Well that's a pretty strong assertion. There are, after all, mental disorders wherein you experience things that do not "actually" exist. Whose to say then, that your perception is the right one? It might be better to say there can be no practical distinction between "actual" reality and what my senses tell me, that is, that we must act based on what our senses tell us, so their "actuality" in any case is not something that can be usefully contested.
No one will contest that the most reasonable assumption is that the reality we percieve is actual, independent of our observation. But it's like Quantum Uncertainty, wherein both of the following statements can be said to be valid:
There can be no ACTUAL distinction between actual and practical; and
There can be no PRACTICAL distinction between actual and practical.
So, in the end, there is no way to prove that the universe would exist in the absence of observers, just like there is no way to prove it exists with observers.
This is a funny statement, because you've already assumed that existence means something independent of observers.
If for example, all that existed depended on one observer (Descartes), then Descartes' daemon could never deceive him. Whatever Descartes was showed would exist by definition.
So it is more precise to say: existence defined independently from observers can't be proven.
ok ill talk in all lowercase to make things easier to read for some of you. you go ahead and decide for yourselves what needs to be emphasized.
Ilvaldi....
a monumental event, such as existing, does need something to come before it. Lets go with the "big bang" a large mass of matter (steve) expolded and sent countless billions of pieces hurling throughout space. These pieces eventually became galaxies and solar systems etc. Something had to come before steve. steve would not exist unless it was created by some other event. so what came before steve. i fail to believe that out of absolutely nowhere "thin air" steve showed up one day, then exploded creating the universe. something came before steve. what it is or was, we may never know. but it does open the possibility that there might have been a thomas, jeremy, and larry.
This is a very interesting argument, and I'm not being sarcastic either. Kind of theological in effect. Let me compact the idea that you're trying to say:
There cannot be an effect without a cause.
Steve cannot exist without something preceding before Steve.
Okay. Fine. Great. Wonderful. So...why are you even talking about this?
I have not made any claim that things simply exist out of "thin air" nor have I made any claim that cause and effect does not exist. I don't see why you're addressing me this point.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
i wont argue that the tree chose to fall. i wont argue that the tree had any control over making a sound. the tree was standing there, loose soil or a strong wind pushed it over, and it fell. the contact and friction the tree had with its surroundings cause soundwaves to move through the air. if someone heard those sound waves, cool, they can run and find the tree. If no one heard the sound waves, then no biggie, no one cares anyways.
the point i am making is that we have scientificaly proven that physical contact/friction can make sounds, i clap my hands, snap my fingers, drop a plate, kick a pigeon. sound exists. sound does not need my permission or observation to exist. we have scientificaly proven that there are other planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies out drifting around the universe. they give off light. they have also discovered that some "stars" in the sky, are actually other "suns" with planets revolving around them. http://www.nineplanets.org/other.html
since these are facts, ill go ahead and say that these other solar systems do not need our permission or observation to exist.
This isn't even relevant to what we're discussing, and we, or at least I, kind of already knew what you were saying.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
my perceptions are not false.
Okay, now you're getting somewhere.
I see two meanings that are carried out from this sentence:
The first, which I assume is the one you're asserting, is that what you see, is what you see and it can never be the case that it is not what you see. If I see a tree, then it is indeed a tree. If I hallucinate a tree, then it is indeed a hallucination of a tree. This I can agree you with.
However, if you're asserting that what you see is what really is there, then I would be skeptical and disagree. Though I can be confident that what I see really is there, I will not fully make a declarative statement and say that everything I perceive must exist in reality. To clarify what I'm saying, allow me to show you an illustrative idea that Descartes had on the perception and actuality of things:
A_____________________B
Above me are two variables that represent two distant realms. A is our perception. B is the actual reality. The line that is in between A and B represents a barrier between our presentational reality and the actual formal reality.
This line can be interpreted as a connection between A and B where our senses or perceptions allows us to obtain ideas of what the actual reality is really like. However, it is never the case that we can see beyond A and identify B directly for that would mean that we could be perceive things independently outside of our perceptions. David Hume, an empiricist, argued that you could never be able to perceive outside of your perceptions for doing so would imply that you would be able to perceive your own perceptions.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
i dislike it when people change the method of their questions just because the answer is not what they wanted. the original question is the only one that matters, i dont care that ilvaldi revised it, or that he makes up new questions as we go.
Who's "we?"
I don't know, but can you read people's minds or something? If people have a problem with what I'm doing, then they ought to speak up for themselves. I feel as though you really don't know what goes on in people's minds or that you know what people want as you have once again failed to make a poignant argument to the question besides "my perceptions are not false."
Furthermore, "the method of the quetsion" wasn't changed. I'm not wording it differently so I can force you to say somehting that I want. If I wanted you to agree with me, I would have made a proper argument right now attacking yours. But I'm not because you don't have anything noteworthy to argue against.
I'm honestly getting the impression right now that you're very confused about what I'm asking. I'll blame myself for not being unclear to you, but I'll definitely put some of the blame on you for your impatience and irresponsibility to try to even understand what I'm trying to say, and your headstrong assertion of something that I'm not even concerned about.
If you have read my first post on this thread, then what I said was that the original question itself wasn't may not even be a philosophical question to begin with:
Quote from Ilvaldi »
You know, I don't know about this question whether this is philosophical or not.
I'm gonna give this a benefit of a doubt and say that it is philosophical. With that said, how it can be philosophical would need some justification.
I don't know, but this question may be able to invoke something from David Hume's disposition on skepticism or Descartes' idea of "I think therefore I am" statement against the notion of whether or not if an evil demigod could ever fool his existence.
I can't give a definite answer as I haven't put THAT much time in thinking about how philosophically deep this question can go (I have an ethics paper that I need to finish by Friday), so I'll leave my thoughts here for now.
I wouldn't immediately throw all of this down the toilet.
Thus, DalkonCledwin's question would've been an unfit thread topic for the Philosophy forum. My objective thus, was to identify, or rather attempt to clarify, the underlying philosophical inquiry of the question so that the OP itself is actually relevant and on topic with the theme of this forum. You can almost go and ask any western philosopher about "if a tree falls and there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and they'll tell you that it's not even a philosophical question.
