Thread: If you're dead, does the world exist?

This is continued from 'Classical Question'.

If I were to be put in a cage, I would think of a way to escape, not give lectures to university students.

Anyway, if you are in a boat, and the boat is in uniform rectilinear, without interacting with the outer environment, you cannot deduce whether you are moving or not. Analogously, if you do not interact with the world, to you it is unknown whether the world exists or not. When we speak of a phenomenon, we must assume there's an observer, they are relative. Thus making any claims about an unobserved phenomenon is meaningless (i.e. a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound)

If you are dead, and your mind ceases to function, you cannot possibly even come up with the thought: where's the world? How can you prove that you are not dreaming right now? Maybe when you die you simply wake up and find yourself in another world?

I am not crazy, I am just pondering these.

Perhaps you are crazy, or something else.
There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer. This is the point you can't seem to get your thinking around.

A review to today's obituary's of the recently deceased reflect the world still exists without they being able to perceive it.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer.

An example of this would be astronomical events such as supernovae, or even something more closer to home; like the hair on top of our heads for instance.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Perhaps you are crazy, or something else.
There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer. This is the point you can't seem to get your thinking around.

A review to today's obituary's of the recently deceased reflect the world still exists without they being able to perceive it.

Exactly, everything needs to be observed. For things that cannot be observed, it's pointless to speak about them.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Exactly, everything needs to be observed.

Prove it.

Also, you appear to be agreeing with something that says the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Exactly, everything needs to be observed.

Prove it.

Also, you appear to be agreeing with something that says the exact opposite.

Well, you could try to visualise something that you have never seen. I think you should prove that you can do the opposite.

@ WiseMan; Strange is saying that you have just agreed with MrMoJo1's position that was contrary your own.

Example:

Wise Man: Everything that exists must be in the color Red.
MrMojo1: There is no rule that says that everything that exists; must be in the color Red.
Wise Man: Exactly, everything that exist is in the color Red.

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Strange is saying that you have just agreed with MrMoJo1's position that was contrary your own.

To be fair, it was wise man not mother/father but yes, that is exactly the point.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Strange is saying that you have just agreed with MrMoJo1's position that was contrary your own.

To be fair, it was wise man not mother/father but yes, that is exactly the point.

Opps... My bad.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Well, you could try to visualise something that you have never seen. I think you should prove that you can do the opposite.

It is not about visualise something that you have never seen. It is about whether the universe exists when you go to sleep or die.

Obviously it does as, right now, there is someone somewhere who is asleep and someone else who is dead. And yet we can continue this conversation. How weird is that?

I really don't know where this weird belief that the entire universe is a figment of Wise Man's imagination comes from. Hmmm... from his imagination, I suppose.

I...you know what I give up. Fine, a tree make a fu#@$%^ sound when it falls ok??? I agree, happy?

I just want to state one more point: A phenomenon and a observer are related, they aren't isolated.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I just want to state one more point: A phenomenon and a observer are related, they aren't isolated.

This is very true, however it is not so easily accepted by some scientists. It is argued that if you are dead the world still exists, I mentain that if you are dead the world does not exist for you and so does not exsits period, simply because there is no observer.
I do not think you should be afraid to state your point regardless of the feedback.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

This is very true, however it is not so easily accepted by some scientists. It is argued that if you are dead the world still exists, I mentain that if you are dead the world does not exist for you and so does not exsits period, simply because there is no observer.
I do not think you should be afraid to state your point regardless of the feedback.

The world (Earth) continues to exist, you are no longer a able to perceive it.
Simple question based on what is commonly known about human sexual reproduction:
Prior to you becoming a zygote, did your parents have sexual relations?
Obviously, You did not observe the union of two gametes so how can you answer this question?
Are you going to argue yourself out of existence?

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Mother/father

This is very true, however it is not so easily accepted by some scientists. It is argued that if you are dead the world still exists, I mentain that if you are dead the world does not exist for you and so does not exsits period, simply because there is no observer.
I do not think you should be afraid to state your point regardless of the feedback.

The world (Earth) continues to exist, you are no longer a able to perceive it.
Simple question based on what is commonly known about human sexual reproduction:
Prior to you becoming a zygote, did your parents have sexual relations?
Obviously, You did not observe the union of two gametes so how can you answer this question?
Are you going to argue yourself out of existence?

I could simply ask you if you have ever known your self dead.? I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I just want to state one more point: A phenomenon and a observer are related, they aren't isolated.

This is very true, however it is not so easily accepted by some scientists. It is argued that if you are dead the world still exists, I mentain that if you are dead the world does not exist for you and so does not exsits period, simply because there is no observer.
I do not think you should be afraid to state your point regardless of the feedback.

Exactly. Finally someone agrees with me a bit. If I die the world is gone, but for you guys it's still there, because you are still observing.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Mother/father

This is very true, however it is not so easily accepted by some scientists. It is argued that if you are dead the world still exists, I mentain that if you are dead the world does not exist for you and so does not exsits period, simply because there is no observer.
I do not think you should be afraid to state your point regardless of the feedback.

The world (Earth) continues to exist, you are no longer a able to perceive it.
Simple question based on what is commonly known about human sexual reproduction:
Prior to you becoming a zygote, did your parents have sexual relations?
Obviously, You did not observe the union of two gametes so how can you answer this question?
Are you going to argue yourself out of existence?

The world did not exist ( for me) before I began to observe. My parents were not created until I observed them. I was born because I observed. That's how I see it.

I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

You are not the observer. You are one among several billion observers - and that's when we restrict ourselves just to humans.

When we add in the perceptions and observations of all those critters we have no way of conversing with, we're talking about uncountable numbers of observers. But the possibilities are endless when you look at creatures where we work out, partially, how to use their powers of observation. Tracker dogs, birds startled from trees when strangers/predators are about that we can't see or hear, truffle pigs, dolphins that help sailors and fishing boats, birds that lead humans to honey.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Perhaps you are crazy, or something else.
There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer. This is the point you can't seem to get your thinking around.

