[Delete] @Baden

Okay, I'll include them. How could the universe exist without us or them (if they exist)?

You seem to be assuming that for something to exist it requires a perceiver, but what stimuli does the perceiver require in order to perceive existence of something?

Subjective idealism, which appears to be what you are proposing, is refutable on a number of levels. Personally, I prefer the evolutionary approach. If you accept that evolution is driven by adaptation to environment, then you must accept that the environment exists independently of the being that evolves. The fact that some beings have evolved to name elements of their environment doesn't mean that they have conjured these elements into existence, but only that they have conceptualised them. When we speak of the 'the universe' we speak of our concept of an independently existing phenomenon. If the concept disappears because there are no beings around to conceptualise it, it doesn't follow the phenomenon ceases to exist also.

You seem to be assuming that for something to exist it requires a perceiver — jastopher

How?

Subjective idealism, which appears to be what you are proposing, is refutable on a number of levels. — jastopher

I did not intend to propose subjective idealism. I am not sure if my position does imply subjective idealism.

When we speak of the 'the universe' we speak of our concept of an independently existing phenomenon. If the concept disappears because there are no beings around to conceptualise it, it doesn't follow the phenomenon ceases to exist also. — jastopher

If there were no intelligent beings, then the very concept of a phenomenon would not exist. There would be no such thing as phenomenon.

The phenomenal world suggests a material world but that world is for us, and while it cannot be known as it is, it certainly is, with or without us.

Without us, or anything like us, there would be nobody to observe and understand the universe. Worse yet, there couldn't even be a universe in the first place because the concept of a universe is a human invention. — Purple Pond

You're equivocating with the word "universe" there, dude.

Without us, or anything like us, there would be nobody to observe and understand the universe. — Purple Pond

Welcome Mr.Berkeley; didn't you die for a long time ago, around 18th century? :sweat:

Without us, or anything like us, there would be nobody to observe and understand the universe. Worse yet, there couldn't even be a universe in the first place because the concept of a universe is a human invention.

Without us, nothing is describable because descriptions require a set of conventions called language and is invented by human society. If humans never existed, then everything would be completely indescribable. To call something a universe would be an act of description. So without us, there would be nothing that you can describe as a universe. — Purple Pond

You seem confused. Are you saying that what we call the "universe" simply would not exist if we were not here to call it that?

What we call the "universe" exists independent of our labeling of it. Does a cat know that it is a "cat"? If it doesn't, does that mean that it does not exist? Before humans came along and started labeling everything with symbols, did the universe not exist even though there were non-linguistic animals that could perceive their environment and react to it?

If there were no intelligent beings, then the very concept of a phenomenon would not exist. There would be no such thing as phenomenon. — Purple Pond

Doesn't follow. Right about the 'concept of phenomenon'. Wrong about 'phenomenon'. What would remain would be the material stimulus that gave rise to the concept in the first place.

Without us, or anything like us, there would be nobody to observe and understand the universe. Worse yet, there couldn't even be a universe in the first place because the concept of a universe is a human invention.

Without us, nothing is describable because descriptions require a set of conventions called language and is invented by human society. If humans never existed, then everything would be completely indescribable. To call something a universe would be an act of description. So without us, there would be nothing that you can describe as a universe. — Purple Pond

For me, what you are describing is the essence of Taoism.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin of all particular things.

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao. All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Easily. Humanity is a random (and unfortunate) occurrence unlikely to be repeated.

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao. All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being. — T Clark

I’m presuming something was lost in translations with this last sentence. Take the relatively well known Buddhist concept of Nirvana. It is not made up of things—be these physical, mental, or any other category. Yet, in English parlance, it is not non-being but the very opposite: it is the essence of being, what the no-self doctrine is in large part about, tmk. I so far maintain that the same applies to what this last sentence of Taoism is addressing: birth of what holds presence/being despite not being anything phenomenal and in any way separated, for lack of better terms (what we normally associate with "being"). Don’t know if this is worthy of a debate, but I wanted to mention this perspective.

In agreement, though ... given such (re)interpretation.

I’m presuming something was lost in translations with this last sentence. — javra

Of course, it's hard to talk about the Tao. Impossible. That's the whole point. The Tao is what's there without human interpretation, cognition, language, attention, awareness. What was there before there was life and consciousness. The Tao does not exist. Existence, being, begins when we, conscious beings, break the world up into the 10,000 things, i.e. the world as we know it.

I’m presuming something was lost in translations with this last sentence. — javra

Daoist scholar to the rescue! (sorry, it's saturday)

Here you go, three translations side by side of ch. 1 of the "Daodejing":
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing01.php

The Tao does not exist. — T Clark

and:

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao. All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being. — T Clark

To me the Taoist quote implies that the Tao is that which returns us the the last mentioned "non-being", such that the Tao which is mentioned, or named, exists as this process. The nameless Tao is then the "non-being" to which the Tao we address brings things closer to. So the Tao does exist in this view (though not in the "stands-out" semantics of "exists"; and again, "non-being" to me here seems mistranslated, such that it is not in fact nothingness, though being no thing).

But I can agree to disagree.

Thank you. A very nice reading.

Of course, it's hard to talk about the Tao. Impossible. That's the whole point. — T Clark

... And yet the Daozang (=daoist canon) consists of +/- 1400 texts... The same holds for the "Daodejing" itself; chapter 1 speaks of the ineffable nature of the topic, and it's then followed by 80 more chapters. :grin:

... And yet the Daozang (=daoist canon) consists of +/- 1400 texts... The same holds for the "Daodejing" itself; chapter 1 speaks of the ineffable nature of the topic, and it's then followed by 80 more chapters. — Ying

Do you imagine Lao Tzu and his buddies were unaware of that? It's one of things I like best about Taoism, it's funny and it knows it's funny. Speaking about the unspeakable. LOL.

It's a non-problem.

Until some point after the big bang, from which all things follow, there were no beings anywhere (leaving out God here, the Logos, "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God...") YET, here we are. That the universe could exist for a long time with no beings of any kind, and progress on to a universe where there are probably many observers and describers, should settle the matter of whether the universe can get along with out us.

In a word, "Yes! Quite well, thank you."

Now, if you want to throw in God, Logos, or whatever deity (deities) you want, then there was an observer (were observers) before the universe was created.

the Logos, "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God..." — Bitter Crank

I don't recall Heraclitus ever mentioning that. Oh well. As you say ...

Reminds me of a story. I was at a dinner sitting next to a very nice 17 yo woman. Across from me was another young man, probably early 30s. On my other side was my 27 yo son. The woman, who is Jewish, was describing a visit she had made with a friend to a Catholic church. When time came for communion, not knowing better, she went up and got a wafer, didn't like it, and spit it out. She told the story as if it were amusing, which it was, but I felt I should tell her the significance of the Eucharist. I told her that Catholics consider the wine and wafer as the blood and body of Christ. Not a symbol, not a representation, but the actual blood and body. She didn't believe me. She and the other two kept trying to tell me that it was a symbol. I kept telling them that, to Catholics, it isn't. They never accepted what I was telling them.

So, if you want to think:

the Taoist quote implies that the Tao is that which returns us the the last mentioned "non-being", such that the Tao which is mentioned, or named, exists as this process. — javra

That's fine. It wouldn't be in the spirit of the Tao for me to try to talk you out of it.

So as a self acknowledged Taoist of the form you’ve just prescribed, all reasoning is an illusion to you (see the link Ying posted: it's made up of words). I think I get it now.

Not to repeat myself too often, but: As you say …

So as a self acknowledged Taoist of the form you’ve just prescribed, all reasoning is an illusion to you (see the link Ying posted: it's made up of words). I think I get it now.

Not to repeat myself too often, but: As you say … — javra

I'm not a Taoist in any sense. I admire the way of understanding described by Lao Tzu. I've found it very helpful in my life.

As for the rest, I don't understand what you were trying to say.

as it happens, I wasn't thinking of Heraclitus. It's the opening verse of St. John's Gospel.

I would like to agree, but a lot hinges on the meaning of ‘to exist’. As far as science is concerned, ‘the universe’ preexisted H. Sapiens by billions of years. The universe goes on its merry way whether we exist or not. But the OP nevertheless makes a valid point, because ultimately, we are nothing other than the universe knowing itself. As Neils Bohr said, ‘a phycisist is just an atom’s way of looking at itself’, only half-jokingly. What can be said to exist, with no proportion, no location, no duration? And those are all attributes which are inextricably bound to a perspective. Ergo, without perspective, what can be said to exist? So, I am inclined to agree with the OP, but I also understand that realism is so deeply bred into us that for most it will be impossible to see this point. This is because we’re inclined to imagine that the nature of the Universe is precisely ‘what exists when nobody is around to see it’. But that is also an imaginative construction - what Indian philosophy would designate a vikalpa, or Schopenhauer as ‘representation’. Seeing past or through that takes more than an argument, it takes a gestalt shift.

That the universe could exist for a long time with no beings of any kind, and progress on to a universe where there are probably many observers and describers, should settle the matter of whether the universe can get along with out us. — Bitter Crank

Does the Universe exist if we’re not looking?

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well.

You are absolutely right in your quoting, "Eminent physicist John Wheeler". That said, I have no idea whatsoever how human consciousness shapes not only the present, but the past as well. Because, As some body said, "Not only is quantum mechanics hard to imagine, it's harder than we can imagine." Something to that effect. "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman

I read of Peter Berger’s ‘Social Construction of Reality’ about thirty years ago but only started to understand it years later. It doesn’t contradict science, but it’s a challenge to the mindset of scientific realism.

The universe revolves around me, so should I not exist, it'd stop revolving. Yes, a revolving universe. That's what I said.

The universe revolves around me, so should I not exist, it'd stop revolving. Yes, a revolving universe. That's what I said. — Hanover

:grin: