Hmmm....
In quantum physics, the mere act of LOOKING limits range of knowledge.
See Observer Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
It seems to be built in to the woof and warp of this current reality field we are sharing.
I agree, that the state of any observer greatly affects, even creates, what is observed. This is true for all states of consciousness.
I suspect you are correct, with "It seems to be built in to the woof and warp of this current reality field we are sharing".
BUT, one can take personal strides to allow all judgments to fade away for self, while still remaining THERE looking. I have experimented with that, and when I allow judgments to fade (as an additive to "looking"), I tend to "get lost" as a viewpoint, my space expands, sometimes tremendously, and I feel "at one" with whatever I am observing. Sense of separation disappears. Sense of "self" largely vanishes and recedes as a factor. This is common in studies done of people claiming "mystical experiences". This is all quite real to me, based on many personal experiences with altered states of consciousness. It was very similar to what I experienced when I went exterior on TR0 and with various auditing.
In alignment with what Nexus was saying, I also tend to suspect that we create our reality, as we go, moment by moment, right down to the physical universe that we perceive and experience. But, I see that this created reality comes into being through "postulates" or "considerations". Any person considers it to be so, and it is so. Or in terms of a Biblical analogy, "God said,
Let There Be Light, and there was Light". Simple. Say it is, and it is. Creation by fiat alone. I currently understand of no other way to bring anything to existence (for self or others). Of course, one can do that knowingly or unknowingly. And, there are few reading this who can willingly and immediately abandon all postulates and considerations that hold the MEST universe there FOR YOU. And, BANG, have it disappear (for you), with YOU still there.
For me, I cannot see or understand any other factor existing below or between the entity (being, thetan) and the perception of a reality, other than considerations and postulates. THEY are the programming of the MATRIX. They are what form any person's "reality". Of course, "reality" derives from "agreement". That Scn idea makes complete sense to me. And, agreement is nothing else BUT co-postulating WITH some other person or pre-existing postulate. Agreement involves going along for the ride, on someone else's considerations. When you agree, you buy into some already existing idea or reality. You co-create it instantly when you agree. The process is largely unconscious for most of us.
This sort of makes sense to me. In the beginning was Nothingness. Pure potential to be, but a VOID. One can think of this as the "whole universe", or as "ones self". Once any NOTHINGNESS (static, Brahma) makes a decision or choice to "be somewhere" and to "view from a separate location", thereby sets into motion all sorts of "rules" and "conditions". Why? Because, you agree that it does. It is ALL illusion, in that all else involves some CREATED thing. The ONLY actual basic truth is the CREATOR - all else is arbitrary. The only unchanging aspect to all that is, is the creator. The possibilities for created things are infinite. Truly.
And, between being immersed in the
experience of the "created", and becoming one with the full creative aspect of the Creator, involves realities and universes, and possible near infinities of time.
Nexus, doesn't one always see ones creation as "truth", or at least as "real"? If one stops participating in the activity of creation, as and from a viewpoint, I suspect that one would simply meld back into the Void. The observer and the observed would collapse back into "nothingness". That has happened to me, to some degree, during experiments into various meditations. I can see how the notion could be extrapolated out further.
I don't see that the theory of postulates, considerations and the creation of universes must always involve a trap. Yes, it must always involve an "illusion". No creation will ever involve basic fundamental "truth". There is the creator, and then there is everything else. And, everything else is undergoing endless cycles of birth, decay and death. Everything comes and goes, except that
one aspect which underlies all that comes and goes.
Hubbard stated it somewhere, and I agree. This notion currently makes sense to me, in alignment with much other eastern/occult/New Age information. The only
truth is the invisible creator (static).
The "truth" involves what "it" is, what "it" does, and how "it" does what it does in creating. Anything seen or experienced is an "illusion" - a painting of the painter. But, the painter and the painting are not the same, and not of the same fundamental "importance" in the grand scheme of things. But, people only see the painting, they become hypnotized by the paintings, and they often entirely lose sight of the painter - without whom no paintings could or would exist.
Here's my judgment in all of this. A legitimate spiritual path would bring one back to a relationship with the "creator", ideally at some point,
face-to-face, and best, where all sense of self eventually dissolves into and with the creator. But, this can involve many facets, and each person requires or IS a different Path back to God (be careful what you read into THAT word). The distinction between the creator and the created (or observer and observed) is fundamentally a false distinction - an illusion. Physics will figure that out eventually, but not anytime soon.
Scientology may be a "path" for some people, or at least a partial path, but it is surely NOT the total answer for everyone, not in any way along the lines that Hubbard so stupidly and arrogantly declared in KSW-type writings (rantings).
I believe first of all, respect should be granted. Being completely against a philosophic idea of another is completely ok, but one should be able to see it from the other´s person viewpoint, and the discussion should go along without intents to overwhelm, discredit, or to merely WIN. The idea of winning, is for me worthless, as realities there are so many, and generally none is more true than another. Getting exposed to another idea, letting it come in, and affecting oneself is much more interesting. If the original idea doesn´t even appeal in any way, then better, get onto something else. I only get into threads where I believe I have something to say, or something to contribute, otherwise I PASS.
Since, that is true, and will probably always be true, don't expect, not anytime soon, for people to cease examining and blowing holes in those many ideas. 
