The Necessity of Nothingness

[jugoso]

I found this theory to be rather intriguing and wonder what others thoughts are.

I - I AM.

The sensation of being is a certitude. Only the sensation, not its form. My sensation of being is the sensation that there is a universe. It means that being is a DUALITY. I say "I am" because I feel in opposition with "what I feel I am not". I feel that the infinity around me is outside me, is not me. This object of consciousness makes me feel "I am".

II - I AM IS ALL.

There's nothing in the universe which is not contained in this sensation of being: everything I can experience is a sensation of "I AM". Hence, if I want to be scientific, I must recognize that NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE MYSELF, since the whole universe is MY SENSATION. So, I am obliged to say: "I am not a body". For my body is a sensation among many others, and all of them are included in "I AM". I can't be at the same time matter or body, which are forms of sensation, and the sentient act itself. These are two different persons, and the first step to initiation is to recognize the distinction between these two aspects of reality: what I am, and what I feel myself to be. I am the consciousness of things, not things themselves.

III - EVERYTHING IS MENTAL.

Everything is A PART OF MIND. OF MY MIND. Matter itself is a sensation of mind. Now you can no longer remain a physicist. If you are still in some doubt, ask yourself the question: "can I be conscious of something which is outside my consciousness?" The answer is NO. I can't be. If I feel or observe something, it obviously means that it is INSIDE my mind. If it is outside my mind, I can't have any consciousness of it. Quantum Physics is obliged to admit that. The whole universe, all that can be conscious, is spiritual. You can by no means prove the existence of something matérial, though you can be sure of mind. So, be scientific. Reject hypotheses. Reject matter as such.

!V. THIS SENSATION IS PRESENT I am a sensation of universe, all of it is my mind. I am present and only present. No sensation exists in the past nor in the future. Even memory is a present feeling. It doesn't prove the past. Nothing can refute the fact that only present being is certain. Once more, reject any hypothesis in order to build certainties to lead your life.

V - THE PRESENT IS NON-EXISTENT, IS NIL. It doesn't have any duration. You can always divide what has a duration, and find something in it which is of lesser duration. The present is not divisible. It only separates what is past from what is not yet. It's a point without substance and which doesn't contain anything. Physicists sometimes give present a duration, in order to allow the universe to exist. This is scientifically untenable.

VI - ONLY NOTHINGNESS IS SELF-JUSTIFIED

Since it needs no cause at all, and NECESSARY, since being is a question (and when you analyse being, it turns out to be non-existent). If you can produce an eternal and necessary cause of God, of Matter or anything, you win. But you cannot. The only "thing" which doesn't need any cause is NOTHINGNESS. So, it is superior to any other reality. If the cause of God or of Matter stopped, "Nothing" would immediately take its place. It means that Nothingness is a greater truth. Stronger. And hence it turns out to be the fate of anything else whenever its cause stops (ad infinitum).

NOTHINGNESS'S NECESSITY means that Nothingness is the AIM, the absolute aim, which yields the energy creating the universe. The universe will turn out to be an eternal means for nothingness to be eternal. This paradox will be explained further when we explain that apparent being is a " separation " within the principles allowing Nothingness to be actual.

VII - There is nothing else certain but this necessity. Hence, LOVE, TIME AND EVOLUTION (which are the appearance of illusion), are this necessity itself, the demonstration of this energy. A necessity is an energy. The universal evolution is this energy, FROM THE CAUSE (Nothingness Necessity) TO THE AIM (Actual Nothingness, or UNITY).

Since being is a separation of nothingness's principles, and since the aim is their absolute unity (nothingness). Nothing else but the paradox of Nothingness is, and nothing else but love fills up the apparent life yielded by this paradox. Hence, to love is to become what we necessarily are, never reaching absolute unity. There is a cause, which is the contrary of what is, so what is is its means. The Universe enables Nothingness

Much more information can be found here:

http://www.hatem.com/summary.htm

[StarMountainKid]

This is all nice, but in my opinion the "Hyperscience" of the authors of the web page is just another imaginative hypothesis based on the author's imaginations.

[Mr Right Wing]

I found this theory to be rather intriguing and wonder what others thoughts are.

I - I AM.

The sensation of being is a certitude. Only the sensation, not its form. My sensation of being is the sensation that there is a universe. It means that being is a DUALITY. I say "I am" because I feel in opposition with "what I feel I am not". I feel that the infinity around me is outside me, is not me. This object of consciousness makes me feel "I am".

