Posted something but got deleted, that happens if you do not write your mail and go back again.
Petty it was interesting.
You are right, have to study them first, but would be better to approach the picture they have in mind, when my mind will be able to do that…

Something that could give you a picture of how I thought when I thought that, it is form a list.

Now to dynamics themselves, I wonder what bifurcation is indeed. You see now in my world there exist a variety of phenomena and events which are expressed in a multi faceted way.There is a hypothesis I have not checked yet, and do not know if I will, that the Greek language and therefore mostly the ancient Greek where it derives from, is an axiomatic language, and has a similarity to logical structuring or is of stricly logical structuring?.Which means what in the multi faceted world were everything is connected? Math and Greek are of similar origin? of ancient greek origin? And if it is ? so?What do math really create with their sympolism?Possible answers? So does have to do with Godel, dynamics with Godel?math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel We forgot something Greece.We add that up.Greece to ancientAnd this is dynamics? “The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong” Jung math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to dynamics Sense to math?math to sense? we go again math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to dynamicssense to math to Greece to ancient to math to sense to Godel to Jung? ancient goes to?yes historyhistory to ancient to math to history to ancient math of Godel to math to dynamics to language to Godel to Jung to math to dynamicssense to math to Greece to ancient to math to sense to Godel to Jung to history to ancient to math to history to ancient to Godel to dynamics to history to dynamics to ancient …. Tired. Does anyone want to continue with other interractions, what is the number called ? infinite, and it comes from? God it sounds all Greek to me?. If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool as one said long ago.But who cares about Jung, Jung thoughts were nonsense he says that the greatest and most important problems of life are all fundamentally insoluble. They can never be solved but only outgrown. ? Wonder what growth could be…Should I add a sense to growth to the calculation and calculation to Godel to fundamentally insoluble?. Best,Thanasis, unemployed physicist Should I add that up to the list? and that is which list? and the purpose of the list to the ones subscribing to dynamics to me to the ones who created it to me to language to purpose to sense to Godel to logic to madness to sense to language? Sense is being…wonder who said that, what sense and what being? Remember the myth about the tower of babel, humans tried to reach god so god punished them by destroying their language, but other than what is language? how do we use it? will affirmative give us affirmation, negative negation, but what about the questions?And the questions to the mind, Assumptions And again what mind?

Welcome to Gestalt

Best,
Thanasis

I agree about the difficulty of paradigm.

As for the social matters, anything in plan, and I mean the not have a party and leave social.

Best,
Thanasis

So the propositions are to read Whitehead and Bohm, in the premise of finding new knowledge, thus stating that knowledge is the acquaired effect?, of you being admirer, or because you find new knowledge you are an admirer of both? Is it new knowledge or specific kind of knowledge?
Or that I am jsut wrong? thus stating that we should follow again the path of knowledge? anything else?
Sorry for the directness, I not trying to insult you , It is that, I want to understand.
If I want to see this more clear the whole dialogue on this sbject is pointless, and moves us away from the original subject, which is not Bohm nor Whitehead but what I wrote.

Conditions I name is something abstract, continuity is a condition, the A, B ,C is a condition, and many other infinite conditions known and not known, so I guess that there is a misapprehension.
I took the condition from the old quantum term but I was not reffering to non-continuity I was refering to the conditions of the individuals. What are they? do not know but I try to chart them? do not know, at rare times.
So in this Bohm and Whitehead belong to a certain condition reaching I guess almost the peak, Jung- to a more multi faceted condition, he does not reach the peak of the scientific - philosophical? (to name it) but he goes to a more varied world.

Careful cause you will and as I do and was wrong try to formulate all this with logic, logic I think destroys other conditions , how and why do not know, but when something looses fluidity it becomes that logic and formulation, and even the descriptions of Jung, Bohm, and Whitehead were formulations which were wrong, and again wrong is a wrong description.
“The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.”
Jung
But that is how I am used to think-believe, of right and wrong, and not of the sense of things, which is before the logic spectrum…

So I guess that the whole converse offers little in the sense department, except from a reference to the anarchist philosophers and their writings, something about the possible interpretations of the quantum, the whole and environment theory, to check Bohm and Whitehead, which at some time will do more extensively more?. And what am I saying to you?

>For example something I wrote yesterday in paper..

