I would look at a rock and ask myself how a rock could remain a rock if it didn't know it was a rock. After all, if it didn't know it was a rock it would just fly apart, no? Then I learned about the 4 forces of nature and rocks no longer needed to be aware of their rockness, to be rocks. It was all in the maths. And, IMO, so it is with the universe. It does not need to know its universeness (infinitude), it is just a mathematical function, which for one resulted in our universe. A lucky break in the infinity of possible universal realities. p.s. let me demonstrate from personal experience. I play a lot of poker (Texas Hold-em) and aside from the luck of the draw, it is is a perfectly mathematical game, based on probabilities. The probability of drawing a (5 card) Royal Flush is extremely small. Several years ago (sitting at a full table) I drew a (7 card) Royal Flush, iow. Every card dealt (2 in hand and 5 on table) resulted in a perfect 7 card Royal Flush for me, a perfect sequential match from the 8 to the Ace of the same suit. My hand started as A, J of clubs. The other 5 cards were dealt on the table. This was not a "once in a lifetime" deal, it was a once in a century deal.
Probability of a 5 card Royal Flush We now carry out the division and see that a royal flush is rare indeed. There is only a probability of 4/2,598,960 = 1/649,740 = 0.00015% of being dealt this hand. To put this number in perspective, if you were dealt 20 hands of poker every night of the year, in 89 years you should only expect to see one royal flush. So this hand is not as common as what the movies might make us believe.
Now add another 2 sequential cards to this formula and you can readiliy see the incredibly small odds. Lucky me. Unfortunately we were playing with play-chips and I did not profit from it, but there was total consternation in the other players. Some called it a miracle , others even said it was a rigged game. But it was just an inherent potential of the game, where probabilities lined up perfectly to result in "my seat" receiving the perfect hand. No miraculous favor of god for this atheist, just luck of the draw, by the mathematical function.
163

@Write4U #161
Some thoughts and questions:

  • What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
  • How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?
  • If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)
  • In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?
  • Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.
  • To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)
    Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
  • (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)
164
- To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments) Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
No, you can be an atheist anything without having any particular version of God in mind. It is affectively a definition of atheism that you don’t believe in any version of God, anthropomorphized or not. So although the royal flush explanation of odds does not remove Purusha from your equations, it is not require it in any of mine. You have been adding on this “uncaused cause/prime mover" from your first post. I prefer to leave the question of what came before the universe open. It is just as much a mystery to me as it is to you. All of the speculative ideas you have presented have no affect on me or my daily decisions. They don’t actually affect you either, but the speculation about them does affect how you go about your day.
165
- To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments) Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
No, you can be an atheist anything without having any particular version of God in mind. It is affectively a definition of atheism that you don’t believe in any version of God, anthropomorphized or not. So although the royal flush explanation of odds does not remove Purusha from your equations, it is not require it in any of mine. You have been adding on this “uncaused cause/prime mover" from your first post. I prefer to leave the question of what came before the universe open. It is just as much a mystery to me as it is to you. All of the speculative ideas you have presented have no affect on me or my daily decisions. They don’t actually affect you either, but the speculation about them does affect how you go about your day. I agree, For all the poetry and wsdom contained in scripture, no one knows the Truth, simply because it does not exist as a physical object. By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality. To my knowledge, there is but one Word which encompasses everything in existence. That Word is Potential. Even Bohm's "insight intelligence" must have been preceded by potential. It precedes EVerything, Ever and Always. Whatever there was the instant before the beginning can only be accurately described as Potential (That which may become reality). This is a universally true statement, as it it does not define anything, but indicates an ability to become expressed as a physical object or function. It is a "common denominator"of everything in existence, physical and meta-physical. By its very definition that IS a true statement. That "common denominator" is the fact that Potential ALWAYS precedes what is to become reality. It preceded the Past, preceded the Present and will precede the future. Without Potential for dynamic action nothing happens at all, regardless of the alternate labels we have attached to that inherent ability of the condition preceding reality. The word "potential" is used almost as much as the word "god", in every known mundane activity or observation as well as in science (in every area of scientific research) and in theism (god has the potential to create).
Discussion of POTENTIAL latent, dormant, quiescent, potential mean not now showing signs of activity or existence. latent applies to a power or quality that has not yet come forth but may emerge and develop . dormant suggests the inactivity of something (as a feeling or power) as though sleeping . quiescent suggests a usually temporary cessation of activity . potential applies to what does not yet have existence or effect but is likely soon to have . potential, noun : a chance or possibility that something will happen or exist in the future : a quality that something has that can be developed to make it better : an ability that someone has that can be developed to help that person become successful
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential All "acts of gods" are expressions of Potential. All gods themselves were preceded by potential. If I were to propose an absolutely and indisputably true belief system, I would call it Potentialism. Low and behold, there is a treatise on Potentialism:
1) Potentialism, Is there an eternal something? Classic term for question: "Eternal Origins" Quick-formulation of Summa's response as regards this question: Summa proposes that Potential/Possibility is eternal. Indeed, it is the only concept/dynamic that we can conceptualize with certainty as being eternal. SUMMA ICON: POTENTIAL/POSSIBILITY IS ETERNAL
http://potentialismtheory.com/ see also http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/19/david-birnbaum-jeweller-philosopher This is a truly enlightening article, I urge all interested theist and scientist parties to read it and receive the full scope of the "meaning" of the word "Potential". Just as the "exponential function" is one of the least known eternal "mathematical functions", the meaning of the word Potential is one of the least understood abstract properties of the Eternal Origins of Existence.
166