A review to today's obituary's of the recently deceased reflect the world still exists without they being able to perceive it.

Sorry I disagree, you seem to be the exception to the rule. For a phenomenon to be experienced there must be an observer. You know some one to be watching, if you are not watching then who is it that is observing? If no one is observing then no sight.

If you insist phenominon does not need an observer then please show me how you observe phenomenon without you. I think you are saying Wise man is crazy for saying that is true. You should ask yourself if you are not falling victim to that crazy phenomenon your self.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

This is continued from 'Classical Question'.

If I were to be put in a cage, I would think of a way to escape, not give lectures to university students.

Anyway, if you are in a boat, and the boat is in uniform rectilinear, without interacting with the outer environment, you cannot deduce whether you are moving or not. Analogously, if you do not interact with the world, to you it is unknown whether the world exists or not. When we speak of a phenomenon, we must assume there's an observer, they are relative. Thus making any claims about an unobserved phenomenon is meaningless (i.e. a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound)

If you are dead, and your mind ceases to function, you cannot possibly even come up with the thought: where's the world? How can you prove that you are not dreaming right now? Maybe when you die you simply wake up and find yourself in another world?

I am not crazy, I am just pondering these.

Basically what you're are suggesting is relating to perception. If you are dead then your world dies with you and you go on to where ever it is we go, however to the others left behind the world goes on and it is only you who are gone. It's just a simple question of perception, I may see an artwork of genious but you may perceive it as a series of blobs on a dark back ground, the same picture but different perspectives.

For a phenomenon to be experienced there must be an observer.

Why does a phenomenon have to be "experienced"? We know that amazing things happen on stars far beyond the limits of our unaided sight. And even when we do perceive them by visual or other forms of detection, we know that some of them happened before there were human eyes anyway.

Which means there are things happening now out in the further reaches of the universe that no creature living today will ever know anything about - but they're happening. With or without us or any other kind of observer. And inside our own bodies, all sorts of things happen which we never feel or know about or perceive in any way. They just trundle along. There's no need for anyone to see or hear or feel or smell anything related to our spleen or thymus or absorbing nutrients into our bloodstream - and even when something goes wrong with them and surgeons fidget about in there, we experience very little of the processes and phenomena that make that particular metabolic activity useful.

psst, wise man
not meaning to be too fastidious
but "your" is the second person possessive. Perhaps you meant "you are"s contraction "you're".

so, I was misled thinking of the old cry "Bring out your dead" from the plague years.
...................
as re observation
When standing on a mountain in Ecuador, I seemed to be the only person who considered that we were hurtling toward the east at over 1000 miles per hour. There was little to no immediate observational data to support this consideration, just a knowledge base that made it obvious.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

If I die the world is gone, but for you guys it's still there, because you are still observing.

OK. So we agree it is still there. Good. Actually, I am quite fascinated by this difference in perception of reality.

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)

For example, you mentioned dreams in the other thread. Do you really think that dreams are like the real world? Do you also find that the boundary between fiction (or movies) and the real world is blurred? To come right down to it, can you tell the difference between imagination and reality?

As I say, not intended as an insult, just genuine curiosity...

Originally Posted by Mother/father;346619
Sorry I disagree, you seem to be the exception to the rule. For a phenomenon to be experienced there must be an observer. You know some one to be watching, if you are not watching then who is it that is observing? If no one is observing then no sight.

If you insist phenominon does not need an observer then please show me how you observe phenomenon without you. I think you are saying [B

Wise man [/B]is crazy for saying that is true. You should ask yourself if you are not falling victim to that crazy phenomenon your self.

The question was "if a phenomenon isn't observed, it didn't exist." Strange made the clearest point on this matter earlier; the universe doesn't cease to exist when you go to sleep, your ability to perceive it does. Another example perceived\objective reality is: When most humans perceived the Earth was flat saucer, objectively it was a spheroid.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

I could simply ask you if you have ever known your self dead.? I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

A question related to this thread is, do you think the universe cease to exist objectively when you are unable to perceive it (prior to awareness or post awareness)? It's a simple question.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Mother/father

I could simply ask you if you have ever known your self dead.? I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

A question related to this thread is, do you think the universe cease to exist objectively when you are unable to perceive it (prior to awareness or post awareness)? It's a simple question.

If you are dead everthing is gone subject, object, everthing. Please answer the question, have you ever known yourself dead? Simple.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Mother/father;346619
Sorry I disagree, you seem to be the exception to the rule. For a phenomenon to be experienced there must be an observer. You know some one to be watching, if you are not watching then who is it that is observing? If no one is observing then no sight.

If you insist phenominon does not need an observer then please show me how you observe phenomenon without you. I think you are saying [B

Wise man [/B]is crazy for saying that is true. You should ask yourself if you are not falling victim to that crazy phenomenon your self.

The question was "if a phenomenon isn't observed, it didn't exist." Strange made the clearest point on this matter earlier; the universe doesn't cease to exist when you go to sleep, your ability to perceive it does. Another example perceived\objective reality is: When most humans perceived the Earth was flat saucer, objectively it was a spheroid.

Please do not hide behind Strange, he knows what he is saying, do you know what you are saying.? Pose the question to yourself if it makes sense it makes sense.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

If I die the world is gone, but for you guys it's still there, because you are still observing.

OK. So we agree it is still there. Good. Actually, I am quite fascinated by this difference in perception of reality.

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)

For example, you mentioned dreams in the other thread. Do you really think that dreams are like the real world? Do you also find that the boundary between fiction (or movies) and the real world is blurred? To come right down to it, can you tell the difference between imagination and reality?

As I say, not intended as an insult, just genuine curiosity...

Strange I am having a little problem with what you are saying. I want to get it right, are you saying one can preceive without an observer?

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)
This is very confusing to me Strange what do you mean?
Do you have a clear distingtion of what is in your head?
And how can you not know that every one experience things differently?

difference between imagination and reality?

Please explain this.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Strange I am having a little problem with what you are saying. I want to get it right, are you saying one can preceive without an observer?