Therefore, the question that I have poised here is not something that detracts from the topic, but one that is actually on topic with the forum because the original question was just technically a "spam" question.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
the answer to the question of whether or not the universe would exist if no one observed it is yes.
Like I said. We get it. This'll now count as the seventh time you've repeated this. We're not ignoring you. It's just that you're stating somehting that is near tautological so the point becomes insignificant to discuss or even debate.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
our feelings and philosophy do not superceed tangible physics. the pigeon can close its eyes and truly believe that my foot doesnt exist, but i am still kicking it.
Since when has anyone challenged physics? Why are you bringing this stuff up?
This is a very interesting argument, and I'm not being sarcastic either. Kind of theological in effect. Let me compact the idea that you're trying to say:
There cannot be an effect without a cause.
Steve cannot exist without something preceding before Steve.
Okay. Fine. Great. Wonderful. So...why are you even talking about this?
I have not made any claim that things simply exist out of "thin air" nor have I made any claim that cause and effect does not exist. I don't see why you're addressing me this point.
This isn't even relevant to what we're discussing, and we, or at least I, kind of already knew what you were saying.
Okay, now you're getting somewhere.
I see two meanings that are carried out from this sentence:
The first, which I assume is the one you're asserting, is that what you see, is what you see and it can never be the case that it is not what you see. If I see a tree, then it is indeed a tree. If I hallucinate a tree, then it is indeed a hallucination of a tree. This I can agree you with.
However, if you're asserting that what you see is what really is there, then I would be skeptical and disagree. Though I can be confident that what I see really is there, I will not fully make a declarative statement and say that everything I perceive must exist in reality. To clarify what I'm saying, allow me to show you an illustrative idea that Descartes had on the perception and actuality of things:
A_____________________B
Above me are two variables that represent two distant realms. A is our perception. B is the actual reality. The line that is in between A and B represents a barrier between our presentational reality and the actual formal reality.
This line can be interpreted as a connection between A and B where our senses or perceptions allows us to obtain ideas of what the actual reality is really like. However, it is never the case that we can see beyond A and identify B directly for that would mean that we could be perceive things independently outside of our perceptions. David Hume, an empiricist, argued that you could never be able to perceive outside of your perceptions for doing so would imply that you would be able to perceive your own perceptions.
Who's "we?"
I don't know, but can you read people's minds or something? If people have a problem with what I'm doing, then they ought to speak up for themselves. I feel as though you really don't know what goes on in people's minds or that you know what people want as you have once again failed to make a poignant argument to the question besides "my perceptions are not false."
Furthermore, "the method of the quetsion" wasn't changed. I'm not wording it differently so I can force you to say somehting that I want. If I wanted you to agree with me, I would have made a proper argument right now attacking yours. But I'm not because you don't have anything noteworthy to argue against.
I'm honestly getting the impression right now that you're very confused about what I'm asking. I'll blame myself for not being unclear to you, but I'll definitely put some of the blame on you for your impatience and irresponsibility to try to even understand what I'm trying to say, and your headstrong assertion of something that I'm not even concerned about.
If you have read my first post on this thread, then what I said was that the original question itself wasn't may not even be a philosophical question to begin with:
Thus, DalkonCledwin's question would've been an unfit thread topic for the Philosophy forum. My objective thus, was to identify, or rather attempt to clarify, the underlying philosophical inquiry of the question so that the OP itself is actually relevant and on topic with the theme of this forum. You can almost go and ask any western philosopher about "if a tree falls and there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and they'll tell you that it's not even a philosophical question.
Therefore, the question that I have poised here is not something that detracts from the topic, but one that is actually on topic with the forum because the original question was just technically a "spam" question.
Like I said. We get it. This'll now count as the seventh time you've repeated this. We're not ignoring you. It's just that you're stating somehting that is near tautological so the point becomes insignificant to discuss or even debate.
Since when has anyone challenged physics? Why are you bringing this stuff up?
ok, the "I saw a waitress" analogy doesnt mean me personally, im using an easy metaphor for all of peoples perception. Everyone on earth can agree that (except for the crazy) we all see a moon in the sky. If I personally see a waitress bring me food, and everyone else doesn't, I am crazy and dilusional and I should be locked up.
The whole of mankind's perception is true. A percentage of people are looney, and I would like to eliminate them from a philosophical debate.
Aside from the crazy folk, I am sure we can all agree that we see a sun, a moon, clouds in the sky (when its cloudy of course) when you preek us do we not bleed? we are made of bones and flesh and blood.
The universe exists in most peoples heads as a cosmic thing that they dont fully understand (Most Americans would fall back on star trek for their understanding of the universe). So in that sense, if I never observed the universe to begin with (lets say I was born completely blind) then the outside physical universe would not exist to me, not in my head at least. I would have no reference in my head to understand the concept. I could not tell someone what the universe looked like, because I don't know. Much like someone born blind could not on their own (without the input of others), decide what a beautiful woman looks like.
This however, would simply mean that to my blind self, the universe does not exist because I have no referent for it. Everyone else with sight and senses, knows what the universe is, has seen the pictures in books or online, and they also can determine for themselves what a beautiful woman looks like.
So to the blind man in this scenario, the universe doesnt exist in his head. I'll give you that one. To the rest of us who are not looney or blind and lack referent, the universe does exist.
So does it exist if there is no one around to observe it? Well I argue that no, it would not exist in anyones mind, and there would not be anything with a referent for it. But yes, it still would exist physically.
Is that ok, can I go with that??
I want to quote Clinging Darkness "there is an experience worse than blindness, it is the certainty that your vision is perfect, and the horror that there is no world around you to see"
ok, the "I saw a waitress" analogy doesnt mean me personally, im using an easy metaphor for all of peoples perception. Everyone on earth can agree that (except for the crazy) we all see a moon in the sky. If I personally see a waitress bring me food, and everyone else doesn't, I am crazy and delusional and I should be locked up.
The whole of mankind's perception is true.
