What if you woke up and realized your whole life had been a dream?

So it's generally understood that we are viewing an external reality. 

That the world exists outside of you. 

That your eyes receive light waves that they convert into electrical signals that your mind converts into the image you view in your mind. 

The problem with this is it implies the existence of 2 worlds. 1 an objective reality outside of you and the other the replica you experience within your mind. The thing is only 1 of these realities is actually proven to exist. 

The other is an unproven assumption. The fact that reality as we know it is occurring within the mind is undisputed. It's the existence of an external objective reality that is unproven.

You see most people assume that the primacy of matter is a given and the primacy of consciouness is... Well we can't disprove it but no one really takes that seriously.


The problem is they've got it backwards.

Reality being a product of the mind is a certainty. Reality existing beyond you is an unproven assumption.



Now I don't expect you to be convinced of the non existence of an objective reality based upon this argument alone. I understand that you have been ingrained since birth to view reality as being an external phenomenon. 

So just like people had difficulty accepting the earth was round I expect this to be even harder to accept. 

I want you to understand that their is validity to the hypothesis that reality may not exist beyond the mind.

We can't prove the existence of an objective reality therefore it could be a false assumption.

Eugene  Wigner  was a Hungarian-American theoretical physicist, engineer and mathematician. He received half of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 "for his contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the elementary particles, particularly through the discovery and application of fundamental symmetry principles"















So in case you don't understand the terms he's using.

Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness to a concept. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff (e.g., matter or mind) exists, although many things may be made out of this stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Click Here for a detailed description of materialism.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism



So a Nobel prize winning scientist is saying that quantum mechanics is logically consistent with reality being a product of the mind but it isn't consistent with a materialistic world view.

Now technically I don't agree with solipsism. If consciousness is the baseline of existence. Then it's possible for other consciousness to exists beyond your consciousness.

Idealism In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Any philosophy that assigns crucial importance to the ideal or spiritual realm in its account of human existence may be termed "idealist". Metaphysical idealism is an ontological doctrine that holds that reality itself is incorporeal or experiential at its core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

The analogy I use to explain it is this. Solipsism is like a virtual reality where you are the only one playing. A whole universe full of people and you are the only one who's real.

Now imagine a multiplayer virtual reality. The players are real the world isn't. It doesn't actually have an independent material existence.It only exists insomuch as it's being rendered and experienced by a player.

Now I told you about how belief creates reality. (I wrote this up because I was talking to a friend and some stuff that was to complex and involved to explain in idle conversation.)

Belief creating reality may sound unusual to you. It certainly sounded pretty far fetched the first time I ever heard it. I have a great analogy to explain it.

So imagine a virtual reality.

A virtual reality doesn't just generate randomly. It has a code.

The code determines how it generates and it always generates according to the code.

The code for our reality is our belief. If consciousness is the baseline of existence then the code has to be contained within the consciousness. (Consciousness not the brain. The brain is generated by the code as well.)

It's basically a dream based virtual reality that generates consistently according to what we know to be true.

It's not an external reality but it is a consistent reality.

So if this was true what would it take to prove it?

Evidence that is inconsistent with an objective reality?

Experimental results that conform to what we know to be true?

So lets see what we got.

Evidence that is inconsistent with an objective reality?

Bernard d'Espagnat was a French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, and author, best known for his work on the nature of reality.

From 1959 until his retirement in 1987, D'Espagnat was a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Sciences at the Sorbonne University. He was director of the Laboratory of Theoretical Physics and Elementary Particles at the University of Paris XI (Orsay), 1980-87.



Experimental results that conform to what we know to be true?

Henry Pierce Stapp has published many papers pertaining to the non-local aspects of quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem, including two books published by Springer-Verlag, and a third one in progress.
Stapp has worked also in a number of conventional areas of high energy physics, including analysis of the scattering of polarized protons, parity violation, and S-matrix theory.

So what's making scientists come to these far out conclusions?




If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.

Niels Bohr was a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922.

Bohr founded the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Copenhagen, now known as the Niels Bohr Institute, which opened in 1920.












The fact that the electron produced an interference pattern. It may seem like no big deal on the surface.

Previous to this objects in our world were described by what is now known as classical mechanics.