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)
This is very confusing to me Strange what do you mean?
Do you have a clear distingtion of what is in your head?
And how can you not know that every one experience things differently?

difference between imagination and reality?

Please explain this.

I'll take that as a no, then.

If I imagine or remember a scene (or read a book, or dream) I know those things are in my head. Figments. Imagination.

Meanwhile, outside my head, there is the real world. I gather some people don't make such a strong (or even any) distinction.

Even when I have hallucinated, I knew it was a hallucination.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I...you know what I give up. Fine, a tree make a fu#@$%^ sound when it falls ok??? I agree, happy?

Hey people having been argueing about this for along time and know one can really prove you wrong, all they can do is expess a different opinion and explain why.
So don't think just because you have your opinion it is any less valid than anyone else's.

Originally Posted by adelady

I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

You are not the observer. You are one among several billion observers - and that's when we restrict ourselves just to humans.

When we add in the perceptions and observations of all those critters we have no way of conversing with, we're talking about uncountable numbers of observers. But the possibilities are endless when you look at creatures where we work out, partially, how to use their powers of observation. Tracker dogs, birds startled from trees when strangers/predators are about that we can't see or hear, truffle pigs, dolphins that help sailors and fishing boats, birds that lead humans to honey.

Others are observed by me, they are mere objects. To me, there's only one observer: Me. It applies for you too. Meaning we are all unreal, only you're the observer.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Originally Posted by adelady

I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

You are not the observer. You are one among several billion observers - and that's when we restrict ourselves just to humans.

When we add in the perceptions and observations of all those critters we have no way of conversing with, we're talking about uncountable numbers of observers. But the possibilities are endless when you look at creatures where we work out, partially, how to use their powers of observation. Tracker dogs, birds startled from trees when strangers/predators are about that we can't see or hear, truffle pigs, dolphins that help sailors and fishing boats, birds that lead humans to honey.

Others are observed by me, they are mere objects. To me, there's only one observer: Me. It applies for you too. Meaning we are all unreal, only you're the observer.

Well we live in our own reality, it's just we accept that other people have their own realites too and that in the world we live in our realities interact with the realities of others, therefore we are both observer and participant.

Originally Posted by adelady

For a phenomenon to be experienced there must be an observer.

Why does a phenomenon have to be "experienced"? We know that amazing things happen on stars far beyond the limits of our unaided sight. And even when we do perceive them by visual or other forms of detection, we know that some of them happened before there were human eyes anyway.

Which means there are things happening now out in the further reaches of the universe that no creature living today will ever know anything about - but they're happening. With or without us or any other kind of observer. And inside our own bodies, all sorts of things happen which we never feel or know about or perceive in any way. They just trundle along. There's no need for anyone to see or hear or feel or smell anything related to our spleen or thymus or absorbing nutrients into our bloodstream - and even when something goes wrong with them and surgeons fidget about in there, we experience very little of the processes and phenomena that make that particular metabolic activity useful.

We know amazing things happen, maybe so.
I am telling you, on alpha planet, there are plenty of gold and silver, plenty. Does it mean anything to you? There must be such a planet in the universe, because it's so vast. Does knowing about it meaning anything?

There are a lot of things out there, but they are meaningless unless we are able to observe them. The observer and the observed are one, they're not two. Without an observer, nothing means nothing. Before the big bang, there was no time no space, thus it's meaning less to talk about it.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Originally Posted by adelady

I don't know about you but I am the observer, who are you?

You are not the observer. You are one among several billion observers - and that's when we restrict ourselves just to humans.

When we add in the perceptions and observations of all those critters we have no way of conversing with, we're talking about uncountable numbers of observers. But the possibilities are endless when you look at creatures where we work out, partially, how to use their powers of observation. Tracker dogs, birds startled from trees when strangers/predators are about that we can't see or hear, truffle pigs, dolphins that help sailors and fishing boats, birds that lead humans to honey.

Others are observed by me, they are mere objects. To me, there's only one observer: Me. It applies for you too. Meaning we are all unreal, only you're the observer.

Well we live in our own reality, it's just we accept that other people have their own realites too and that in the world we live in our realities interact with the realities of others, therefore we are both observer and participant.

How can you prove that others observe, but are not just being 'observed' by you? How can you prove that the red colour you see is the same as what others see?

I'll put it this way: You observe that other people also 'observe', but without your observation, whether they observe or not has no meaning, for by then you can not prove that they observe or not.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Others are observed by me, they are mere objects. To me, there's only one observer: Me. It applies for you too. Meaning we are all unreal, only you're the observer.

maybe this is the key to the difference of view. I don't rely purely on what I directly see and observe to define what is "out there". I rely on other people's observations and other sources of information (inference, deduction, induction, etc).

I know that Moscow exists even though I have never been there.

Either that or I am insane and everything is up for grabs.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

How can you prove that others observe, but are not just being 'observed' by you?

You can't. Obviously. Why would you need to? This is the sort of question that brings "philosophy" (as practised by schoolboys) into disrepute.

We are born with a "theory of mind" which tells us that other people are conscious like us.

OK, we are not born with it; we are born with the capability and it develops at an early age. In most people. I gather this is one of the things autistic people struggle with. Is that it? Are you autistic?

How can you prove that the red colour you see is the same as what others see?

You can't. Obviously. Why would you need to?

Originally Posted by Mother/father

If you are dead everthing is gone subject, object, everthing. Please answer the question, have you ever known yourself dead? Simple.

Please answer mine, since you did not perceive your own conception - did it happen?

If I'm dead, objective reality continues without me perceiving it. People die every day, the Earth still rotates, and the Universe continues to exist.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Please do not hide behind Strange, he knows what he is saying, do you know what you are saying.? Pose the question to yourself if it makes sense it makes sense.

Who's hiding? Please check post#2 and the previous thread where this nonsense of perceive reality and objective reality started. Before you accuse me of anything, perform some research.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

How can you prove that others observe, but are not just being 'observed' by you?

