An observer is needed in order to make an observation.

Reality doesn't care if you are looking or not.

Doesn't the fact of an observer presuppose reality? — 180 Proof

Yes. And an observer/perceiver must be allowed to have presuppositions as well -- presuppositions which are apart from the object of perception.

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

Yes. Very cartesian.

The idea that nature is a zombie or "something scary/ugly" is just contrary to experience and what seems to be.

It's weird that what seems to be is classified as wishful thinking and "as things aren't," pragmatic.

One can be small without being absolutely doomed.

Yes. Very cartesian. — Caldwell

I think I think so.

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. So when the question is rehashed as “does reality require reality” the question becomes a bit pointless. — Benj96

Chardin, a Catholic priest said, God, is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.

An observer is needed in order to make an observation.

Reality doesn't care if you are looking or not. — Banno

We know then that reality is unimpacted by the observer. Do we know whether the observer is impacted by reality?

Are reality and observations parallel universes are is there some interactionism between the two?

Reality yes. Cause it presupposes already an observer. And everytime it's the different "reality" depending on whom that "observer" is. It's just "observer's reality".

On the contrary Existance no. It is independent. "Something" exists that's for sure. How exactly though, that existance is approachable and in what way the "observer" perceives it, that's reality. And it's subjective.

Do we know whether the observer is impacted by reality? — Hanover

Hmm. Could he not be? First comes "reality" and then follows the "observer". Reality gives birth to the observer.
I really can't see how the observer can escape from the impact of it.

Why universalize self-dependence...? :brow: Crazytalk.

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. — Isaac Asimov (1941, 1990)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Philip K Dick (1978)

:up:

Sure, you cannot will the movements of planets or galaxies, in that sense reality is certainly independent of us. There is "world-making", to use Goodman's idea, to consider however. What we consider galaxies and stars and planets do depend, in part, by how we categorize these things.

For instance, not until long ago was Pluto considered a planet, before it's downgrade. So there is also a sense in which the universe we experience is shaped by us, which shouldn't be overlooked completely.

In a pragmatic sense, 'reality' is what exists independent of anyone's knowledge or perception, the entire, vast, unperceived universe, the bulk of which we will forever be largely unaware. But critical philosophy, since Kant, also understands that whatever we consider reality to be, is inextricably bound to our own conceptual and perceptual apparatus: we don't see the world as it is in itself, but as it appears to us. This does not mean that the world is an hallucination or delusion as our cognitions are reliable and can be validated against experiment and the experience of others. But it does mean that we don't see the world 'as it truly is' other than in the pragmatic or instrumental sense.

A lot of arguments ensue from the fact that empirical philosophy proceeds as if there is no observer to be taken into account. Empiricism purportedly starts with the raw facts of experience as fundamental data, and assumes that objects of experience exist irrespective of the perspective that the observer brings to them. But this is just what is called into question with the 'observer problem' of modern physics.

I think the instinctive belief we have in the Universe that 'exists anyway' is the gist of scientific realism. Scientific realism presumes that the Universe we're aware of through sensory experience transcends our experience of it, as our experience is limited and the universe is vast. As Kant puts it:

I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sense-able forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves.

To this idealism is opposed transcendental realism, which regards space and time as something given in themselves (independent of our sensory abilities). The transcendental realist therefore represents outer appearances (if their reality is conceded) as things in themselves, which would exist independently of us and our sensibility and thus would also be outside us according to pure concepts of the understanding. — Kant, CPR, A369

I'm guessing most here would correspond to the second description.

What we consider galaxies and stars and planets do depend, in part, by how we categorize these things. — Manuel

I'd say our considerations do (obviously) depend on us, but that which gives rise to the considerations does not.

I'd say our considerations do (obviously) depend on us, but that which gives rise to the considerations does not. — Janus

Put in that way, it is true. The issue is articulating what is that "which gives rise to these considerations".

Sense data? I don't know.

Sense data? I don't know. — Manuel

Right, beyond our considerations we have no idea.

:up:

The idea that nature is a zombie or "something scary/ugly" is just contrary to experience and what seems to be — theRiddler

Are you referring to my "A cold Undead universe ..." post? If so, what's wrong with my speculative observation? It's not "contrary to experience and what seems to be" to me – or how nature is, in fact, treated by the 'technocapitalist pan-industrialization' of the Earth (and soon outer space, etc).

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. ~Isaac Asimov (1941, 1990)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~Philip K Dick (1978) — jorndoe

:fire:

Put in that way, it is true. The issue is articulating what is that "which gives rise to these considerations".

Sense data? I don't know. — Manuel

I guess, when you go chat with your neighbor, their reactions are to what you see in a mirror, something like that?
There are some ramblings in this old post.
Say, when something relevant/significant differentiates hallucinations and perception, then it's the perceived.
We learn of things extra-self (be they rocks or other people) by interaction, not by becoming them.
But of course you can't escape yourself, that's just nonsense, can't escape the means of learning about things and understanding them, while still wanting to do that — perception, consciousness, ... — those are inherently part of yourself when occurring, part of your (ontological) makeup.
Mere existence (be it of rocks or other people) is different from figuring out what it all is, which is both more involving and interesting.

A lot of arguments ensue from the fact that empirical philosophy proceeds as if there is no observer to be taken into account. — Wayfarer

Or any observer?
Quantum weirdness is more about any interaction than a conscious observer consciously observing.
At least in experiments, minimization of (uncontrolled) variables tends to be desirable.

