Where does reality reside ?

[Thunderbird]

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 :(

 

-modest

Read my post above. This should provide a simple solution.

[Tormod]

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.

 

Clutching at straws. You have claimed that only what is observed, exist. Nowhere in your line of argument is there anything that *supports* that claim, you just argue back with "that's because *you* see it" or "that's because science *is* observation".

 

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

 

But here you go on to claim that existence is based on a contextual relationship. So something has to have context to exist, and that context can only be given *by an observer*.

 

I still fail to see how that is different from what I've asked you a couple of times now. Where does the *observer* come into the context?

 

Ontology may be a fun experiment but I had expected more of you than to take a holier-than-thou attitude and flatly refuse to discuss it.

 

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

 

Based on what theory is a starting point a requirement for existence?

 

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.

 

Yet the universe managed to exist without human beings observing it. It was of course not called "the universe". And to be fair, we don't even know *what* the universe is. So can we even claim that we have given it any other context than to say "we are here, so the universe must exist"?

 

That is called the antropic cosmological principle and is as useless as argueing that observation creates existence.

 

Observation creates context in our minds. It does not create the physical world.

[Thunderbird]

Clutching at straws. You have claimed that only what is observed, exist. Nowhere in your line of argument is there anything that *supports* that claim, you just argue back with "that's because *you* see it" or "that's because science *is* observation".

A reality is only a particular point in time in space. Your reality is not mine only because you exsist is in another point in time and space and have traveled another path in time in space.

 

 

But here you go on to claim that existence is based on a contextual relationship. So something has to have context to exist, and that context can only be given *by an observer*.

yea only from a point in space time, rather than all points in space time, the latter gives you infinity.

 

 

I still fail to see how that is different from what I've asked you a couple of times now. Where does the *observer* come into the context?

an initial point in time in space.

Ontology may be a fun experiment but I had expected more of you than to take a holier-than-thou attitude and flatly refuse to discuss it.

I'm sorry Tormod, I'm doing the best I can.

 

 

Based on what theory is a starting point a requirement for existence?

Relativity theory?

 

 

Yet the universe managed to exist without human beings observing it. It was of course not called "the universe". And to be fair, we don't even know *what* the universe is. So can we even claim that we have given it any other context than to say "we are here, so the universe must exist"?

But mine is obviously not the same as yours, we have different points of view.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread reminds me why I find so much of philosophy so very annoying. :(

[Thunderbird]

This thread reminds me why I find so much of philosophy so very annoying. :(

 

Is there some aspect of the discussion that you need clarified. My last few post were not really philosophical but more mathematical.

 

InfiniteNow... interesting concept.

[Moontanman]

A reality is only a particular point in time in space. Your reality is not mine only because you exsist is in another point in time and space and have traveled another path in time in space.

 

 

yea only from a point in space time, rather than all points in space time, the latter gives you infinity.

 

 

an initial point in time in space.

I'm sorry Tormod, I'm doing the best I can.

 

 

Relativity theory?

 

 

 

But mine is obviously not the same as yours, we have different points of view.

 

Two different points of view do not in any way influence the object being viewed. Only in the mind of observer is there any difference. I do not believe, and I see absolutely no data to influence my belief, the observer has any influence on reality anywhere but in his mind. That is why different people can have vastly different views of the same universe and still be wrong.

[Moontanman]

A reality is only a particular point in time in space. Your reality is not mine only because you exsist is in another point in time and space and have traveled another path in time in space.

 

 

yea only from a point in space time, rather than all points in space time, the latter gives you infinity.

 

 

an initial point in time in space.

I'm sorry Tormod, I'm doing the best I can.

 

 

Relativity theory?

 

 

 

But mine is obviously not the same as yours, we have different points of view.

 

Your take on this sounds a lot like the people who believe that wanting something bad enough will make it real.

[Thunderbird]

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.

If every point in the universe has no value over any other point then the sum of the qualities in the Universe has a 'null' value.

From this omnipresent view, all points at all times equals infinity. Nothing exists , no size, no relative locations .

 

It is only from a particular starting point x,of the observer perspective can we give the universe its existences as dimension in space time, and objects that relate to one to another. If you have no specific point in which to start then you have infinity. In this context, or more precisely lack of context, the quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values of the universe truly vanish to ZERO .

[freeztar]

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.

 

I think the problem you are having TBird is in your roundabout approach. I think Modest did a good job of pointing this out in this post.