You can't. Obviously. Why would you need to? This is the sort of question that brings "philosophy" (as practised by schoolboys) into disrepute.

We are born with a "theory of mind" which tells us that other people are conscious like us.

OK, we are not born with it; we are born with the capability and it develops at an early age. In most people. I gather this is one of the things autistic people struggle with. Is that it? Are you autistic?

How can you prove that the red colour you see is the same as what others see?

You can't. Obviously. Why would you need to?

Strange you know what I think you could do, maybe you are humble enough to try it, just stand in an open field and try to observe your self. Look at the parameter around you and try to see what is connected to you. After you have done that close your eyes and observe what you feel. I am challenging you big man, because I know you are a scientist and scientist are supposed to have good observation skills.

How can you prove that the red colour you see is the same as what others see?

You can't. Obviously. Why would you need to?[/QUOTE]

This is a typical answer.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Perhaps you are crazy, or something else.
There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer. This is the point you can't seem to get your thinking around.

A review to today's obituary's of the recently deceased reflect the world still exists without they being able to perceive it.

There is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist, it requires an observer. This is the point you can't seem to get your thinking around.

Check yourself if you can substanciate this there is no problem. I do not understand what you mean there is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist it requires an observer. You do not seem to be using yourself as the observer, how can you use someone else as the observer you cannot say what the person is observing, or is it different with you.?

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Please do not hide behind Strange, he knows what he is saying, do you know what you are saying.? Pose the question to yourself if it makes sense it makes sense.

Who's hiding? Please check post#2 and the previous thread where this nonsense of perceive reality and objective reality started. Before you accuse me of anything, perform some research.

It seems to me you are trying to experss the tree as a whole and not the branches as its parts.
Mrmoj1, I don't want to accuse you of anything, I really want to know why you say what you say and not what anyone else say, I am addressing you directly I am not in conflict with you. I have dealth with Strange I know what he is saying, I sometimes agree with him and sometimes I don't, we don't have a problem.

I can assure you I don't say things just lightly, and I do not start a topic if I do not know anything about it. However I am not a person who trust on quotes alone, they might be helpful at times but not gospel.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Others are observed by me, they are mere objects. To me, there's only one observer: Me. It applies for you too. Meaning we are all unreal, only you're the observer.

maybe this is the key to the difference of view. I don't rely purely on what I directly see and observe to define what is "out there". I rely on other people's observations and other sources of information (inference, deduction, induction, etc).

I know that Moscow exists even though I have never been there.

Either that or I am insane and everything is up for grabs.

Yes you know Moscow exists, yes that's true. But again I would like to emphasize: On planet Alpha there are plenty of Gold and Silver, plenty... it's very useful info is it?

What you read in books, what you call other's observations, are now at the moment observed by you, thus they are your observation.
The past is unreal, the future is unrealistic, only present, what you observe now is real.
Now you read me saying this, so at the moment it exists. Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

But again I would like to emphasize: On planet Alpha there are plenty of Gold and Silver, plenty... it's very useful info is it?

I also know you just made that up. An invisible pink unicorn told me so.

Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

Once again, I am going to have to leave you to your delusions.

Originally Posted by Strange

...

Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

Once again, I am going to have to leave you to your delusions.

delusions? or radical existentialism?

I once took a course of study with a prof. who had been with Camus>
His philosophy of nothing really existing beyond his senses, made his world one of wonder and delight.
He attributed his long marriage to this philosophy, saying that he could never be sure that his wife would actually still be there when he got home, and then being delighted to find her there. As she sensed his delight, it made their interactions always start on an up beat.

I'm gonna vote for existentialism here

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Check yourself if you can substanciate this there is no problem. I do not understand what you mean there is no objective rule that dictates for a phenomenon to exist it requires an observer. You do not seem to be using yourself as the observer, how can you use someone else as the observer you cannot say what the person is observing, or is it different with you.?

At what part are you confused? WiseMan claims that an event can not be determine to exist without an observer. In his "Classical Question" thread he uses a variety creative explanations to avoid affirming that sound waves exist without a person needing to hear them. This thread is a continuation of the same theme.

Is there a rule that dictates a phenomenon must be observed for it to exist? I'm clearly stating there is no observer required for an event to exist. Did the Universe exist prior to humans knowledge of it - certainly it did. This refutes his claim.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

It seems to me you are trying to experss the tree as a whole and not the branches as its parts.
Mrmoj1, I don't want to accuse you of anything,

You already have. It seems you hadn't read the other lengthy thread and had missed that I was the first to answer this thread. Now, you are unable to acknowledge that you made a mistake in claiming I was hiding behind someone.

I really want to know why you say what you say and not what anyone else say, I am addressing you directly I am not in conflict with you. I have dealth with Strange I know what he is saying, I sometimes agree with him and sometimes I don't, we don't have a problem.

I can assure you I don't say things just lightly, and I do not start a topic if I do not know anything about it. However I am not a person who trust on quotes alone, they might be helpful at times but not gospel.

I suggest you read the "Classical Question" thread. Once you have done that, you will understand that this thread is no different in the theme of perceived reality vs objective reality. I and many others have demonstrated many times over that events do not require an observer for it to exist. Our knowledge of the known Universe reflects humans have perceived very little of phenomenon that have elapsed up to this point in time. It, the universe, very likely to continue doing what it does even if all humans cease to exist and can no longer perceive it.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

OK. I can't resist this.

Do you realise you have gone from "you can't know if you are not looking" (which might entertain an intelligent 12 year old) to "it doesn't exist" (which is ludicrous).

So I have to ask: how do you know it doesn't exist if you are not observing it?

Secondly, when you walk down a busy road, all the people you pass cease to exist when they are behind you. Does this make you a mass murderer?

Finally, that is why I keep a dog: to make sure that my house hasn't turned into a bowl of petunias when I get hom.

So if my house exists in a certain state when I leave it. It ceases to exist from that point on according to a certain proposition.

