From our perspective.
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.
That is exactly what we bring to the picture - a perspective, and perspective itself is fundamental. — Wayfarer
If I take your argumentative pattern and applied it, you would have a hard time convincing yourself of your own arguments as these words I type do not mean anything. — Heiko
It's fine to be in opposition to some perceived standard, but usually it implies another one. Which is what I'm interested in; they're wrong, no problem, what is right? — Cheshire
t's interesting that I've linked to that article in Aeon magazine a number of times since it was published in 2019, yet it never attracts anything more than dismissal - actually, the first time I linked it, it drew down a fair number of insults - even though it's by three quite well-regarded contemporary — Wayfarer
Esse est percipi — George Berkeley
Something doesn't add up! I can't quite put my finger on it though. — TheMadFool
If perception itself is existence, then it doesn't need the conditions for existing. — Corvus
I find that hard to make sense of. — TheMadFool
What about X itself? — TheMadFool
I would settle for a way to see them incrementally better over time. Knowing that what your seeing is true in an absolute sense might not be possible, but it doesn't prevent you from in fact seeing it. It is an understanding that acknowledges access to truth while accounting for unknown errors.I would have thought the aspiration to see things as they truly are is important. — Wayfarer
Perception itself is existence — Corvus
In logic, the sentence "x exists" is ill-formed as the existential quantifier is missing qualification. x is defined by predication. If there is a term like "green(House)" this means being green (likely among others) defines/identifies the house. As far as such primarily sensual constructs go it might seem justified to eliminate the object altogether. However speaking of "senses" or preception can be suspected of being a reification: It makes no sense to say one could see if all one can see is "nothing" (sense without object): Just as "x exists" is ill-formed, so is the term "green" if it does not predicate something.
As far as logical judgement goes a green world cannot as well be blue as being green defines it's identity. It cannot even turn blue as then it would be something completely different. — Heiko
Doesn't the fact of an observer presuppose reality? If so, then the OP doesn't make sense. If not, then the observer is imaginary, which doesn't make sense either in this context. — 180 Proof
For Berkeley, as perceiving beings, we do not require to be perceived to exist — jkg20
Category error? Perception is something done by that which exists. It's like saying rotation itself is earth. Try again — TheMadFool
Again, not all of reality does need to be observed to exist for Berkeley, minds and souls are real for Berkeley, and so part of reality. Berkeley has a two tier ontology: minds/souls and, in awful modern parlance, the contents of mental states. In fact, God has a special role for Berkeley, so perhaps it is a three tiered ontology. The dependence of mental contents on minds/souls is what he spends a good deal of time trying to prove, so if your question is "why do the contents of mental states need to be observed to exist, given that minds and souls do not?", then Berkeley has a range of arguments in response, some better than others. Berkeley assumes that everyone is prepared to accept as a minimum the differentiable existence of minds and their contents, and he attempts to argue that the latter's existence is dependent on the former's.If the observer can exist without being perceived, why does reality need to be observed to exist?
Reality is entirely the observer's concept thus without the observer, there is no reality. As simple as that. — RAW
That's why Bishop Berkeley argued for an outside Observer, who is always watching what goes on in the world. Of course, his "Observer" was not visiting aliens, but the God of Genesis. :smile: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
Actually, as you indicated later, "reality" is an observation. It's an inference from a variety of independent observations, that there is some objective & stable something (ding an sich) which exists even when the subjective observer is not observing. For a weak example, you can close your eyes, and still confirm that a tree is still there by touching it --- or by asking another person to confirm your observation. If you don't believe your own senses, you can always ask someone else : "Is it really there?"Reality doesn't need an observer at all. — LaRochelle
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.