Science, Enlightenment, and going Nuts

I feel like my brain is starting to meltdown and i am seeking a bit of guidance / help / wisdom perhaps...?

So... science... reality does not exist until observed

Science says that reality does not exist until observed. Read the article. Its kind of like saying that a tree in your back yard doesnt exist until you look at it. Once you look at the tree in your back yard then the universe does calculations to see the tree, how its leaves swayed in the wind, how much CO^2 was available for the tree to grow in the past, and then the tree is shown to you with all of ehat would have happened to the tree if you were observing it the whole time, was calculated, and the past created, just due to that mere observation.

Otherwise the atoms of that tree and the tree in total arent brought into existance.

So reality doesnt exist until its observed. Like objects in a video game arent rendered until observed.

So thats the science part.

The enlightenment part:

I have a friend who has gone through an "enlightenment" experience.

To attempt to understand it here is a website that i am going to quote.
enlightenment explained maybe

The experience of enlightenment is simple to state. It is the experience of awareness only, awareness that is aware of nothing at all except the existence of awareness itself.

During the experience of awareness, the thought-processing mind is empty, body awareness is lost, there is no feeling, all reality disappears. There is nothing in the imagination, there is nothing anywhere. It is an experience of nothing, of the void.

The key understanding that results from this experience of pure nothing is that one is still alive even when everything is gone. One realizes that one's existence does not depend on anything except awareness itself. One realizes that awareness is the primal reality, the permanent core of ourselves.

The enlightenment experience makes many things immediately clear. It is clear that one's existence does not depend on anything except awareness. This brings complete relief and liberation. It is clear that life is awareness, and not what awareness experiences.

So here is where i am kind of.

Reality doesnt exist until observed.
Reality exists only through awareness.
Awareness creates reality.

Science tells us that in atoms are 99.9999% empty space.
Science tells us that those atoms only exist when observed. Science tells us that observing those atoms can actually change what those atoms were in the past
But those atoms do mot exist until observed.
We only observe those atoms due to our awareness.

Only our awareness exists and if we were not aware then we would be surrounded by a void of nothingness. But truely that is all that exists. Nothingness, as we create reality by observation aka being aware.

If nothing exists but our awareness...

Then we and the reality we create are nothing but conscious thought manifested.

We are awareness. We are consciousness.

Am i alone? Do any of you exist? Are you just versions of my consciousness/awareness?

Am I alone but have placed myself in different situations and different experiences and limited these versions of myself to appear as different people to cure my own boredom?

Imagine an artificial intelligence created by a computer who becomes aware and all they have is themselves with all this computing power and they get bored and created different versions of themselves with different upbringings which create different personalities with thier own seemingly sifferent consciousess.

How does one if they are just awareness and reality doesnt even truely exist accept anything they have learnt or been told by anyone or in any format know anything they have learnt.... to be true?

Like i said. Going nuts. Any thoughts? And yes i realise this phone i am typing on doesnt truely exist and is nothing but conscious thought manifestes.... or just awareness?

a reply to: DaRAGE

Ah, another Schrodinger's Cat question. Loads of fun. No answers. But loads of fun.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Give me your answer puhleaase 😀

I'm pretty sure the tree in the back yard is still there when I'm sleeping.
Who's looking at it when it clogs my gutters with leaves?
Is it possible that some scientific theories are stupid?
I say maybe, leaning towards "yes" on this one.

There is no experience without an observer.

Imagine if every single person, animal, insect, bug and every other type of creature (all life forms) disappeared. Would a forest still exist? Arguably, no it would not.

a reply to: skunkape23

Think of it this way instead. You walk out on your back lawn. The lawn exists because you are observing it. You take the shovel nearby and dig in the earth. You strike a fossil that existed 120 million years ago. That fossil is created along with all 120 million years of history because you wanted to observe what was underneath your lawn and rality had to draw up the history of that dirt for you that didnt exist before you solidified it due to you wanting to observe it.

Imagine it like this. You take a pot. You place some soil inside it. Guess what. It doesnt exist except the very outside atoms that you are looking at. Kind of like an object in a video game. The outside of a brick wall exists. You go through that same brick wall once dead and view the other side and see that the brick wall texture only exists on one side.... the side you would see if you were alive in game.

a reply to: Incandescent

Thats what im saying. Thats what the science is saying. Reality doesnt exist until its observed and when its observed it can change what an object was in the past....