When I return it comes back into existence buuuuuuut ................ I find the lawns have been mowed / the post has been delivered to my letterbox / the cat has knocked over a potplant / the window-washer has sparkled up the outside / my neighbour tells me my daughter called in to return an appliance she borrowed - and gives it to me.

So has the house been popping in and out of existence depending on who's been walking / driving to it or past it? Or does this make no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

But again I would like to emphasize: On planet Alpha there are plenty of Gold and Silver, plenty... it's very useful info is it?

I also know you just made that up. An invisible pink unicorn told me so.

Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

Once again, I am going to have to leave you to your delusions.

My delusions? Strange, when you say Moscow is 'there', what do you mean by that? How can you prove that something still exists when you aren't observing it?

Listen, I am not alone. Here are some authors who have unscientific views about our world: The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment: Eckhart Tolle: 9781577311522: Amazon.com: Books

As It Is: The Open Secret of Spritual Awakening: Tony Parsons: 9781878019103: Amazon.com: Books

Strange, where were you before you were born, where do you go when you die? If heaven is the answer, then according to concrete science it does not exist.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it.

OK. I can't resist this.

Do you realise you have gone from "you can't know if you are not looking" (which might entertain an intelligent 12 year old) to "it doesn't exist" (which is ludicrous).

So I have to ask: how do you know it doesn't exist if you are not observing it?

Secondly, when you walk down a busy road, all the people you pass cease to exist when they are behind you. Does this make you a mass murderer?

Finally, that is why I keep a dog: to make sure that my house hasn't turned into a bowl of petunias when I get hom.

I do not mean you should become careless of your home when you leave, but that view it in a different perspective.

Also, do not misunderstand the word 'observe'. I would like to use the word 'perceive' instead. We view the world using our 5 senses, without them, the world doesn't exist.

When you speak of photons and light waves superposition etc. to a blind man, he'll find you delusional. All is correct from one's own reference frame.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

How can you prove that something still exists when you aren't observing it?

How can you prove it doesn't?

See, philosophy for 12 year olds.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

[Also, do not misunderstand the word 'observe'. I would like to use the word 'perceive' instead. We view the world using our 5 senses, without them, the world doesn't exist.

OK. So you don't destroy all those people until you can no longer hear their footsteps. Still, does this make you a mass murderer?

Originally Posted by adelady

So if my house exists in a certain state when I leave it. It ceases to exist from that point on according to a certain proposition.

When I return it comes back into existence buuuuuuut ................ I find the lawns have been mowed / the post has been delivered to my letterbox / the cat has knocked over a potplant / the window-washer has sparkled up the outside / my neighbour tells me my daughter called in to return an appliance she borrowed - and gives it to me.

So has the house been popping in and out of existence depending on who's been walking / driving to it or past it? Or does this make no sense at all.

What ever happened to the house when you weren't there is important for practical life, but here we are having a discussion about an abstract theory.
Just as in our world we don't need to bother thinking about the Plank constant and its effects, but in the quantum world we have to mind it.

Your house ceases to exist, to you when you are gone. Because, you are unable to prove that it does. However you perceive it when you get back is your perception.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

[Listen, I am not alone. Here are some authors who have unscientific views about our world

OK. So we agree that your views are unscientific.

Strange, where were you before you were born, where do you go when you die?

Nowhere and nowhere. You cease to exist (but the rest of the world doesn't).

If heaven is the answer, then according to concrete science it does not exist.

Meh. Why would I care?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

How can you prove that something still exists when you aren't observing it?

How can you prove it doesn't?

See, philosophy for 12 year olds.

Simple, I can't perceive it. Philosophy for 1 year old. When I die I perceive nothing probably, or I may end up somewhere else, either way this world is gone for me.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

[Listen, I am not alone. Here are some authors who have unscientific views about our world

OK. So we agree that your views are unscientific.

Strange, where were you before you were born, where do you go when you die?

Nowhere and nowhere. You cease to exist (but the rest of the world doesn't).

If heaven is the answer, then according to concrete science it does not exist.

Meh. Why would I care?

So you are suggesting you completely loose conscious when you die, and the world continues on? So you know what happens when you die?

When you have a nightmare, and you wake up, does your dream world still exist? Don't you bring the you in the dream out of it when you wake?

Strange, please, stop arguing, there are some sense in my words you must acknowledge. They are different from conventional view, but you don't have to believe them. Just stop trying to convince me.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

So you are suggesting you completely loose conscious when you die, and the world continues on? So you know what happens when you die?

I guess I am just so humble that I assume the same thing happens as when every other person and animal dies. Nothing.

When you have a nightmare, and you wake up, does your dream world still exist? Don't you bring the you in the dream out of it when you wake?

Nope. I rarely remember my dreams. If I do, they are memories of something I imagined. Something that didn't happen.

I'm disappointed you didn't answer my questions earlier: are dreams and reality indistinguishable for you? Can you tell the difference between imagination and the real world?

Strange, please, stop arguing, there are some sense in my words you must acknowledge. They are different from conventional view, but you don't have to believe them. Just stop trying to convince me.

I don't expect to convince you that your words make no sense at all. Your statement, "Your house does not exist when you are away, simply because you aren't observing it" is hilarious (and unprovable). I am just pointing out the logical consequences; e.g. all those people you kill everyday by not continuing to observe them.

I can imagine you running down the street chasing people and saying, "don't leave; you will die if I can't see you!".

So you know what happens when you die?

I expect it will be much the same as when my great-grandmother died, and my grandparents, and a couple of neighbours, and a few friends, and my in-laws, and my father. They've all died, but the world has continued much the same as it did while they were alive.

I'm exactly the same kind of organism in exactly the same world. I see no reason why things should be any different when I die.

Wow, simply wow.

And here I was thinking that only infants find the game of "peekaboo" fascinating. Have any of you ever played the game with babies? If you have, I think some of you will find it to be similar with what is going on here.

Originally Posted by adelady

So you know what happens when you die?

I expect it will be much the same as when my great-grandmother died, and my grandparents, and a couple of neighbours, and a few friends, and my in-laws, and my father. They've all died, but the world has continued much the same as it did while they were alive.