I don't think this quote was directed to me, but rather at this post:
Well that's a pretty strong assertion. There are, after all, mental disorders wherein you experience things that do not "actually" exist. Whose to say then, that your perception is the right one? It might be better to say there can be no practical distinction between "actual" reality and what my senses tell me, that is, that we must act based on what our senses tell us, so their "actuality" in any case is not something that can be usefully contested.
In fact, I don't think anyone was criticizing your analogy of the waitress at all. I don't see why it's even necessary for you to talk about that.
Furthermore, your assertion that "any sane person can see the moon," does neither support your case nor address the issue at hand. Though I'm not saying that this is the case, I believe that this may be sufficient enough to show you what is happening:
Can you perceive yourself?
Predicting your behavior, I believe that you're most likely going to say "yes" and your reason for this being that you could look at a mirror or any other thing that could produce a reflection of yourself. If anyone has taken at least an intro to psychology however, one would know that what we're "perceiving" directly isn't necessarily the object ("us") but rather refracted light from the mirror that gives our eyes an impression of what may appear to be like us. In effect, we're not perceiving ourselves or the nature of ourselves but rather we're perceiving impressions of a mirror and supposedly the ideas of the nature of what a mirror is.
Just because you see the moon, doesn't mean that you directly see the moon. Your eyes and light itself work as middlemen to produce the "perception" of you and the moon. It is never the case that you truly see the moon.
And just before you think this will somehow go into a point about creating the existence of something via observation, I will go and say, once again for god knows how many times already, that this isn't that. My argument against yours did not in anywhere assert that the moon doesn't exist. It could be the case that the moon does exist and that we can percieve such qualities of the moon like roundness and color, but we just fall short in knowing what the moon is truly like or rather if our perceptions are correct in confirming that the existence of the moon is a round white sphere in the sky.
Also, though it is unnecessary to defend limecat's point as I don't think you've even necessarily denied him any sense of correctness in what he said, I'll mention this to you:
In your argument, you assert that:
"If I personally see a waitress bring me food, and everyone else doesn't, I am crazy and delusional."
To avoid any confusion, you're saying that "If everyone's perception does not comply with your perception of something, then there is something wrong with you."
It seems that from this, a logically equivalent statement can be made:
"The perception of everyone is always right."
Do you agree with either of these statements?
If I had gone on stage and performed a simple yet perceptively deceiving magic trick with only my hands and a couple of playing cards in front of the entire world and say that all 6.5 billion men, women, and children saw it with 50 percent believing it was actually magic, 40 percent knowing it was a trick but unable to perceive what had been done to produce such a trick, and 10 percent, who have exceptionally sharp perceptive abilities, could see how I manipulated the cards with my hands to produce such a trick, then, based on your statements, there would be something seriously wrong with those 10 percent people. Do you agree?
This argument thus, doesn't seem to work so well in making itself convincing.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
A percentage of people are looney, and I would like to eliminate them from a philosophical debate. Aside from the crazy folk, I am sure we can all agree that we see a sun, a moon, clouds in the sky (when its cloudy of course) when you preek us do we not bleed? we are made of bones and flesh and blood.
If I were Peter Singer (a utilitarian Philosopher famous for his arguments on ethics especially animal rights), I would have said that this comment was near borderline racist and condescending due to the fact that you show a desire to ignore the existence of beings less capable than what the average being is for the sake of your own interests.
But I'm not Peter Singer nor would I say that I'm a utilitarian either. I'm merely just pointing out that what you said right there can be capable of being extremely offensive.
I will, however, note that if you want to exclude examples of the mentally retarded from philosophical discussions then I suggest you offer good reasons (or at least a reason) to do so. I can understand your disposition and desire to, but to be arbitrarily fair and hold a charitable interpretation of limecat's example, you're gonna have to come up with a sufficient explanation for why we ought to exclude cases of the senile. And saying that just reasoning with the "everyone else is correct" argument just won't do as I've already shown.
Granted, I also suggest you ought not to even delve on this side of the topic any further as it is completely irrelevant with the subject as I've already said. You're more or less off topic I would say.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
The universe exists in most peoples heads as a cosmic thing that they dont fully understand (Most Americans would fall back on star trek for their understanding of the universe). So in that sense, if I never observed the universe to begin with (lets say I was born completely blind) then the outside physical universe would not exist to me, not in my head at least. I would have no reference in my head to understand the concept. I could not tell someone what the universe looked like, because I don't know. Much like someone born blind could not on their own (without the input of others), decide what a beautiful woman looks like.
I hope that when you're talking about beauty, you're talking about agreeableness.
If not, then you're making a claim that overlooks an intricate part in judging what is "beautiful" and what is not. And this has been a claim that has been debated by men such as, and only to name a few, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Edward Bullough, Leo Tolstoy, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato/Socrates, T.S. Eliot, and so on and so forth. To say that we ourselves can know what is beautiful is too strong of a claim to make without the need for justification of why it is so.
I suggest you try a different comparison other than beauty and the universe.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
This however, would simply mean that to my blind self, the universe does not exist because I have no referent for it. Everyone else with sight and senses, knows what the universe is, has seen the pictures in books or online, and they also can determine for themselves what a beautiful woman looks like.
So to the blind man in this scenario, the universe doesnt exist in his head. I'll give you that one. To the rest of us who are not looney or blind and lack referent, the universe does exist.
If I've understood your analogy correctly, you're saying that it is not the case then that the universe doesn't exist because a blind man's senses do not acknowledge such a thing for we know that his senses are perverted.
Know this that I am giving a good, if not lenient, interpretation of your argument here as I've already proved that the "everyone is right argument" can't be intuitively followed correctly and so I've removed all instances of the use of "everyone" from the subject.
Now with that said, I will break your argument by its conclusions and premises:
1)Blind man says the universe doesn't exist because his senses can't detect them.
2)Blind man's senses are flawed.
--
C) It is not the case that the Blind man's correct in saying that the universe doesn't exist because his senses say so.
This argument is valid. Is it sound? That's debatable. If we examine premise 2 of the argument, we would have to question whether or not the Blind man's senses are indeed flawed and what it would it would mean to be such so. If we say that it is flawed because it fails to meet the standard to which our senses could sense, then we would be using the "everyone is right" argument again which I believe would be an unfavorable way to approach things.