II - I AM IS ALL.

There's nothing in the universe which is not contained in this sensation of being: everything I can experience is a sensation of "I AM". Hence, if I want to be scientific, I must recognize that NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE MYSELF, since the whole universe is MY SENSATION. So, I am obliged to say: "I am not a body". For my body is a sensation among many others, and all of them are included in "I AM". I can't be at the same time matter or body, which are forms of sensation, and the sentient act itself. These are two different persons, and the first step to initiation is to recognize the distinction between these two aspects of reality: what I am, and what I feel myself to be. I am the consciousness of things, not things themselves.

III - EVERYTHING IS MENTAL.

Everything is A PART OF MIND. OF MY MIND. Matter itself is a sensation of mind. Now you can no longer remain a physicist. If you are still in some doubt, ask yourself the question: "can I be conscious of something which is outside my consciousness?" The answer is NO. I can't be. If I feel or observe something, it obviously means that it is INSIDE my mind. If it is outside my mind, I can't have any consciousness of it. Quantum Physics is obliged to admit that. The whole universe, all that can be conscious, is spiritual. You can by no means prove the existence of something matérial, though you can be sure of mind. So, be scientific. Reject hypotheses. Reject matter as such.

!V. THIS SENSATION IS PRESENT I am a sensation of universe, all of it is my mind. I am present and only present. No sensation exists in the past nor in the future. Even memory is a present feeling. It doesn't prove the past. Nothing can refute the fact that only present being is certain. Once more, reject any hypothesis in order to build certainties to lead your life.

V - THE PRESENT IS NON-EXISTENT, IS NIL. It doesn't have any duration. You can always divide what has a duration, and find something in it which is of lesser duration. The present is not divisible. It only separates what is past from what is not yet. It's a point without substance and which doesn't contain anything. Physicists sometimes give present a duration, in order to allow the universe to exist. This is scientifically untenable.

VI - ONLY NOTHINGNESS IS SELF-JUSTIFIED

Since it needs no cause at all, and NECESSARY, since being is a question (and when you analyse being, it turns out to be non-existent). If you can produce an eternal and necessary cause of God, of Matter or anything, you win. But you cannot. The only "thing" which doesn't need any cause is NOTHINGNESS. So, it is superior to any other reality. If the cause of God or of Matter stopped, "Nothing" would immediately take its place. It means that Nothingness is a greater truth. Stronger. And hence it turns out to be the fate of anything else whenever its cause stops (ad infinitum).

NOTHINGNESS'S NECESSITY means that Nothingness is the AIM, the absolute aim, which yields the energy creating the universe. The universe will turn out to be an eternal means for nothingness to be eternal. This paradox will be explained further when we explain that apparent being is a " separation " within the principles allowing Nothingness to be actual.

VII - There is nothing else certain but this necessity. Hence, LOVE, TIME AND EVOLUTION (which are the appearance of illusion), are this necessity itself, the demonstration of this energy. A necessity is an energy. The universal evolution is this energy, FROM THE CAUSE (Nothingness Necessity) TO THE AIM (Actual Nothingness, or UNITY).

Since being is a separation of nothingness's principles, and since the aim is their absolute unity (nothingness). Nothing else but the paradox of Nothingness is, and nothing else but love fills up the apparent life yielded by this paradox. Hence, to love is to become what we necessarily are, never reaching absolute unity. There is a cause, which is the contrary of what is, so what is is its means. The Universe enables Nothingness

Much more information can be found here:

http://www.hatem.com/summary.htm

Well done its called non-duality.

A lot of people dont want to see that reality is just a collection of perceptions created by their minds. They like the idea that reality is seperate from themselves when there is in fact no division. Reality is mind.

The best place to see this in action is a sales office. The perceptions you allow to exist in your mind impact your sales. Go in with the right mentality and you do strangely successful.

[jugoso]

This is all nice, but in my opinion the "Hyperscience" of the authors of the web page is just another imaginative hypothesis based on the author's imaginations.

Hi SMK! I was hoping you´d weigh in on this one. . There is certainly a lot of info on the web-page. I´m wondering what you think about some of the points in the OP, particularly points II & III.

[StarMountainKid]

Ok, here's my feeble attempt:

1. I Am.

My sensation of being is the sensation that there is a universe. It means that being is a DUALITY. I say "I am" because I feel in opposition with "what I feel I am not". I feel that the infinity around me is outside me, is not me.

