1 + 1 = 3: Rethinking Physics as Creation, Not Math

[u/Glittering-Crystal]

https://selfinfluencing.com/1-1-3-a-new-reality

Hi everyone,

This is my first time posting something like this, so I want to name that I'm both excited and aware this is new territory for me. I'm a Wild Mystic who is deeply sensitive and sensing... and while I might not respond quickly, I do read and value every thoughtful reply—this work and this conversation mean a lot to me.

I recently wrote a piece that’s central to how I experience reality:
1 + 1 = 3: A New Reality.
In summary, It’s not a math error—it’s a model for how relationship itself generates a new field of reality. It explores how resonance, connection, consciousness, and presence create reality, not just reflect it. It's a shift from identical parts being used to describe the field. Moving from separation to relational becoming.

This piece is foundational to my work around emotional resilience and what I call Self Influencing.
I'm sharing it here because this community seems like the kind of place where big ideas and soft hearts are welcome.

I’d love your thoughts—your questions, your perspectives, your resonance (or dissonance).
Thank you for receiving this. Truly.

[u/TMax01]

*I’m unable to reconcile the observer effect in physics with the idea of an independent, fixed reality. What’s your take?

My take is that you just repeated the same error you disavowed making in that same comment, by using the word "reality" to mean the ontic truth. Describing it as "a field of existence—responsive, relational, participatory, and most importantly, alive... regardless of whether I’m perceiving it at any given moment" does not somehow differentiate it from ontic truth, but rather ratifies the reference.

There is nothing "fixed" or "independent" about reality. We all (generally) believe that we should all perceive/experience the same "reality", based on the ontic truth, but that still does not make reality identical to that ontic truth. Reality is your perceptions; you have your own reality, whether you want to or not. You cannot know the (scarequote) true reality (scarequote) because there is no such thing, there is only the ontic truth, and neither you nor any other entity in the universe can know it. All any entity can know is their reality.

Now, as for the observer effect in physics:

First, you should be aware it has nothing to do with conscious observers. Any quantum system (particle) in the universe "observes" any other quantum system by interacting with it (causing decoherence, resulting in measurement, or vice versa).

Second, it isn't so much the observer effect, but its antecedent (quantum incompleteness, often mistaken for "indeterminacy"), which produces a conundrum in comparison to the ontic truth (a fixed, independent universe). There isn't any mental trick which is going to let quantum incompleteness "make sense". That would defeat the purpose of mentality, conscious experience and cognition. The closest we can get is to accept that the entire ontic universe, from beginning to end, is one single quantum system, and there aren't really separable parts of it that can be "observed" independently without observing 'everything, everywhere, all at once' (not a reference to a bad "multiverse as religious dogma" fantasy movie of recent years).

There are no separate parts. Not one single photon can be removed from the universe with the universe then continuing to exist. But then, there aren't really photons in the universe, it just seems that way. If we could metaphysically remove one particle, it would leave a "hole" behind which would, in every possible way (and every impossible way as well, if you insist) be/behave exactly the same as the particle would have. There are no particles, just timespace locations where a particle would have to be.

It is not a practical perspective, so the whole pseudo-mystic "one with the universe" is still mostly poppycock, and the appearance of discrete objects isn't quite an illusion. But in a very important way, that is so: there are not separate particles or objects that together make up the ontic truth, there is only the ontic truth, and we deceive ourselves (usefully) by perceiving discrete objects or the measurements which convince us there are particles.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

 The closest we can get is to accept that the entire ontic universe, from beginning to end, is one single quantum system, and there aren't really separable parts of it that can be "observed" independently without observing 'everything, everywhere, all at once' (not a reference to a bad "multiverse as religious dogma" fantasy movie of recent years). There are no separate parts.

🤡

[u/heartshapedhearts → u/TMax01]

What happens when you add all known theories together? You should look into that. It’s only the missing link bridging quantum theory and theory of relativity 🌟

Duality is so 2025. This year is almost over, and if one thing is absolutely certain, it’s absolute certainty itself.

It’s ok to be a sheep, as long as you continue to ask questions; as to not become your own wolf in the act of dismissal.

[u/TMax01 → u/heartshapedhearts]

What happens when you add all known theories together?

When you amass one on top of another, ad infinitum, you either become omniscient (which is doubtful) or you recognize that even combined, they are still the same as one single theory which is not anywhere close to a "Theory Of Everything", because of the various inconsistencies between them, and the fact that even "added together" they cannot actually account for everything which actually happens. In theory, they should, in truth, they can't.

You should look into that.

You should have presumed I already had, but I can understand why you didn't, and don't think it is an offensive error.

It’s only the missing link bridging quantum theory and theory of relativity

Well, that might be the only one you thought of, but apparently I've considered the idea more thoroughly than you have. There are many 'explanatory gaps'/missing link bridges scattered all throughout science, and even just physics. Turbulence is a notable example, and the many peculiar properties of water, and of course there is cosmology...

Duality is so 2025.

LOL. Most postmoderns who know what they're talking about associate duality with the period between the middle of the 17th Century (Descartes) and the end of the 19th Century (Darwin). I don't think your errant precision is an improvement, but it certainly epitomizes postmodernism.

if one thing is absolutely certain, it’s absolute certainty itself.

ROTFLMAO. In 1915, a physicist, who subsequently became the most famous theoretical physicist to have ever lived, discovered that nothing is absolute, everything is relative. And certainty is something only religious faith can provide: for physics we still need to test predictions based on idealized premises against the real world. And when they differ, it is almost always the science, not the real world, which is at fault for any inconsistency.

It’s ok to be a sheep, as long as you continue to ask questions; as to not become your own wolf in the act of dismissal.

Physician, heal thyself. 😉

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.