Now I am not saying that the conclusion of this argument is wrong. No, in fact, I would most certainly agree with this conclusion.
If I saw a blind man walking down the street, passing by a fish market sniffing the scent of raw fish and saying "good morning ladies!" and I told the blind man that there were no women around, I would not actually be saying that the blind man's senses are wrong but rather his judgment is wrong. (blame Afroman for the analogy) For yes, if the blind man did indeed smell the aroma of a scent similar to a female's genitals and identified it as "this smells like this" he could never be wrong. But to say that "this is this" then the blind man is passing a judgment inferred by his senses in saying that such a thing does exist and would thus have a conceptualized interpretation of that thing that he so believes to exist and treat it as such to that thing.
Though there can come a philosophical argument to this claim, in a everyday casual setting, taking my skeptic hat off, it would fine of me to assume that I know what the blind man desires, what he thought, and say, "look blind man, there are no ladies around. It's just fish."
But all of this is more aimed in the philosophy of knowledge rather than actually skepticism. This can be used to craft a good argument against skepticism, but I won't go into detail with how that can be done seeing then that I'd just be debating and talking to myself about such things. My purpose was to merely reply to your arguments.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
So does it exist if there is no one around to observe it? Well I argue that no, it would not exist in anyones mind, and there would not be anything with a referent for it. But yes, it still would exist physically.
Again, the subject you're talking about is irrelevant to the discussion. Repeating myself, what you said is almost tautological. Very few people, even philosophers, would be willing to disagree with you unless they're either "looney" or annoying.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
Is that ok, can I go with that??
Why are you asking me that? Do you think I'm a mod or something? Seriously, if I knew what constituted as an appropriate answer, I would probably also know the answer itself and, thus, wouldn't even be participating in a lengthy discussion over something that I would already know.
Quote from Icecreamman80 »
I want to quote Clinging Darkness
"there is an experience worse than blindness, it is the certainty that your vision is perfect, and the horror that there is no world around you to see"
Certainty is different from knowledge. You can be certain that the my dog's name is Benji but it wouldn't be the case that you "knew." For example, if on a test you were given this question:
There's this town where no one shaves their own hair. No one else shaves anyone's hair except for the the barber, who lives in that very town and works to shave the hair of every person who does not shave their own hair. Does the barber shave his own hair?
A) Yes
B) No
In a question such as this, if you were told that there was a "correct" answer to this question, would you know what the correct answer was? I wouldn't necessarily think so as that would mean you would have to have the answer key of the tester's opinionated subjective answer because the question itself is a paradox with no legitimate correct objective answer. If you didn't have such a resource as that, you could only hope that your 50/50 guess would lead you to the "correct" answer that the tester would believe to be correct. If say, that, after reading the question over and over, you're confident that the answer would be A based on a gut feeling, you'll only be certain. You have no basis whatsoever as a good justifiable truth that you could use to support a belief or certainty that you have of whether or not something is the correct answer. To say that you actually "knew" what the correct answer was would be a mistake.
Thus, the quote in clinging darkness is not implying that the world is literally non-existent but rather you're certain that your perceptions of the world is correct and certain that there is nothing in the world for you to perceive which is indeed different from blindness in which, if I'm not mistaken about blind people, they're certain that the world exist, but that it is their senses that are false. What the quote is talking about is merely what I and a couple members have already been discussing which is this idea of skepticism. However, I will note that skepticism may not be as horrifying as the quote so describes since, from my experience, I have not met a skeptic who is so afraid of his/her own possibly falsely perceived reality nor have I actually known someone who could be a skeptic for more than 15 minutes.
Now then, if you're going to reply to my post, I suggest you read and re-read what I've said and, when making your claim, address and acknowledge what I have said in your own words so that you can demonstrate to me that you actually know what I'm talking about rather than continue on talking about something that doesn't even begin to logically strike anything that I've said. Doing this can at least let me know where I went wrong in explaining the topic. If not, then I might as well just ignore you for your sake and mine.
wow....did i just get owned by a wall-o-text....no
i see now that you just love to see yourself write., I wont quote tolstoy or aristotle, because unlike you, I am trying to use my very own philosophy. i'm not just ripping off countless philosophers that came before me, poorly quoting them, and then typing 7000 word essays because i want to sound smart to a guy who is trying to discuss the topic using his own thoughts and philosophy. please, would you just hyperlink all your opinions out of the books you read, because I dont think any of your points are your own. I have read all the same philosophers you seem to love to paraphrase, but i perfer to go at this on my own merit. Neither of us can be wrong, because there is no right answer.
My opinion is...
the universe will exist physicaly no mater what, now whether or not it exists in peoples minds, to the blind, or whoever wants to talk about it not existing, is not my concern. I believe that it would exist no matter what.
also, i never once needed you to explain your argument, i understood all the stuff you were regurgitating from hume and neitche and bullough from the get go. If all I ever wanted was someone to explain those philosophers findins to me, I would have asked. the OP, and im pretty sure everyone here really wants our own opinions and thoughts, not famous peoples opinions and thoughts continually rephrased and paraphrased and sometimes clearly plagerized
wall-o-text over
Flame infraction issued. Address the argument, not the person. And don't make an accusation of plagiarism unless you mean it.
I am going to try and sum up this whole thread into a multiple choice question. I in no way claim to have a monopoly on what this thread all means to everyone. This is just my own flawed brain trying to make sense of all the philosophy going on here. For my multiple choice question here are the definitions.
You: People in general
Universe: Everything (planets, stars, galaxies, people, mosquito's, oxygen, protons, brain cells, etc.)
Exist: Being "There", an object having in itself substance
Still: After you are no longer in the picture
Would everything you observe in the universe still exist if you were not around to observe it?
A) No. The universe as I know it is a facet of my observational imagination. It is merely the sum of all my perceptions and sensations rolled into one. Like the matrix, only less hollywood.
B) No. The universe around us is simply an idea in our heads of what is really out there. If no one was around to observe what was out there, then what is out there would not exist, because no one would have any idea what is out there.
C) Yes. The universe is a physical, real thing. It is not imaginary, nor is it the result of my thoughts and feelings. It is a bunch of cosmic material floating in space, and it does not require my permission to still exist.
D) Yes. Even if I couldn't observe it, something, or someone somwhere will be observing it. Sure it might be at a different angle, and their perception differs from mine. But I cannot be the only one around who sees all that stuff and is baffled by it.
I am on the side of answer C.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I personaly belive that if the universe exists and does not exist just to craddle life. (christians may find the rest offensive read at own risk) life was a random occurance. the chances were low but bound to happen. Eventualy it will cease and then start again. back to the tree metaphor the sound will still happen
Looks like the OP was trying to get at something more philosphical than his "tree sound metaphore." To be honest, there's actually a heavy debate in theoretical physics on this very issue. The debate involves Shrodinger's Cat, a thought experiment that's essentially the same thing as the "tree sound" one.
But Shrodinger's Cat came about from the original interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- the Copenhagan interpretation. To show how rediculous such an interpretation was, Erwin Shrodinger created the thought experiement now known as Shrodinger's Cat.
Shrodinger's Cat involves a cat that is placed into a steel cage. Also in the cage is an unknown radioactive substance that decays at an unknown rate. . The radioactive substance is hooked up to a trigger that releases a vile of poison once even one atom of the substance decays. After a certain amount of time, the probability that an atom has decayed is 50%. So then the question is, at that time is the cat dead or alive?
The general response is "I don't know!" But the point is that according to one interpretation of quantum theory, the cat is both dead and alive simultaneously. It is only when we open the cage and find the cat either dead or alive that it becomes so. In other words, our observation of the cat dead makes it so. It is important to understand that this is not just saying that "if I don't see you pants, they don't exist." This is very different. This is all about probability. If there is a 50/50 chance that the cat is dead or alive, then it's current state resides somewhere in the middle until we check and observe.
Many famous scientists believed and still believe in this interpretation, and many scientists disagreed and still do. One of the scientists who disagreed was Einstein, who till the end of his life never accepted quantum theory (because he was a determinist, whereas quantum mechanics essentially says everything is based upon probability). Another was Erwin Shrodinger, who created the cat thought experiment to express how rediculous he thought it was, but you already knew that.
There are, of course, other interpretations of quantum theory, and while I'm on the topic, I might as well give a brief summary of the main other branch: the many worlds interpretation. The many worlds interpretation is the view held by such scientists as Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking.
If we take the same example with the cat in the cage, and we ask whether it is dead or alive, those who follow the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory would again say that the cat is both dead and alive at that 50/50 point. They would agree on that with the copenhagan people. Where they disagree, however, is on what occurs after the observation. Whereas the copenhagan interpretation suggests that the observation creates the reality, the many worlds interpreation states that both outcomes happen at every opportunity. In other words, when we go to open the cage and find, for instance, that the cat is alive, then there exists a universe parallel to our own (hence "many worlds") in which we open the box to find the cat unalterably dead.
I've done research on this topic, and I have to say that I'm not completely convinced one way or another. Both sides have interesting arguments. I suppose if I had to make a decision, I would choose the Copenhagan interpreation, if only because it makes the universe seem even more interesting than it already is. Observation-based-reality is one of the coolest ideas I've yet to come across. I can't quite put my finger on why, but there's definitely something elegant about it.
As per the topic, the OP asked if the universe would exist if no one was around to observe it. I'm not one to nitpick, but in this instance, words really matter. By wording your question with "no one," I would say yes. Humans did not come into being until very late in the universe's life, hence it existed before us. Even the most basic lifeforms weren't around at the very beginning of existence.
But this raises an even more interesting question. If indeed the copenhagan interpreation of quantum mechanics is accurate, and it's true that no lifeforms existed to bring the universe into being, how is it here? The answer I find most appealing is in the spirit of the Chris Langan CTMU/panentheistic belief: what you might call God -- the ultimate observer.
We are all like individual cells. We are fully functioning and alive on our own. But together we comprise something that is both an amalgamation of all our parts and something larger than all the parts put together. We have billions of cells that make up our bodies. Each one is alive, and every individual cell when added together makes up me. But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I am not a collection of cells. Cells comrpise me, but together they make something larger than themselves. To them, I might as well be God. And to us, whatever we compose might as well be God too -- the universe. But then again, since the sum is greater than the addition of its parts, God contains the universe, but is not bound by it: He is something greater than the combination of everything.
That is, of course, if the previously listed two criteria are met. Just my two cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No one will contest that the most reasonable assumption is that the reality we percieve is actual, independent of our observation. But it's like Quantum Uncertainty, wherein both of the following statements can be said to be valid:
There can be no ACTUAL distinction between actual and practical; and
There can be no PRACTICAL distinction between actual and practical.
This is a funny statement, because you've already assumed that existence means something independent of observers.
If for example, all that existed depended on one observer (Descartes), then Descartes' daemon could never deceive him. Whatever Descartes was showed would exist by definition.
So it is more precise to say: existence defined independently from observers can't be proven.
This is a very interesting argument, and I'm not being sarcastic either. Kind of theological in effect. Let me compact the idea that you're trying to say:
There cannot be an effect without a cause.
Steve cannot exist without something preceding before Steve.
Okay. Fine. Great. Wonderful. So...why are you even talking about this?
I have not made any claim that things simply exist out of "thin air" nor have I made any claim that cause and effect does not exist. I don't see why you're addressing me this point.
This isn't even relevant to what we're discussing, and we, or at least I, kind of already knew what you were saying.
Okay, now you're getting somewhere.
I see two meanings that are carried out from this sentence:
The first, which I assume is the one you're asserting, is that what you see, is what you see and it can never be the case that it is not what you see. If I see a tree, then it is indeed a tree. If I hallucinate a tree, then it is indeed a hallucination of a tree. This I can agree you with.
