Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 144
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Can there be a reality in the absence of observer ?

  1. #1 Can there be a reality in the absence of observer ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    This question can be posed in another way I.e. can there be an object in the absence of the subject ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Is this an attempt at "proving" there's a god?

    The short answer is "yes" - the world (and the universe) was here before we started observing it.


    Last edited by Dywyddyr; February 23rd, 2013 at 12:51 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Does the moon cease to exist on cloudy nights? I doubt it.

    Does the world cease to exist when you close your eyes? I don't think so.

    This is the sort of speculation that gives philosophy a bad name.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    The contents of my fridge disappear if I don't keep an eye on them!
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Is this going to be another "hit and run" thread from you?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Let pose the question in another way. Can object exist in the eternal & absolute absence of observer ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Let's try again.
    1) Is this an attempt to prove "god"?
    2) If we'd never arisen would the universe still be here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Let pose the question in another way. Can object exist in the eternal & absolute absence of observer ?
    Yes. Of course.

    What possible reason would you have for thinking otherwise? Do you have examples of things that cease to exist when not watched?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    water in a pot on a hot plate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,882
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Let pose the question in another way. Can object exist in the eternal & absolute absence of observer ?
    A question has appeared on my monitor, it's right in front of me. The question undoubtedly exists and because I can't deny it's not there then I have to say with absolute certainty that someone or something asked it. This is a reasonable conclusion to reach from what I know of questions and answers. To think otherwise I have to ask myself if a question needs a questioner, just like I'm doing right now. My problem is....I can't see nor do any of my senses indicate that the questioner exists, this I freely admit. Yet the question is there, so I need to ask myself how is it possible without any hard evidence of there being an asker. The question appearing on my monitor, did it come from nothing? In order to make total observational sense I must believe that there is someone asking because I know it isn't me.

    For Christ's sakes, how can you ask that question? Don't you see the paradoxical nature of it?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    I will say no. You possible cannot have a object in the absence of a subject.
    -Japeth
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    I will say no. You possible cannot have a object in the absence of a subject.
    -Japeth
    Then how did we get here?
    In order for us (observer) to arise there had to be an environment for us to arise in.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Japith: Thanks. I reconfigured the question a short while ago & now I re- quote it here. " Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Japith: Thanks. I reconfigured the question a short while ago & now I re- quote it here. " Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer"?
    And I will requote my response, which you seem to have ignored:
    Let's try again.
    1) Is this an attempt to prove "god"?
    2) If we'd never arisen would the universe still be here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Japith: Thanks. I reconfigured the question a short while ago & now I re- quote it here. " Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer"?
    Yes. Of course.

    What possible reason would you have for thinking otherwise? Do you have examples of things that cease to exist when not watched?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?
    I still would answer no in my opinion.
    It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?
    I still would answer no in my opinion.
    It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    Actually your conclusion is illogical.
    "Null" is not the same as "doesn't exist".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    You are confusing what someone perceives with reality. Reality won't go away even if you screw your eyes shut, put your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la' in a loud voice. I know, I've tried it.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    . Thanks. I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    . Thanks. I agree.
    Why?
    And, just for information, is it your intention to ignore all posts that disagree with you?
    Is also your intention to participate as little as possible in your own topic?
    Do you have any justification for your stance?
    How do you address the difference between "null" (i.e. might as well not exist, but could or could not) and "doesn't exist" (i.e. does not, in fact, [even with an observer] exist)?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    . Thanks. I agree.
    Ahhhh. That's so sweet.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Yes existing of anything does not depend on observation. Maximum you can say there may be mystery or may not be. This mystery is not GOD, Soul or any other thing witch are products of human brain. If this mystery exist it will be out of science means out of best available knowledge of human beings. Religious things are not out of brain of human beings. These are so simple. Real mystery may be too surprising even no one can imagine.
    But actually there may not be any mystery and things in space works according to scientific laws. No one knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Yes existing of anything does not depend on observation. Maximum you can say there may be mystery or may not be. This mystery is not GOD, Soul or any other thing witch are products of human brain. If this mystery exist it will be out of science means out of best available knowledge of human beings. Religious things are not out of brain of human beings. These are so simple. Real mystery may be too surprising even no one can imagine. But actually there may not be any mystery and things in space works according to scientific laws. No one knows.
    your's is very thoughtful observation. Relationship between object & observer is a conundrum. Any further thought into ' how to open this conundrum a little bit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Why is it a conundrum?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Could we have this moved to Trash please, since it's clearly not philosophy (and the other thread by the same poster)?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    I don't think matter I.e. object can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness I.e. observer because it is awareness who acknowledges the existence of matter. Matter cannot acknowledge its own existence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    I don't think matter I.e. object can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness I.e. observer because it is awareness who acknowledges the existence of matter. Matter cannot acknowledge its own existence.
    You are confusing "acknowledgement" with "existence". Or do you really think the universe spontaneously sprang into being when the first human opened their eyes, magically looking 13 billion years old?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Matter cannot acknowledge its own existence.
    Incorrect.
    It depends on what you mean by "acknowledge".
    But, as a simple example, gravitational attraction is an "acknowledgement" of matter by matter.
    Presumably, therefore, you mean "be consciously aware of" (and "aware that it's aware of".... ad infinitum).
    FIRSTLY you'd have to show that conscious awareness actually IS required.

