Reality is a problematic word, as it is rather elastic and can (not must) be empty or honorific at best.

If you have in mind the world we know and love, it must need an observer with - at least - sentience. If you're talking about atoms and the stuff of physics, maybe not. Then again phrases like "all there is once we are gone is atoms and energy" and all that strange quantum stuff are hard to make sense of absent people.

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

The old well-worn "view from nowhere", eh? It's still a view though, no? It just means not privileging any particular perspective. It just isn't true that "Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away." The cosmic microwave background is temporally prior to the present state of the cosmos from any possible point of view; you don't have to be located anywhere in particular in time for that to be the case.

Proxima Centauri is closer to Earth than it is to Deneb, no matter what your position in the Universe, so what you claim is simply not correct.

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

They certainly do, you're making yourself perfectly clear. You were arguing for the inherent reality of things, independently of any observer. I pointed out that this is just what was called into question by Kant, and you dismiss Kant. I have no wish to take issue with that.

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

I would have thought the aspiration to see things as they truly are is important.

It'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 philosophers, about what they and I understand to be a central problem of philosophy. But, anyway, I'll throw you another well-worn essay that makes a similar point, about whether the universe exists if we're not looking, and one that even makes explicit reference to distant stellar objects.

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

I think it's a pretty good article and it summarizes the issues well. Pretty sure I said that last time. I have followed up by looking at some work by Evan Thompson. It's a very interesting issue to explore.

He’s the son of a writer called William Irwin Thompson, who’s a kind of ‘counter-cultural intellectual’. I had a fascinating book by him in the early 80’s called The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light, although sadly my copy is now lost. He’s still active. He helped found the Lindisfarne Association which was kind of a hippie think-tank. His son Evan Thompson became well-known through the book, The Embodied Mind, which was arguably the founding text of enactivism. A second edition came out in I think 2015 with an updated forward by him. Also his books, Mind in Life, and Waking, Dreaming, Being, are two that I have to read.

Interesting - I've read Evan as a counterpart to Michel Bitbol. If I had time I might read more in this area. Phenomenology too, only I fear a slide into solipsism. My temperament is suspicious(?) of this material, fascinating as it is, but I generally try to understand that which I intuitively avoid. Navigating the role of 'lived experience' - for want of a better term - seems awfully nebulous and risk prone.

It's doing it rigorously, that's challenging, but I think that was the original intent of philosophy.

I think that was the original intent of philosophy — Wayfarer

I understand. I'm certainly not up to that original intent. I have an interest, but it is not a passion.

To be honest, same here, but I think just the ability to recognise that is worth something.

Let's keep it simple. I suppose the issue is idealism, not sure. If it is, great! If not, too bad.

Esse est percipi — George Berkeley

Translartion: To exist is to be perceived.

What about when it all began? Imagine nothing and then, through perception (observation), the universe and all in it came to be. Who did/is doing/will do the perceiving? Suppose X is the perceives the universe. Thus, the universe exists because X perceives it.

What about X itself?

1. X exists (we know that because the universe exists). How did X come to exist? Suppose there's a Y that perceives X. Then, how did Y come to exist? A Z perceives Y, and so on ad nauseum. Infinite regress.

2. X perceives itself. That's how X exists. However, X must fist exist to perceive itself but to perceive itself it must first exist. Infinite loop.

3. X exists because Y perceives X and Y exists because X perceives Y. A loop of causation. However, X exists because Y perceives it implies Y came first. If so, how did Y come into existence (see 1 and 2). If, on the other hand, Y exists because X perceives it, the same problem arises.

Something doesn't add up! I can't quite put my finger on it though.

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.

If perception itself is existence, then it doesn't need the conditions for existing. — Corvus

I find that hard to make sense of.

I find that hard to make sense of. — TheMadFool

I find impossible to make sense of how it could be hard to make sense of. Perception itself is existence, then why does it need another existence to exist or perceived.

What about X itself? — TheMadFool

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.

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.

I would have thought the aspiration to see things as they truly are is important. — Wayfarer

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.

Don't forget that in Berkeley's metaphysicsesse est percipi does not apply to perceiving beings. For Berkeley, as perceiving beings, we do not require to be perceived to exist. We may not even need to perceive to exist, but that depends on what one includes under the banner of perception.

Perception itself is existence — Corvus

Category error? Perception is something done by that which exists. It's like saying rotation itself is earth. Try again.

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

God exists = (Ex)(Gx)

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

Excellent observation!

