A Non-Dual Perspective on The Big Bang

Existence As The Grand Illusion 

The similarities between Quantum Physics and Plato’s theory of Forms is so astonishing that one may even view quantum theory as a mathematical formulation of Plato’s theory of Forms.

Plato’s fundamental forms are regular solids of Euclidean Geometry. The fundamental forms of quantum physics are elementary particles which are not physical objects at all; elementary particles are mathematical objects; what we perceive in the form of matter is only the manifestation of these ideal-mathematical objects.

Plato considers our world to be the imperfect shadow of an ideal, perfect world of pure forms. It is not that Plato’s Pure Forms or Ideas are mental objects or subjective constructs. Plato’s Forms have existence of their own and are in fact the sole reality that exists. Only these Forms are real; what we experience as reality is the imperfect shadow of the world of pure forms. Thus, Plato’s Pure Forms are not physical entities existing in space and time; they are ideal-and in Plato’s view mathematical-entities existing beyond space and time.

Now take a look at a sentence from Werner Heisenberg, the German physicist and Nobel Laureate who was one the founders of quantum mechanics. He says in his Physics and Philosophy:

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning.

From the point of view of Quantum Physics what we regard as physical reality is only the projection of an ideal, non-physical reality. According to quantum physics the underlying reality is beyond space and time, and that is why we observe phenomena such as interference and entanglement. A purely physical reality existing in space-time could not possibly produce these phenomena which are observed and experimentally confirmed.

The universe as we know it, as this physical object, has no real, physical existence; it is a mere shadow of something that lies outside space and time, something essentially non-dual. In fact the non-existence of universe as an independent reality is an immediate consequence of the postulates of quantum physics:

An isolated quantum system remains forever in a superposition state (state of pure potentiality) until it is observed or disturbed by something outside the system itself.

Now if we take the quantum system to include our universe and all other possible universes, namely if we take our quantum system to coincide with the totality of what is, then there is no way for this system to ever leave the state of pure potentiality and become actual. Even if we posit the existence of some conscious agent outside totality, like god or whatever, which can make the universe into actuality the problem remains intact; we can now define the quantum system to include that agent as well, thus making it a pure potentiality rather than something actual that can produce any effects. Though this may sound pretty abstract or strange it was common sense for the non-dual Vedantist who knows that none of this has ever happened.

According to the principles of quantum physics universe cannot possibly exist; it cannot possibly be real. Though most physicists avoid this aspect of the theory, it is interesting to know that this conclusion of modern physics is identical to the central principle of Advaita Vedanta Metaphysics. The details of this similarity is discussed in my book “Non-Dual Perspective on Quantum Physics” to which I would provide a link at the end of this essay.

Now, what is even more striking when it comes to the similarity between Plato’s Forms and Quantum Physics is the idea that “the observable reality is an imperfect shadow of a transcendent reality.” Here is the source of awe:

In quantum theory the underlying reality is described by this mathematical object called “state vector” which is a more abstract form of wave function. The whole of quantum theory and its description of reality is built upon mathematical objects called vectors and operators.

The quantum system described by a state vector naturally dwells in Hilbert Space which is an abstract mathematical space lying beyond space-time. Hilbert Space in which superposition states exist is the space of pure potentiality where the formless, non-dual reality dwells. Hilbert Space is NOT inside our familiar space and time; it is more like the void that contains our space-time in pure, formless potentiality.

In quantum physics observation corresponds to the action of operators on state vectors. The operators corresponding to the act of observation are called Projection Operators. What projection operator does is to project what is in Hilbert Space onto our familiar space-time. A quantum system which is originally in superposition state inside Hilbert Space (space of pure potentiality) in thrown into actuality by the action of the Projection Operator.

The Projection Operator is defined in a graduate textbook of quantum physics as follows:

“The action of Projection Operator gives the shadow of any state vector on a subspace.”

Through the act of observation it is not the reality that we experience but a mere shadow of it; the true reality, including our own real selves, lies beyond space and time. According to quantum physics what is observed is a mere shadow of a transcendent reality.

Considering this precise meaning of observation and experience and also the fact that our universe could not have possibly been thrown into actuality, we see that the reality described by quantum physics is somewhat identical to the reality described by Plato’s Theory of Forms. Both agree that what is real is not what is observed: Observation is a mere shadow, a pure appearance, having no reality of its own.