2. I Am Is All

There's nothing in the universe which is not contained in this sensation of being: everything I can experience is a sensation of "I AM". Hence, if I want to be scientific, I must recognize that NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE MYSELF, since the whole universe is MY SENSATION.

3. Everything Is Mental

Everything is A PART OF MIND. OF MY MIND. Matter itself is a sensation of mind. ... If I feel or observe something, it obviously means that it is INSIDE my mind. If it is outside my mind, I can't have any consciousness of it.

I think these statements are just a trick. If I can't be conscious of anything outside my mind, from where does the content of my consciousness come from?

If reality is in my consciousness, why is it that I can't walk through that wall over there if I decide to? The web page states that when I elevate my consciousness somehow by accepting the author's premises and become an Angel, I will be able to walk through walls. Do I really believe this? No. Do I believe in Hyperscience? No. Do I believe gravity is magnetism? No. As I said before, all this is an nice imaginative construct, but it's just an act of someone's imagination. When the author tries to prove his hypothesis is correct, he uses his own hypothesis as evidence.

I can construct (and have constructed) hypotheses that appear self-consistent, too, but I don't take them seriously. Others hypotheses may be interesting and thought provoking and helpful in providing new ways to look at things, but they're all still someone's imaginative scenarios. I'm not easily swayed into accepting acts of the imagination as truth.

I want empirical evidence. If you can't provide that, then I'm not taking you seriously.

Edited September 1, 2012 by StarMountainKid

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

There is no empirical evidence when it comes to the matters of consciousness. But maybe what they mean in elevating consciousness, and walking through walls aka mere constructs - think holographic universe, they mean in terms of shifting awareness to the non physical aspects of you and that the I AM = multi dimensional being. Your astral self can definitely walk through walls and a whole lot more

I don't think however the way things are worded are telling the whole picture. The I AM thing has various interpretations.

[StarMountainKid]

There is no empirical evidence when it comes to the matters of consciousness. But maybe what they mean in elevating consciousness, and walking through walls aka mere constructs - think holographic universe, they mean in terms of shifting awareness to the non physical aspects of you and that the I AM = multi dimensional being. Your astral self can definitely walk through walls and a whole lot more

I think the "I Am" feeling is some kind of recursive system of the brain. The brain being aware of itself. I do think the mind/consciousness is non-physical, but that it is still a creation of the brain. Nevertheless, there seems to be the possibility of multi-dimensional mind. If the universe is a projected hologram, then what does that infer about mind? If the hologram/universe is a projection of one source, mind must also be a projection from that one source...

There is a thread in Science and Technology section here about the location of the mind. Some of that may be relevant to this discussion.

In my previous post I'm thinking maybe I sounded too harsh in dismissing the OP. I would have a more congenial relationship with it if the author of the web page would have started out by saying, "What if?" or "Consider this possibility."

[Professor T]

This is very interesting.

But I'm afraid it all fell apart for me anyway with reference to Nothingness.

Nothing or No-thing is usually defined as well, No-thing, emptiness, void..

But I kind of believe that the OP has a point in the Nessesity of Nothingness because a true deffinition of Nothingness is "unlimited potential"

Nothingness therefore would be "unlimited consciousness"

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Yeah i sort of by passed the nothingness bit.

and this bit is flawed -

No sensation exists in the past nor in the future. Even memory is a present feeling. It doesn't prove the past.

I've seen better interpretations for the IAM thing.

[JGirl]

i found this very interesting, although i sort of lost the trail at the end. food for thought, thanks

[Mr Right Wing]

There is no empirical evidence when it comes to the matters of consciousness. But maybe what they mean in elevating consciousness, and walking through walls aka mere constructs - think holographic universe, they mean in terms of shifting awareness to the non physical aspects of you and that the I AM = multi dimensional being. Your astral self can definitely walk through walls and a whole lot more

I don't think however the way things are worded are telling the whole picture. The I AM thing has various interpretations.

No matter how much I try I cannot accept material reductionism.

I can sit here now and point out a load of things which exist that arent made out of atoms or energy. From the vaccum of space, to wavefunctions, to colour, to time, to maths, to distance and dimensions. To believe in material reductionism would mean I'd have to become an osterich and bury my head in the sand at everything that exists which isnt made out of atoms or energy.

For that same reason I cannot accept a material reductionist model of the human mind. Material reductionism does not include everything that exists so it produces distorted theories about the nature of mind.