However, if you're asserting that what you see is what really is there, then I would be skeptical and disagree. Though I can be confident that what I see really is there, I will not fully make a declarative statement and say that everything I perceive must exist in reality. To clarify what I'm saying, allow me to show you an illustrative idea that Descartes had on the perception and actuality of things:
A_____________________B
Above me are two variables that represent two distant realms. A is our perception. B is the actual reality. The line that is in between A and B represents a barrier between our presentational reality and the actual formal reality.
This line can be interpreted as a connection between A and B where our senses or perceptions allows us to obtain ideas of what the actual reality is really like. However, it is never the case that we can see beyond A and identify B directly for that would mean that we could be perceive things independently outside of our perceptions. David Hume, an empiricist, argued that you could never be able to perceive outside of your perceptions for doing so would imply that you would be able to perceive your own perceptions.
Who's "we?"
I don't know, but can you read people's minds or something? If people have a problem with what I'm doing, then they ought to speak up for themselves. I feel as though you really don't know what goes on in people's minds or that you know what people want as you have once again failed to make a poignant argument to the question besides "my perceptions are not false."
Furthermore, "the method of the quetsion" wasn't changed. I'm not wording it differently so I can force you to say somehting that I want. If I wanted you to agree with me, I would have made a proper argument right now attacking yours. But I'm not because you don't have anything noteworthy to argue against.
I'm honestly getting the impression right now that you're very confused about what I'm asking. I'll blame myself for not being unclear to you, but I'll definitely put some of the blame on you for your impatience and irresponsibility to try to even understand what I'm trying to say, and your headstrong assertion of something that I'm not even concerned about.
If you have read my first post on this thread, then what I said was that the original question itself wasn't may not even be a philosophical question to begin with:
Thus, DalkonCledwin's question would've been an unfit thread topic for the Philosophy forum. My objective thus, was to identify, or rather attempt to clarify, the underlying philosophical inquiry of the question so that the OP itself is actually relevant and on topic with the theme of this forum. You can almost go and ask any western philosopher about "if a tree falls and there's no one around, does it make a sound?" and they'll tell you that it's not even a philosophical question.
Therefore, the question that I have poised here is not something that detracts from the topic, but one that is actually on topic with the forum because the original question was just technically a "spam" question.
Like I said. We get it. This'll now count as the seventh time you've repeated this. We're not ignoring you. It's just that you're stating somehting that is near tautological so the point becomes insignificant to discuss or even debate.
Since when has anyone challenged physics? Why are you bringing this stuff up?
ok, the "I saw a waitress" analogy doesnt mean me personally, im using an easy metaphor for all of peoples perception. Everyone on earth can agree that (except for the crazy) we all see a moon in the sky. If I personally see a waitress bring me food, and everyone else doesn't, I am crazy and dilusional and I should be locked up.
The whole of mankind's perception is true. A percentage of people are looney, and I would like to eliminate them from a philosophical debate.
Aside from the crazy folk, I am sure we can all agree that we see a sun, a moon, clouds in the sky (when its cloudy of course) when you preek us do we not bleed? we are made of bones and flesh and blood.
The universe exists in most peoples heads as a cosmic thing that they dont fully understand (Most Americans would fall back on star trek for their understanding of the universe). So in that sense, if I never observed the universe to begin with (lets say I was born completely blind) then the outside physical universe would not exist to me, not in my head at least. I would have no reference in my head to understand the concept. I could not tell someone what the universe looked like, because I don't know. Much like someone born blind could not on their own (without the input of others), decide what a beautiful woman looks like.
This however, would simply mean that to my blind self, the universe does not exist because I have no referent for it. Everyone else with sight and senses, knows what the universe is, has seen the pictures in books or online, and they also can determine for themselves what a beautiful woman looks like.
So to the blind man in this scenario, the universe doesnt exist in his head. I'll give you that one. To the rest of us who are not looney or blind and lack referent, the universe does exist.
So does it exist if there is no one around to observe it? Well I argue that no, it would not exist in anyones mind, and there would not be anything with a referent for it. But yes, it still would exist physically.
Is that ok, can I go with that??
I want to quote Clinging Darkness
"there is an experience worse than blindness, it is the certainty that your vision is perfect, and the horror that there is no world around you to see"
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I don't think this quote was directed to me, but rather at this post:
In fact, I don't think anyone was criticizing your analogy of the waitress at all. I don't see why it's even necessary for you to talk about that.
Furthermore, your assertion that "any sane person can see the moon," does neither support your case nor address the issue at hand. Though I'm not saying that this is the case, I believe that this may be sufficient enough to show you what is happening:
Can you perceive yourself?
Predicting your behavior, I believe that you're most likely going to say "yes" and your reason for this being that you could look at a mirror or any other thing that could produce a reflection of yourself. If anyone has taken at least an intro to psychology however, one would know that what we're "perceiving" directly isn't necessarily the object ("us") but rather refracted light from the mirror that gives our eyes an impression of what may appear to be like us. In effect, we're not perceiving ourselves or the nature of ourselves but rather we're perceiving impressions of a mirror and supposedly the ideas of the nature of what a mirror is.
Just because you see the moon, doesn't mean that you directly see the moon. Your eyes and light itself work as middlemen to produce the "perception" of you and the moon. It is never the case that you truly see the moon.
And just before you think this will somehow go into a point about creating the existence of something via observation, I will go and say, once again for god knows how many times already, that this isn't that. My argument against yours did not in anywhere assert that the moon doesn't exist. It could be the case that the moon does exist and that we can percieve such qualities of the moon like roundness and color, but we just fall short in knowing what the moon is truly like or rather if our perceptions are correct in confirming that the existence of the moon is a round white sphere in the sky.
Also, though it is unnecessary to defend limecat's point as I don't think you've even necessarily denied him any sense of correctness in what he said, I'll mention this to you:
In your argument, you assert that:
"If I personally see a waitress bring me food, and everyone else doesn't, I am crazy and delusional."
To avoid any confusion, you're saying that "If everyone's perception does not comply with your perception of something, then there is something wrong with you."
It seems that from this, a logically equivalent statement can be made:
"The perception of everyone is always right."
Do you agree with either of these statements?