    You assume this is so - on zero evidence.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Japith View Post
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Matter cannot acknowledge its own existence.
    Incorrect.It depends on what you mean by "acknowledge".But, as a simple example, gravitational attraction is an "acknowledgement" of matter by matter.Presumably, therefore, you mean "be consciously aware of" (and "aware that it's aware of".... ad infinitum).FIRSTLY you'd have to show that conscious awareness actually IS required.You assume this is so - on zero evidence.
    Thanks. Question:- "Who created the language which contains the word ' gravitational attraction"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Thanks. Question:- "Who created the language which contains the word ' gravitational attraction"?
    Well, absent speech-capable science-inclined snails (which would have been my first choice 1) I'd hazard a guess that it was humans.
    Your "point"?


    1 Especially if they had giant lasers.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 3rd, 2013 at 11:14 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Yes it should be Law of nature would also work even if there is no observer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,882
    Is there a time restriction for observation? All observed reality is in the past. All observers too.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; March 3rd, 2013 at 12:05 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Question:- "Who created the language which contains the word ' gravitational attraction"?
    No one created it. It evolved.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Question:- "Who created the language which contains the word ' gravitational attraction"?
    No one created it. It evolved.
    Even if for argument sake one temporarily accepts the possibility that matter can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, let alone start this forum & wonder how this beautiful universe started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Even if for argument sake one temporarily accepts the possibility that matter can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness
    Hmm, you seem to be working from an a priori (and unfounded) assumption that your premise is incontrovertibly true.
    This is an error on your part.

    problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness
    Um, no. This isn't a problem at all.
    Why does existence require confirmation?

    All you're doing here is begging the question.

    This is neither philosophy nor science (which seems to be a major feature of your threads).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Even if for argument sake one temporarily accepts the possibility that matter can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, let alone start this forum & wonder how this beautiful universe started.
    Why does anyone need to "confirm it"; it just is.

    This forum (and awareness of how beautiful the universe is) started after the arrival of intelligent self-aware humans.

    The rest of the universe seemed to manage fine without us for 13 billion years.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Even if for argument sake one temporarily accepts the possibility that matter can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, let alone start this forum & wonder how this beautiful universe started.
    Why does anyone need to "confirm it"; it just is.This forum (and awareness of how beautiful the universe is) started after the arrival of intelligent self-aware humans. The rest of the universe seemed to manage fine without us for 13 billion years.
    Please take notice of the operative phrase : " In the eternal & absolute absence of awareness". Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Please take notice of the operative phrase : " In the eternal & absolute absence of awareness". Thanks.
    Let me help you move those goalposts, they look heavy.

    Even if the universe never evolved any living things with intelligence, it would still exist. Why is awareness needed to "confirm" this.

    You seem to be mistaking knowledge of something for the existence of something.

