Thank you, George, for an excellent comment. It provides me exactly what I need, but it requires you to pay close attention to what I am writing here to understand the point I showed in this article.
--
At heart, you support the unified reality, and once you made that decision then all appears to be unified indeed. Logic falls toward you.
For those that claim that an ultimate unification is pie in the sky, logic will fall toward them.
The conundrum we are faced with must therefore be resolved by... itself.
Already having the discrepancy available between both options shows us that the discrepancy is real in as far as the human mind is concerned. We have identified the problem: the human mind. It can pick between two options and make one option real and the other (as a result) false.
--
An important aspect that is often underestimated is that we must communicate via secondary means. Even correct data is not necessarily capable of remaining erect in the whole of existence because we must use words as pointers. So, any communication all by itself is already circumspect while trying to ascertain the big picture of reality.
We have to use our brain's power to overcome the conundrum.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are simply declaring that even Mathematics itself is Incomplete. Even Physics is Incomplete. Even logic will be incomplete. This is very hard to accept, especially because so much of it is true. It is at the largest of levels that we can discover what is going on.
First of all, Incomplete does not mean that something has gone missing. Not at all.
One translation of Gödel's work is that each piece of information can only be correct in its appropriate setting. Content is meaningless unless it is placed in its correct context.
Therefore, Einstein's atomic understanding is distinct from Bohr's subatomic understanding. If we match them together, which we can if we use our brains properly, then we are forced to acknowledge the distinct foundations of each understanding. Yet what we must not do is pick one over the other.
Blue is different in the paint store than on the couch with the shrink. Therefore, we must never consider the truth unless we have the context available as well. The context is nothing but the overall setting in which that truth exists.
The context itself is not the truth. The truth is not contained with the context.
--
The real issue is therefore what Gödel already showed us: Never ever can we find a truth that is indeed a truth and have it be applied to all in the universe. It cannot be done.
The reason it cannot be done is that the universe is not the playground for everything. The playground we find ourselves on is not much larger than the Milky Way.
We do not have an active relationship with the universe. We don't.
Our brains rightfully appoint truthful words to the reality we live in.
We cannot take an overall concept, make it true for the sake of making it true, and then expect to find actual truths at that level.
There will be none (if we find any truths, then they will be neutral or they will be negative, never positive).
The brain is real, yet the brain's contents is not real. Never ever was there anything inside the brain that ended up becoming real on the outside of the body other than words and physical manipulations.
No matter how you twist it, George, you are standing on a self-made foundation. The minute you believe it is true, it is then true (for you). Your brain will make it true.
--
Bohr has my admiration because he did not say what he could not declare because he somehow knew that he did not have that information. It was easier for him to remain quiet about the unified or not-unified reality of nature. It was much harder for Einstein to remain quiet because Einstein fully believed in the wholeness of creation. He had to speak up.
So, while you are with Bohr in outcomes, your brain is with Einstein.
Personally, I find it easier to have a Bohr brain that is with Bohr and an Einstein brain that is with Einstein. My brain is very malleable and can accept any truth as long as it is accompanied by its correct context.
Apologies for taking you deep into this rabbit hole, but it is your brain that is holding you back. I have no understanding how a person can fully accept that we live in a result and yet hold on to the idea that somehow the original fully-connected reality is still present.
In very direct words: God broke.
Thank you for your excellent reply. You know I admire you for many reasons.