If I had gone on stage and performed a simple yet perceptively deceiving magic trick with only my hands and a couple of playing cards in front of the entire world and say that all 6.5 billion men, women, and children saw it with 50 percent believing it was actually magic, 40 percent knowing it was a trick but unable to perceive what had been done to produce such a trick, and 10 percent, who have exceptionally sharp perceptive abilities, could see how I manipulated the cards with my hands to produce such a trick, then, based on your statements, there would be something seriously wrong with those 10 percent people. Do you agree?
This argument thus, doesn't seem to work so well in making itself convincing.
If I were Peter Singer (a utilitarian Philosopher famous for his arguments on ethics especially animal rights), I would have said that this comment was near borderline racist and condescending due to the fact that you show a desire to ignore the existence of beings less capable than what the average being is for the sake of your own interests.
But I'm not Peter Singer nor would I say that I'm a utilitarian either. I'm merely just pointing out that what you said right there can be capable of being extremely offensive.
I will, however, note that if you want to exclude examples of the mentally retarded from philosophical discussions then I suggest you offer good reasons (or at least a reason) to do so. I can understand your disposition and desire to, but to be arbitrarily fair and hold a charitable interpretation of limecat's example, you're gonna have to come up with a sufficient explanation for why we ought to exclude cases of the senile. And saying that just reasoning with the "everyone else is correct" argument just won't do as I've already shown.
Granted, I also suggest you ought not to even delve on this side of the topic any further as it is completely irrelevant with the subject as I've already said. You're more or less off topic I would say.
I hope that when you're talking about beauty, you're talking about agreeableness.
If not, then you're making a claim that overlooks an intricate part in judging what is "beautiful" and what is not. And this has been a claim that has been debated by men such as, and only to name a few, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Edward Bullough, Leo Tolstoy, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato/Socrates, T.S. Eliot, and so on and so forth. To say that we ourselves can know what is beautiful is too strong of a claim to make without the need for justification of why it is so.
I suggest you try a different comparison other than beauty and the universe.
If I've understood your analogy correctly, you're saying that it is not the case then that the universe doesn't exist because a blind man's senses do not acknowledge such a thing for we know that his senses are perverted.
Know this that I am giving a good, if not lenient, interpretation of your argument here as I've already proved that the "everyone is right argument" can't be intuitively followed correctly and so I've removed all instances of the use of "everyone" from the subject.
Now with that said, I will break your argument by its conclusions and premises:
1)Blind man says the universe doesn't exist because his senses can't detect them.
2)Blind man's senses are flawed.
--
C) It is not the case that the Blind man's correct in saying that the universe doesn't exist because his senses say so.
This argument is valid. Is it sound? That's debatable. If we examine premise 2 of the argument, we would have to question whether or not the Blind man's senses are indeed flawed and what it would it would mean to be such so. If we say that it is flawed because it fails to meet the standard to which our senses could sense, then we would be using the "everyone is right" argument again which I believe would be an unfavorable way to approach things.
Now I am not saying that the conclusion of this argument is wrong. No, in fact, I would most certainly agree with this conclusion.
If I saw a blind man walking down the street, passing by a fish market sniffing the scent of raw fish and saying "good morning ladies!" and I told the blind man that there were no women around, I would not actually be saying that the blind man's senses are wrong but rather his judgment is wrong. (blame Afroman for the analogy) For yes, if the blind man did indeed smell the aroma of a scent similar to a female's genitals and identified it as "this smells like this" he could never be wrong. But to say that "this is this" then the blind man is passing a judgment inferred by his senses in saying that such a thing does exist and would thus have a conceptualized interpretation of that thing that he so believes to exist and treat it as such to that thing.
Though there can come a philosophical argument to this claim, in a everyday casual setting, taking my skeptic hat off, it would fine of me to assume that I know what the blind man desires, what he thought, and say, "look blind man, there are no ladies around. It's just fish."
But all of this is more aimed in the philosophy of knowledge rather than actually skepticism. This can be used to craft a good argument against skepticism, but I won't go into detail with how that can be done seeing then that I'd just be debating and talking to myself about such things. My purpose was to merely reply to your arguments.
Again, the subject you're talking about is irrelevant to the discussion. Repeating myself, what you said is almost tautological. Very few people, even philosophers, would be willing to disagree with you unless they're either "looney" or annoying.
Why are you asking me that? Do you think I'm a mod or something? Seriously, if I knew what constituted as an appropriate answer, I would probably also know the answer itself and, thus, wouldn't even be participating in a lengthy discussion over something that I would already know.
Certainty is different from knowledge. You can be certain that the my dog's name is Benji but it wouldn't be the case that you "knew." For example, if on a test you were given this question:
There's this town where no one shaves their own hair. No one else shaves anyone's hair except for the the barber, who lives in that very town and works to shave the hair of every person who does not shave their own hair. Does the barber shave his own hair?
A) Yes
B) No
In a question such as this, if you were told that there was a "correct" answer to this question, would you know what the correct answer was? I wouldn't necessarily think so as that would mean you would have to have the answer key of the tester's opinionated subjective answer because the question itself is a paradox with no legitimate correct objective answer. If you didn't have such a resource as that, you could only hope that your 50/50 guess would lead you to the "correct" answer that the tester would believe to be correct. If say, that, after reading the question over and over, you're confident that the answer would be A based on a gut feeling, you'll only be certain. You have no basis whatsoever as a good justifiable truth that you could use to support a belief or certainty that you have of whether or not something is the correct answer. To say that you actually "knew" what the correct answer was would be a mistake.
Thus, the quote in clinging darkness is not implying that the world is literally non-existent but rather you're certain that your perceptions of the world is correct and certain that there is nothing in the world for you to perceive which is indeed different from blindness in which, if I'm not mistaken about blind people, they're certain that the world exist, but that it is their senses that are false. What the quote is talking about is merely what I and a couple members have already been discussing which is this idea of skepticism. However, I will note that skepticism may not be as horrifying as the quote so describes since, from my experience, I have not met a skeptic who is so afraid of his/her own possibly falsely perceived reality nor have I actually known someone who could be a skeptic for more than 15 minutes.
