The Reality of Observers, versus the Observed Reality

Consider two sets of prospective future event, E1 and E2. Further consider a community of observers, O, of both E1 and E2. Each observer evaluates the probability of every event in each set.

Let A be a subset of O which assigns a probability one to all events in E1 and probability zero to all events in E2.

Let B be a subset of O that assigns a probability one to all events in E2, and a probability zero to all events in E1.

It is clear that the A observers will be hard pressed to communicate with the B observers, the two sets of observers see a completely different future. (spoiler: this goes long way to explain why we don't communicate with extraterrestrials -- see later).

By contrast, a subset of observers A' that very much agrees with the A group as to the probabilities of events in E1 and E2 will find it easy to communicate, subset to subset because the views of the A subset and th A' subset of the unfolding future is nearly identical.We can thus map the community of observers onto a geometry, space, where distance between two observers will be defined by the proximity of their probability assessments of the events in E1 and E2.

This mapping will show clusters of observers with similar probability ratings for the events for consideration. Such clusters develop communication, and establish a culture, an agreed upon view of reality. Each observer finds encouragement, relief, comfort, with their cluster neighbors. This commonality is what matters to the observers, not the veracity of their estimates. Observers will be driven to explain any disagreement between their assigned cluster probabilities and actual outcome because community comfort trumps the theoretical notion of absolute truth.T

his is a short introduction to a new approach to physics driven by the recognition of humanity being entrapped in its Darwin's cage. I build now a loose team of co-researchers, interested? Gideon@DGSgo.com. See more innovationsp.net/challenge