Classical mechanics is the study of the motion of bodies in accordance with the general principles first enunciated by Sir Isaac Newton

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

So according to classical mechanics the electron should have behaved like the marble and produced two bands. It didn't.

Mathematically the only way they could make sense of this was to describe it as a probability cloud. The sum of all it's possible outcomes. Then it's possibilities could go threw both slits and interfere with itself.

So now the math worked. Problem is now they can't tell you where it is. Only where it might be.

We generally understand that we live in an objective reality.

Realism in the sense used in physics is the idea that nature exists independently of man's mind: that even if the result of a possible measurement does not exist before the act of measuring it, that does not mean it is a creation of the mind of the observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism

If we live in a objective reality. A reality that exists outside of us. It should be their even if we aren't

Now this means the properties of this reality should exist independent of us as well.

There followed a debate between Bohr and Einstein about the fundamental nature of reality. Einstein had been skeptical of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the role of chance in quantum theory. But the crux of this debate was not about chance, but something even deeper: Is there one objective physical reality, which every observer sees from his own vantage? (Einstein's view) Or does the observer co-create physical reality by the questions he poses with experiments? (Bohr's view)

Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with his idea of causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein's death, experiments analogous to the one described in the EPR paper have been carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism idea is false, vindicating Bohr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Realism in the sense used in physics is the idea that nature exists independently of man's mind: that even if the result of a possible measurement does not exist before the act of measuring it, that does not mean it is a creation of the mind of the observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. A theory which includes the principle of locality is said to be a "local theory". Locality evolved out of the field theories of classical physics. The concept is that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between those points such as a field must mediate the action. To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points, carrying the influence.

The Special Theory of Relativity limits the speed at which all such influences can travel to the speed of light. Therefore, the principle of locality implies that an event at one point cannot cause a simultaneous result at another point. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

John Stewart Bell formulated the "Bell inequality", which, if violated in actual experiments, implies that quantum mechanics violates either locality or realism, another principle which relates to the value of unmeasured quantities. The two principles are commonly referred to as a single principle, local realism.

Experimental tests of the Bell inequality, beginning with Alain Aspect's 1972 experiments, show that quantum mechanics seems to violate the inequality, so it must violate either locality or realism. However, critics have noted these experiments contained "loopholes", which prevented a definitive answer to this question. This might now be resolved: in 2015 Dr Ronald Hanson at Delft University performed what has been called the first loophole-free experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

Dr Ronald Hanson's experiment
Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html

Back to the double slit.

According to realism, materialism an external objective physical reality however you want to phrase it. It should be out their. It should have definite properties.

So they wanted to find out exactly what it was doing.

So they put a detector there to find out where it was. Which slit it went through.

Problem is as soon as they knew where it was it stopped behaving like a wave.

Notice the increment of knowledge. As soon as they "KNEW" it's behavior changed.

Consistent with what we "KNOW" to be true, classical mechanics. It exhibited Newtonian particle characteristics.

Now if you look at it from the perspective of an objectively existing external reality.

The only thing that changed was the addition of a measuring device.

now they are looking at the detector as the mechanism of collapse.

so imagine it existing OUT THERE.

We shoot the electron it travels as a wave until it hits the final screen. Right.

We add a detector in the middle of the experiment and from that point forward it behaves as a particle.

No detector get a wave, add a detector get particle.

It has to be the detector what else could it be.

If it's not the detector then what is it?

There is nothing else there.

It's not just magically deciding to be different.

Every time the experiment is done right these are the results we get.

The obvious conclusion it has to be some sort of interaction with the detector.

Well actually the detector isn't the only thing that changed about the system. With the addition of the detector an increment of knowledge also occurs.

However from this experiment alone it really does look like it's the detector that caused the change.

There are other experiments but we'll get to that.

Even the scientific accepted consciousness causes collapse theory is based off the measuring device.

It goes something like this.

So the world around us behaves like a world made of matter and particles. At our everyday level it doesn't appear to behave like a probability cloud. At our everyday level the world appears to follow the rules of classical mechanics not the rules of quantum mechanics.

So we saw from the experiment that it behaved like a superposition the sum of all possibilities. Then when we put the measuring device it's behavior changed from that of a wave to that of a particle. Which is describable using classical mechanics.

So it switched from the wave state of quantum mechanics to the particles state of classical mechanics.

So somehow at a fundamental level our reality is going from a wave state described by quantum mechanics to the classical state of the everyday world we are used to.

They call this the collapse of the wave function.

This switch occurred with the addition of a detector.

Now consciousness collapses the quantum wave function follows the reasoning that.

If the natural state of our reality is as a probability cloud until collapse occurs then.....

The measuring device has to exist as a probability cloud as well. Until something collapses it.

So if the detector collapsed the electron what collapsed the detector?

So technically the measuring device can't be the agent of collapse because it follows the same set of laws.

It needs something to collapse it into a measuring device so it can collapse the particle.

Since everything in the physical world is describable by these laws. We need something outside the physical system to act as the mechanism of collapse.

Which is where consciousness comes in.

To many scientists this interpretation fails to compete with other interpretations of quantum mechanics because "consciousness causes collapse" relies upon an interactionist form of dualism that is inconsistent with the materialism presupposed by many physicists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation




So why did the experiment act different when we tried to see what was happening.

The greatest minds in science have been trying to figure this out for about the last 100 years or so. So if you know the answer make sure you tell us okay.



"The Measurement Problem"

This is how they like to tell themselves it works. It's like measuring the air in your tire. You can't measure the air pressure in your tire without changing the air pressure in the tire at least a little. No matter how precise your device is a little bit of air will be let out in the process of measuring the air in your tire.

Sounds nice and reasonable right.

Except that their are experiments that prove it isn't the detector.

Using an air pressure gauge to measure the air pressure in your tires will changes the air pressure but it won't turn it into water.

Oh and they can do the experiment without going threw a detector and still get the collapse. So obviously the mechanism of collapse wasn't the detector.

So they came up with new experiments to try and solve this riddle.

Instead of detecting it as it goes threw the slit. They designed an experiment that would determine which slit it went through after it had already gone through that slit.



So here's a picture of it so you can study it.

So what is causing collapse some physical interaction or our knowledge of the system.

Now in the double slit it looks like the detector. We add a detector the experiment collapses it must be the detector.

This experiment we don't add a detector. They go through the same devices. So it can't be a physical interaction.

The only difference between whether it collapses or not is what we know about the state of the experiment.

When we "KNOW" which slit it went through it collapses.

If you look at the picture the colored lines represent which slit it went through. The only way to get to d4 is to go through the red slit. The only way to get to d3 is to go through blue slit. So if it arrives at either of these measurement screens we know which slit it went through. An increment of knowledge occured. The experiment obeyed the increment of knowledge.

Now if you take this back to the double slit experiment. We've proven it isn't the detector by causing collapse in the absence of a detector. The neccassary mechanism was an increment of knowledge. When we knew which slit it went through it acted as though it went through that slit.

Now with the double slit the detector isn't the cause of collapse the detector causes an increment of knowledge because it makes it so we know which slit the particle went through and the reality obeys increments of knowledge. So once we knew which slit it went through it behaved as if it only went through one.

As far as the presenter of the video claiming that the particles knew in advance which slit they would go through. That is an unsupported fantastical assumption.

The reason he says that is because the results violate causality and the arrow of time.

The thing is the outcome of the experiment is determined at the measurement screen. (the increment of knowledge) but the results should have been determined at the slit.

You see to create a clump pattern it has to travel as a particle from the double slit to the measurement screen. To create an interference pattern it has to travel from the double slit to the measurement screen as a wave.

It's state should have already been determined by the time it arrived at the detector screen. The pattern it created on the measurement screen should have be determined by how it traveled. Which should have been determined by how it passed through the slit.

In an objective reality. The results should have been determined before it arrived at the measurement screen.

The only way we can pretend to live in an objective reality despite the evidence to the contrary. Is by claiming these results were caused by either predetermination or backwards projecting in time.

However that claim is extremely flawed because.


1 They are completely unsupported fantastical assumptions based on an objective reality that is also an unproven unsupported assumption.

2 These results were caused by an increment of knowledge. So you still need a mechanism to explain how an increment of knowledge caused predetermination or explain how an increment of knowledge causes objects to project backwards in time.

If that's really what's happening. Then I just invented a time machine. It's easy to make. Anyone can do it.

I call it the schrodinger's time machine. After the schrodinger's cat thought experiment.

