You are still not in the same wavelength.
I am not talking about differences in the working of our senses or differences in brain chemistry. I am talking about interacting with the world. Let me see if I can explain...
What is the world essentially...? No one knows.
No-one has absolute knowledge, but we have a range of increasingly and decreasingly confident understandings at various scales and of various phenomena - it's not absolute ignorance any more than it's absolute knowledge
People however think that at the smallest level (that we can think of currently) the world is Strings. Some tiny bit of energy vibrating in 11 dimensions and transforming itself into the world. That is the most basic picture of 'reality' that we have currently (I think).
That's one theory - it's one in the less well validated end of our pool of knowledge, as I understand things.
After this, there are different levels of reality...at the elementary particle level, atomic level, molecular level and so on. If we could perceive at each of these levels, reality will appear different....
Those aren't different levels of reality, those are just reality - they are different levels of our understanding, they are scales at which we can observe distinct ways of defining phenomena, but they are all simultaneous and equally valid. The scaling and the levels are facets of our limitations of understanding, not differences in reality itself.
Alright...then why are we not seeing all these realities but only seeing a tree? This is because at our scale, our senses and brain show us that 'reality'.....that is why.
It is the level at which our sensory apparatus has evolved because it's the level at which those developments increased breeding success in our ancestors.
Not that the tree is actually real....but that our interface with the world works like that and shows us molecules arranged in that form.
Of course the tree is real - and whilst we directly perceive the solidity of the bark, it is at exactly the same time essentially empty space with interacting quanta floating in it, and a collection of plant cells interacting with each other and the environment, and a four-dimensional block-time object. That reality is there, our perception of it is divided.
If we had a different type of interface, reality would appear different.....such as being able to see and feel Dark Matter, for example. Or being able to see molecules or atoms or electrons moving about....whatever.
Importantly, though, reality would not BE different - it's our perception that alters, not reality. And, as we learn more about the facets of reality that we can't directly perceive, so our understanding and perception slowly approaches a more complete one.
So, my point is that the tree is not 'real' in an absolute sense. It is real only as far as our interface is concerned.
No, the tree is real, our perception is limited (but, arguably, improving). If we perceived at the atomic scale the tree would still be a tree, we'd just be looking at a different level. Examining plant cells under a microscope doesn't stop a flower being real.
Dogs and other creatures share the same interface. Instruments and cameras are also made in line with our interface (senses). So obviously, they all show the same 'reality'.
No, some cameras see wavelengths that we can't, other animals detect phenomena that we either don't or aren't consciously aware of (Earth's magnetic field, for instance), some equipment detects entire phenomena of which we are directly unaware (neutrino emissions, for instance).
O.