A Navy Seal once told me he’d cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.

167

@ Write4U #164
I’ve never had a handle on what metaphysics is exactly. I’m guessing that you mean it as something beyond empirical inquiry.
I would suggest that cultivation of Self realization (i.e. Atman) ought to be considered empirical inquiry, but most likely won’t be.
That aside, I’m not finding all that much to fuss about in your comments.

By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality.
Well? Yes. But, how is it "a reach too far" though? Especially if one factors in underlying infinitude as the primal cause of the causal Potential. This strikes me as very satisfying definition of God. Primal cause. Both implicate and explicit. The question of sentience and the nature of that sentience is where it gets fun. But it doesn't benefit much from debate. Since sentience is the foundation of experience, the proof is in the experience. Experience and Potential being a seamless dynamic. I realize that the above statement is all over the map. (Don't need Lausten to tell me.) But, there is a point where a neat, linear analysis completely falls apart in this discussion. All conditions, stages, effects, manifestations, as well as potential, are in "truth", simultaneous and non-different.
168
"In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was Potential"... :-)
I agree too. RE: the word. How did that work? No air, no sound? :) Since when does a "word" need to be spoken to be a "word"? To limit it thus, is just a bit narrow minded. It could be written, but did god write down his word? That's the only way the bible writers could have known what it was if he didn't speak it. Wonder whatt he used to write with. A pen? A pencil? A chisel? Or a celestial iPad?
169
A Navy Seal once told me he'd cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.
Destruction of something(one) is not a creative enterprise. The seconday effects may be creative. A supernova, seemingly a completely destructive event, gave rise to some 90 heavy metals some of which were necessary in the creation and evolution of man. There is only change of form or state. Potential is inherent in all events, which were themselves created from potential.
170
@ Write4U #164 I've never had a handle on what metaphysics is exactly. I'm guessing that you mean it as something beyond empirical inquiry. I would suggest that cultivation of Self realization (i.e. Atman) ought to be considered empirical inquiry, but most likely won't be. That aside, I'm not finding all that much to fuss about in your comments.
By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality.
Well? Yes. But, how is it "a reach too far" though? Especially if one factors in underlying infinitude as the primal cause of the causal Potential.
If we have a definitive term for identifying the inherent (latent) abilities in all things, why do we NEED a still greater Motivational construct? Remember Ockham's razor? If you believe we must dig still deeper, then you will have to come up with a reasonable explanatin why Potential requires an yet greater (and presumably sentient) Causality. What is it's purpose", how does it work, what are its (metaphysical) properties? IMO, the word Universal Potential (in its most abstract interpretation) is as deep as one can go. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary in Physics. In subjective human terms (taking into account our "desire for greater satisfaction) may be a factor but that would not be a universal property IMO.
171

How about coordination. If we have a few quadrillion quadrillion individuals spying into the same universe with different realities how is it that on earth when the HMS Hood blows up, eeveryone in the vicinity while seeing something different, agrees that they are all seeing the same thing in the same time frame? It makes for a nice game of chess when the board is the same for both players, even though it is not quite the same and even the result can be contested not by the camera’s eye but the personal reality of the players.

