On the Question; Does the Universe have an Appearance For-Itself?

Reality has many definitions by many different conscious beings. Conscious beings describing experience tend to refer to their experience as being real. Reality as opposed to non-real aspects of reality is part of the larger meta-set of the given universe of that which does exist.

One gets to Sartre's 'Being and Nothingess' as a method of describing being and contingent non-being associated with the absence of previously existing things, or of hypothetical real things that are not presently observed (such as a Higgs boson). An observer has a capacity to observe his or her own experience as a part of reality perhaps rather than potentially all of it as if it were a universe the size of a marble made of lime green jello that if one were outside the Universe could be seen to roll downhill.

If reality is complete in any portion of it, as if it were a Mandlebrot fractal representative sample, an unlike the U.S. Congress made of contented millionaires, if it has a given appearance in a particular area, viewing itself without benefit of human observers or intelligent insects, ameoba with contempletive natures or such, would it's pantheistic self-awareness be aware of it's own location in reference to any potential contingent alternate location or appearance that could exist only as a product of its own imagination? Or would a self-aware universe without any human observers tor e't's o describe it that is still have an objective appearance subject unto itsself.

I suppose the concept of a self-aware universe that is a little neurotic wondering if it seems fat unto itself when it is really comparatively thin isn't really a question here. We will assume that unlike Einstein's relativistic yardstick that changes it length in a given iinertial reference frame that the Universe is like the Federal Debt that always looks the same although its really increases and the same for the nation's unemployment rate.

The Universe as it really is in a non-temporal state when it has finished 'growing up' may be transcendental and wonderful and be a bloc of oragne or green ecotplasm with marshmellow. Funny as that may be it is representative of the problem with describing a solid state object. Maybe it is simply a probability of The One that appears in many forms as it Wills now and then, from time to time.

Probably, outside of some theotransitional preferred point of view given by God, the potential for observing the entire universe as it appears objectively to a non-conscious being is limited. One might take something like the Keplar Space telescope or the Hubble or some other and give it instructions to survey the entire universe in given wavelengths to discover what the objective universe looks like, and in fact a WMAP portrait of the distribution of mass-energy about 300,000 years after the inflation of the universe from either the hypothetical size of a grapefruit or a collision as a membrane has been made. That portrait is not what the Universe looks like now though. Any space-time slice of the Universe made in a temporal order will differ a second later as it expands, contracts or changes its thermodynamic powers and configurations.

Perspective in consciousness is given with experience and conscious knowledge and learning allowing the cognoscenti to see deeper into the nature of things. Yet the solid state of matter-energy in this universe quadrant of human experience is the tip of a probability association wave from the quantum mechanical wave realm of all possible world lines. It is very difficult to even understand how any one-quantum wave has no particular existence apart from the virtually infinite number of places it might have been otherwise. Such locations have an infinite range. One particle that could have been sampled at point A might equally exist several light years away from its other locations at point A', A'' etc...

The nature of reality, the learning of cosmology and of perception and so forth are fascinating subjects. Like Bishop Berkley and the pure idealists we may wonder about where sense qualities cohere, or if all experience is holographic and how pain and hypothermia emerge in personal experience as impressively real and simultaneously subjective and objective.

Philosophers may use logic as well as physics to form their own ideas about reality, about the future, and how spirit or consciousness might be mapped by God for remixing in some future Universal or heavenly epic of kindness for human existence. Reality may be experienced by human beings yet probably not encompassed comprehensively within reason. Cosmologists can dry hypothetical space-time areas of mass-energy transitions and many are better than others, however the all inclusive set of definitions of reality that some scientists may seek after seem improbable to determine if for Godel's incompleteness theorem paradigm or numerous others.

Space-time mass and energy that appears against a backdrop of nothingness, and a nothingness without real distance from any other point of non-being. These are excellent things to consider, and wonder about as the many mansions said by Jesus Christ to exist in space if not in competent federal or Wall Street building plans for the homeless of the U.S.A. offers some hope for those that do not complete the course of discovering what the Universe looks like objectively, for-itself, perhaps as God views it and all of the creatures living in it simultaneously from their own points of view as well as his own.