there must be a cold dead universe — Benj96
Is the rest of the universe simultaneously observing us just as we observe it? — Benj96
Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book called, 'The Sense of Being Stared At', which looks at the role which observation has on the observer. — Jack Cummins
But if we go by evidence, life wasn’t always around — Benj96
A "cold UNDEAD universe" is more like it. Nature is a zombie and h. sapiens is the kind of zombie inhabitant which deludes itself that it is fundamentally not a zombie, or almost always "self-conscious, intentional". More prosaically, and taking the Mediocrity Principle much further than we'd like, h. sapiens is (one of countless?) confabulating maggot-species inhabiting an astronomically huge cadaver we call "universe" that is still in its throes of decomposing and cooling down. We are merely perspectival "observers" in so far as we are wholly immanent aspects, even an inestimable aggregate of micro-agents, of cosmological decay (i.e. increasing entropy). This maggotry is, perhaps, our function and our metacognitive greatness, and so, at least to an absurdist like me, pandeism (re: the cosmological decay of a cold "undead" universe) makes the most sense.It’s difficult to imagine anything in reality being significant or measurable without some aware entity to go “oooh!”. But if we go by evidence, life wasn’t always around and therefore there must be a cold dead universe that existed before it could be appreciated. — Benj96
Our bodies belong to (physical) reality. Our brain cannot observe. It can only handle signals --receive them, process them and transmit them. The "observer" is you, a spiritual being, an awareness (consciousness) unit, and therefore not part of reality. Observation requires attention and intention. The brain, which is indeed part of the physical world (universe) cannot do that.For example an observer is not external to reality. We are intrinsic to it. We are one facet of reality that happens to register itself. — Benj96
You are aware of the physical world, aren't you? And you are or can be aware that you are or can be aware. Isn't that so? If yes, how can awareness be illusory and not existing? It is you, yourself. And if you think you are an illusion, well, I hope not! :grin:This is also applicable if the concept of observer-ship or awareness is either illusory and doesn’t really exist in any distinct sense from the rest of the interacting physical world or if awareness is fundamental to reality and physics. — Benj96
I am not sure what you mean by "the state of being observed". Me observing and me being observed? And being observed by the physical universe? How can that be? I don't undestand this.is there any objective discernible difference between the state of observing and the state of being observed. Are they entirely interchangeable. Is the rest of the universe simultaneously observing us just as we observe it? — Benj96
Does reality require an observer? If by observer we mean a human being, — Samuel Lacrampe
I am not sure what you mean by "the state of being observed". Me observing and me being observed? And being observed by the physical universe? How can that be? I don't undestand this.
Also, I don't see how this is related to the question of your topic, namely, "Does reality require an observer?". Maybe I miss something. If you could explain it to me, esp. with an example, I could maybe be able to answer this question. — Alkis Piskas
Being dead has a notion of pure passivity. This seems fitting for an "observer". As for most of the universe. — Heiko
To truly imagine a universe with no observer, then you must imagine it from no point of view. Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away. Of course, if you realise what that means, then you will realise its impossibility. — Wayfarer
A star is not considered alive but it certainly has an active role in sustaining it. — Benj96
In your view, what is the lowest form of being that is conscious? Is a rock conscious? If not, then the point remains: science says that rocks are older than any living being.[...] And perhaps to a lesser extent lower life forms - worms bacteria etc. — Benj96
To truly imagine a universe with no observer, then you must imagine it from no point of view. — Wayfarer
To others I am a part of their objective observable universe just as a chair or the sky is. I am outside of them. They cannot prove that I’m aware and alive like they feel themselves to be, I could be a hologram or robot for all they really know, we only adapt this trust based on our similarities and capacity to project feeling ie. empathise as well as the culture of classification that we built society on. — Benj96
The Dark Forest Theory and Paradox. — javi2541997
It seems like you could about build a philosophy on this alone. Interesting you said any and not all. Seeing something two or more ways at once wouldn't be a normal or obtainable way to see things. Could you take it a step further and say see what doesn't change between any perspectives. Or might that be too narrow?An alternative would be to consider the universe from any point of view. That is, to consider the world in a way such that the particular perspective becomes irrelevant. — Banno
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.