If I understand this article correctly, what you and I consider to be the 'Big Bang' is itself an event filtered through the lens of our consciousness.
The big bang, the time that has passed since them, even the concept of time, are not in fact reality but rather the interpretation of reality made by our consciousness.
There is no argument that there is a fundamental reality that predates consciousness, but our problem is that everything that we view as 'reality' is just the subset of that true reality that is filtered through our consciousness.
What we perceive as reality starts with consciousness as its fundamental building block, because everything we have discovered has been built upon that foundation.
> The big bang, the time that has passed since them, even the concept of time, are not in fact reality but rather the interpretation of reality made by our consciousness.
I think that is very reasonable/likely
>There is no argument that there is a fundamental reality that predates consciousness, but our problem is that everything that we view as 'reality' is just the subset of that true reality that is filtered through our consciousness.
See to me the article was saying a fundamental, consciousnessless reality isn't possible when it stated everything can't only be relational (the spreadsheet example) - there must be some initial value/setting, i.e. consciousness.
The big bang, the time that has passed since them, even the concept of time, are not in fact reality but rather the interpretation of reality made by our consciousness.
There is no argument that there is a fundamental reality that predates consciousness, but our problem is that everything that we view as 'reality' is just the subset of that true reality that is filtered through our consciousness.
What we perceive as reality starts with consciousness as its fundamental building block, because everything we have discovered has been built upon that foundation.