If I change the way I think I would create a mythological aspect of the

world, so Ra the sun god is on the celestial globe, and the worlds would inhabit again the former world and the descriptions also. The Gestalt that I mentioned, conscious, chaos, complexity, are a measurement, and a condition of perception, meaning that it is a conditioning, that nullifies the myth-magical approach, where Gods and the magical are part of life. To move on the sun as a star, the spaceship, the planet and the stars, are a worldview, man as animal-biology, the same, but also foreign to the magical-mythical world, where there exists a dispersion of spectacles and meanings and nothing is concrete under a logical interpretation, cause any logical interpretation would create a different world based on our current logic.

What I an trying to recreate here is that Ra might not be the sun, but something like a force super ceding , that one could only glorify and respect, instituting himself inside his kingdom of power. And the question is? is this Ra our sun? the logical would be yes but I wonder.

An hypothesis goes that the magical-mythical world of old, of changes and influences between gods animals and men, might have a different descent and existence from the modern, and that every modern interpretation can not be created because it destroys its coherence with the old world and its forces, saying that as one day the worship of any kind of deity made man participator and recipient of the worlds events so did our worship of logic create the clergy of logic creating the wonders of science and the explanations of the world, and man became recipient and creator of his logical world. So one can not explain the other as every struture is unique, a view that is as I said hard core fiction.. and is hard core fiction or hard core philosophy, cause it can not exist in any belief system other than the previous and there is no logical proof, of such a thing.

But of the conditions of the mind what is fantasy, where do these structures come from, I do not know.

>And this about the science department where the >territory goes to search for the territory and >not see the map formed by the others.

There I guess to begin one need ask questions of the formulations. There is always a base under which a mindset is built and uncovering the mindset I think that one could find some answers about the description of the mindset itself. This is actually a Gestalt set, where from the smaller mindset one reverts to the larger mindset.

So fractals I do not know what they represent, where they are found and who founded them and which perspective. Organs, cells, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, yes fit exactly to the Gestalt picture, and from this picture one could built a theory of how they interract, but is it so?

The larger Gestalt is the nothingness Gestalt where all things coexist, and then we have formations of splitting the world, and even the depiction of Gestalt is a misnaming, as the taoist used to say the Tao has no name, chaos is formless…

What are organs, cells, molecules, atoms etc… under the scientific scope?.

I tried one month ago to understand a prologue in QM and after a while what I understood is that something was faulty, that the descriptions where all wrong and what in fact was described was the organs that measured the existance of the particles themselves, which meant that certain kind of equipment produced this result and the reality itself of what was going on was not there. In fact there were no electrons, as before there were no atoms, no molecules, nor cells, only the measuring equipment produced the results, the measuring equipment that were built by a mind set to find something. What this means I do not know, I have no insight now…

If I want to turn to what is molecule my mind goes that it might be an old theory trying to adjust to a new theory, and that the molecule never existed, and what the physicists tried to do in order not to have a huge gap in their knowledge was try to fit QM data so as to fit the old paradigm of atoms and molecules and nucleuses. And all this applications, the atomic bomb, lasers, semiconductors? all this tech that we have nowdays do not this assert the existence of the Gestalts? Yes it does, until we found something new in the world and produced new applications, many of them negating the previews paradigms that existed, but still we would use because we had the tech for it, and the language would remain of the previews paradigm.

Carefull how the mind works its way in order to prove things it very difficult for me to see through this and I have to study the history of the discoveries and see how they were implemented, which means a lot, lot of study, and forget what I was told for so many years at school, thus opening up reality. (And for that purpose the paradigm is a misconception and reverts to a base for a theory to be applied, in order to have the wider view one forgets paradigms, and attractors. The mind wants to built something and uses words, but the words become a framework and entangle the mind in the work )

And maybe dynamics is this purpose, how to fil the gaps, of our old and new theories, to prove that there truly exist atoms,molecules, cells, organs, and not an everchanging void that our mind can not describe, but formulates according to the organs we use and how we describe our findings with the knowledge accumulated.

And a cell for that purpose will last longer, as a cell has a deeper foundation since it belongs to different discipline, it will remain the principle of biology as it does not interract with physics. No physicist could ever say that a cell is non-existent, but what he will try to do is find formulations that could try to describe the cell from a fundumental theory. So if you see to what I am pointing at is that to understand science we should not see the science world but understand what the scientists do, what they have in the minds?

This is Gestalt in its truer form, wider and wider descriptions

So if I get the picture correct our whole science is an effort to recreate fragments of the scientific world from 400 years to now to fill the gaps so as science to seem coherent. Do not answer yes or no, let your mind open to all that you know till now.

Carefull now again this could remind you Thomas and the history of scientific revolutions, Popper, but forget Thomas, he was fitted very well in the scientific world as not to disturb the scientific mindset, and the questions behind that, he was categorised as a philosophy of science while scientists continued their ongoing search, if he was taken more seriously, he would have caused a rupture in the scientific community, and turned it introvert, asking itself what are we doing all these years, from Newton to now, what are we trying to view, what are we viewing. You see the greater the belief a work has the more unsettlement it has, in the minds of people. And if something goes introvert and is realized might it stop?

Jung said of the split conditions , if something is realized then it stops existing, and the opposites unite again.

Do not answer yes or no to what I am saying, nor try to hold what you viewed previously with argumentation, a base uses whatever means possible to represent itself, all arguments work to validate it, the only thing one can do is gather information and let the formation of the bases broaden, and this is Gestalt in the real sense, we could help one another understand, if we forget what we were tought and how we thought again, and think with honesty, knowing were all this come from and what they mean to us and form questions…

>And the most clear think I have written without effort of thinking is this

I suppose that I am right concerning the discreet conditions, the shift of perception does not happen with continuous steps, but is the complete transition from one scheme to another. Logic and deduction are not relevant with this, for even if they had it would mean that man has the ability to judge, something highly unusual, since clarity, which in the certain condition means expression of judgment – a term which I mistakenly define as logical- becomes by itself a transition of perception from the chaotic musings? to the rational?

Of course all of the previous reasoning is based on a word that does not bear, the meaning that I want to define, which is that rational is an abstract idea diaphanous in its analysis, since it does not exist in the space of objects of perception and there is nothing rational in a space of shapes, where each shape is overwhelmed by an internal “logical” coherence, a coherence which is the answer concerning the sole existence of the scheme, since logic of the scheme is the scheme itself, and denial of the scheme would be a negation of its logic, negating the expression of its form.

Which means that there is no irrationality, but to what concerns the shape of a scheme that we define as rational.

>And is that all?, no its just the beginning, if I >do not collapse somewhere, but would like to hear >more from you, since no other offers. Beliefs I >try to break.

Tried to state  a base which is itself a negation of the base, but did not come from a mathematical -intellect model, but from the conscious which is the general conceptual which
 approaches the many areas of reality which I guess are no other than the many areas of man.
So when approaching the conscious I found out that the definitions tend to self referential.
“Man discerns what he discerns” is a statement that consists of itself, as the statement itself is a discernment.
“We just state our views” and this statement is also a view itself
“Views are subjective” and thus my statement of view is also subjective.
 Saying that I believe something , I also state that I am subject of that my belief. 
Saying that people create ideas and they try to convince other people is an idea itself that tries to do that.
meanings is a meaning itself.

>Just sketches… 

Best,
Thanasis

[Gordon]
Well that maybe true but in order to learn we must know what is unknown, after all you may have free will but the content of your will may not be free, for since birth you have been exposed to ideas from others and you may merely reiterate some and create new from old, you don’t through the baby out with the bath water. Surely in order to pass judgment you need to know what these guys were on about, that is not believing then or merely posuting what they say but understand what they mean and either assimilating that knowledge or rejecting it.

[T]
Each information as you say may create a base in which it will structure other information, and if I accept Whiteheads and Bohm’s

[Gordon]
Look I am not asking you to accept or reject just to look and see.

[T]
which I hold that with not being certain are finite in their perspective, it will lead me not in a very good place of thought.

[Gordon]
Maybe not how can you be sure, in fact I make a guess but I guess you already accept a great many assumptions and ideologies already. Some political or economic and others metaphysical, so adding or rejecting other view would hardly damage you and may make you challanging their views and come to new insights! To try and gat a clean blank slate for your mind is impossible since you have both inherent knowledge that shapes and distorts our view of reality and then all the ideas you have unwillingly or willingly internalize since the time you were born. In order to get a broader view is to see if you can see past this tangled web of human thought we snared in!

But that is very different from our debate over quantum physics and its theories.

[T]
This is what one could call structural innovation, the good place of thought.

[Gordon]
Hmm please explain?

[T]
Bohm (is as I picture him with my current knowledge which is less than adequate for any descriptions but I give one out of hunch, is mostly a physicist philosopher, as I think Whitehead is a mathematics philosopher), so they entail parts of the world and not the whole.

[Gordon]
This is where we can agree most strongly, in fact anarchist philosophers of science would agree with you there are other forms of knowledge, I am sure Bohm would agree and has said so. He and whitehead start by claiming that we either never know the totality or reality or we may know it but never be able to prove it!

How the knowledge you refer to may not help us with the how but may with the why, if I understand you correctly. Your knowledge too it limited as is mine. Whitehead and Bohm are not positivist nor were they dogmatic sceptics beliveing that they know everything.

[T]
Second you do not understand what I am insinuating,

In a sense, some operationists, such as the physicist Percy Bridgmann who started it all, while maintaining that knowledge was limited to observation and thus theories, such as QM and standard planetary model of the atom, were not the same as realities, but he was in fact, rather solopsistic is saying that every observation was unique, and involved the mind, experience, sensory capabilities, etc. of the observer.

[Gordon]
Which is what most physicist would disagree with, but I see where you are coming from now.

[T]
And this was what I called a condition, but as I said there are a wide variety of conditions that depict different things.

The distribution of conditions gives our reality, the how I do not know, but i want to understand, and I try to get as many conditions as possible. The rarest coditions give one a much more different reality than the usual ones, which of course means something…the problem is that one forgets is that the condition is internal and external alike, meaning that there is no split world in a depiction of conditions of observer and observant which is very difficult to hold in view…

[Gordon]
Well not really when you eat an apple at what point does an apple become a non-apple well this is because what we take as a body is merely an abstraction which is conditioned in many ways. So there is no split, between A & Non-A.

Mechainstic philosophy takes the parts as things that only require themselves in order to exist, however philosophy of organism which is in line with the notion that a thing requires environmental context in order to exist. Starts with the whole and parts are merely abstraction of the whole.

This is not the same as Holism, in which parts merely form a whole, no for wholeness the whole is primary and it is what we abstract from that which is secondary ie apples, space-time etc…

[T]
And that is all…

This is not a quantum assumption but a logical try to find the base assumption of psych approach, have not seen it yet turned down. What anyone announces is not it, it is him.

[Gordon]
The your struck aren’t you?

[T]
What you mentioned of the world gave me you and not the world, so do I when I post this, as for the world, it is unknown how it manifests, there start the theories.

[Gordon]
Well you got a point there, Classical physics can explain the matter but it can not account for it own actually, same with quantum physics. This is something most physcist know but ignore except Bohm/whitehead which is what makes them different.

[T]
I studied physics in the university, now I study again, the larger view would mean in a set theory that your paradigm view already exists in my view, and that the phenomena that you give as proof already belongs to a part of paradigm or view that I know off. To enter the paradigm I will hold your view, cause if we are both with the same logical base you shall find that, which you find.

[Gordon]
Well Set theory itself is full of paradox is merely abstraction itself not absolute. However point taken

[T]
Yes the phenomena exist, but it might be that the interpretation be different.

[Gordon]
True which is the point I was getting at

[T]
The links of reality could give us many different views as quantum theory has many.

[Gordon]
Very true, but they would be different forms of knowledge.

[T]
Sorry a bit tired, will continue the discussion some other time, it may be that my grinning would be of the lack and shortage of the first reply, but thanks for the clarifications…

Best,
Thanasis

[Gordon]
No problem…see you soon

Best wishes
Gordon.

Thanks for the dialogue.
You are right I have read Whitehead and Bohm, Bohm, years ago and now a bit in wiki and Whitehead only in wiki, and why do I insist of not reading them, cause it will lead to their opinions and not mine? maybe? not for certain.
Each information as you say may create a base in which it will structure other information, and if I accept Whiteheads and Bohm’s which I hold that with not being certain are finite in their perspective, it will lead me not in a very good place of thought. This is what one could call structural innovation, the good place of thought.

Bohm (is as I picture him with my current knowledge which is less than adequate for any descriptions but I give one out of hunch, is mostly a physicist philosopher, as I think Whitehead is a mathematics philosopher), so they entail parts of the world and not the whole.

Second you do not understand what I am insinuating,

 
In a sense, some operationists, such as the physicist Percy Bridgmann who started it all, while maintaining that knowledge was limited to observation and thus theories, such as QM and standard planetary model of the atom, were not the same as realities, but he was in fact, rather solopsistic is saying that every observation was unique, and involved the mind, experience, sensory capabilities, etc. of the observer.
 
And this was what I called a condition, but as I said there are a wide variety of conditions that depict different things. The distribution of conditions gives our reality, the how I do not know, but i want to understand, and I try to get as many conditions as possible. The rarest coditions give one a much more different reality than the usual ones, which of course means something…the problem is that one forgets is that the condition is internal and external alike, meaning that there is no split world in a depiction of conditions of observer and observant which is very difficult to hold in view…

And that is all…

This is not a quantum assumption but a logical try to find the base assumption of psych approach, have not seen it yet turned down. What anyone announces is not it, it is him. What you mentioned of the world gave me you and not the world, so do I when I post this, as for the world, it is unknown how it manifests, there start the theories.

I studied physics in the university, now I study again, the larger view would mean in a set theory that your paradigm view already exists in my view,
and that the phenomena that you give as proof already belongs to a part of paradigm or view that I know off. To enter the paradigm I will hold your view, cause if we are both with the same logical base you shall find that, which you find.

Yes the phenomena exist, but it might be that the interpretation be different. The links of reality could give us many different views as quantum theory has many.

Sorry a bit tired, will continue the discussion some other time, it may be that my grinning would be of the lack and shortage of the first reply, but thanks for the clarifications…

Best,
Thanasis

[Gordon] How do you know since as you said you never read them?

[T]
The entangled states of observer and observation I can not prove, so I can not use it with such simplicity and say, there is no external and no internal but it is one, it is like quantum quackerry.

[Gordon]
You don not have to prove it nature already has, it even happens in classical physics only that the notion that we detached observers is merely abstraction.But I agree it can sound quacky

[T]
That would mean that every observation reentangles the world to my observation, and that there is nothing solid except my self, which is what exactly?

[Gordon]
That is a very old assumption, based on the notion that ‘things only require themselves in order to exist’. Well we know that is not true but we still cling to the notion, however electron requires law or habits of the universe in order to exist as well as life requires its contextual environment in order to exist. Pure Isolation is a myth after all no man (or electron) is an island.When I pick up my cup of tea the touch and light from the cup that help me to see it are all entangled with this pattern of atoms called Gordon.

[T]since solids do not really exist and are just an observation.

[Gordon] Ahh no I think you misunderstand me too, firstly part of what you say is correct in that the notion of a body {or matter} is very different from what we once thought. There appears to be a ghost like wave or many ghost like quanta (or Qubits) which interfer with the quanta we do directly see, from which we can actually gain information from (see the IBM link above for the picture from one experiment with atoms and waves). However when we perform a measurement this shadowy interference in strangely suppressed? I never said that you require observation to create reality from this, I for one don’t believe in that ‘theory’. If you read what I say on this topical section you will see that I do not believe in observe collapse like CI.

I believe that the wave function may either reduce or carry on for some other reason such as environmental decoherence or some as yet unknown reason? For you can have reduction even without observation, John Bell preferred the term beables.

If you read Bohm you will find that his interpretation is one of a non-local field that pre-exists and guides quanta via active information bit like a radio wave. However there is no special role for observer nor is there a notion of ‘creating reality’ which as you rightly piont out has never been proven.

[T]
And what exactly is the observation?,

[Gordon] Well that is a more general question not just quantum theory. Well since we cannot catch reality on holiday its difficult to say, however to believe in solipism means that we cannot progress. However quantum theory via Bohm theory its merely a process within reality that already exists more beable than subjective wolly notion of observable. Similar to Many worlds theory however in theirs all parts of the wave function exist as many universes that require no special role for observation. I think your more hung up on observation than I!

[T] we go then to other areas of what is will and conscious and all hell breaks loose.

[Gordon]
Very true, could not agree more. However I don’t think that quantum theory really tells us much about that per sa.Some have tried but it tells us as much about mind as classical physics claims to.
Incidently the theory of vision is flawed also, for if it is true then when you look at the sky you must believe that beyond it is the back of your skull? Which is crazy, something is wrong with Kepler’s theory of vision? But that is another story.

[T]
Of course the first supposition is always quantum is the generation of all phenomena, even though it is just a theory.

[Gordon]
Well I think many folk including myself would agree that quantum is NOT the generation of all phenomena. But at certian level it is the bases of all phenomena, however it may not be the absolute bases there is no doubt something beyond even that!

As for merely being a theory, well sorry but your wrong there its been experimentally tested and come up with some strange phenomena and it has lead to the creation of a lot of modern technology like lasers, electronics. now quantum computers. Entangled states can be produced and used to send information recently we even use it to teleport quanta from one place to another, check out my IBM link which shows the wave function. However because it is so fragile and screened off when the environment interferes with our experiments it is hard to understand what it actually is and why we can not see it in everyday world? This is where interpretation comes in ‘theory’ if you like. The main contenders are the Many universes interpretation, Bohm’s field theory, Bohr’s CI subjective collapse {creating reality}, Penrose’s Objective reduction {via self-gravity}, transactional interpretation (temporal backward causation) or just shut up and calculate method. Then there is Pauli’s idea that collapse in beyond realm of present physics?