For Berkeley, as perceiving beings, we do not require to be perceived to exist — jkg20

This may appear to have solved the problem but it actually doesn't. If the observer can exist without being perceived, why does reality need to be observed to exist? It never pays to use double standards.

Category error? Perception is something done by that which exists. It's like saying rotation itself is earth. Try again — TheMadFool

It is not category error at all. Both are abstract concepts. If you think existence in this case is some physical entity, that would be a logical hallucination.

I'm certainly not saying that everything Berkeley said is true, but in order to attack his position, you need to attack his position, not a misrepresentation of it.

If the observer can exist without being perceived, why does reality need to be observed to exist?

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.

Addendum.
I could perhaps also point out that for Berkeley, minds/souls are substances, and the conception of a substance he had, and shared with his contemporaries, was that substance is simple and incorruptible and cannot be created or destroyed. It is the very nature of substance that it exist, so no questions about its dependence on anything else make sense. So your question to Berkeley may be more along the lines of "Why is there substance?", or "Why are there substances?", but that looks a little like "Why is there something rather than nothing?", which is an entirely different matter than addressing questions about dependencies between tiers of existence.

Perception is a precondition of existence. You don't need my perceiving you to be able to exist. You exist on your own self, because you just do. Same with existence. Existence is a precondition of perception. How can the two entities be preconditions for the other? Because they are not two. They are one. The precondition does not need the other action to happen, or the other entity to exist, because it is already there as one.

If the universe is a life form, it might work so differently that it might indeed have problems perceiving you as a life form.

Reality is entirely the observer's concept thus without the observer, there is no reality. As simple as that.

Reality is entirely the observer's concept thus without the observer, there is no reality. As simple as that. — RAW

That is part of the truth, but not the full picture, for there are different "realities" which attend an "observation", one which is utterly independent of the observation and one which is the product of the observation.

Does reality require an observer? If by "reality", you mean "objective reality", then I say no, for whenever there is an observation, there is created a subjective reality which is dependent upon both the objective reality and upon the faults in perception attending the observation. In fact an observer, because of the limitations of it's sensory perception, cannot actually discern objective reality, but is the perciever of a corrupted reality. An observer merely interprets objective reality by means of it's sensory organs. The result of this is inevitably the illusion which we may call "subjective reality", but this is often quite divergent from the (objective) reality itself, as the discoveries and theorizations of scientists have demonstrated. These two realities are intimately and causally related, but they can differ significantly. The difference between them is a result of a deficit of perception on the part of an observer. This deficit of perception means is the means by which the observer creates subjective reality. So, while "subjective reality" is dependent upon an observer, is indeed the product of the observer, "objective reality" remains utterly independent of the observer. Said subjective reality is the universe, which is to say the "world", as we know it, and the experience thereof had been very useful to us as a species, to say the least. All of human experience and endeavor is based upon this subjective reality. Because it is dependent upon objective reality, it cannot but be said to be a type or form of "reality". Even so, an observer can but be said to be the perverter of objective reality through the creation of it's subjective mirror.

All meaning whatsoever requires conscious observation/experience, thus without, there is no question and no answers, no apparent reality.

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

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:

God in the Quad

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Note : Here in our poem a quad is essentially the courtyard of a campus, or a quadrangle thereof.

Reality doesn't need an observer at all. Since Bohr and consorts made this statement in the realm of quantum mechanics, the statement got a firm grip. Giving rise to weird experiments like putting a cat mentally in a cave and killing it with poison. It gave rise to weird concepts like a many worlds interpretation. Why should reality need an observer? Of course in perceiving reality we project our interpretation on it and the interpretation eco.es the reality. Colored objects indeed need an observer to exist. Gods need our concept of them to exist. Atoms our quantum mechanical picture of them. Without an observer, there is no reality. So, in a sense reality needs observers. But not to be created by us. God's would be mad if they knew we think we created them. Atoms likewise. Though they are usually quite serene and forgiving...

All meaning requires an observer, a conscious subject.

Reality doesn't need an observer at all. — LaRochelle

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?"

Unfortunately for your dependence on sensory feedback, some philosophers have imagined a "demon" who could cause you to "see" an illusion. Or, as Berkeley postulated, God is always observing, and sustaining H/er creation, even when no human is watching. That possibility supports the notion that physical Reality is actually a metaphysical Idea in the Mind of God. :smile:


Observation :
1. the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.
2. a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. 'Mind' is reality-dependent and therefore not the other way around.