Quick aside; I agree that meditation can bring some interesting insights. However, I have learned not to depend too heavily on meditation for insight;
you will come to see why as I elaborate on the rest of your response.
As I understand them, a fractal can be subdivided into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole
). Your viewpoint, to me, implies still that separate elements -- observers -- are somehow
intertwined with an external thing -- universe. My viewpoint incorporates both elements into one massive thing that I call the universe
includes space and all matter created from the Bang, and any "alternate universes" that may exist alongside it.
A fractal develops as a result of interacting elements: it isn't separate from the events that it consists of. That would be like saying your lungs
aren't a part of your body. This interaction can be seen on all levels of existence; from subatomic dances to galactic clusters. On our level of
existence, gravitational dances give rise to chemical and, later, social
ones. It is interaction that gives rise to our universe, and it is the
same which provokes our thoughts.
So, it comes down to this:
Talking is what humans do
Communicating is what all organisms do.
Interacting is what all
elements do. Elements include events that are the results of other events.
An observer is the result of other events. Thoughts are events that arise from interactions with other observers, or their
they make the whole; if there is a 'first' thought, this is it; it is still 'happening' right now.
To the argument that there must be "a primal set
of events, then, which must have interacted with all the others to create the 'whole'," I
will point out that it is difficult to get to the "end" of a fractal: isn't it logical to predict that the farther down one looks, the more one
Molecules -- atoms -- quarks... perhaps more will be found. Oh, Hadron Collider...
To briefly address your statement about free will (and to do so purely from my perspective): I believe free will exists for individuals
have the ability to decide what you do, as long as your decision concerns you alone. You can't make decisions that affect someone else, unless that
person has given you the permission to do so.
Independently, however, our actions only extend so far; you can't control the weather (perhaps you
can). You can, however, decide to call out
of work, or decide to vote. That is what free will is. You decide what events to cause, but not the ones that happen to you. I hope this covers it
For fear of getting too dreary, I will pause here and await your response.