    What is your evidence that the universe could not exist unless someone is around to confirm it?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Please take notice of the fact that you are still begging the question.
    Why does existence require confirmation?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Please take notice of the operative phrase : " In the eternal & absolute absence of awareness". Thanks.
    Let me help you move those goalposts, they look heavy.Even if the universe never evolved any living things with intelligence, it would still exist. Why is awareness needed to "confirm" this. You seem to be mistaking knowledge of something for the existence of something.What is your evidence that the universe could not exist unless someone is around to confirm it?
    All this dialogue between us about matter would have not taken place in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    All this dialogue between us about matter would have not taken place in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness.
    So what?
    WE are here.
    Therefore, NOW, there isn't an "absence". Therefore that "absence" wasn't eternal or absolute.
    That does not imply that existence requires awareness.
    Please at least TRY to think coherently.
    Strange likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    All this dialogue between us about matter would have not taken place in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness.
    And does that mean the matter would not have existed? Of course not. It existed before humans were discussing it and it will continue to exist after humans have died out.

    Do you actually have any intelligent arguments in favour of your assertion? Or is it just a baseless opinion?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    It is clear that physical existence of anything can never depend on observation .
    @Chandargupta , Was gravitational force working before it was discovered by Newton ?

    How Big Bang happen when there was no living beings

    Its very simple and no need to debate as no one should have doubt about it

    I am unable to understand what do you think ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Please take notice of the fact that you are still begging the question.
    Why does existence require confirmation?
    In order to collapse the waveform.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    It is clear that physical existence of anything can never depend on observation . @Chandargupta , Was gravitational force working before it was discovered by Newton ?How Big Bang happen when there was no living beingsIts very simple and no need to debate as no one should have doubt about itI am unable to understand what do you think ?
    Thank you very much. Even if, for argument sake, awareness accepts that matter had existed eternally all alone & can exist eternally all alone in the future too without the intervention of awareness (& present intervention of awareness is of no Consequence at all as for as the existence of matter is concerned), then the concept called existence is null & void, the Concept called matter is null & void because the concept called existence, the concept called matter are the progenies of awareness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Thank you very much. Even if, for argument sake, awareness accepts that matter had existed eternally all alone & can exist eternally all alone in the future too without the intervention of awareness (& present intervention of awareness is of no Consequence at all as for as the existence of matter is concerned), then the concept called existence is null & void, the Concept called matter is null & void because the concept called existence, the concept called matter are the progenies of awareness.
    You really need to learn how to think logically.
    Your "because" does not follow at all.
    You're begging the question again.

    What the "null and void" means is that if matter did exist in the absence of awareness there'd be no-one to notice it and THEREFORE you cannot say with certitude that it exists.
    You ALSO cannot say with certitude that it doesn't exist.
    Ergo: the question and concept is null and void - NOT the physical existence of matter.
    Do things exist NOW that we haven't yet thought of?
    I.e. things we have no concept of?

    If we have no concept of them do they actually exist?
    Oh, wait. You're going to claim that there's some "uber-awareness" keeping track, aren't you?
    IOW, as I noted in post #2, you're trying to prove god exists.

    Yes, you can certainly do that by this chain of (false) logic - but only if you assume a priori that he exists and is necessary.
    I.e. it's not a proof it's a circular argument based on assumption.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    the concept called existence, the concept called matter are the progenies of awareness.
    The concept might be, but the matter isn't.

    Are you going to provide ANY support for your opinion, or just a series of assertions?

    Just endlessly repeating the same unsubstantiated (and prima facie false) opinion is not an argument.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    If number of perceptions are more than the fundamental TRUTHS then awareness does not father existence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    If number of perceptions are more than the fundamental TRUTHS then awareness does not father existence
    Colourless green sheep sleep furiously.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    If number of perceptions are more than the fundamental TRUTHS then awareness does not father existence
    What?
    This comes across as a mix of double-talk and unsupported rubbish.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    200
    observer or no observer reality exists. we are only here to witness it by the grace of GOD.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    observer or no observer reality exists. we are only here to witness it by the grace of GOD.
    How odd... you admit reality exists but then support the claim by using a fantasy. Were you just completely unable to help yourself, there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    observer or no observer reality exists. we are only here to witness it by the grace of GOD.
    Unsupported supposition.
    Worthless interjection.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29081973 View Post
    observer or no observer reality exists. we are only here to witness it by the grace of GOD.
    Here you say there is God without observation, than how you know concept of God.
    If there is really God about which we talk its meaning human being have observed God and must be proven or should be proven in future.
    But actually these are output of human brain.
    If human being even able to observe GOD: If yes, then it should be proven or will prove in future.
    If human being even never able to observe God: Its meaning no one should know about God and its concepts then if you talk about it, it means its just a output of human brain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    I shall reconfigure the original question as follows:- Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    I shall reconfigure the original question as follows:- Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer'?
    By definition - no.
    But, then again, that is NOT a reconfiguration of the original question, since the new wording presupposes that reality is an "observed".
    I.e. it's dishonest.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    I shall reconfigure the original question as follows:- Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer'?
    Huh? That is a completely different question. You can tell, because it has a completely different answer.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    I shall reconfigure the original question as follows:- Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer'?
    Huh? That is a completely different question. You can tell, because it has a completely different answer.
    Thank you Strange. This universe is extraordinary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    That's your reply?
    57 posts in your thread and the best you can come up with is "The universe is extraordinary"?
    I submit that, by definition, it's not even that.
    Simply because the universe is what is - i.e. it's an "everyday fact of life".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    We make the ordinary extraordinary.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    We make the ordinary extraordinary.
    Strange, thanks. The re- configured question :- "Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer' " ? requires attention because our universe is so puzzling .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange, thanks. The re- configured question :- "Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer' " ? requires attention because our universe is so puzzling .
    No it doesn't since the question is a tautology.
    There is only one possible answer, and it requires neither "attention" nor consideration.

    And, as has been pointed out, the question is NOT reconfigured. It's two quite separate questions.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 7th, 2013 at 03:54 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    The re- configured question :- "Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer' " ? requires attention because our universe is so puzzling .
    This is not a "reconfigured" question.

    It does not require any attention; the answer is trivially obvious. Of course there cannot be an observed thing in the absence observer. Any good dictionary will tell you that.

    I have no idea why you keep asking these pointless, trivial and meaningless questions. What is your objective with this thread?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Strange. Thanks for your response. Could I ask you : when you say "of course there cannot be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer', do you think this answer of your's could help man in solving the puzzle of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    do you think this answer of your's could help man in solving the puzzle of the universe?
    What is "the puzzle of the universe"?
    And no. It doesn't help.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange. Thanks for your response. Could I ask you : when you say "of course there cannot be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer', do you think this answer of your's could help man in solving the puzzle of the universe?
    Of course not. It is just a matter of the dictionary definitions of the words.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange. Thanks for your response. Could I ask you : when you say "of course there cannot be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer', do you think this answer of your's could help man in solving the puzzle of the universe?
    Of course not. It is just a matter of the dictionary definitions of the words.
    I thank you for your direct response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Observation can not exist if there is no observer as observation is purely depends on observer.
    Its very simple.
    Nature is really a puzzle and near impossible to completely solve it but this does not mean we change the meaning of puzzle to solve it easily with a void explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.

    The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)

    If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
    . Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    @ Chandergupta Do not confuse yourself.
    Presence of anything does not need observation.
    Everything in Universe that exists is reality will exit whether there is observer or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Or if you do not agree ? Make your questions and explanation in more a straight and clear words.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,599
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
    . Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.
    I'm sorry if you don't like the way I characterized your statement. But you appear to be trying to say that because we observe the universe it can only exist because we observe it. Feel free to report my post (see the "report post" link at the bottom?)

    But I stand by my opinion that all you have is unsubstantiated word-play with no evidence.

    If you are going to run away crying if someone points this out, you cannot have much faith in your opinion.

    Again: where is the evidence for this assertion?

    If you have no evidence or rational argument, then just admit it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
    . Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.
    Moderator Comment: Chandra, Strange is objecting to the misuse of language by yourself. While the observation of the universe does involve an observer, it does not follow that the universe does not exist without an observer. Claiming that it is so by twisting words is either ignorant (you are unaware of precisely what you are doing), or dishonest. I believe it is the former.

    We are quite happy to tolerate such language abuse if the writer recognises his error when corrected. I hope that will be the case here.

    Strange, if you characterise Chandra's underlying theme as nonsense, then you simultaneously do so with the works of many substantial thinkers starting with Bishop Berkley. You may very reasonably disagree with their conclusions, but 'meaningless gibberish' is a step too far.