So if the resutls are not predetermined or projecting backwards in time. Then what is happening. Remember at the very beginning I told you that consciousness is the base line of reality. So lets look at it from that perspective and see how it fits the experimental evidence.

I'll use a dream as an example because it is a reality of the mind that you all are aware of so it's easier for you to comprehend.

So a scientist sets the experiment up. He leaves the room while it runs. He comes back when it's over. Now technically the experiment isn't actually running in his absence. You see it's a dream a product of his mind. It can only exist when it's being dreamt into existence. Now when he comes back to view the results after the experiment has run. What will he find. When he comes back his mind will create results consistent as though the experiment had run in his absence. The results are created at the point of observation and they are created consistent with what he knows to be true.

This is also consistent with the schrodingers cat thought experiment.

The reason it's so counter intuitive is because people are trying to apply it to an objective classical reality and it just doesn't fit.

However if you go back to the very first point that I made. We don't actually know that we live in a classical objective reality so it's erroneous to force the evidence to fit with a faulty assumption.

In a dream the state of the cat is undetermined. It doesn't exist it hasn't happened. The cat being alive or dead are just probabilities of what he will find when he opens the box. The results don't exist until someone dreams the outcome. So not only is  consciousness as the baseline of reality the one thing we can be certain of it, perfectly consistent with the experimental evidence.

The paradoxes of quantum mechanics come from trying to force it to fit with an unproven faulty assumption.

"Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space and time" 
- Einstien

"I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is: an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
- Einstein

“We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” 
- Abraham Pais

As far as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Saying the results went back in time. Would be like saying that the observation of the state of Schrodinger's cat caused the cat's corpse to teleport backwards in time so it could decay the right amount consistent with the autopsy. This is the kind of crazy talk necessary to try and pretend we may possible live in an objective reality.











So the predominate world view is materialism or physicalism. (matter pyramid)




It holds that matter is the source of everything and can explain everything. So matter give rise to the world around you. Matter gives rise to your body. Your body gives rise to your brain and your brain gives rise to consiousness. Matter is the explanation for everything. So since matter gives rise to your body/brain/consciousness when the body dies consciousness expires as well since matter is the basis for consciousness. Atheism follows from materialism. Matter can explain everything and their is nothing else beyond matter. Since consciousness depends upon matter for existence their can be no afterlife.

So matter gives rise to mind. Matter is the source of mind. Matter over mind. When the matter expires the mind expires, exinctionism.

If consciousness gives rise to matter. It's the other way around. Mind over matter. Mind is the source of matter. Mind has to pre-exist matter to give rise to it. If mind pre-exists matter, that's pre-existance of the soul. Afterlife, reincarnation, transmigration of the soul however you want to phrase it.

Wait a minute this is starting to sound alot like religion. Did science discover the scientific basis for spirituality?

Reincarnation Pre-existance of the soul.

Shamanism: Regarding reincarnation, the issue seems clear: we are spirits, and have come from our home (the spiritual world) to occupy our physical bodies, in order to learn along different lives. At the moment of death, the spirit survives and returns to the spiritual world where it meets with the other dead.

Druidism: Mediums were able to communicate with their ancestors, and believed in the immortal soul or spirit that dwelt within our body. For the Druids, reality is the spiritual world. 

Norse mythology shows that the Nordic also believed in reincarnation, and there is evidence that proves the Vikings believed in it.

Voodoo: Although voodoo does not have any basic doctrines, it supports belief in reincarnation and gives importance to the spirits of dead people.

Gnosticism: It is a set of philosophic and religious currents that are close to Christianity of the first centuries, but was later declared heretical. It advocates the separation between matter and spirit. Only through awareness of our own spirit, of its divine character and the truth about its nature we can attain salvation. Some currents of Gnosticism believed in the cyclical return of souls to the prison of matter through reincarnation. The cycle of rebirths was broken by the gnosis (the equivalent of enlightenment in Eastern religions).

Brahmanism: One of its cornerstones is the reincarnation or samsara. The soul evolves through reincarnation according to what good or bad deeds have been done in a previous life. The release of the wheel of reincarnation is achieved when the soul (through yogic or ascetic practices) has completely evolved, with no more karma to “clean” and no need to reincarnate, and the soul merges with the universal soul.