172
A Navy Seal once told me he'd cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.
Destruction of something(one) is not a creative enterprise. The seconday effects may be creative. A supernova, seemingless a completely destructive event, gave rise to some 90 heavy metals some of which were necessary in the creation and evolution of man. There is only change of form or state. Potential is inherent in all events, which were themselves created from potential. You may have missed my meaning. I did not infer that cutting people up is a creative act. The meaning of the statement by the Seal is that potential is a concept created by our language. It can only be defined in terms that include knowledge of a timeline. It is not tangible or a force of it's own. It is a type of energy, or maybe more precisely a state of energy. The second part is for us experiencing it. We have to generate the creation of our next action. You might think there is potential for it, but if it doesn't happen, where did the potential go?
173
A Navy Seal once told me he'd cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.
Destruction of something(one) is not a creative enterprise. The seconday effects may be creative. A supernova, seemingless a completely destructive event, gave rise to some 90 heavy metals some of which were necessary in the creation and evolution of man. There is only change of form or state. Potential is inherent in all events, which were themselves created from potential. You may have missed my meaning. I did not infer that cutting people up is a creative act. The meaning of the statement by the Seal is that potential is a concept created by our language. It can only be defined in terms that include knowledge of a timeline. It is not tangible or a force of it's own. It is a type of energy, or maybe more precisely a state of energy. The second part is for us experiencing it. We have to generate the creation of our next action. You might think there is potential for it, but if it doesn't happen, where did the potential go? Simple, it remains a dormant latency. Not all potential becomes expressed in reality. Suppose you want to go bike riding. All the potentials are in place, you have time, desire, motivation, you have a bike and outside is a fine bike path. You gp outside and yuo have a flat tire and no spare. No bike ride. What happened to all those potentials? They are all still there as latencies, "waiting" for the tire to be repaired and the person taking a bike ride. Time will have passed, but the potentials remained the same (because they are innate) in the form itself.
174
@ Write4U #164 I've never had a handle on what metaphysics is exactly. Don't be overly concerned. Basically it's bullshit. That's all you need to know. I'm guessing that you mean it as something beyond empirical inquiry. I would suggest that cultivation of Self realization (i.e. Atman) ought to be considered empirical inquiry, but most likely won't be. That aside, I'm not finding all that much to fuss about in your comments.
By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality.
Well? Yes. But, how is it "a reach too far" though? Especially if one factors in underlying infinitude as the primal cause of the causal Potential. This strikes me as very satisfying definition of God. Primal cause. Both implicate and explicit. The question of sentience and the nature of that sentience is where it gets fun. But it doesn't benefit much from debate. Since sentience is the foundation of experience, the proof is in the experience. Experience and Potential being a seamless dynamic. I realize that the above statement is all over the map. (Don't need Lausten to tell me.) But, there is a point where a neat, linear analysis completely falls apart in this discussion. All conditions, stages, effects, manifestations, as well as potential, are in "truth", simultaneous and non-different.
See what I mean? Lois
175
A Navy Seal once told me he'd cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.
Destruction of something(one) is not a creative enterprise. The seconday effects may be creative. A supernova, seemingless a completely destructive event, gave rise to some 90 heavy metals some of which were necessary in the creation and evolution of man. There is only change of form or state. Potential is inherent in all events, which were themselves created from potential. You may have missed my meaning. I did not infer that cutting people up is a creative act. The meaning of the statement by the Seal is that potential is a concept created by our language. It can only be defined in terms that include knowledge of a timeline. It is not tangible or a force of it's own. It is a type of energy, or maybe more precisely a state of energy. The second part is for us experiencing it. We have to generate the creation of our next action. You might think there is potential for it, but if it doesn't happen, where did the potential go? Simple, it remains a dormant latency. Not all potential becomes expressed in reality. Suppose you want to go bike riding. All the potentials are in place, you have time, desire, motivation, you have a bike and outside is a fine bike path. You gp outside and yuo have a flat tire and no spare. No bike ride. What happened to all those potentials? They are all still there as latencies, "waiting" for the tire to be repaired and the person taking a bike ride. Time will have passed, but the potentials remained the same (because they are innate) in the form itself. By that definition, potential is something that you say was there as an after thought. Even when someone dies, especially a young person, people say they HAD so much potential. It's a fairly useless term in relation to human activity.
176
If we have a definitive term for identifying the inherent (latent) abilities in all things, why do we NEED a still greater Motivational construct? Remember Ockham's razor? If you believe we must dig still deeper, then you will have to come up with a reasonable explanatin why Potential requires an yet greater (and presumably sentient) Causality. What is it's purpose", how does it work, what are its (metaphysical) properties? IMO, the word Universal Potential (in its most abstract interpretation) is as deep as one can go. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary in Physics. In subjective human terms (taking into account our "desire for greater satisfaction) may be a factor but that would not be a universal property IMO.
I'm possibly splitting hairs. But, to me the term "Universal" implies post emergence, but if you also intend it to include primal infinitude (being referred to here as "truth"), then I'm good with it. Since I never talk just in terms of physics, and as yet don't think that I talk in terms of metaphysics either, I suspect that there actually are gaps in our understanding that may be hard to reconcile. Per the above quote, I want to point out that I am not talking about a sentient causality (at least as you seem to think of it). But rather, that what you are calling "Universal Potential", can as easily be seen in more theological terms as the "Universal I Am". Or, God. Going by either name, it permeates the entirety. In fact, is the entirety. My version of course requires more respect for the role of the "subjective" in the scheme of things, and that is probably where we will find large areas of difference in our viewpoints.
177
A Navy Seal once told me he'd cut people up 14 different ways and never saw any potential in there. Creation is something we have to generate every day.
Destruction of something(one) is not a creative enterprise. The seconday effects may be creative. A supernova, seemingless a completely destructive event, gave rise to some 90 heavy metals some of which were necessary in the creation and evolution of man. There is only change of form or state. Potential is inherent in all events, which were themselves created from potential. You may have missed my meaning. I did not infer that cutting people up is a creative act. The meaning of the statement by the Seal is that potential is a concept created by our language. It can only be defined in terms that include knowledge of a timeline. It is not tangible or a force of it's own. It is a type of energy, or maybe more precisely a state of energy. The second part is for us experiencing it. We have to generate the creation of our next action. You might think there is potential for it, but if it doesn't happen, where did the potential go? Simple, it remains a dormant latency. Not all potential becomes expressed in reality. Suppose you want to go bike riding. All the potentials are in place, you have time, desire, motivation, you have a bike and outside is a fine bike path. You gp outside and yuo have a flat tire and no spare. No bike ride. What happened to all those potentials? They are all still there as latencies, "waiting" for the tire to be repaired and the person taking a bike ride. Time will have passed, but the potentials remained the same (because they are innate) in the form itself. By that definition, potential is something that you say was there as an after thought. Even when someone dies, especially a young person, people say they HAD so much potential. It's a fairly useless term in relation to human activity. Yes and no. When something changes form its inherent potentials also change. When someone dies only its human potential to "become" someone special disappears. The construct has changed form and its potential has changed along with it. However (as macabra as this may sound), a dead person has the potential to become a tasty meal for worms. Note, that this potential also came into existence during childbirth and was always part of the organic human body. Perhaps you do not fully understand the profound implications of the concept and premise of the fundamental definition of Potential: That which may become reality. To me this means : while not all potential becomes reality, all reality is/was/will be preceded by Potential. It is some inherent latent ability of all things, but may never be realized if not used. A ball has the potential to roll down a slight slope, a cube does not have that potential, however it has the potential to slide down an incline.. But if we place both on a flat horizontal surface, neither one will move and their inherent potential remains latent, but remains as an inherent ability as long as the ball is a ball and the cube is a cube. It is true that we invented the term "potential", but that does not mean Potential came into existence when we invented the word, we merely identified and defined it . In theist terms, God did not come into existence by our invention of the word God. But as atheist I disagree that the biblical God ever existed at all, and is just an invention of our imagination. I call it Universal Potential, there is a difference. A long time ago I wrote a comparison of those concepts. The OP title: God = Potential. The reason for that equation is that there is no difference in function and/or results, but that god is assigned an unnecessary personally motivated intelligence. Everything works just fine without that additional complication, invented from a subjective desire for an answer to the question of "meaning', but ignores "function" (the how). In Deism "God works in mysterious ways". Metaphysics seeks to unlock these mysterious ways, through the discovery of mathematical functions. Science formalizes these mathematics in standardized mathematical language.
178