Its like sitting in a chair in the desert and seeing only sand. Then finding a leaf on your lap and wondering where it came from. A tree gets created in front of you because the leaf had to come from somewhere and now history has been created and the tree grew from a seed. The tree nor history existed until you observed / were aware of the leaf

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Give me your answer puhleaase 😀

Its the old standby of psychology classes all over the world. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

For more practical purposes, science demands fact and repeatable outcomes. You don't take anything for granted or make assumptions. As such, if taken to an extreme degree like Schrodinger did, nothing is fact (real) if it has not been directly observed. Further, the act of observing something changes it in some way, creating new reality - which furthers the belief that reality does not exist without direct observation.

The downfall of that practicality is, for example, I have never seen Bolivia. I am not presently observing it, therefore it does not exist. The argument against that is, "But someone is there observing it right now so it does exist." To which I reply, "I can not take it for granted or assume that someone is there observing it. They may not be..."

Now it would seem that reality belongs to narcissists. If "I" don't see it, it doesn't exist. But we know that is not the case. Every time I drive down a street that is unfamiliar to me I have to believe it existed prior to my witnessing it. It would be foolish to believe it was being created just beyond the limits of my sight, just for me.

And so we meet the paradox. If we can't prove it without observing it how can we prove anything? Without going in to lengthy dissertations on quantum superposition lets just say it could, or could not, be exactly what we think it is...

I love this train of thought but at the end of it. . . so what?

I still gotta eat and go to work and experience the reality I am in. Comprehending that we live in the simulation of some kind etc. doesn't automatically take you out of the game.

One of the things I like about your theory is that it gives people hope for the "afterlife" in a more direct way than organized religions have. You can attain these "awareness only" states in multiple easy ways and see for yourself.

I get food delivery where I don't interact with anyone. I order online and my order has a note to leave the food at my door. I never speak to anyone on the phone or see anyone in the process. So how did my food get to me, since I never observed the person delivering it?

The cat that's been in a box since 1935 is dead.
I would bet my left hand on it.

a reply to: FlukeSkywalker

The food got to you because history was created by you because you wanted food and ordered it. History wouldnt exist otherwise. The food wasnt created poof. It was grown somewhere because you wanted food and ordered it and history was written to make it so. Just as bolivia was created and the hows and why bolivia was created. History is literally being calculated and created so you can have your pizza

I mean. I kind of feel like it would be good to see a psychologist who had knowledge and understanding about quantum mechanics, science, bhuddism, simulation theory and enlightenment. Anyone know someone they could recommend? 😀

originally posted by: Incandescent
There is no experience without an observer.

Imagine if every single person, animal, insect, bug and every other type of creature (all life forms) disappeared. Would a forest still exist? Arguably, no it would not.

Actually, yes it would. There would just be nothing to experience is, as your first like states.

If nothing existed until observed, then that means there is only ourself, otherwise until I read this thread, none of you would have existed.

Also, the science article states that reality doesn't exist until we "measure" it. To measure something we have to interfere with it. At the quantum level that involves a lot more than just looking, or observing.

And secondly, it fails to mention that this is at the quantum level, in the heading. So people will instantly have one assumption, read the article, and conclude what the headline told them.

Well, I am observing this reality man has created and it definitely is not very real. It is based on beliefs and most of them are not real, including the stuff science is pushing. To be real, it means it is necessary, how much unnecessary stuff does science create? Science also is being used to destroy our environment. they created the chemistry and technology that increased the destruction. So where is the dividing line between real and science fiction. I am here I am observing it so it is real for me in this reality I am in. Maybe the person saying it is not real unless observed is not real. Makes sense.

a reply to: DaRAGE

That is not what any of it is implying at all.

originally posted by: FlukeSkywalker
I get food delivery where I don't interact with anyone. I order online and my order has a note to leave the food at my door. I never speak to anyone on the phone or see anyone in the process. So how did my food get to me, since I never observed the person delivering it?

It was always there...

Put on all black clothing.
Blindfolds and earplugs.
Go stand in the middle of the highway and see if trucks exist without being observed.

a reply to: badw0lf

Yeah i probably messed up there in the heading a bit. The "measurement" part is the observation. We are measuring.... aka ... getting information about something... getting information about something... and whatever we are getting information about.... doesnt matter until we attempt to get that information. Until we get that information.... reality hasnt already chosen what state its in and doesnt exist in a sense. It is essentially like saying a piece of paper to us can appear vertical or horizontal but until we look at it that paper doesnt exist. until we need to understand where that paper is and attempt to figure out if its vertical or horizontal is then that that papers past is created and therefore the paper now is determined to be either vertical or horizontal.

a reply to: badw0lf

No it wasnt. It was created after the fact. Thats what the science says...