The only thing that ever existed is the state of pure potentiality which can never be actualized. What we experience as actual reality is more like a dream: The apparent actuality must be a cosmic illusion, a Noema, a Maya, namely a Noemaya.

It is interesting to see that cosmologists have caught some clues about this idea since a lot of them are coming to the conclusion that our universe behaves more like a hologram, a theory known as the Holographic Universe.”

I have explained in detail the non-dual aspects of quantum physics and its similarities to esoteric traditions such as Advaita Vedanta in the following book:

32 thoughts on “A Non-Dual Perspective on The Big Bang

  1. I am not arguing against you, but probably more with you. But I have to ask: how is it possible that such observations occur? That is, if any point-vector may be theoretically achieved anywhere in the universe, these dependent, of course, on this human observation; how can we say with any sort of reliability that such observation, including this ‘dream-real’ observation, is real or dream?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If by real we mean something having independent existence, then as far as scientific methods are concerned it is in principle impossible to show or prove such reality. The reason is that any experimental attempt at showing the independent existence of something by necessity destroys the very independence under investigation. So the thesis of Realism has always been taken for granted in these sciences since it seems it cannot be proven.
      And we know that it is possible to experience an objective world without it having to actually exist: Dream experience.
      So I guess if we can’t prove the independent existence of this reality then we might be able to show it is a dream if it happens that we wake up from it :).
      However, it is proven, both theoretically and experimentally, that a determinate, local reality doesn’t exist. A physical reality in the sense of scientific materialism is proven false, mainly by Bell’s experiments showing that if reality was material and local and deterministic then we would not be able to observe many phenomena that we actually observe. For instance, a material and local reality cannot produce a thing such as entanglement or interference or the colors on a soup bubble, etc.
      Now in physics there is no doubt that physical reality in the traditional sense is no more a valid picture; Heisenberg Uncertainty relations is one the blows to such picture. But science has not been able to prove the origin of phenomena or whether this things is all a dream. Well, unless someone gets to wake up from it.


      1. I’m not being leading or a ‘faux query’, so to speak; but it sounds eerily similar to how I situate ‘real’ and ‘not real’. I am interested in what I am seeing in many peoples writings, a sort or ‘response’ to what is appearing in philosophy as a ‘new realism’ sts. A response that has arisen in me with no prompting, and others likewise it seems, a sort of spontaneity.


      2. This just goes to my point. Your blog and essays appear to me to be presenting a difference to such ‘realism’. It seems many people are reflecting a kind of automatic response to such ‘realist’ proposals.

        Ok here goes –

        Well, I just am calling it that, because the discipline of philosophy is filled with a history of ‘realist’ propositions. And ‘idealist’, materialist, phenomenologist…all these ‘ist’ and ‘isms’. I say. Lol. Anyways.. If I might give a hoof illy short primer (admittedly biased probably on my part) As you may or may not know, philosophy as a western transition is split into ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ philosophies. Analytic is more about ‘givens’ and argumentative structures. From my take, I see them more involved with analysis of discourse, such as might be involved with an objective sort of cultural anthropology, but also mathematical forms and scientific realisms. But Again, philosophy has all sorts of ‘realist’ ideas, over which philosophy argues in an attempt to find out what realism really is or what the other guy is really trying to say.

        Continental philosophy stem more from what could be called ‘reflection’, consciousness and its engagement with the world. Again the distinctions are also highly misunderstood and argued over.

        There is a kind of recent realism of the continental variety called ‘speculative realism’ (you can wiki it) that came about in the past decade or so. Then a bunch of other realisms that seem to tend from what the speculatives started.

        One of the SRs is Quentin Miellassoux. His contribution is that there is an object that exists before the thought is there to think about it. (Antecedent to thought) which is somewhat revolutionary (I guess) to philosophy of the past 300 years of pondering. He rejects subjectivism, or phenomenology, where things arise only in subjective human consciousness.

        One of the most odd, if not provocative is called ‘Object Oriented Ontology’, and Graham Harman coined this idea. To generalize and summarize: his is basically ‘reality is all there is; everything is real; reality is constituted by objects’. Humans are also objects. All objects thus have certain qualities, which I can’t recall here, but basically, they all have the same qualities that we humans think we alone have. All objects engage with one another, they all have a sort of ‘intention’, and they all interact with ‘sincerity’. He thereby elaborates upon an increasingly ‘speculative’ logic about how reality truly Is. He talks about objects that withdraw from view. And other adjectives and descriptors and links all these concepts into a scheme.

