I'm a big fan of Ligotti ... but what's your point in mentioning him? — 180 Proof
Nonsense: "existence" is not a voluntary agent (re: category error). — 180 Proof
Instead of like other animals, driven by the bliss of instinct sprinkled with some deliberation, experiencing in the moment, we are burdened with our own storm of deliberative thoughts. To form goals and habits and to choose to do so. We have gone beyond what is harmonious and we must always trick ourselves which is why things like values, and self-restraint and shame are what keep us from a kind of freedom that leads to hopeless madness. — schopenhauer1
Of course atheism will merely categorise that as 'religion' and reject it, and then carry on whining about suffering. :naughty: But that is the zeitgeist, isn't it? — Wayfarer
That is also my commonsense assumption, for all practical purposes. But, for philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between empirical Real world, and theoretical Ideal world. Even normally pragmatic scientists will imagine non-real scenarios as they try to make sense of the world-system as a whole. For example, since the semi-empirical Big Bang theory sounds like a taboo creation event, they may logically speculate about "what came before the Bang?" Some will dismiss it as a non-sense question, and dogmatically insist that this space-time world is one & done : no before or after. But others*1 seem to accept, as a matter of Faith/Fact, that an unverifiable/unfalsifiable Multiverse is the best answer. Presumably, in an infinity of worlds, random Good & Evil coin-flips will balance out. Some of us were just unlucky to be born into an out-of-whack alternate reality. Hence, the OP question for those of us in the contemporary world.Notice the implicit assumption in the statement that the physical world is 'the real world'. — Wayfarer
Without repeating all the detail, the salient point is the emphasis on a kind of constructivist idealism - that what we perceive as the objective, mind-independent universe is inextricably intertwined with our looking at it - hence the title of the article. — Wayfarer
As an 80kg organism, Linde's biology draws that line down at the quasiclassical nanoscale boundary of chemistry where an enzyme is gluing or cutting some gene-informed sequence of amino acids. That is ground zero for life as a system that exists by modelling its world so as to regulate its entropic flows. — apokrisis
without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead. — aready cited
That all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things we intuit are not in themselves as we intuit them, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves, would vanish — this is quite certain.(A42/B59)
The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of the experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the view that the universe exists "out there" independent of all acts of observation. In contrast, Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word "phenomenon". In today's words, Bohr's point - and the central point of quantum theory - can be put into a simple sentence: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon". — Law without Law
But, for philosophical purposes, I make a distinction between empirical Real world, and theoretical Ideal world. — Gnomon
Am I an idiot to entertain the optimistic notion that there's more to Reality than "first you suffer, and then you die"? — Gnomon
some very smart scientists accept the bizarre notion of an infinite chain of real-but-non-empirical realities, — Gnomon
This is not woo-woo - it is also consonant with the realisation of cognitive science that the world as we experience it is a product of the constructive activites on the brain - as you yourself well know — Wayfarer
There are plenty other than me that call that into question — Wayfarer
I’m sorry but which of these interpretations say that human minds are what cause the Universe to be? — apokrisis
which I think is a more modest claim. Recall Heisenberg's aphorism, 'What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning'. Whereas the realist view that it is challenging is just that the domain of inquiry possesses a completely mind-independent reality. Again this is a philosophical observation, not a scientific hypothesis.the participation of observers is integral to the fabric of existence. — Wayfarer
are integral to the fabric of existence — Wayfarer
There's no reason to think we need anything more than particles, in definite locations at any time, behaving randomly to explain quantum mechanics. — Apustimelogist
Off-topic :I’m sorry but which of these interpretations say that human minds are what cause the Universe to be? — apokrisis
Some points from the ChatGPT outline: — Wayfarer
are integral to the fabric of existence
— Wayfarer
So these are your words. They imply no observers means no fabric, no world. — apokrisis
The universe as it is outside the scope of any observer is an austere and inhospitable place. In a world in which so much of reality is actually constructed by observers, the laws of physics take on a new form. The new aspect of fundamental physics has been brilliantly captured by a new theory called quantum Bayesianism. According to this new way of thinking about material phenomena, what traditional physicists got wrong was the naïve belief that there is a fixed, true external reality that we perceive correctly, as it really is. What the scientist actually perceives is the reality depicted in our human model of the world.
By assumption, the universe outside the purview of any living observer is not divided into separate objects. Moreover, rigid bodies have no shape or structure, because those things are created by observers. This universe has no inherent description: It simply is. Atom-for-atom it is exactly the universe we know. However, without living observers to give it form and structure, it is radically diminished compared to the reality we perceive. Its physics is not at all like the science we know. What, then, can we say about it? Surprisingly, we can say a great deal. The remarkable answer comes from the latest research in neuroscience, which aims to elaborate a theory called predictive processing. The underlying idea is a very simple one:
In order for animals to survive, they must find optimal ways of using the resources available in their environment. They learn by trying every path open to them: Along some paths they make progress, while along other paths they are turned back because they run into obstacles. Gradually, natural forces oblige them to distinguish what’s possible from what’s not. It is through the medium of these hurdles—these natural constraints—that organisms gradually learn the structure of their environments. The impediments which the natural world imposes on their efforts progressively shape their understanding of the world. In fact, that’s what the real world is: It is the set of all the restraints and obstacles imposed on living beings striving to achieve their goals. For the scientist, the universe consists of matter and incandescent plasma. These, however, are images invented by the human mind. Behind these images, and evoking them, are the constraints of nature that channel the scientist’s thinking and determine the outcomes of experiments. In fact, what we regard as the physical world is “physical” to us precisely in the sense that it acts in opposition to our will and constrains our actions. — Mind and the Cosmic Order
Rather it is built up or constructed out of the synthesis of (1) external stimuli with (2) the brain's constructive faculties which weave it together into a meaningful whole (per Kant). — Wayfarer
The presumption of the mind-independence of reality is an axiom of scientific method, intended to enable the greatest degree of objectivity and the elimination of subjective opinions and idiosyncracies. — Wayfarer
Whenever we point to the universe 'before h.sapiens existed' we overlook the fact that while this is an empirical fact, it is also a scientific hypothesis, and in that sense a product of the mind. Only within ourselves, so far as we know, can that understanding exist. — Wayfarer
Objects in the unobserved universe have no shape, color or individual appearance, because shape and appearance are created by minds. — Wayfarer
So what I'm arguing is that the fabric of the Universe has an inextricably subjective pole or aspect upon which judgements about the nature of reality are dependent. — Wayfarer
Will we get to the stronger idealist interpretation shortly? — apokrisis
This implies that our subjectivity is necessary to the objective being of the cosmos. The ontic claim. — apokrisis
it all turns out to be making the epistemological points I already agree with — apokrisis
science must be right not to just take that humancentric view. — apokrisis
(you're) not making a connection to an ontic strength version of the contention that "consciousness caused its own universe to exist/the quantum measurement issue is the proof". — apokrisis
I don’t see how this works for quantum field theory. — apokrisis
but quantum properties like contextuality, entanglement, non-locality — apokrisis
Epistemic idealism is sufficient in my view. — Wayfarer
I'm not agreeing that 'the world would still exist in the absence of the observer' - what is, in the absence of any mind, is by definition unknowable and meaningless, neither existent nor non-existent. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.