Agreed. All reality is potential. One could say there is a “basic” universe composed of transparent blackeness. Interspersed are dots of matter, or potential energy. When we each perceive the blackness, that potential becomes mutual creation and reality ensues, as a personal reality with unlimited potential inside the universe. That is, one can experience anything in time and space through perception.

179
How about coordination. If we have a few quadrillion quadrillion individuals spying into the same universe with different realities how is it that on earth when the HMS Hood blows up, eeveryone in the vicinity while seeing something different, agrees that they are all seeing the same thing in the same time frame? It makes for a nice game of chess when the board is the same for both players, even though it is not quite the same and even the result can be contested not by the camera's eye but the personal reality of the players.
Relativity.
180
Agreed. All reality is potential. One could say there is a "basic" universe composed of transparent blackeness. Interspersed are dots of matter, or pottential energy. When we each perceive the blackness, that potential becomes mutual creation and reality ensues, as a personal reality with unlimited potential inside the universe. That is, one can experience anything in time and space through perception.
IMO, the term "experience" through perception is false. We can never experience what an atom experiences. We can know how it functions, but we can never experience that specific function, even as it occurs inside us. An interesting presentation on cellular duplication function is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology Do we experience this process or are we limited to observation of the results of this function? http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_decharms_scans_the_brain_in_real_time
181

My opinion is we perceive relative to our perspective. If we wish to see galaxy size we can or atom size we can. Human size is a choice and has as a result seemingly obvious reality that is not all there is. The only way to “prove” this to anyone is to see different reality for oneself, but that is doable.