        In Harman’s small pamphlet called “The Third Chair” he briefly outlines his proposal referring to astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington, who had a talk about physics and made an analogy to ‘two chairs’: the one in front of us, and the one of physics that is beyond our reckoning as we encounter the first chair. Harman talks about a ‘third’ chair. Which is, basically, the chair that resides ‘between’ those two chairs, or one that includes both chairs.

        His is a proposition for a more real reality.

        I can understand your ‘dream’ analogy. To me this posits that what such reality may be, as to a ‘realist’ argument, avoids such ‘dream’ state. But my concern is much more ‘less dreamy’. I see such discussion of reality excludes a significant portion of human experience that indeed is in play with reality. I cannot call it ‘real’ because then I have excluded that very portion that I wish to shine light upon. I suppose my suggestion is that there is an experience of the world that is excluded by real argument, and the ‘realist’ move is denying or otherwise withholding this exclusion. This manner of coming upon the world is not subjective, because subjectivity is a well founded basis of discussion that avoids this excluded experience by its very nature of assuming that it and it alone speaks for all that is real and true.

        Yet because of this, because reality holds all discussion, but yet is excluding some portion of the human being by its assertion, I too say that all discourse is constituted by objects. And I speak about one’s ‘orientation’ upon objects.

        Anyways; I would not say I am an ‘object oriented ontologist’, but because it seems, at least, the SRs and I seem to have come upon the same feature of reality, I have something to say about how they are able to come to such proposals and why their arguments appear to many so obtuse. But what I have to say about them is merely an occasion to speak about what is true.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Sorry about the type-o s. I think you can read through them. But they do give a kind of joviality to the bit. :).


      4. .. Of course my little SR. Description is a highly truncated version. There is a little infamous history about the whole thing 🙂 and more than a few who all have their own niches .

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I read a few things online about SR; I experienced it as somewhat dense to get to know in a couple of days but your description gave me the general idea. It is interesting I didn’t know at all about recent movements in philosophy. I started from pre-Socrates and stopped at Heidegger, though I stopped not because I agreed with him but rather because I started seeing the whole of philosophy as a western product, so I gave up on it except some of Phenomenology which I found useful in its intersection with quantum mechanics. Of course modern science too is a purely western mode of thinking. So by western modes of thinking I mean modes based on the Aristotelian idea of “disinterested inquiry into the world.” This assumption is rarely questioned in any of these philosophies. For instance, in all positings of philosophy the inquiring subject acts like god, as if it itself is not part of the inquiry. When we posit whether human is a special kind of object or not, whatever conclusion or argument we have is essentially the conclusion or argument of this human person. So in general I see philosophy as an attempt at knowledge something impossible; I personally view it as an evolution of concepts; systems being filled with names only which are simply sophisticated but have no experiential content. This of course has been my perception recently. One thing I can’t get over is that what is is always inside subjectivity. even the idea of reality and objectivity are ideas within subjectivity; and even the idea of human subjectivity is itself an element of experience. I don’t see how can we ever posit anything other than this, making any claims about this subjectivity I find impossible. Nothing is out of the sphere of experience, including what I just said. Thus, I gave up on philosophy and tended more toward an eastern mode of thinking in which what is or maybe call it truth is fundamentally inexpressible. Proposition can never hold reality, so nothing can really be said of it. This has been my personal view though I have to engage to some extent with western modes of thought since I am doing physics. But my motive was that I see the whole of philosoophy as a production of more and more theories and systems each piling up on another and each containing some new coinage or new concept. I don’t see how they can contain anything non-personal. I see all feeding on the assumption that “there can exist disinterested inquiry’ and that “reality can be captured in propositions, theory, or a system.”
        So in general I see western thought as an attempt at capturing truth, bringing it into a framework, and harnessing it; the very assumption that such can be done is always at the foundation of all western attempts at knowledge. What I find interesting is that quantum physics while it is a production of western thinking reached a point where it saw no more can be said or known as if reality resists all articulation or expression or conceptual bondage. something like that. lol. So perhaps my view is that nothing can be said at all without being personal. And this is personal. 🙂