    So, let's try to get more logic into the posts (Chandra) and a shade more objectivity (Strange).

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    This question can be posed in another way I.e. can there be an object in the absence of the subject ?
    Perhaps theres a third interpretation:
    Can there be an object and nothing else besides it ...as its surrounding or its inside?
    And here I suggest the answer is no. But how to understand it: "Anything is relative."?

    Heres a quote from the thread: Originally Posted by Japith
    Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.

    Originally Posted by RAJ_K
    Yes existing of anything does not depend on observation. Maximum you can say there may be mystery or may not be. This mystery is not GOD, Soul or any other thing witch are products of human brain. If this mystery exist it will be out of science means out of best available knowledge of human beings. Religious things are not out of brain of human beings. These are so simple. Real mystery may be too surprising even no one can imagine. But actually there may not be any mystery and things in space works according to scientific laws. No one knows.

    Perhaps Originally Posted by Japith


    your's is very thoughtful observation. Relationship between object & observer is a conundrum. Any further thought into ' how to open this conundrum a little bit?

    Posted by sigurdV

    The thought that to exist is to be observed is so commonly held that there should be an explanation why somebody believes while others disbelieves without disgracing either part (too much).

    Maybe its a question of interpretation. Perhaps the sentence means different things to different ppl? That is how I TRY to see it! And why I began this post with an interpretation: If this interpretation is unconsciously (?) identified with the meaning of the debated sentence then maybe its understandable that Chandra fights so hard for what he sees as the obvious truth.

    Preposterous? Maybe not: Write on a paper "This paper is not in the wastebasket" give it to Chandra who says . Yeah! This paper speaks the truth! Then he throws it into the wastebasket. You did only hear this and now you read the paper in the wastebasket and thinks Chandra was wacko in saying that what the paper says is true since it obviously is not!
    Last edited by sigurdV; March 9th, 2013 at 10:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
    You are, once again, and despite being informed of this, pre-supposing the answer.

    Let's take it from a different viewpoint: WHOSE awareness is the observer?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm sorry if you don't like the way I characterized your statement. But you appear to be trying to say that because we observe the universe it can only exist because we observe it. Feel free to report my post (see the "report post" link at the bottom?)

    But I stand by my opinion that all you have is unsubstantiated word-play with no evidence.

    If you are going to run away crying if someone points this out, you cannot have much faith in your opinion.

    Again: where is the evidence for this assertion?

    If you have no evidence or rational argument, then just admit it.
    Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have.
    Could you tell me if you are therefore arguing that:
    the universe didn't exist before we started to observe it, or
    there were aliens doing the observation before we "took over the job", or
    "god" was doing the observation?
    Which of those do you have evidence for, please.

    Evidence implies that there is an observer.
    So is it god or aliens?
    Note that the "aliens" argument reverts back to "who observed it before they arrived?"

    I think the argument is just one of philosophy
    I wonder if that had any bearing on this thread being in the philosophy sub-forum. What do you think?

    probably pointless.
    Like all philosophy, eh?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm sorry if you don't like the way I characterized your statement. But you appear to be trying to say that because we observe the universe it can only exist because we observe it. Feel free to report my post (see the "report post" link at the bottom?)

    But I stand by my opinion that all you have is unsubstantiated word-play with no evidence.

    If you are going to run away crying if someone points this out, you cannot have much faith in your opinion.

    Again: where is the evidence for this assertion?

    If you have no evidence or rational argument, then just admit it.
    Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
    I think this is creative thinking! An attempt to understand the situation! Is chandra identifying existence with having evidence for existence? (I belong to the camp thinking chandra IS wrong but I will not make fun of him! I actually hate seeing ppl collectively doing so.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm sorry if you don't like the way I characterized your statement. But you appear to be trying to say that because we observe the universe it can only exist because we observe it. Feel free to report my post (see the "report post" link at the bottom?)

    But I stand by my opinion that all you have is unsubstantiated word-play with no evidence.

    If you are going to run away crying if someone points this out, you cannot have much faith in your opinion.

    Again: where is the evidence for this assertion?

