Originally Posted by AstroReader

Please forgive me for selecting out only one of your several paragraphs in reply, but because of time limitations, I wanted to address what was to me the most intriguing part of your message.

You say that "[t]hat which imagines is also part of the universe." I agree -- because from a physicalist standpoint, that which imagines is seated among biological strata (neurons, which themselves are situated and supported by other life processes). I will go even further and say that the "mind" may be nothing more than a holistic, self-generated "projection" of such neurons.

But then you say, "[o]ur existence or knowledge of it is not a requirement." Now, I'm not sure what is meant by that statement. "Our existence" is clearly a requirement for any sufficiently descriptive account of the universe, however defined, since it's clear that we exist. Secondly, "our knowledge" of the universe is precisely at issue here, since what I've proposed does dance around the peripheries of knowledge and presumes that knowledge does exist. Or are you saying that "knowledge" cannot be any requirement of the universe at large? But that's a little like saying that perceiving the universe is not a part of the universe. Without running into the issue of whether "collapsing the wave function" (a la Copenhagen) is important to consider, surely the fact that we perceive is part of the universe? And surely our acts are predicated on our perception?

In fact, isn't a monistic theory of the universe dependent on the question of what it is that is perceived? This is without prejudice to the question of Berkeleyan or Spinozan idealism. From the point of view of even the logical positivist, that which is not observable or implied from the facts, cannot truly be known to exist. How is this possible without first acknowledging the existence of perception?

The importance of this is that if one's imagination or perception -- or, to move out beyond that into a less intangible or amophous field of inquiry -- if one's logical reasoning or mathematical postulations -- lead one to believe that something is possible, then that in itself is part of the universe. And, further, if the concept of more than one universe is arrived at through some form of persuasive reasoning, then how can it not be possible to ascribe the existence of other universes? How would we know for sure that not only is "universe" impermissibly defined except monistically, if our perception and our logical reasoning suggest that it might not be?

Thank you, as always, for your responses.