      6. Yes. That is what I sense in your writings. I agree with you probably entirely. In my addressing such W philosophy I attempt to use their arguments to reveal that fact unto what ever proposition using their terms. I call the insistence of terms ability to find a ‘disinterested’ object ‘faith’. And see this feature as a real aspect of Consciouness operation for the world.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. I think what went wrongs was the people thought philosophy is concerned with the production of philosophical systems. This is something suspicious. It is assumed that philosopher is that which has a system or produces a system. While I personally see a system or point of view as the end of philosophy. My favorite philosopher, hence, is Socrates which has no system not advocates having one. Having a system is when you cut some flowers and bring it home; it is nice for a few days but since they are cut of from their dynamic source they are going to die out. That is why all philosophical systems die out. System is a very much western idea. By western of course I mean ideas starting from Plato and Aristotle. I personally think that philosophy should be about “Not having a system, Non having a conviction or Not saying anything about what is or is not, to constantly experience. The whole of philosophy as is now known is a mere body of sophisticated terms and concepts giving the impression as if they are about something. So I guess in my view true philosophy coincides with a kind of mysticism or way rather than a position on reality; An experience of suchness without engaging with the impulse to articulate. I like to know if you too have felt this suspision toward philosophy.


      8. In a way, yes, I can understand this. And yes Socrates. But I think the issue that W philosophy arises for is that indeed such an ‘ever presence’ often enough does not present ‘what to do’. For obviously there is a real and human world that appears to not to care about this Presence. An issue would be then how this is so, and a problem I see with W philosophy in general is that everyone, as you said, keeps coming up with their reason why or how and then offers a ‘better’ way people should be going about conceptializing this ‘what to do’ reality.

        There are many issues that arise concerning this that I as tempt to address in my work.

        Anyways, there is a philosopher named Laruelle who deals with this incessant systematizing. He calling his project ‘non-philosophy’.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. More… The problem as I see it. With a ‘mystical’ kind of philosophy, is at some point one inevitably talks about it in some way. Indeed there can be an approach to life, unspoken and Not asserted discursively, but then the mere manner of acting will invoke a response that begs to know what such activity is based upon.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. I guess the assumption behind all these philosophies, the assumption of which I am suspicious, is that “there exists something that is the same for all.” The assumption that an independent thing exists, existing for all. This may be a reality, or a set of values, etc. No there is no doubt that things appear to be the same for all, like custom or culture or some values, etc. But all of these are rooted in certain interests or benefits, so they are essentially interested and not disinterested.
        But my main question is this: The only thing we always have is the sphere of experiene, particularly our own experience. No anything ever said happens in this sphere; when Kant says there is a thing-in-itself this saying is a positing within this sphere. Objectivity of the world is again an experience; science is an experienc; knowledge, etc. There is nothing that is not experience. Now what sense does it make to speak of something apart from experience? Now I should mention that my position is a bit quite other than the idealist or subjectivists in that I consider the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity be still another thing within experience. So mind, the mental, the human subjectivity all belong to the larger sphere of experience. Humanity and human subjectivity itself being something experienced; So my subjectivity is not human subjectivity or subjectivity in the sense of the mental. Pure pure experience which can’t be said to be subjective or objective in any sense because objectivity is itself something constituted within this higher subjectivity. Everything said or done always already belongs to this sphere, so human’s attempt at situating this subjectivity inside the world is self-contradictory because the world is itself something happening inside this subjectivity.


      11. You sound like a non-philosopher. ;)). Indeed, I speak of ‘conventional’ reality/method/philosophy of indicating a One reality, what Laruelle refers to as a ‘unitary discourse of the Real’.

        To me it is ironically indicative of something significantly not real (with referenc to the One real system) that you and I are having this exchange


      12. You know I am myself physicist but very much dislike most modern sciences including especially psychology or cognitive sciences and AI. If the physics department finds out about my leftists (lol) tendencies I will perhaps lose my benefits. they will shun me. In academia nowadays the word scientist has a ver specific elitists meaning. Scientists means atheists and dogmatic and never concerned with the wider picture. They give you a very very specific problem and then that is you entire life to work on that. Even that problem is determined by the mainstream science. You can’t just pick it yourself. I am rather a metaphysicist. (lol)


      13. Lol. It’s funny I have a good friend who is U of calf math professor and he looks kinda like ur picture. But he’s Christian. 😀