Schrödinger’s Cat – Still Not Dead (Hossenfelder; Feb 27, 2021)

An observer is needed in order to make an observation.

Reality doesn't care if you are looking or not. — Banno

It sounds like you are treating reality as a conscious being.

@Benj96

Does reality require an observer? — Benj96

With respect to Kant's phenomena, yes but in re noumena, I don't know.

I'd say our considerations do (obviously) depend on us, but that which gives rise to the considerations does not.
— Janus

Put in that way, it is true. The issue is articulating what is that "which gives rise to these considerations". Sense data? I don't know. — Manuel

Whatever gives rise to our considerations, insofar as they belong to us, and given the inconsistency among us, must be as much ours as the considerations.

I don’t know either, but I would vote for imagination over sense data, for sensations provide merely that which is to be considered, and even that not necessarily, but say nothing at all about the methodology by which considerations themselves come about.

treating reality as a conscious being. — Corvus

Yeah......sorta like that thread asking, “how does a fact establish itself as knowledge”.

(Sigh)

:up:

Yep. We can't get out of our bodies to see how things might look like absent our specific perspective. There's always a pragmatic element to enquiry, otherwise we wouldn't bother.



True. That phrase was not accurate enough. It's quite a nuanced process because saying that that which gives rise to our considerations already makes the process seem more intellect or reason-involving than is meant.

I'd say that there is the given, which we then interpret according to our imagination, which we then call a specific so and so "a rock", "a blade of grass", "the sun".

The given is already shaped by us, but I want to say that there is an element there which doesn't depend on us. Otherwise it seems to me that we could will ourselves into thinking anything could be anything else just by thinking about, such as willing to change a cloud to a hill and so forth.

Does reality require an observer? — Benj96
With respect to Kant's phenomena, yes but in re noumena, I don't know. — TheMadFool

Well that's the thing. If we have to consult someone's philosophy to say what reality is then we are in trouble. Why wouldn't we all just know what it is if it is?

Perhaps reality either is, or is not, or even neither or both. If each of these is unsatisfactory to some people then we all must be wrong. There appears to be a plurality of possible answers that we can't funnel into to just one.

Perhaps reality is just a name, a placeholder, not for the world itself if there is such a thing, but for our intersection with our personal world or with one of the many social and scientific worlds. After all, famine wars epidemics death are surely real to other people if not us at the moment.

Chardin, a Catholic priest said, God, is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. — Athena

Here are some snippets I know of, going way back ...

God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man. — Ibn Arabi (1165-1240), scholar, mystic, poet, philosopher

The divine spirit slumbers in the stone, dreams in the animal, and is awake in man. — Schelling (1775-1854), Romanticist, idealist, philosopher

Live not the stars and mountains?
Are waves
Without a spirit?
Are the dropping caves
Without a feeling in their silent tears? — Byron (1788-1824), Romanticist, poet

Personification.

I'd say that there is the given.... — Manuel

Yep, seems right. That would fill the niche of that which doesn’t depend on us.

The given is already shaped by us.... — Manuel

I’m going to assume you mean the given is shaped by us, and not that the given is already shaped by us antecedent to its reception in us, as the transcendental realist would maintain.

Thing is, even if the given is already shaped by us, say, by imagination for some other internal use downstream, that in itself doesn’t say what the other use is, nor that such shaping is sufficient for specific so-and-so’s. Even while the grounds for them lay in imagination, the specifics cannot be so lawless. But you knew that.

Yeah......sorta like that thread asking, “how does a fact establish itself as knowledge”.

(Sigh) — Mww

I kind of can understand why Kant had to postulate Thing-in-Itself.

Thing is, even if the given is already shaped by us, say, by imagination for some other internal use downstream, that in itself doesn’t say what the other use is, nor that such shaping is sufficient for specific so-and-so’s. Even while the grounds for them lay in imagination, the specifics cannot be so lawless. But you knew that. — Mww

Whatever is given to creatures like us (which is very difficult to tease out), must be of a nature that it can partly be apprehended by us in perception.

So far as we are able to discern, the given for experience cannot be seen from a neutral perspective, that is, involving no perception at all.

So the given is of the kind which we already shape automatically, we can't help it. We assume that "downstream" something "stands in" for what we perceive, but that's a logical postulate, not an empirically verifiable claim.

I have to leave room for that aspect of giveness that one must assume exists independent of mind.

Of course, the specifics are lawful in so far as we have to deal with them as creatures. That's how we interact with nature.

Pardon any obscurities here, I've begun studying this seriously, so I'm not as fluent as I would like to be.

Does reality require an observer?
... an observer is not external to reality. We are intrinsic to it. We are one facet of reality that happens to register itself. So when the question is rehashed as “does reality require reality” the question becomes a bit pointless. — Benj96

From a third-person observer perspective, it is true that other observers are part of reality and blend right into reality. But that is not what you are asking. The issue is whether the first-person observer matters as separate from what is being observed as reality. That is crucially important whether including or not including the observer itself as part of reality.

One reason for this is that while there are many third-person observers, there can be only one absolute 'I'. Only I can have my exact perceptions, beliefs, knowledge and values. Reality is unique to my 'I'. From a subjective perspective, when I sleep the world pauses, and when I die the world ends.

More importantly, the physical world is also absolutely centered on the observer, whether that be a person or any instrument, and the world looks different to each and every observation.

I guess what I’m really asking is 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

The observer, being unique, sets the rules of observation. Be that the time, the place, the 'objects', the perspective, the methodology, the ontology of the logic used, and some arbitrary theoretical filter such as philosophical outlook.