    If you have no evidence or rational argument, then just admit it.
    Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
    Yes we have evidence. It is world wide accepted that age of earth is much more than the human being on earth.
    Everything which we can not see physically does not mean we have no eviedence and there is no scientific answer regarding this.
    Logical Proof is also acceptable.
    Like Size of space is unlimited. It is never possible to travel entire space to prove whether it is unlimited or not.
    It is logically proved that space is unlimited until any one logically or physically disapproves it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have.
    Could you tell me if you are therefore arguing that:
    the universe didn't exist before we started to observe it, or
    there were aliens doing the observation before we "took over the job", or
    "god" was doing the observation?
    Which of those do you have evidence for, please.
    I don't have evidence either way.

    Evidence implies that there is an observer.
    So is it god or aliens?
    Note that the "aliens" argument reverts back to "who observed it before they arrived?"

    I think the argument is just one of philosophy
    I wonder if that had any bearing on this thread being in the philosophy sub-forum. What do you think?

    probably pointless.
    Like all philosophy, eh?
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raj
    Yes we have evidence. It is world wide accepted that age of earth is much more than the human being on earth
    Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't have evidence either way.
    So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
    Or god is watching?
    Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?

    Yep.
    Then stay out out of it.

    Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
    I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
    I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?
    I think friendly interpretation of participators posts are so rare in here that they should be encouraged! Thank you!
    I suspect Raj is using a translator ...and we know how good they are ... and even if he is not, it is easy to see that his grip on english is not all it should be. So some friendly treatment I think is appropriate in his case.

    On the other hand: Harold is not in the wrong in pointing out that opinion is not evidence (although as foreigner I will never feel comfortable with the english interpretation of "evidence")... its just his manners and empathy that could be improved upon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't have evidence either way.
    So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
    Or god is watching?
    Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?
    I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you. No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up? I don't care what you think is absurd. I made a perfectly logical statement. All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?
    Yep.
    Then stay out out of it.
    No, you stay out of it.
    Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
    I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?
    Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you.
    How about "established beyond any reasonable doubt"? Or do you in fact dispute the scientific evidence?

    No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up?
    It's quite simple: using the argument as posed - in order for the universe to come into being there must have been an observer from the very start - is that not one of the attributes of god?

    All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?
    Which isn't what is under dispute here. Do try to keep up.

    No, you stay out of it.
    I'm not the one dismissing it as "probably pointless".

    Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.
    Again, not the point.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    70;401109]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't have evidence either way.
    So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
    Or god is watching?
    Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?
    I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you. No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up? I don't care what you think is absurd. I made a perfectly logical statement. All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?
    Yep.
    Then stay out out of it.
    No, you stay out of it.
    Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
    I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?
    Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.[/QUOTE]



    @Harold Observing or Proving anything in science does not mean we "Create" it.

    Possibly there would be a day when first person observed moon, It does not mean moon 's age started from that day.

    Even proving or observing in science this not means it. Observing or Proving is just like "confirmation" .

    Although there are two types of proving -1.Physical Proving -Like Gravity
    2. Logical Proving- Space is unlimited

    Both can be changed if any one proves it opposite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you.
    How about "established beyond any reasonable doubt"? Or do you in fact dispute the scientific evidence?
    I believe that "established beyond any reasonable doubt" is a legal standard of proof in a criminal case. Not sure what it has to do with what we are discussing. I do not dispute scientific evidence. However in a hypothetical universe without an observer, there wouldn't be any scientific evidence.

    Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.
    Again, not the point.
    It may not be your point, but it's my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raj
    @Harold Observing or Proving anything in science does not mean we "Create" it.

    Possibly there would be a day when first person observed moon, It does not mean moon 's age started from that day.
    It doesn't mean it didn't, either.
    Even proving or observing in science this not means it. Observing or Proving is just like "confirmation" .

    Although there are two types of proving -1.Physical Proving -Like Gravity
    2. Logical Proving- Space is unlimited

    Both can be changed if any one proves it opposite.
    There is no such thing as proof in science. How are you so sure of yourself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    @HAROLD

    Go to meanings and not just game of confusing words

    1. Do you believe things which are observed by human being exits before first observation or means to say like Sun exits before first observation. Give answer only in Yes or No

    2. If we are unable to observe any thing due to " physical limitation" problem, it can not exit. Means to say only things which we observed exit. Give answer in Yes or No.