      14. We are all so brainwashed about one reality, especially the one chosen by west, that we start looking alike. lol.
        And by the way, by west i don’t mean that east is better. I find East to be as the eastern version of the west. in east there is so much emphasis on faith and devotion when it comes to truth or reality. I think I dislike the very idea that if I want to know reality and truth I must refer to the ideas of another human being who is defined to be the expert on the matter. I would like a kind of knowledge in which one doesn’t have to go into the world for it, less into someone else’s ideas. People are so immersed and impressed by what others and philosophers think of reality that they forget to pay attention to what they themselves think of reality. I call them reality experts. But it is all their view, what they see and how they think of it. It is never about reality but about themselves.
        This physics, for instance, people think that the picture of universe as given by physics is a real picture, as such a universe exists. But it is all a theoretical model. Objects of physics have no reality whatsoever. Modern science is just a modeling tool designed for purely practical purposes. They are a body of information; I don’t see them as containing any knowledge is the sense of the episteme of Plato. But see that how people’s world is nowadays defined by what modern science has to say. And most of the fans of science are so fanatic even worst than religious fanatics sometimes. And most of them don’t even know where and how science came from. Modern science is just another human tradition. There are some who like to use the results of science to prove god or their religion; there are then some who use the results of science to prove god doesn’t exists or that we are meaningless. But both are wrong because who said science has such power to decide and judge for others the meaning of existence. Science cannot account for its own existence. For instance, from the view of clowns such as Dawkins, etc. if we accept their views then objective science is not possible at all, thus undermining their very assertions.
        There was another guy making claim based on science that “free will and self don’t exist.” He can’t see that even if we agree with him, then upon our agreement we have to doubts his assertion, since he had no free choice to make that assertion; how can it be objective! But these clowns of science exist as there are clowns of religion. People think oh science is this supernatural thing and is different this time. No it is not. It is not the place of science to make such grand universal assertions as science is itself a small product of human subjectivity. It can never rise above this subjectivity and make it into an object of knowledge. But people are people, always want a superior force to decide for them. as you said there is always an ism for people.


      15. and by that I refer to people who like to have convictions and opinions but unlike you and I they don’t really spend time inquiring, thinking, reflecting, discoursing, etc. But for us when we do inquiry we realize that after all it is always us and us alone who is the source of sense and significance. It is us who give authority to science or religion or philosphy to decide for us; and it is again us who revokes this right from them. we always determine what determines us.


      16. Oops. .. K. You know, you as a phycisist, I have some ‘layman-esque physist-ical’ philosophical stuff I’d like to bounce off you. With your philosophical mind in tow. :). If you are interested, I will write on another ap. then bring it here. Or maybe I’ll just make it into a post for my blog, but I’m wondering the actual physicist response and posdibilities. I do understand the Hawkins ‘only a human model for our understanding’ limit on what physics may actually be.. But just let me know if u r interested or have time. No rush though in any case.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. I am of course interested. Make however it works for you. A blog entry works I guess. I check my reader always but let me know when it is posted.


      18. Let’s see if I can make it brief: what if the actual state of the universe is indicated by the human historical discourse? Such that, say as an example, before that experiment where a guy tried to measure how lights speed could change, but his experiment showed it didn’t, and then he couldn’t understand the results.(I hope I am explaining it well enough) . Maybe before humans knew that light speed was constant, the speed of light was actually not constant. That our human knowledge is reflecting exactly the nature of the universe as it is, that our knowledge reflects the universe as it is right then. Does that make sense?


      19. If I understood correctly you are referring to a problem saying that the laws and constants of nature could be different at different stages? Am I correct? If yes, then what you are saying is a genuine problem. It could even be that the speed of light is different everywhere but when it enters our galaxy it takes the current speed. I think there are some experimental methods by which physicists can determine to some extent if c could have changed. But the problem is that those method themselves make use of laws that assume the constancy of certain other constants. So it is an unsolvable problem in physics as for physics there has to be experimental data in order to judge or say anything. Where there is no experimental data physics can’t say anything. What you are saying, if I got it right, is perfectly possible.
        From another point which is what I adhere to I think the what we consider to be the state of universe is really nothing other than human discourse. For example, physics is concerned with position and momentum as the fundamental characteristics of nature. The whole of our understanding is based on our observation of position and momenta. But the reason these two aspect from a thousand other possible ones are picked in order to represent nature has to do with historical progress, human practical needs, and human cognition. See for example that the whole of Euclidean geometry is based on distance and angle; this is because human visual perception has only two main degrees of freedom, distance and angle which are combined to make perspective. So what we see as nature is really what we see and not nature. Quantum mechanics is mush more conscious of this fundamental barrier between human methods and knowledge of nature. Let me if what I said answered anything at all 🙂


      20. The universe we know is our knowledge of the universe. So you are exactly right that the state of universe reflects our knowledge of the state of universe at this particular point.


