>>>>>I refer to your absolute causality as absolute laws of physics (or laws of absolute causality which, ultimately, is the same thing) and the other causality in the mind of the observer as 'our perceptions of those laws', which again, ultimately, is the same thing as your 'reaction to stimuli'.
>>>>
>>>>Perception isn't a good word.
>>>>
>>>>"Our theories for those laws" might be better.
>>>>
>>>>But the nomenclature of science would say that a "law" is just a "theory" for which there is little doubt.
>>>>
>>>>So "law" isn't a good word either.
>>>>
>>>>"Our scientific knowledge (theories and laws) of the absolute rules" would be best.
>>>
>>>Ok. I can go with that. Ultimately, we were talking about the same thing. The words led us down a road that got maybe just a bit too sematically twisted.
>>
>>Now that we're on the same page, or close enough: the important point I want to make is that this idea can be tested scientifically.
>>
>>The basic idea itself so contrary to what people really understand that the process I've devised for testing it has so far been impossible to communicate correctly.
>>
>>So. If you don't mind helping out a little further:
>>
>>What do make of the steps I've given to test the basic idea?
>>
>>http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/book.htm
>>
>>Does it click?
>
>I can see what you're getting at, but I have to admit it's not a computer program (that I could write). I think we'll need to get a little further along in the AI field before you can have what you propose.

I'm not sure. We already have satellites and robots that run around and measure the universe.

The first hurdle in taking this from conjecture to a hypothesis will be putting together the absolute hydrogen atom.

The absolute atom is different from physical atoms because it doesn't need to obey the laws of physics, such as the Uncertainty Principle.

The laws of physics are recovered later as patterns that emerge from the measurements of an observer.



>On the other hand, if one were to create such an internal AI, would that be a representative absolute reality, or just another invisible external observer? In which case, would the fact that it is predictive, be proof, or just agreement between observers.

I may not understand you correctly, but:

Agreement between observers is what makes scientific knowledge objective.

Science can only "prove" that a hypothesis is wrong. It can't prove anything is right.