Individuality and Reality

Your Individuality is far more than a little peculiarity. It is a view that nothing and nobody has except you. Otherwise it/he/she would be you.  Also, you will have changed your perspective – yourself – in the next moment, and you cannot turn back time.

For convenience we come to an agreement about “common” objects, which allegedly everyone perceives, although each views from his own standpoint. If you watch me rolling a pen across the table, you may believe it being the same pen I see. However, I see something completely different than you. There is not the slightest match between my perception and yours. Because otherwise I would sit in your place, have your thoughts, memories, and emotions, connecting them with a shape rolling towards me.

If we can both talk about a single pen, it’s because we already as children have agreed about what we want to consider approximately as a common object and more specifically as a pen. We also did this early for ourselves by changing our own perspective and recognizing the relative stability of certain shapes. Should you now realize that "someone" is rolling such an approximated object across the table you have changed the view again: You have put yourself approximately in his perspective and have returned to your own. So you can conclude that a common object is rolling there, "only" seen from different sides. Actually, you have merged two indivisible perceptions over several steps into a unity, which emphasizes a "part" of your own perception (pen) as well as a "part" of the perception of the other person you just "spied on" (pen).

The unique perspectives thus create an approximated commonality by mutual exchange, a so-called real pen.

The widespread assumption of a pen independent of perspectives conversely leads into the void if you keep asking “what” it consists of: molecules, these of atoms, these of elementary particles, these of fields, and these of laws of change. But change of what? It is an endless loop.

However, no concept yet can explain why a rolling pencil can be quite stable: It neither breaks nor does it change direction if I only think so. I have to touch it. And then it changes for both of us (on condition that we both look “there”).

In the Perspective Exchange Concept, we therefore have to start from still largely unknown processes stabilizing our perception.  Their effect must be in accordance with proven physical laws. Both conclusions are consistent.

The concept of an independent reality, on the other hand, is a crutch for projecting stability into things not really understood, thus largely concealing individual perceptions. This is not consistent.

I do not doubt macro- and microphysics. They describe what they are looking for, especially processes of "common" objects. But we must also say that if physics is not fundamental, but everything basically remains individual, then everything has to be explained in another way as well. Physics does not become superfluous, but subordinate. Psychological connections will play an important role, but they too are not fundamental enough. Rather, the most abstract and simple structures of consciousness are to be used first. 

Creative Commons License