    3. Are you going to reach the conclusion to an ultimate observer who can observe all things. It will lead to conciseness and sense of "nature" which today is believed to be dead . According to science nature is dead and have no thinking, sense or consciousness. This will lead to concept of God. Do you agree with conciseness and thinking power of nature or another body outside of current biology ? Yes or No
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no such thing as proof in science.
    I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    @SigurdV- its just loosely expressed statement with proper meanings that

    " In science when the existing of any law or a physical object is proved this does not give meaning we created the proved object or law i.e. means to say existing of proved object does not depend on proving .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    alternate question...


    Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
    Strange and sigurdV like this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Existence of observer itself would be proof of Reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    and without reality, the observer cannot exist. so the absence of the observer could be evidence of the absence of reality. But we are all observers therefore reality must exist.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Without Reality Observer can not exist.
    But without observer Reality can exist.
    MrMojo1 and seagypsy like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no such thing as proof in science.
    I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
    All that science can do is demonstrate that a particular set of results may be expected as a consequence of a particular set of conditions. This is often expressed mathematically with great precision. However, it is accepted that this is based upon the study of a vanishingly small set of instances and so at any time an observation could be made that overturns the existing paradigm or hypothesis. You can thus disprove a theory in science, but never exhaustively prove it.

    In practical terms we take certain theories to be so well tested that we accept that they are proven, but there is always a caveat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    @HAROLD

    Go to meanings and not just game of confusing words

    1. Do you believe things which are observed by human being exits before first observation or means to say like Sun exits before first observation. Give answer only in Yes or No
    Yes, that would seem to make the most sense. But what I believe doesn't really matter.

    2. If we are unable to observe any thing due to " physical limitation" problem, it can not exit. Means to say only things which we observed exit. Give answer in Yes or No.

    3. Are you going to reach the conclusion to an ultimate observer who can observe all things. It will lead to conciseness and sense of "nature" which today is believed to be dead . According to science nature is dead and have no thinking, sense or consciousness. This will lead to concept of God. Do you agree with conciseness and thinking power of nature or another body outside of current biology ? Yes or No
    I don't understand questions 2 and 3. I draw no conclusions about the existence of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    Without Reality Observer can not exist.
    But without observer Reality can exist.
    Now you got it.

    A person in a coma is unable to observe the reality around them, but they are still affected by reality, even if they are unaware of it.

    I had a seizure during which time, I was unable to observe reality and was totally unaware of reality. I was not even self aware during the seizure, so during that time, it seemed to me that nothing existed, including time. Upon my recovery I discovered that everything continued to exist during the seizure including hte passage of time. and the affects of reality were present in the form of bruises on my from me hitting my head during the seizure itself.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    There is no such thing as proof in science.
    I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
    All that science can do is demonstrate that a particular set of results may be expected as a consequence of a particular set of conditions. This is often expressed mathematically with great precision. However, it is accepted that this is based upon the study of a vanishingly small set of instances and so at any time an observation could be made that overturns the existing paradigm or hypothesis. You can thus disprove a theory in science, but never exhaustively prove it.

    In practical terms we take certain theories to be so well tested that we accept that they are proven, but there is always a caveat.
    Ok! Good! You are sane and on safe ground. Its the problem with induction you are referring to, and you seem to be aware of Poppers Explanation. Still Id like to read how it is proven that a disproof of someting is valid? Must not the disproof be repeated forever in case it will fail next time?

    (Perhaps my question is near to your statement that there is no proof in science? But one cant prove that there is no proof in science... or can you?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,826
    A single "misproof" can be sufficient (depending on the original claim).
    All swans are white, for example, is disproven when a single black swan in found.
    For more esoteric things, particle physics etc, the "disproof" should be checked to confirm that it's not simply an error in measurement or something similar.

    But one cant prove that there is no proof in science... or can you?
    They only way to have "proof" is to know for a fact that there is nothing whatsoever that would ever contradict that "proof". And, without knowing absolutely everything, including the future, this isn't possible.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 10th, 2013 at 10:27 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 12th, 2013, 10:05 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 28th, 2013, 06:11 PM
  3. the inner judge/observer
    By geordief in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 4th, 2011, 06:20 AM
  4. Back after a long absence
    By southern_firestorm in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 13th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •