Every thing appears to be an object. Except from its own perspective. Each of those perspectives is an aspect of the almighty, who/which is nonetheless greater than the sum of all of them. Both immanent and transcendant. As it was in the beginning, is now, amd forever shall be.

When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse ...

Ah, but that's the rub, we don't seem to be objects even from our own perspective.

I'm currently reading "The Self-Aware Universe", which seems to be along very similar lines.

From the review: 'And the renowned Stephen Hawking has made his hostility to those who point out the problems in his field even more clear, saying that when someone brings up Schrodinger's cat he wants to "reach for my gun."'

Compare this Wikipedia article:

'Hanns Johst (July 8, 1890 - November 23, 1978) was a German playwright and Nazi Poet Laureate.

Johst studied medicine and philosophy and - later - history of art. He volunteered for the army in 1914. In 1918 he settled down at the Starnberger See.

His early work is influenced by expressionism (e.g. Der Anfang (1917), Der König (1920)). Later, he turned to a naturalist philosophy (Wechsler und Händler (1923), Thomas Paine (1927)).

In 1935 Johst became the President of the Reichsschrifttumskammer and of the Deutsche Akademie für Dichtung - organisations for German writers, but at this time just for writers who were producing pro-Nazi work. In the essay "Standpunkt und Fortschritt" (1933) he declared his agreement with Hitler's ideology.

Johst has gained notoriety for writing a line misattributed sometimes to Hermann Göring and sometimes to Heinrich Himmler:

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning." Meaning: "Whenever I hear the word culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!" - Schlageter (Act 1, Scene 1), A line parodied by Stephen Hawking, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my pistol."'

Are true mathematical statements necessarily true statements about the Universe? All this mystical quantum theory stuff assumes the answer is yes. I thought, though, that you were going to go for "There is always an Observer" implying that all states are always resolved.

I did.

I agree.

But of course we're not objects from our own perspective. Only the un-sane view themselves as objects. They may also view other things as subjects. (That conversion of perspective is the essence of mysticism.)

Events have a way of making us perceive them. You can't ignore a nuclear bomb going off.

As for "one object can instantaneously influence the behavior of another greatly distant object--even if no physical force connects the two," that simply means there are examples of cause and effect that have nothing to do with forces.

May the non-force be with you!

Joseph:

What events?

Quite, so everything is subjective and Reason and Science amply demonstrate that there is no rational basis bor a belief in the subject.

Reason and science reduce every thing to a mere object, dismissing the obvious fact that every thing also has its own subjective reality. The ultimate observer is both within and without.

No, according to science nothing has subjective reality. All is mere speculation.

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Delete your "no" and I agree completely.

It's easiest stated thus: Rationalism is irrational.

Would you agree that people have a way of getting us to notice them? Not a very 'scientific' statement, but it seems accurate enough.

rat:

Yes, once you jettison science it's possible to discuss reality intelligently.

Ecclesiastes 3.

As for "one object can instantaneously influence the behavior of another greatly distant object--even if no physical force connects the two," that simply means there are examples of cause and effect that have nothing to do with forces.

The ones I've heard of can also be explained by "hidden variables"- states which are not visible to outside observers until and unless an object is destroyed in the process. The same hidden variable was set to another value in the now distant object when the both objects were simultaneously created, and so can be inferred because it's known that there are only two states, and the creating process always creates two objects with different states. No need for superluminal effects. QED.

(Say I take a coin and cut it in half through the flat part, giving me two coins, one with he heads and one with the tails. I put each in an envelope without looking at them and randomly mail one to the Eastern Time Zone. These envelopes are "particles", and I can only determine if one is a "heads" or a "tails" by ripping open and destroying the envelope/particle. If I create a big sack of them, and don't somehow keep track of with pairs of which, they will be 50-50 Head whenI open them. But when I open my envelope that I've kept and find Lincoln, the one I sent doesn't magically become the Memorial. It was there all along, and I now don't even have to open that envelope to know that fact, because I kept track of it and its sibling. The "wavefront equation has collapsed", to use QM-speak.)

Raoul:

Bohr was speaking to you.

We flat earthers will rise again.