I'm exactly the same kind of organism in exactly the same world. I see no reason why things should be any different when I die.

Life and perception is still there for you, but your Grandparents can't perceive anything except through you. Ones thinking cannot stop while reception is still in progress but the minute perception stops life stops for you. I keep asking does anyone remember being dead?

I might be expecting life to continue, but I am doing this while I am alive, when I am dead my expectations are no longer relevant.

Originally Posted by Mother/father

I keep asking does anyone remember being dead?

And I keep wondering why you think that is relevant ... This is not about what someone remembers or perceives, it is about the continuing existence of the universe or my house. Apparently, whenever I blink, the entire universe disappears and then recreates itself again immediately. I'm impressed. It does it very quietly.

There's an old story of a musician who played a tune to a cow. The cow made no response to such a beautiful music, it continued on eating grass. The musician then played sounds of mosquitoes flying, and the cow then lifted its head, as if it were listening.

I am now as stupid as the musician.

Strange, if you've solved the mystery as to where you go when you die, you won't be here. How old and wise are you anyway, as to defy the most mysterious conundrum in the world? Think about it, who are you?

The world goes on when your grandparents die, but you do not know what your grandparents perceived. Lets us speak from our own reference frame. Stop flustering things, your words make no sense. I do not kill anyone, I simply do not perceive them, then for me, they do not exist. You are substituting 'not existing from one's own reference frame' to 'murder'. Hilarious in deed.

Even in physics, from different state of motion ( reference frame ), a phenomenon may appear different. Have you read 'The Ladder and the barn' paradox? Google it and read it and then post you nonsensical accusations.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Think about it, who are you?

As you are not interested in answering questions, just making more and more ludicrous assertions, I won't be bothering to answer any more of yours.

Strange, for goodness sake ponder this question before despising it.

I've been reading : I AM THAT, and in it, the discussion is all about who truly you are. Think about it. The body? Mind? or something else...

If you want to define others, you need to define yourself first. I believe 'who you are' is a more fundamental question than 'who others are'. and it should be settled first.

Now I would also like to state that science is correct in the physical world, but if we are talking about spiritual and philosophical questions, I suggest we be a bit more modest, instead of bringing up science all the time in an attempt to prove others wrong, as well as acting as if one were god and knew the secret of all things.

If you continue to address me in this manner I will refuse to answer you as well.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

If you continue to address me in this manner I will refuse to answer you as well.

You haven't answered, that is what is so frustrating. You just keep making the same statements.

Now I would also like to state that science is correct in the physical world, but if we are talking about spiritual and philosophical questions

Well, I am only talking about the real world. Maybe your spiritual or philosophical house ceases to exist when you close your eyes, but my solid stone house carries on with its physical existence just fine. Despite whatever fantasy books you are reading say.

How dare you call that fantasy book! Strange I demand an apology, that book is a rational and highly sophisticated book.

What are the questions I haven't answered? I do not need to answer stupid questions that aren't even logical. Where did you derive murder from? You are delusional!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mother/father

I keep asking does anyone remember being dead?

And I keep wondering why you think that is relevant ... This is not about what someone remembers or perceives, it is about the continuing existence of the universe or my house. Apparently, whenever I blink, the entire universe disappears and then recreates itself again immediately. I'm impressed. It does it very quietly.

When you blink you do not stop perceiving, when you go to sleep you do not stop perceiving, when you die you stop perceiving. You may not understand why I ask the question if anyone can remember being dead. If you can then the question is answered.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I've been reading : I AM THAT, and in it, the discussion is all about who truly you are. Think about it. The body? Mind? or something else...

Ah, it becomes clear now. You have adopted Nondualism which is similar to Solipsism.

So do you hold the belief that external world doesn't really exist and everything is entirely a construct of your own mind?

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mother/father

I keep asking does anyone remember being dead?

And I keep wondering why you think that is relevant ... This is not about what someone remembers or perceives, it is about the continuing existence of the universe or my house. Apparently, whenever I blink, the entire universe disappears and then recreates itself again immediately. I'm impressed. It does it very quietly.

When you blink you do not stop perceiving, when you go to sleep you do not stop perceiving, when you die you stop perceiving. You may not understand why I ask the question if anyone can remember being dead. If you can then the question is answered.

When you go to sleep, if you have dreams you perceive your dream world, if you don't have dreams you perceive nothing, or unconsciousness.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I've been reading : I AM THAT, and in it, the discussion is all about who truly you are. Think about it. The body? Mind? or something else...

Ah, it becomes clear now. You have adopted Nondualism which is similar to Solipsism.

So do you hold the belief that external world doesn't really exist and everything is entirely a construct of your own mind?

Well, yes, a bit. It's a fascinating theory, I don't fully advocate it, but it has some sense. A more widely accepted book would be : The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment: Eckhart Tolle: 9781577311522: Amazon.com: Books

It has sold over 2 million copies. It's not fantasy, excuse me.

You may not understand why I ask the question if anyone can remember being dead.

I don't think it's a question of understanding, it seems to be an entirely different set of perspectives.

For me? The most important thing is that the universe is an unimaginably large place full of wondrous things that I will not live long enough to discover - no human ever can. My place in that universe is infinitesimally small. Some people might say that makes me insignificant and of no consequence but that's not true - it's simply a question of scale. I am significant in my own and many other people's lives.

But our lives, all of them, are tiny whether you look at them from the aspect of age of the universe, size of the planet/solar system/galaxy, scope of human history.

When it comes to perspective, keeping an eye on both the personal, particular, local and family and simultaneously accepting the gigantic, magnificent, universal, unknown and incomprehensible ...... and still feeling that what you do and think and feel is important ...... is the trick.

I suspect that some people I've met (and many I've read) never feel this way. For them, the focus is first and always human consciousness, and especially their own perceptions and consciousness.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

What are the questions I haven't answered?

