What's in a [name] reality... a [rose] reality by any other name may smell as sweet.

Okay, I hope you had fun with my title!

I just spent time posting the following comment to one of my favorite people here.  I started thinking, “I wonder if anyone else might like to contemplate my post."  So I am reposting it here for anyone who finds interest in it.  I know it’s a Saturday, and the grill awaits.  But if you want to take time to think about it, no pressure.  I understand.  Enjoy your reality today!! 🌭🍔🍺🍷⚽🏈🏁, etc.

Here’s something I think about on occasion (I hope I can explain it in a coherent way).  You’re gonna see a lot of “quoting.” 😊 

We have “our” reality.  We are “used” to it.  It makes a kind of “sense” to us.  We can do things over and over and expect the same results.  IOW, we have somewhat of a “handle” on our “situation(s).”  We call these things our objective reality, and it is.  

We’ve come to describe our reality as “being driven” by The Laws of Physics.  They are at the root (“root cause”/enabler) of the reality we know.  Scientist, from way back when, worked hard to get us the understanding that we have on how things (in our reality) “work.”  Scientists, to this day, continue to work on these laws.  That’s where ideas like string theory “get a chance” to be considered in a serious way.  Other ideas like The Many Worlds Theory also can worm its way into the picture.  Yet another example is where Brian Greene gives his “rock” story.  These are things that everyday people would scoff at, but that our beloved (at least by me) “brainiac” scientists continue to contemplate.  The theoretical. 

Everyday people are very happy to just “go with the flow” of our limited reality.  That’s “good enough” for them.  They see other theoretical stuff as a waste of time and (say) government budget and resources funding.  And, yes, that’s understandable.  Dealing with the “immediate” seem much more “productive” "helpful" than dealing with the so-called “theoretical.”  (Oh, this is getting long. Sorry.)

Continuing on with my train of thought…

For the most part, we “understand” our reality that we were born into.  But imagine another reality that we do not have sensory access to.  Did you ever see that Twilight Zone episode “Little Girl Lost?”  If so, remember when she went into the wall and it was an entirely new “reality?”  Her reality became nothing like the one she “knew.”  Now imagine being “born into” her unreal (to us) reality.  Now you get to come out of the wall and experience a totally different reality (foreign to the wall reality).  To that person, it (our reality) was all just a theoretical reality, only possibly thought about by her reality’s scientists.

Well, I’m sure you get my point here.  There could be so many “otherworld” realities that we just don’t have any access to.  They may even, as has been said, “exist right alongside of us.”  We just can’t get there from here.  And I’m gonna dare to say this too: there could even be some kind of “afterlife” that we “transition” to.  (Forget all the biblical nonsense that people have come up with.)  I’m saying that what we experience may not be the “end of the line” based upon our world’s/our reality’s death.  I could… am… open to that idea.  Not saying I believe it.  I’m just saying that I don’t “automatically discount” it, based on our so-called “objective reality."  That really would be (I’ll call it) “prejudicial.”  Human “bias.”

I know many of us pride ourselves in the world of the objective.  I’m very fond of our “interpretation” of it too.  But to be “objective” to the point that the theoretical door is “slammed shut” is also a “faulty” mindset.  It is to be “stubbornly attached” to something that is very possibly “fluent.”  I don’t think that’s “scientific thinking.”  Yes, our mindset reality does have a place and a time, here and now.  But let’s not let the cement harden.  Then a form of “dementia” sets in.  Yes, no, other?

Question:

Is being “objective” to the point that the theoretical door is “slammed shut” a “faulty” mindset?  It is to be “stubbornly attached” to something that is very possibly “fluent.” 

(by Primal "damn how I hate the bizarre formatting on this forum" Soup) 😁