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/14787-where-does-reality-reside-7.html#post217708

 

I think people are taking the main argument too literally. It's not that reality does not exist without an observer, it's that there is no way to prove that it does. It is a simple paradox. By introducing an observer to verify that reality exists, we ruin the experiment.

[Thunderbird]

I think the problem you are having TBird is in your roundabout approach. I think Modest did a good job of pointing this out in this post.

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/14787-where-does-reality-reside-7.html#post217708

 

I think people are taking the main argument too literally. It's not that reality does not exist without an observer, it's that there is no way to prove that it does. It is a simple paradox. By introducing an observer to verify that reality exists, we ruin the experiment.

 

Since you and I agreed on this from a ontological view, I have now moved on,.....I thought you would have noticed, in the my last few post, to the logical view. I am now on to the literal view, and then we will progress further, hopefully, to yet another philosophical perspective, given of coarse that I can convince someone of the logical argument .

[REASON]

If every point in the universe has no value over any other point then the sum of the qualities in the Universe has a 'null' value.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. What type of value needs to be assigned to any particular point in the universe to allow it to have existence?

 

 

From this omnipresent view, all points at all times equals infinity. Nothing exists , no size, no relative locations.

 

Time is a function of distance and is relative to a point of view. Removing an observer does not change this fact about the universe. Our development as conscious beings has allowed us to become aware of this relativity. Remember, I'm referring to human consciousness, not individual consciousness.

 

Other than this, I'm not sure what you're getting at here either. I would like to understand though.

 

 

It is only from a particular starting point x, of the observer perspective can we give the universe its existences as dimension in space time, and objects that relate to one to another. If you have no specific point in which to start then you have infinity. In this context, or more precisely lack of context, the quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values of the universe truly vanish to ZERO .

 

But the universe has not organized itself around our perceived starting point. The material universe is not concerned with these contexts. It just is. As we have become more and more aware, we are better able to orient ourselves within it and establish these contextual relationships for ourselves.

 

Again, I feel like our points are like two cars passing on a rural two-laned highway at 65 mph. I would like to not only understand where you are coming from, but where you are going with this.

[freeztar]

Since you and I agreed on this from a ontological view, I have now moved on,.....I thought you would have noticed, in the my last few post, to the logical view. I am now on to the literal view, and then we will progress further, hopefully, to yet another philosophical perspective, given of coarse that I can convince someone of the logical argument .

 

Well, you're on your own then.

I don't see how the argument could be anything but ontological. :(

[Thunderbird]

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. What type of value needs to be assigned to any particular point in the universe to allow it to have existence?

An observer as a point in time in space gives a value to all other points in space and time. You have your first clear division from one point to any other, from here and now reality resides. From all time every were infinity resides.

 

 

 

 

Time is a function of distance and is relative to a point of view. Removing an observer does not change this fact about the universe.

This statement seems to contradict itself. Time is relative to the observers position in space time.

 

But the universe has not organized itself around our perceived starting point. The material universe is not concerned with these contexts. It just is. As we have become more and more aware, we are better able to orient ourselves within it and establish these contextual relationships for ourselves.

 

Again, I feel like our points are like two cars passing on a rural two-laned highway at 65 mph. I would like to not only understand where you are coming from, but where you are going with this.

 

Its very simple... an observer, a particular point in space in time. Represents a division in infinity. A coordinate. Otherwise you cannot assign a value to any point in space time.

[Thunderbird]

Sorry double post

[Thunderbird]

Well, you're on your own then.

I don't see how the argument could be anything but ontological. :(

Lets not get closed minded now.:mad:

[Thunderbird]

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:

 

 

 

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.

all things are connected only with an observer, this is not a change in my initial post.

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.

you have moved your veiw and our currently residing in a paradox. There is no paradox it is easily verified.

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

 

My intention is not to have people chase there own tails. I want people to understand this as simply a fact of reality.

 

Provable though logical thought.

[Moontanman]

all things are connected only with an observer, this is not a change in my initial post.

you have moved your veiw and our currently residing in a paradox. There is no paradox it is easily verified.

 

 

My intention is not to have people chase there own tails. I want people to understand this as simply a fact of reality.

 

Provable though logical thought.

 

So far you have failed to prove anything or even given the appearence of wanting to do anything but argue back and forth. And yes I do understand where you are coming from but lack of observing something doesn't make it any less real to anyone but you. Your whole premise is totally self centered and tied up in what you see but not what others may or may not see. If there was no life in the universe at all it would still be here. Radiactive decay would still go on. Planets would still move in their orbits and stars would still explode. You simply wouldn't be here to argue the point.