I think referencing your examples would bring it up a notch. I was left at the end thinking, "so what?"
You are right thatthis is a bit theoretical. The reason is that the concept of this section of my homepage is connecting many different, cross-referencing articles. So this specific one just explains the basics which I reference in other articles. I try not to mix up stuff too much because I want to keep the individual articles rather short. Most people would not read an article as long as e.g. the TOS general information article, I am afraid. So dividing up the whole cake brings some structure into it.
RAW elaborated on reality tunnels and model agnosticism 40 years ago.
Yes, I like his writings.
I'm also not sure how your model deals with the macro world of Newtonian physics,
It is just a possible model which can be applied in some cases where it is useful. E.g. its application has brought us modern computers, the internet and enabled us to discuss although we have never met. I as an electrical engineer use this reality tunnel every time at work and find it quite applicable for many things.
The big point, however, is that this shows only that this world view works. Truth does not follow from that.
hich doesn't vary with perception
Well, that is correct, but remember that modern physics are way more advanced. In quantum physics, the outcome of your experiment depends on what questions you are asking. The experimentator is no longer to be seen as separate from the experiment.
and tends to lead the scientists to theories through the gathered data.
It does not - that is the point of Einstein's famous quote.
You made an attempt yet I'm guessing you acknowledge it as a model as with any view of reality, but that doesn't change anything in terms of experience or provide an advantageous vantage point for the individual when engaging daily life.
That was my main argument against solipsism, that in everyday life, we just do not experience things in a solipsist way.
It's a more flexible position, but what is it's practical value?
Good point since there is not yet a specific article about that. Thanks for the idea (-:
To cut it short, the main advantage is that it helps a lot to "think out of the box". You can look at certain things or events from many perspectives, not just one, and this helps to understand things deeper. The real challenge, however, is not just to change the perspective (which still would limit you to one perspective each moment), but to think in multiple reality tunnels simultaneously. This in turn will enable you to pass the classic Aristotelic logic - then you will be able to think thought which, in classical logic, could not be thought simultaneously. This is the ability of polycontextual thinking, as opposed to the "normal" monocontextual thinking. It greatly increases the complexity of my consciousness, and I regard this as a step in my Becoming. However, it is not always that easy. Just because I understood constructivism does not mean that I would not fall back into old thought schemes..
with what you have to say and our priesthood. This could be enlightening and informative.
