Hiho!
@Uni_Verse said
"Am I understanding the following correctly:
About ð§ Could we say this ? :
At 100%, it is an objective phenomenon, not requiring an observer (or experimenter)
Around 50%, the phenomenon can only occur when an observer exists, though it need not be observed directly or observed to occur
At 0% it is entirely reliant upon the perceptions of the observer"
You are mixing two different questions here: How intersubjective a phenomenon is - this is what the stand-in "D" is for - and if and how far a phenomenon is observer-dependent or independent of what anyone thinks about it.
At 100% you have an objective phenomenon, at reliable for one observer only (so not exactly 0%) a subjective phenomenon. With a margin. Even hardcore physical phenomena might sometimes be, say, 95% intersubjective and would still be considered as objective, and even very personal experiences might be, for example, 10% intersubjective and still be considered basically subjective.
The wide margin inbetween about 5% and 95% usually manifests itself in experience as the kind of "energetic", prana, chi, astral (in the sense of both yetziratic and briatic, as the terms are used here) phenomena which western thinking has such trouble to even formulate due to a culturally deep-ingrained "inner-outer" dualism.
But the question if something is observer-dependent or not is another question. Some phenomenon can be as good as 100% intersubjective, but be very dependent on how and even if it is observed. This is, for example, the case with most quantum mechanics experiments. Or something can be very personally subjective, but still not budge if one changes their way of thinking about it. We all know such stuff. We decide to for example not to feel bad when we really have to come down on someone who earned that, but even though our feeling is a very subjective one, we can't simply change the subjective experience by thinking differently about it.
You are correct on the objectivity/partially intersubjectivity/subjectivity front, but not as far as observer-influences are concerned. This is a different question and can be this way and that way in specific cases, irrelevant how the "intersubjectivity status" of the phenomenon in question is.
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Simon Iff said
"* Retrocausal: If A always happens before B, but A happens with the probability C if B will happen (in the future), and not the other way around!"
C would be the probability that A will occur if and only if B shall occur at some point?"
Yes, exactly.
Regards, Simon
