Where does reality reside ?

[Thunderbird]

 

This does not imply that the universe came into existance along with our consciousness, but that our consciousness has come about over time from a pre-existing universe.

You can say this only because you exsist in it.

[Tormod]

You can say this only because you exsist in it.

 

You keep dodging the cause and effect question. Care to respond to it?

 

Say - you *observe* a star that explodes as a supernova. By your logic it comes into existence the moment you see it.

 

In other words, the *cause* for the nova is that you observed it - not the natural processes which led to the star going nova.

 

Can you explain why this is so?

[Thunderbird]

You keep dodging the cause and effect question. Care to respond to it?

 

Say - you *observe* a star that explodes as a supernova. By your logic it comes into existence the moment you see it.

 

In other words, the *cause* for the nova is that you observed it - not the natural processes which led to the star going nova.

 

Can you explain why this is so?

 

 

This is not about cause in effect, in this context of the observer causing an effect, but an observer giving any cause and effect contextual existence in reality. Cause and effect Reality is referring to interactions between two or more spheres, but only when at lest one sphere is an observer. Take that one sphere out............. no reality, nothing exist cause these are points of references that give reality 100% its contextual meaning. There are no degrees, it ether is, or is not.

[REASON]

You can say this only because you exsist in it.

 

Whether I exist in the universe or not has no bearing on the existance of the universe other than to me.

 

From my mother's perspective, the universe no longer exists. But I am testament to the fact that it still does despite her absence.

[Thunderbird]

Whether I exist in the universe or not has no bearing on the existance of the universe other than to me.

 

 

Yea I'll agree with that. I think:shrug:

[Thunderbird]

Whoever sees all beings in the soul

and the soul in all beings

does not shrink away from this.

In whom all beings have become one with the knowing soul

what delusion or sorrow is there for the one who sees unity?

It has filled all.

It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable,

without tendons, pure, untouched by evil.

Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,

it organizes objects throughout eternity.

 

– Isha Upanishad Verses 6, 7, & 8

[nutronjon]

This is precisely where you are wrong. What you are referring to is "meaning." Just because no one with an evolved intellect is around to provide meaning to the world does not mean it does not exist in reality. Cause and effect in the natural world does not require perception. Perception has evolved to provide a greater understanding of pre-existing natural processes.

 

As Carl Sagan once said (and I will have to paraphrase), we humans are made of the stuff of stars, and as such, we are a means by which the universe has become aware of itself.

 

This does not imply that the universe came into existance along with our consciousness, but that our consciousness has come about over time from a pre-existing universe.

 

 

Has reality been defined? As stated, the universe was manifest long before humans could observe it, and the universe will surely exist even if humans become extinct, and if that is not reality, what is reality?

[freeztar]

I've been following the thread, and...

 

I think TBird's argument is purely ontological. It's philosophy.

 

He has a certain point that, I believe, has grown into a gross misunderstanding. Reality is a construct of our awareness, or consciousness. Without any conscious awareness, there is no reality simply because of the lack of conscious awareness. Since it is impossible to test whether reality exists outside of conscious awareness, it can be (philosophically) thought to not exist. There's no right or wrong in this argument. It's philosophy. :)

 

If I've misunderstood your position TBird, then let me know...

[Moontanman]

No observer, no volcano. This is not about the intermittence of an observer, or the attention spans of children, it is about where reality resides. Reality has no context without a point or reference. Take the observer out of the equation reality's sum is nil .

 

T-Bird, you would have been great in the middle ages. I'm sure you could have dedecated your life to discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

[Not half- but whole!]

Having just popped into this thread and having skimmed through the 6 or so pages of comments that have rapidly sprouted up on this topic it seems that most of the board disagrees with T-Bird's basic premise. As I first started, I too did not agree with the basic "no observer- no exist" premise. As I began to read through the various retorts it seemed to me that there seemed to be two unstated premises about observation that were the hang-ups.

 

1. Observation was direct.

I think that there can be inferred observation. There may not be witnesses to a murder but there may be evidence that convicts. This would be inferred observation.