Jainism: The soul is potentially divine and can reach this goal through ascetic and purifying practices. The soul loses its omniscience (ability to know everything) because of its corruption, attachment to material things. To recover its original wisdom it must get rid of the karma and attain knowledge, thus reaching nirvana where it will be free from suffering.

Vedism: The Vedas assert the immortality of the soul and the successive reincarnation.

Hinduism: Hindus believe in reincarnation or transmigration of the souls. To end this cycle and meet with the universal soul, we must achieve perfection, reaching the truth and renouncing to everything else, thus overcoming the weight of karma. Our soul is the reflection of God, it is also God.

Buddhism: Reincarnation (or rebirth) is a mainstay of Buddhism. To escape this wheel of reincarnations, we must get rid of attachments and desires.

http://reincarnationafterdeath.com/what-religions-believe-in-reincarnation/

Now I want you to notice the reoccurring theme of souls perfecting themselves threw a cycle of rebirth. Another theme not present in all the example is perfecting yourself as part of returning to god.

Judiasm

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion.

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

The concept of reincarnation in Hebrew is called gilgul, gilgul neshamot or gilgulei ha neshamot.
In Hebrew, the word gilgul means "cycle." Neshamot is the plural for "souls." Souls "cycle" through "lives" or "incarnations." These souls attach themselves to different bodies - human and nonhuman- over time.

Jewish scriptures alluding to reincarnation.

As long as a person is unsuccessful in his purpose in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, uproots him and replants him over and over again. (Zohar I 186b)

All souls are subject to reincarnation; and people do not know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He! They do not know that they are brought before the tribunal both before they enter into this world and after they leave it; they are ignorant of the many reincarnations and secret works which they have to undergo, and of the number of naked souls, and how many naked spirits roam about in the other world without being able to enter within the veil of the King's Palace. Men do not know how the souls revolve like a stone that is thrown from a sling. But the time is at hand when these mysteries will be disclosed. (Zohar II 99b)

Behold, all these things does God do -- twice, even three times with a man -- to bring his soul back from the pit that he may be enlightened with the light of the living. (Job 33:29)

Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during most of the first century AD, records in his Jewish War (3, 8, 5) and in his Antiquities of the Jews (18, 1, 3) that reincarnation was taught widely in his day.

Christianity

"The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives" - Origen, 183-253 A.D.

 "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." - (Matthew 16:13-14)

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of Alexandria ( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?" And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

Synesius (AD 370-480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: "It is possible by labor and time, and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge from this dark abode." This passage reminds us of verses in the Revelation of John (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language leading into: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/reincar/re-imo.htm

So if Jesus discussed past lives and reincarnation with his disciples why isn't reincarnation part of Christianity any more?

Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553)

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

It was banned from Christianity. Oh and monstrous restoration means souls perfecting themselves through a cycle of rebirth returning to god.

So in conclusion. Pre-existence of the soul or some form of after life is a part of most major religions. They may not agree on exactly how it occurs. Even within a single religion. However it forms the basis of most religions.

What about mind over matter. If it's an increment of knowledge that causes the wave function to collapse down to what we know as the physical world around us. What does religion have to say about that?

Wicca - There is a metaphysical law that states: "Belief creates reality."

Lazaris - "The world is an illusion" "Belief creates reality"

Christianity

Mark 11:23
For truly I say to you whoever says to this mountain "be removed and be thrown into the sea and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says shall be done. He shall have whatever he says."

Mark 11:24
Because of this I say to you whatever you ask when you pray, Believe that you receive them and you shall have them.

Matthew 14:28-31
Then Peter called to him, “Lord, if it’s really you, tell me to come to you, walking on the water.”

“Yes, come,” Jesus said.

So Peter went over the side of the boat and walked on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw the strong wind and the waves, he was terrified and began to sink. “Save me, Lord!” he shouted.

Jesus immediately reached out and grabbed him. “You have so little faith,” Jesus said. “Why did you doubt me?”

So the reality is obey increments of knowledge. It behaves according to what we know to be true.

Thanks for reading this far.

Feel free to leave a comment.

If their is anything you didn't understand, that I didn't explain good enough or that you disagree with please let me know. This helps me to explain it better in the future.

Comments will not be published.

They are just so I can get your input.

If you didn't read the page on materialism you should check it out here.