Now then, if you're going to reply to my post, I suggest you read and re-read what I've said and, when making your claim, address and acknowledge what I have said in your own words so that you can demonstrate to me that you actually know what I'm talking about rather than continue on talking about something that doesn't even begin to logically strike anything that I've said. Doing this can at least let me know where I went wrong in explaining the topic. If not, then I might as well just ignore you for your sake and mine.
i see now that you just love to see yourself write., I wont quote tolstoy or aristotle, because unlike you, I am trying to use my very own philosophy. i'm not just ripping off countless philosophers that came before me, poorly quoting them, and then typing 7000 word essays because i want to sound smart to a guy who is trying to discuss the topic using his own thoughts and philosophy. please, would you just hyperlink all your opinions out of the books you read, because I dont think any of your points are your own. I have read all the same philosophers you seem to love to paraphrase, but i perfer to go at this on my own merit. Neither of us can be wrong, because there is no right answer.
My opinion is...
the universe will exist physicaly no mater what, now whether or not it exists in peoples minds, to the blind, or whoever wants to talk about it not existing, is not my concern. I believe that it would exist no matter what.
also, i never once needed you to explain your argument, i understood all the stuff you were regurgitating from hume and neitche and bullough from the get go. If all I ever wanted was someone to explain those philosophers findins to me, I would have asked. the OP, and im pretty sure everyone here really wants our own opinions and thoughts, not famous peoples opinions and thoughts continually rephrased and paraphrased and sometimes clearly plagerized
wall-o-text over
Flame infraction issued. Address the argument, not the person. And don't make an accusation of plagiarism unless you mean it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You: People in general
Universe: Everything (planets, stars, galaxies, people, mosquito's, oxygen, protons, brain cells, etc.)
Exist: Being "There", an object having in itself substance
Still: After you are no longer in the picture
Would everything you observe in the universe still exist if you were not around to observe it?
A) No. The universe as I know it is a facet of my observational imagination. It is merely the sum of all my perceptions and sensations rolled into one. Like the matrix, only less hollywood.
B) No. The universe around us is simply an idea in our heads of what is really out there. If no one was around to observe what was out there, then what is out there would not exist, because no one would have any idea what is out there.
C) Yes. The universe is a physical, real thing. It is not imaginary, nor is it the result of my thoughts and feelings. It is a bunch of cosmic material floating in space, and it does not require my permission to still exist.
D) Yes. Even if I couldn't observe it, something, or someone somwhere will be observing it. Sure it might be at a different angle, and their perception differs from mine. But I cannot be the only one around who sees all that stuff and is baffled by it.
I am on the side of answer C.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Thanks To KrackShott
But Shrodinger's Cat came about from the original interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- the Copenhagan interpretation. To show how rediculous such an interpretation was, Erwin Shrodinger created the thought experiement now known as Shrodinger's Cat.
Shrodinger's Cat involves a cat that is placed into a steel cage. Also in the cage is an unknown radioactive substance that decays at an unknown rate. . The radioactive substance is hooked up to a trigger that releases a vile of poison once even one atom of the substance decays. After a certain amount of time, the probability that an atom has decayed is 50%. So then the question is, at that time is the cat dead or alive?
The general response is "I don't know!" But the point is that according to one interpretation of quantum theory, the cat is both dead and alive simultaneously. It is only when we open the cage and find the cat either dead or alive that it becomes so. In other words, our observation of the cat dead makes it so. It is important to understand that this is not just saying that "if I don't see you pants, they don't exist." This is very different. This is all about probability. If there is a 50/50 chance that the cat is dead or alive, then it's current state resides somewhere in the middle until we check and observe.
Many famous scientists believed and still believe in this interpretation, and many scientists disagreed and still do. One of the scientists who disagreed was Einstein, who till the end of his life never accepted quantum theory (because he was a determinist, whereas quantum mechanics essentially says everything is based upon probability). Another was Erwin Shrodinger, who created the cat thought experiment to express how rediculous he thought it was, but you already knew that.
There are, of course, other interpretations of quantum theory, and while I'm on the topic, I might as well give a brief summary of the main other branch: the many worlds interpretation. The many worlds interpretation is the view held by such scientists as Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking.
If we take the same example with the cat in the cage, and we ask whether it is dead or alive, those who follow the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory would again say that the cat is both dead and alive at that 50/50 point. They would agree on that with the copenhagan people. Where they disagree, however, is on what occurs after the observation. Whereas the copenhagan interpretation suggests that the observation creates the reality, the many worlds interpreation states that both outcomes happen at every opportunity. In other words, when we go to open the cage and find, for instance, that the cat is alive, then there exists a universe parallel to our own (hence "many worlds") in which we open the box to find the cat unalterably dead.
I've done research on this topic, and I have to say that I'm not completely convinced one way or another. Both sides have interesting arguments. I suppose if I had to make a decision, I would choose the Copenhagan interpreation, if only because it makes the universe seem even more interesting than it already is. Observation-based-reality is one of the coolest ideas I've yet to come across. I can't quite put my finger on why, but there's definitely something elegant about it.
As per the topic, the OP asked if the universe would exist if no one was around to observe it. I'm not one to nitpick, but in this instance, words really matter. By wording your question with "no one," I would say yes. Humans did not come into being until very late in the universe's life, hence it existed before us. Even the most basic lifeforms weren't around at the very beginning of existence.
But this raises an even more interesting question. If indeed the copenhagan interpreation of quantum mechanics is accurate, and it's true that no lifeforms existed to bring the universe into being, how is it here? The answer I find most appealing is in the spirit of the Chris Langan CTMU/panentheistic belief: what you might call God -- the ultimate observer.
We are all like individual cells. We are fully functioning and alive on our own. But together we comprise something that is both an amalgamation of all our parts and something larger than all the parts put together. We have billions of cells that make up our bodies. Each one is alive, and every individual cell when added together makes up me. But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I am not a collection of cells. Cells comrpise me, but together they make something larger than themselves. To them, I might as well be God. And to us, whatever we compose might as well be God too -- the universe. But then again, since the sum is greater than the addition of its parts, God contains the universe, but is not bound by it: He is something greater than the combination of everything.
That is, of course, if the previously listed two criteria are met. Just my two cents.