 

2. There is a linear time component to observation.

This also links into a inferred observation. One may not hear the tree that fell, but you could see the fallen tree. Falling trees make noise, so should have been noise. The observational evidence can removed from the time frame of the occurrence.

 

With these two things all knowledge the becomes "observed". Only the unknown doesn't exist to the observer. As knowledge becomes known, it is observable and exists to the observer.

[Buffy]

...your entire argument here is to confuse that which is real despite our perception with that which is real for us as a result of our perception. They are not the same concept....Unfortunately, your point is not about reality, it is about perception. The two are not necessarily congruent.

I think TBird's argument is purely ontological. It's philosophy.... Reality is a construct of our awareness, or consciousness. Without any conscious awareness, there is no reality simply because of the lack of conscious awareness. Since it is impossible to test whether reality exists outside of conscious awareness, it can be (philosophically) thought to not exist...

So as usual with these round and round debates, the problem lies with differing opinions of the definition of "reality" which I'd argue is a pretty vague term. Mr. Bird is taking the extreme Existentialist argument, one whose ultimate conclusion is a world in which there is no objective "reality" just "perceptions." No Truth. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.

 

Philosophically its a narcissistic and I think quite depressing worldview. When I was very little, I heard Shakespeare's quote about "All the world's a stage" and actually kind of adopted it: no one existed unless I could see them. They were all just actors that stepped from the wings whenever events required. What that experience did was make me feel guilty and disconnected from the world, and it was quite a transformative experience (probably also triggered by my parent's divorce at the time). To this day, I feel sorry for people who go down this road, leaving me always wondering:

 

What painful experience are they trying to run from?

 

Existentialist writings are all so depressing--enlightening, but ultimately depressing--and while its good to study it and walk through the thought experiments engendered, its useful to "bring it back to reality" by asking, what are the implications and practical applications of this?

 

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

[They do not move], :phones:

Buffy

[REASON]

With these two things all knowledge the becomes "observed". Only the unknown doesn't exist to the observer. As knowledge becomes known, it is observable and exists to the observer.

 

Yes, but the question at hand was, did the knowledge or information exist even though it was unknown to the observer? Is information that is discovered created with the discovery, or is it simply revealed?

 

I think we can all agree that some reality, no matter how vague, is only detectable by a conscious observer. I have argued that the universe has existed even as there has been no conscious observer present, and it is by this fact that it has been possible for a conscious observer to eventually come about.

 

Over the grand time frame of the universe, our awareness of it is but a flicker. Best we not waste our moment in time.

 

If there's one important thing I have gathered from what I have read from Thunderbird's posts in these forums, he has not wasted his.

[modest]

Yes, but the question at hand was, did the knowledge or information exist even though it was unknown to the observer? Is information that is discovered created with the discovery, or is it simply revealed?

 

I don’t believe Thunderbird is any longer strictly holding to this position. He originally said nothing is real until observed. Now, it looks like:

 

If it were just something interacting without our existence it has no effect or cause or exsistance, but since we are in the world, and given the fact that all things are connected all things exsist even if they are out of our sight. The earth even though we do not see the iron core we still experience a cause and effect.

 

he claims nothing is real until there is an observer somewhere in the universe because all things are connected. So, it doesn’t have to be observed after all. This changes the implications of the philosophy substantially. Aside from that, this now makes his position completely non-falsifiable which I believe (and previously stated) was his original intent.

 

He wants to create a theory whereby it is necessary to remove the observer in order to disprove the theory so that any solution proposed would be a paradox. The paradox is obviously the main intent given that Tbird changed the theory to force it.

 

Science tries so very hard to make its theories falsifiable and philosophy does its best to prove or at leaset decide what is true or false by understanding it. What I see here is neither and benefits neither.

 

I don't mean that "what is reality?" is a bad philosophical question. I mean trying to force reality into a paradoxical solutionless loop so that people will chase it like a game of duck duck goose - is bad philosophy.

 

-modest

[modest]

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

This is the perfect question. We've got something that can't make any predictions or satisfy any observation. I'd say there couldn't be stated a problem that this would solve :phones:

 

-modest

[Tormod]

This is not about cause in effect, in this context of the observer causing an effect, but an observer giving any cause and effect contextual existence in reality.