Any or none of the above interpretations maybe true, so don’t confuse the interpretations {some of which are as you rightly point out are ad hoc) with what nature presents us via our experiments.

[T] It is like saying to me that today you phased out and went to mars, and then you are back again.
[Gordon] Your correct if I did believe in subjective collapse then I would have to explain that silly notion, since I don’t and you assume I do well what do I say? Look please read basic quantum theory first or even Bohm, before assuming that everyone who believe quantum physics automatically believe in subjective collapse [creating reality nonsense]

[T]
Not much help, in building something solid in the perspective of knowledge, and not much help for me either.

[Gordon]
Same here I am sure most physicists would agree with you, which is why many have abandoned the subjective collapse hypothesis. look I am not some kind of Solipsist for to be one gets you no where! Please read my posts above you see that I believe in an objective reality at the quantum level even prior to measurement!

[T]
For example…
It may be not that every information replicates itself but some do according to the recipient, and still the language put is wrong, and information in itself denounces the whole process, it is less than it, and being less, creates a subspace where it explains the phenomena different from what they are. Which is what?

[Gordon]
When I talk of information I refer to process based on physical entities which exist even without observation, entities like qubits or quantum bits of information or even the wave field. This stuff (for want of a better word) we found process information all the time in order to form atoms and larger structures, however other process take over but also use information, which is why we can utilizes nature in order to create technology. These are objective physical things which pre-exist our minds. In order for us to agree on an object we must get the same information from the light quanta bouncing off it therefore it must replicate and fan out this information in all directions, but this is from an object that already exists prior to our prehension, not something created from our mind. However our mind does create an image of it which may be dream like , but that is not something come from our idea in quantum theory.

[T]
I do not know.
That is why I write and think, and posted to find some answers from Remo and David.

[Gordon]
Fair enough, however I think you should read standard quantum physics first then read the interpretations or ‘theories’. After all church had theory that stars where creatures where science thought they where suns like our own, but are theories with reference to a phenomena. One of which maybe true.

[T]
Quick answers for me denote that either you understand very well what I am saying and the view you have is much larger than mine,

[Gordon]
No view is larger only different.

[T]
fitting a part of your knowledge, or that you understand bits of it and answer with the most relative of views that you have, without trying to understand what I am talking about, cause you do not want to, and the ideas are fixed.

[Gordon]
From what I see above I think this maybe true of both of us!

I guess that we do not understand one another, I do not try to form a reality according to quantum, I just found some similarities there, to what I call apprehension of the world, and I do not follow nor Bohm nor whitehead, but my intuition.
The language does not help me, and I guess nor Bohm or Whitehead will, to the physical intuition part of whole perspectives.
The entangled states of observer and observation I can not prove, so I can not use it with such simplicity and say, there is no external and no internal but it is one, it is like quantum quackerry.
That would mean that every observation reentangles the world to my observation, and that there is nothing solid except my self, which is what exactly? since solids do not really exist and are just an observation.
And what exactly is the observation?, we go then to other areas of what is will and consciouss and all hell breaks loose.
Of course the first supposition is alsways quantum is the generation of all phenomena, even though it is just a theory.

It is like saying to me that today you phased out and went to mars, and then you are back again.

Not much help, in building something solid in the perspective of knowledge, and not much help for me either.

For example…

It may be not that every information replicates itself but some do according to the recipient, and still the language put is wrong, and information in itself denounces the whole process, it is less than it, and being less, creates a subspace where it explains the phenomena different from what they are. Which is what?
I do not know.
That is why I write and think, and posted to find some answers from Remo and David.

Quick answers for me denote that either you understand very well what I am saying and the view you have is much larger than mine, fitting a part of your knowledge, or that you understand bits of it and answer with the most relative of views that you have, without trying to understand what I am talking about, cause you do not want to, and the ideas are fixed.
Do not know which is which, it may be even also of some other answer, so willing to listen.
But do not tell me what others have found out, unless from the science perpective of theories, tell me what you have found out from their assessment of your own perspective.
I used Krishnamurti cause I understand the listen to yourself, and Jung cause I understand some of the descriptions. When I find something like the collective unconsciouss, I will speak in that way about it, but not before.
So if I am ready to find Whitehead or Bohm in my head, then good, otherwise I just mimick their knowledge.

Thanasis