      21. I see this universe as a theoretical model which has no concrete existence. Objects of physics don’t exist in reality. The objects of physics exist in space and move in time. Objects of experience exist in time and move in space. Concrete object is not a spatial entity; it is temporal. Physics is not conscious of this. For instance, objects of physics have a particular shape and size regardless of our perceptions of them. But in the phenomenology of perception it turns out that objects do NOT have a shape and size at all. Shape and size, like space and time, are a priori forms of sensible intuition, and in this case perception. That objects have independent existence is something that belongs to human subjectivity. It is for us humans that universe is objective and exists on its own; objectivity can only arise from within subjectivity. The universe too is a product of science, while science itself being only a mode of human discourse soaked in historical prejudice over what matters and what does not. The universe of science is a quantitative interpretation of experience. It is possible to view universe from other modes of discourse and arrive at totally different conclusions that are consistent and empirical in the broadest sense. Plato’s theory of forms is one of this constructs that can replace the universe of science. It is an empirical explication of experience which leads to a universal model. Interesting is that quantum mechanics according to Heisenberg is in principle a Platonic theory of nature because it posits that building blocks of nature are mathematical objects rather than material objects. The concept of matter collapsed under QM. What we observe is a projection of an ideal reality, as QM posits. So QM too doesn’t really believe in a universe that is independent of knowledge of it.


      22. It is kinda funny; the speculative realist Quentin Miellasoux (QM) argues a mathematical basis of reality in his book “beyond Finitude’. His mentor Alain Badiou (pre speculative realism, so to speak) in his book Being and Event, presents his thesis upon Cantors set theory, to speak about the Void and the pure multiple, bridging strictly analytic philosophy with continental Phil. Arguing and outlining how ‘the set that includes all sets but itself is not another set’ accounts for the mulitplicity of sets (sets of sets, the Pure mulitple).


      23. ..I tend toward Badiou, while I see Miellassoux s presentation as a bit weak, how he presents it. My work concerns more with how reality operates for Consciouness to present the reduced situation ( the ‘true’ or maybe ideal forms) that is not only unattainable to most people ( as intellect is not the issue, but rather exactly an inability to make the reductive move) but also how it is possible that there is nevertheless this objective-subjective reality that operates regardless of what theoretical notions may be applied.

        Liked by 1 person

      24. That is a very interesting work; I myself do a similar research, mostly on how the experience of objectivity is made possible by consciousness and how do we attain to a sense of the objective and its contrast to subjective.


      25. It sounds like our investigation are remarkably similar. Of similar vien. It will be quite interesting to see our developments. For you are bringing to the table a field ( physics ) that, though I am maybe less layman than most, And able to appreciate and comprehend, is not directly involved with my vector, But seems might support it, and maybe vice versa. (Bad sentence structure. But I’m typing on my iphone while I’m walking my dog. Lol).

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Something that I myself find more convincing is the dream-like scenario; because from quantum mechanics if we write a wave function for the entirety of universe, then there is no wave for this wave function to collapse (well unless of course we put a god there which is just a postponing of the problem.) So quantum mechanically we should not have this universe as an actuality; but there is no doubt that we experience a universe. The only case that I know in which there is an experience of a reality without a reality actually existing is in dreams or dream-like experiences. But imagining someone dreaming our universe, though maybe funny but doesn’t answer the scientific curiosity. Current physics can’t answer this problem and I believe Husserl’s Transcendental Phenomenology must be invoked at this point since it is the most scientific account of the origin and constitution of experience that I know of.
      After all, it may all be a dream but it doesn’t have to be someone’s dream.


    3. Dear Lanzek, I have got caught up in some work and haven’t yet read your recent comments and I love to read them. I will get to read them first thing tomorrow and comment as I am still stuck. Best.


  2. I have not had time to digest all this dialog yet. You are both better read and more educated than I. I also stopped philosophical study and mystical investigation as well because it did not seem to relate to the life of the everyday man. I too will catch up with this. I love dogs too Lanzek. My Great Pyre and I are inseparable.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s