 

From what I understand you're claiming that the nova is an *effect* that comes into existence when the observer sees it, because the only *cause* in the universe is the act of observation.

 

But...that is all about cause and effect, is it not?

 

"an observer giving any cause and effect contectual existence in reality" would imply that

 

1) the observer interprets what he sees

2) reality exists without the aid of the observer

 

...so you're just back to basic Hume arguments, no? Like - the observer can make deductions based on prior observations. Yet his acts of observations do not *cause* anything to come into being, they merely help him classify and explain them.

 

A far cry from solving the tree in the forest riddle.

 

Cause and effect Reality is referring to interactions between two or more spheres, but only when at lest one sphere is an observer.

 

OK, so there must be various kinds of reality with different labels, and they still all observe your "must be observed to come into existence" law?

 

Cause and effect is the basis of the scientific model. You claim that causality has only one requirement: the act of observation. This model does not explain how things come into existence, only their moment of creation. It gives no answer as to why the observer has the power to create the things he perceives.

 

For your arguments to bear any weight, you need to show us some evidence. or at least the hint of a logical chain of events.

 

1. What caused the nova to come into existence

2. How does the observer come to realize that he (the observer) exists

3. What gives him the power to create things just by looking at them?

4. What happens to objects when the observer does not observe them?

 

#4 is really a classical philosophical question.

[Thunderbird]

I've been following the thread, and...

 

I think TBird's argument is purely ontological. It's philosophy.

 

He has a certain point that, I believe, has grown into a gross misunderstanding. Reality is a construct of our awareness, or consciousness. Without any conscious awareness, there is no reality simply because of the lack of conscious awareness. Since it is impossible to test whether reality exists outside of conscious awareness, it can be (philosophically) thought to not exist. There's no right or wrong in this argument. It's philosophy. :phones:

 

If I've misunderstood your position TBird, then let me know...

 

In the purely ontological sense your dead on... your the first person to get it. Now if you could explain why this is so hard to get across ? I will be forever in your dept.

 

The univerce that we can only know though are own particular spectrum of the mind only exsist when it exsist.

 

Why do we tend not to take the observer out but instead move it around?

 

I find this an odd.

[Thunderbird]

From what I understand you're claiming that the nova is an *effect* that comes into existence when the observer sees it, because the only *cause* in the universe is the act of observation.

 

But...that is all about cause and effect, is it not?

 

"an observer giving any cause and effect contectual existence in reality" would imply that

 

1) the observer interprets what he sees

2) reality exists without the aid of the observer

 

...so you're just back to basic Hume arguments, no? Like - the observer can make deductions based on prior observations. Yet his acts of observations do not *cause* anything to come into being, they merely help him classify and explain them.

 

A far cry from solving the tree in the forest riddle.

 

 

 

OK, so there must be various kinds of reality with different labels, and they still all observe your "must be observed to come into existence" law?

 

Cause and effect is the basis of the scientific model. You claim that causality has only one requirement: the act of observation. This model does not explain how things come into existence, only their moment of creation. It gives no answer as to why the observer has the power to create the things he perceives.

 

For your arguments to bear any weight, you need to show us some evidence. or at least the hint of a logical chain of events.

 

1. What caused the nova to come into existence

2. How does the observer come to realize that he (the observer) exists

3. What gives him the power to create things just by looking at them?

4. What happens to objects when the observer does not observe them?

 

#4 is really a classical philosophical question.

Utilizing a metaphor,

The best way I can describe it is having an infinite amount of letters with no contextual relationship to one another.

 

Only when the observer is present in a particular space-time can the letters be used to create vowels, consonants, words, sentences, etc.. We construct our particular spectrum-world from this infinity.

 

What exists without the observer point are just probabilities, no point has any contextual relationship with any other point.

 

No starting point to give anything, any kind of order of coordinates in space/time.

 

Without the observer starting point there is no initial context, therefore nothing in space and time can be divided from anything else in space or time.

 

There are no coordinates with which to start a hierarchal-contextual pattern that we experience as an observer point.