These ones:

Originally Posted by Strange

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)

For example, you mentioned dreams in the other thread. Do you really think that dreams are like the real world? Do you also find that the boundary between fiction (or movies) and the real world is blurred? To come right down to it, can you tell the difference between imagination and reality?

As I say, not intended as an insult, just genuine curiosity...

p.s. I'm not going to apologise for saying that a book is fantasy when it is about things that don't exist in the real world.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

What are the questions I haven't answered?

These ones:

Originally Posted by Strange

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)

For example, you mentioned dreams in the other thread. Do you really think that dreams are like the real world? Do you also find that the boundary between fiction (or movies) and the real world is blurred? To come right down to it, can you tell the difference between imagination and reality?

As I say, not intended as an insult, just genuine curiosity...

p.s. I'm not going to apologise for saying that a book is fantasy when it is about things that don't exist in the real world.

You haven't even read it yet. It speaks of the real world indeed, the world you're talking about is truly unreal!

As for your questions:

What is outside is a creation of my inside, my consciousness, so to speak.

Dreams are not in this world, but they are real when you're in it. When we die, the world we live in now has no difference with the dream word we speak of now.

Imagination creates reality, reality triggers imagination.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

You haven't even read it yet. It speaks of the real world indeed, the world you're talking about is truly unreal!

Correct me if I am mistaken here, but isn't your position that of if one isn't able to perceive/observe this (your) book, it doesn't exist or is meaningless to us (observers)?

If we do not share the a common ground or in this case the same perceived reality, isn't any and all forms of conversation to and from each and every one of us all equally meaningless?

Originally Posted by scoobydoo1

Originally Posted by Wise Man

You haven't even read it yet. It speaks of the real world indeed, the world you're talking about is truly unreal!

Correct me if I am mistaken here, but isn't your position that of if one isn't able to perceive/observe this (your) book, it doesn't exist or is meaningless to us (observers)?

If we do not share the a common ground or in this case the same perceived reality, isn't any and all forms of conversation to and from each and every one of us all equally meaningless?

I don't understand what you mean. I observe the book when I read it.

you about ready for one of those fancy new sports coats with wrap around sleeves?

Originally Posted by sculptor

you about ready for one of those fancy new sports coats with wrap around sleeves?

... where did this come from?

no-where in particular, just cleaning out a closet

Originally Posted by Wise Man

I observe the book when I read it.

Perhaps you do, but I don't. Therefore this book your speak of do not exist or is meaningless isn't it?

Originally Posted by sculptor

no-where in particular, just cleaning out a closet

You mean .... wait for it ... it was just an observation.

I have a few really agressive auger bits. If not carefully controlled, they tend to run hot and fast as they pull themselves into the wood. Can snap themselves, or a wrist, or break the wood loose from the clamps and send it spinning into other material or parts of my body. OUCH

When i read what seems like circular logic, I am reminded that if you don't back off on the pressure, it can run away with itself burrowing into the conscious mind as surely as the above mentioned auger bits, shredding sanity, logic, and reason as it spins out of control. So, an observation, yes, and a damper.
But this seems right up your alley, strange
Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire

Originally Posted by adelady

You may not understand why I ask the question if anyone can remember being dead.

I don't think it's a question of understanding, it seems to be an entirely different set of perspectives.

For me? The most important thing is that the universe is an unimaginably large place full of wondrous things that I will not live long enough to discover - no human ever can. My place in that universe is infinitesimally small. Some people might say that makes me insignificant and of no consequence but that's not true - it's simply a question of scale. I am significant in my own and many other people's lives.

But our lives, all of them, are tiny whether you look at them from the aspect of age of the universe, size of the planet/solar system/galaxy, scope of human history.

When it comes to perspective, keeping an eye on both the personal, particular, local and family and simultaneously accepting the gigantic, magnificent, universal, unknown and incomprehensible ...... and still feeling that what you do and think and feel is important ...... is the trick.

I suspect that some people I've met (and many I've read) never feel this way. For them, the focus is first and always human consciousness, and especially their own perceptions and consciousness.

I share the same view as you do in terms of this "it" (mistry of life) and I see the delema for us humans as this tiny dot to comprehend our place in the skeem of things. However to get back to the thread of this discussion, Phenonenon does not stand alone there has to be an observer is what the focus is all about.
Some people say consciousness is all there is, everything else is momentary. If we can equate consciousness with an observer it would seem the observer is present when consciousness is present. I hope I am making sense. I am first created then I create everything. Objective preseption only exsits as long as subjetive perception exsits.

my reason for asking if anyone can remember being dead is if the question can be answered either way the answer to the original question would be answered.
let me hear you view.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Wise Man

What are the questions I haven't answered?

These ones:

Originally Posted by Strange

Do you have a clear distinction between what is inside your head and what is outside? (I'm not being facetious, it really does sound like you experience things differently.)

For example, you mentioned dreams in the other thread. Do you really think that dreams are like the real world? Do you also find that the boundary between fiction (or movies) and the real world is blurred? To come right down to it, can you tell the difference between imagination and reality?

As I say, not intended as an insult, just genuine curiosity...

p.s. I'm not going to apologise for saying that a book is fantasy when it is about things that don't exist in the real world.

Strange, give what Wise Man is saying a thought, you seem to just put it in the junk section to make your arguments stronger. I am sure you beleive in your books just the same way he does. I am not sure you know everything in the objective real world, and I am sure you will agree that every one is right and wrong in one way or the other, at least I hope you know that.

Phenonenon does not stand alone there has to be an observer

Which is where we part company.

1. Do you really believe that the gigantic tuna a fisherman pulls from under the water comes into existence as a fully matured adult just because it's been caught? Or other creatures that emerge from cocoons or burrows or hibernation weren't there when they were hidden from others' perceptions? The fact that things are imperceptible to us behind a barrier of water or earth or distance or time or snow or ice or cloud or a 10 ft brick wall makes no difference to the fact that they exist - entirely independent of our perceptions or knowledge. If an archaeologist digs up a Roman coin, it has existed for a couple of thousand years without any human setting eyes on it in all that time.