Finally you are right that theres no empirical evidence of mind and thats because science lacks the means to investigate it. There is also problems getting empirical evidence from subjective experiences. Subjective, something which terrifies material reductionists despite the fact their mind has created the thing they experience as reality.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Professor T]

Some interesting thoughts here. here's my thoughts on "I AM"

The question of "I AM" has two distinct means of explaination. There is external examination of which science has greatfully become very good. And there is interospection which sadly science is lacking in ability to measure imperical results or evidence, but may hopefully be starting headway in an early sort of crude banging rocks together sort of way. One might consider this the root of duality..

I AM can be broken down into unlimited deffinitions from every single scientific, religious, or political point of view. But the one thing that can not be questioned is "I am experiencing this, I am aware of this" which again can be broken down or reduced to that which cannot be denied by any thing or any one and that is "I am Conscious"

Therefore, Consciousness, IMO, becomes a fundimental basis of life, the universe and everything.

[ZaraKitty]

This sounds a lot like Biocentrism I'll link you http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/biocentrism-the-new-face-of-the-cosmos/

[Professor T]

mmm, I read that artical on Biocentrism..

It places Life as the fundimental source. I think that's wrong, and probably naive.

[Mr Right Wing]

Some interesting thoughts here. here's my thoughts on "I AM"

The question of "I AM" has two distinct means of explaination. There is external examination of which science has greatfully become very good. And there is interospection which sadly science is lacking in ability to measure imperical results or evidence, but may hopefully be starting headway in an early sort of crude banging rocks together sort of way. One might consider this the root of duality..

I AM can be broken down into unlimited deffinitions from every single scientific, religious, or political point of view. But the one thing that can not be questioned is "I am experiencing this, I am aware of this" which again can be broken down or reduced to that which cannot be denied by any thing or any one and that is "I am Conscious"

Therefore, Consciousness, IMO, becomes a fundimental basis of life, the universe and everything.

The interuptation of 'I am' is wrong but the OP is on the right track. It comes from Solipsism -

The only things we know to be truth are those things which are impossible to doubt. While we can cast doubt on the entire universe (an example is it could all be a dream) the one thing we cant cast doubt on is our own minds. Thats because even if it is all an illusion a mind is still required to experience the illusion (I think therefore I am). Hence the mind is the only thing we know to be truth.

I dont go for solipsism I go for non-duality. The difference is that in non-duality the illusions are created by the mind (reality is just a collection of perceptions). Therefore there is no seperation between the mind or reality and they are one. If a mind has no perceptions going on in it (empty mind achieved during meditation) then as perceptions are reality there is no longer any reality.

To perceive requires us to experience awareness and in Buddhism or non-duality philosophy it is awareness that brings into existance reality. Loss of reality (unconscious or the meditation) happens with the loss of awareness leaving behind just the mind.

In Quantum Mechanics when information is no longer being gained (amounts to loss of perception or awareness) the universe ceases to exist and is replaced by a super-position of all states better known as the multiverse. From the multiverse any possible universe can then arise by acquiring information again.

The highest state of Budddhist, Hindu and other types of meditation is the liberation from reality. This is also whats behind the Garden of Eden story about eating from the tree of knowledge. We exited the Garden of Eden through awareness and have to find a way back there. Only through suffering does the mind turn away from awareness and focus inwards allowing the liberation from reality.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[StarMountainKid]

Ok, how' this for a critique of our attempts to resolve these kinds of questions...

How accurate is the determination of the true nature of Reality as considered from our own human point of view? Do we think, from our perspective as some animal living on some planet, that we can really determine what Reality is? It seems to me, all we are doing is examining our own limited consciousness, and transferring the results of that examination upon the nature of that consciousness and upon the nature of universe at large.

We think our existence is so special that we can ascertain an exclusive and correct understanding of Reality. Reality check: we're just an accidentally evolved, hairless primate of the lowest level of intelligence that is capable of considering these questions. Our perceptions of the nature of the universe is extremely limited in scope, yet our inflated egos think we can comprehend ourselves and our external environment.

Our science and our philosophy are puny accomplishments. When we think we can comprehend the nature of Reality, we are delusional. Whatever Reality may be, its nature is far too vast in extent and magnitude for the capabilities of our human intellect to ever understand or explain. Our comprehension of Reality, as Kurt Vonnegut said, is a tea leaf's comprehension of the East India Company.

.

[Professor T]

That is a brilliantly worded Critique!!!

