Actually @Wakanyugi, I had thought of Nash, but then I realized that though others couldn't see the patterns he was seeing, it doesn't follow that the patterns weren't there.

So in a sense you baited yourself.

Good point, Tycho.

But let me ask you. If something can not be perceived in any way does it still exist?

As for Nash, I agree he could have been seeing things that he could not communicate to anyone else, which drove him crazy.

Which reminds me that the most brilliant Kenyans are not to be found in University but in Mathare and Kamiti or their equivalents.

Let me try once again: patterns do not precede knowledge (my view). They come into existence once consciousness (we/observer, if you like) interprets them, gives them meaning. Without an observer to give them meaning there is no pattern and the object or event described by that pattern is invisible to us.

The story is told that when Columbus landed in the America's the natives who first saw him and his team come ashore could not see the ship anchored behind them. Their conceptual reality held no idea of a 'house' floating on water. The pattern we call 'ship' was invisible to them. Of course that later changed.

As for the plurality/singularity maneno, I think we killed that horse, several times. All I am saying is, if we take space/time as real (it is not) then you need a plurality of objects or events existing within the space/time matrix in order to perceive pattern, or space, or time.

Consciousness interprets the relationship between two or more objects or events as pattern. If you existed alone in the Universe there would be no pattern and therefore no space and no time as we know them.

I hope that is vague enough?

P.S. I often wonder how much of the reality around us remains invisible to us simply because we can not perceive the projected patterns.

"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio..." quoth the Bard

Muriel:

I think we can disagree to disagree.

But the pattern tears us apart.

I disagree Tycho. Seeing as we live in an imagined (observer created) reality, then our power to perceive has to be one limit of that reality. Ergo, - Schrodinger's cat - it does not exist until it is perceived.

There must be more perceivers than humans. And some of the other perceivers may not trust in human logic.

Of course. The Schrodinger wave equation does not talk of humans at all, but measurement (and who/what does the measurement is irrelevant).

I think the important point is, every perceiver perceives pattern in their own way, some radically different from others.

What we end up with is an approximate agreement of perceived pattern, a consensus reality if you like. Which is why, when some people (who will remain unnamed) talk about about absolutes, I tend to think they are out to lunch.

Don't get all het up. Just because you can't speak or understand Dolphinese is no reason to paint those gentle creatures into a conceptual corner.

Old Schrodinger talked to humans yes but about more than humankind, including cats. You must admit that mathematically resolving that philosophical conundrum "If a tree falls in the forest and no one..." was quite a feat.