2. What's so special about human perception? The silly old "if a tree falls in a forest ..... " problem evaporates when we take into account the perceptions of the birds and other animals that inhabit forests. What they see and hear and respond to is not much different from any other creature - like us for instance - that may or may not be in any particular place at a particular time. At least if we're not there we can't be killed by that tree falling unlike a lot of unfortunate little critters that didn't scuttle out of the way quickly enough.

3. Permanence of physical objects is a routine, accepted part of life. You need to advance much better arguments to support the point you seem to want to make.

Mother / father and I are both agreeing to this: Phenomenon does not stand alone there must be an observer!


You want proof?

Commit suicide and then prove that the world still exists. Please do not say: 'My grandmother died, the world goes on'. No, if you die, it's a different story. Anyone who has the courage to die now, and come back and tell us, that during his/her death, he/her were able to prove that the world is still there, I shall bow down to him/her.

As for the classical tree falling question, I believe we should be discussing this instead of whether it makes a sound or not:

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, can it be said to have fallen?

or even:

Does an unobserved tree and forest exist without observing it?



For does who post after me in an attempt to prove me wrong , I want to you to kill yourself first, prove that the world is still spinning, and then post. Otherwise, all that you're saying is pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Wise Man;347244You want proof?

Commit suicide and then prove that the world still exists. Please do not say: 'My grandmother died, the world goes on[U

'[/U]. No, if you die, it's a different story. Anyone who has the courage to die now, and come back and tell us, that during his/her death, he/her were able to prove that the world is still there, I shall bow down to him/her.

This is rubbish. No one is going to die to try to prove your point. If your that confident of it, you commit suicide. I'll be the first person that still exists, without you being able to observe me, putting a epitaph on your tombstone "Here lines a person who proof was false."

An easier example without loss of life to anyone is: Was the phenomenon we perceive as reality (known universe) exist before you existed? I define you, to include all humans. The answer is yes, there was a universe devoid of a observer for billions of years. Reality outside of yours and everyone else's perception exists. This is what is known as objective reality, it is what still exists that is mind-independent.

Objectivity

Does an unobserved tree and forest exist without observing it?

Who is or isn't observing it?

What is or isn't observing it?

It'd be a very strange forest that contained no sentient, perceptive creatures of any kind. Or are we back in the 18th century arguing that animals don't have faculties like our own.

MrMojo1:

The answer is yes, there was a universe devoid of a observer for billions of years. Reality outside of yours and everyone else's perception exists. This is what is known as objective reality, it is what still exists that is mind-independent.

Absolutely! But try that last statement on relativity theorists! Objective reality independent of measurement? No way!, they say.

Ps: I also totally agree with adelady's posts 87 and 84.

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

Originally Posted by Wise Man;347244You want proof?

Commit suicide and then prove that the world still exists. Please do not say: 'My grandmother died, the world goes on[U

'[/U]. No, if you die, it's a different story. Anyone who has the courage to die now, and come back and tell us, that during his/her death, he/her were able to prove that the world is still there, I shall bow down to him/her.

This is rubbish. No one is going to die to try to prove your point. If your that confident of it, you commit suicide. I'll be the first person that still exists, without you being able to observe me, putting a epitaph on your tombstone "Here lines a person who proof was false."

An easier example without loss of life to anyone is: Was the phenomenon we perceive as reality (known universe) exist before you existed? I define you, to include all humans. The answer is yes, there was a universe devoid of a observer for billions of years. Reality outside of yours and everyone else's perception exists. This is what is known as objective reality, it is what still exists that is mind-independent.

Objectivity

If we are now talking about philosophy, I don't want to hear about the big bang.

Mother/ father, please help me answer these questions, I have to go do something else.

[QUOTE=Wise Man;347307]

Originally Posted by MrMojo1

If we are now talking about philosophy, I don't want to hear about the big bang.

I understand why you arbitrarily want exclude present knowledge of our universe, it invalidates your claim of a required observer.

So let me put it to you this way, is there any situation you can imagine where there is a mind capable of observation, which didn't preclude said environment/s existing prior to this mind existence? If you imagine a mind existing in a void of space/time (e.g. nothingness), then it could not be defined as a mind for an intrinsic quality of a mind demands the ability to change its state (of thinking). So a mind could not exist in nothingness, therefore there has to be "something" prior to mind (observer) actual existence. Hence there has to be an event/phenomena that has to exist prior to observer/mind.

MrMojo I have work to do right now, show some mercy and don't urge me to post back.

According to my own theory, if I do not observe this thread, it ceases to exist, so hehe, I will from now on stop looking at it.

Originally Posted by Wise Man

If we are now talking about philosophy, I don't want to hear about the big bang.

This is exactly what is wrong with your approach.

You willy-nilly discard any and all knowledge that science has yielded when it is presented to support the case that others have against your own. Just because this is a subject in the philosophy forum does not mean we discard the accumulated wealth of knowledge at the door when coming in. And when your position has been used against you in post 74 and 79, showing your just how ridiculous it really is, you became evasive.

which brings us round to quantum physics
observer effect
In physics, the term "observer effect" refers to perceived changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomonon being observed.
If we do not observe, what is the true state of reality?
Beyond the philosophy of existentialism, is the fact of our observation a determinant factor in the reality of the observed?

just when you think you got it all figgured out, along comes a wise guy...................
whither hence?

It is my understanding that the "observer effect" is applied to tools used to perceive the event observed, that may change the nature of what is observed. This will vary given the event and tools used, but not necessarily all observations. For an example, questioning if there galaxies present even in the parts of our observed universe that seems empty of visible light. Up until a few years ago, this was an unanswered question. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image identified an estimated 10,000 galaxies which images captured have been traveling for 13 Billion years. Capturing these photons now, didn't affect the event which caused them billions of years ago.

Yet another example of things existing without an observer.

Read the ladder and the barn paradox.

I read it. How does it relate to this thread? Please explain.

Everything is frame dependent. Including the universe, without an observer, it becomes meaningless.

My grandparents are all dead, but the world is still here. QED.