The fact that we are becoming conscious of these failures in the examination of reality say's a lot about how far humanity has come and far we need to go. The fact we are asking these near unanswerable questions about perception and life and the universe speaks volumes. Sure our science and Philosophies are small in comparison to the tasks of comprehending reality.. And speaking of small comparisons, isn't it grand that in all of these questions of reality we haven't forgotten something as poignant as a tea leaf..

[Mr Right Wing]

Ok, how' this for a critique of our attempts to resolve these kinds of questions...

How accurate is the determination of the true nature of Reality as considered from our own human point of view? Do we think, from our perspective as some animal living on some planet, that we can really determine what Reality is? It seems to me, all we are doing is examining our own limited consciousness, and transferring the results of that examination upon the nature of that consciousness and upon the nature of universe at large.

We think our existence is so special that we can ascertain an exclusive and correct understanding of Reality. Reality check: we're just an accidentally evolved, hairless primate of the lowest level of intelligence that is capable of considering these questions. Our perceptions of the nature of the universe is extremely limited in scope, yet our inflated egos think we can comprehend ourselves and our external environment.

Our science and our philosophy are puny accomplishments. When we think we can comprehend the nature of Reality, we are delusional. Whatever Reality may be, its nature is far too vast in extent and magnitude for the capabilities of our human intellect to ever understand or explain. Our comprehension of Reality, as Kurt Vonnegut said, is a tea leaf's comprehension of the East India Company.

Please show me that our perceptions and reality are two different things.

Please shoe me that our perceptions and minds are two different things.

It isnt a case that reality is beyond our understanding its a case of we are our reality but live in denial about it.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[StarMountainKid]

Please show me that our perceptions and reality are two different things.

Please shoe me that our perceptions and minds are two different things.

What about the aspects of reality we do not perceive by our senses? Are they therefore not real? Our brain creates its own incomplete version of reality from our limited ability to perceive the totality of the physical world around us. What the mind considers as reality is a construct of the brain, and is restricted by the limited capabilities of our senses.

Our perceptions and minds are the same, but are deficient in scope. What lies "out there" is vastly more complex and unperceived than the simple model of reality the brain constructs for itself. We are only conscious of our own consciousness, which is not a true representation of the actual nature of Reality.

[Mr Right Wing]

1. What about the aspects of reality we do not perceive by our senses?

2. Are they therefore not real? Our brain creates its own incomplete version of reality from our limited ability to perceive the totality of the physical world around us. What the mind considers as reality is a construct of the brain, and is restricted by the limited capabilities of our senses.

3. Our perceptions and minds are the same, but are deficient in scope. What lies "out there" is vastly more complex and unperceived than the simple model of reality the brain constructs for itself. We are only conscious of our own consciousness, which is not a true representation of the actual nature of Reality.

1. Please explain why you think perceptions and reality are two seperate things.

2. If you arent aware of something what makes you think it exists? Quantum Mechanics shows us when no information is being gained on the atom it ceases to be an atom.

3. Please tell me about 1 single thing which exists independantly from perception. We can only ever know perception.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[StarMountainKid]

1. Please explain why you think perceptions and reality are two seperate things.

2. If you arent aware of something what makes you think it exists? Quantum Mechanics shows us when no information is being gained on the atom it ceases to be an atom.

3. Please tell me about 1 single thing which exists independantly from perception. We can only ever know perception.

1. Because we do not perceive the complete nature of reality. We only perceive what our senses are sensitive to, and our senses are limited in scope. We do not directly perceive the four fundamental forces of nature, for instance, we only perceive their effects. If our perception determined reality, we would be directly perceiving these forces. Our perception would be creating these forces, as well as many other aspects of the physical world of which we are not aware. Our perception of reality is incomplete, therefore perception and reality are two separate things.

2. When an elementary particle exists in superposition, that superposition itself is existent. We can not be aware of an elementary particle in that state, but that state of potential must still exist. Just because we are not directly aware of superposition doesn't mean it doesn't exist as itself.. Atoms may still exist and behave as atoms as they interact with each other, even when they are not being observed by our consciousness.

3. The nuclear strong force. Yes, we can only ever know perception, but our perception is limited, and does not describe the complete nature of reality.

As I said before, our brain creates an interior model of reality, but that model is inadequate in its description of the actual external reality. We are conscious only of our own limited consciousness.

[Mr Right Wing]

1. Because we do not perceive the complete nature of reality. We only perceive what our senses are sensitive to, and our senses are limited in scope. We do not directly perceive the four fundamental forces of nature, for instance, we only perceive their effects. If our perception determined reality, we would be directly perceiving these forces.

2. Our perception would be creating these forces, as well as many other aspects of the physical world of which we are not aware. Our perception of reality is incomplete, therefore perception and reality are two separate things.

3. When an elementary particle exists in superposition, that superposition itself is existent.

4. Atoms may still exist and behave as atoms as they interact with each other, even when they are not being observed by our consciousness.

5. The nuclear strong force. Yes, we can only ever know perception, but our perception is limited, and does not describe the complete nature of reality.

6. As I said before, our brain creates an interior model of reality, but that model is inadequate in its description of the actual external reality. We are conscious only of our own limited consciousness.

1. How do you know something exists unless you can perceive it? I think you are getting muddled up with human beings making themselves extra senses (infra-red cameras, giegor counters, etc) which extends their range of perception.

2. Again you fail to understand that the human mind creates what you experience as reality. Reality is perceptions.

3. A super-position is not an object or a thing that exists. It is simply potential.

4. If you isolate your mind from an atom, or an atom from your mind then there is no atom.

5. Reality is perceptions. Something which cant be perceived doesnt exist in reality. Its like when the isolated atom ceases to exist.

6. No it isnt. There is nothing that exists independant of the mind.

[StarMountainKid]

2. Again you fail to understand that the human mind creates what you experience as reality.

Here you agree with me! If your sentence is read from my point of view, this is my whole argument. I could rebut you point for point, but I think we just disagree on the subject. Maybe we should just leave it at that, unless you want to continue, which is ok with me. In any case, I've enjoyed our discussion.

[Mr Right Wing]

Here you agree with me! If your sentence is read from my point of view, this is my whole argument. I could rebut you point for point, but I think we just disagree on the subject. Maybe we should just leave it at that, unless you want to continue, which is ok with me. In any case, I've enjoyed our discussion.

Lets leave QM for now and take a look at people.

Your eyes detect photons, electrical signals are sent to the brain, the brain constructs what you call vision from them. The visual experience is constructed in your mind it doesnt exist out there seperate from your being. Reality (visual experience + sensations of feeling, touch and taste + sound experience) is constructed in your mind it doesnt exist out there seperate from your being.

Many argue that doesnt mean there is nothing objective out there underlying everything so now lets include QM.

Experiments show that when you have a super-position (which is just potential) and seek information (by measuring) you collapse the potential and bring into being particles. When you stop seeking information on a particle it stops existing as it dissolves back to a super-position.

So what exactly is out there which is objective? You are living in a self-creating feedback loop there is nothing out there which is objective (or any outhere for that matter).

Edited September 3, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[StarMountainKid]

1. Your eyes detect photons, electrical signals are sent to the brain, the brain constructs what you call vision from them. The visual experience is constructed in your mind, it doesnt exist out there seperate from your being.

I agree. What the brain constructs from electrical signals is in your mind, it (the contend of your mind) doesn't exist out there separate from your being.

2. Reality (visual experience + sensations of feeling, touch and taste + sound experience) is constructed in your mind it doesnt exist out there seperate from your being.

I agree. The model of reality the brain creates from its sense receptors doesn't exist out there separate from you mind, this internal model of reality is a simulation of Reality, and only exists within the mind.

3. Experiments show that when you have a super-position (which is just potential) and seek information (by measuring) you collapse the potential and bring into being particles. When you stop seeking information on a particle it stops existing as it dissolves back to a super-position.

Yes, but when you are not observing or stop seeking information from a star somewhere in the galaxy, does it not behave in the same manner as when you are observing it? If so, its reality is separate from your mind when the mind is not observing the star.

A photon traveling some distance is still a photon, whether as superposition or as a particle. A photon in superposition means its potential exact location withing that superposition cannot be determined. There is still a potentially resolvable photon existing in its superposition state, the only difference is its exact location is indeterminate.

I would consider elementary particles in superposition still an aspect of Reality.

So what exactly is out there which is objective? You are living in a self-creating feedback loop there is nothing out there which is objective (or any outhere for that matter)

Everything out there is objective, even particles in superposition, as superposition itself is an aspect of Reality. Yes, we are living in a self-creating feedback loop. That is the limiting factor for our conscious awareness. We only experience this incomplete internal loop created by the brain as determined by our senses.

I think it is a error to consider the content of the mind to represent the totality of Reality, much less to create Reality. The mind creates its own internal reality, which is separate from the aspects of Reality it is unable to experience.

There must be an "outthere" for the mind to create its model.

]