Thread: Subjective or Objective World?

This may sound like some old cliche, but as it happens, many new theories were developed based on some old disregarded problems.

Subjective or Objective? Well, personally I support the former. For me the reasons seems to be simple:
1. A reality without an observer is pure surmise. No one has ever been to such a reality, and if anyone does, that reality ceases to be unobserved.

2. The cognition of the existence of reality relies on an observer (this is irefutable) Without an observer, it is not known whether reality exists or not.

I think from this we deduce that imagining a pure objective reality is non sense, it's meaningless and cannot be ever verified.

A scientific view of this, would be quantum physics. "No one understands quantum physics". Even now there are controversies about it's interpretation , especially the quantum wave collapse, so far it still hasn't been well interpreted and theorized, one of the remedies, is the subjective interpretation.

"A system is completely described by a wave function , representing the state of the system, which evolves smoothly in time, except when a measurement is made, at which point it instantaneously collapses to an eigenstate of the observable measured."

Quoted from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

There are scientists who are endeavoring to find a subjective interpretation for Quantum Physics, and I hope they succeed, because if they do, our views of the entire universe shall. be changed radically.



Note: I am aware there are people who may strongly object to this, like Strange ( I remember him well on this forum), but seriously, try not to be the people who laughed at Galileo before he dropped the two balls off the tower, and became stunned when they landed at the same time.

I am not claiming that subjective interpretation is proven already, but I am arguing for a place for this interpretation, next to the generally accepted objective, for some people have claimed it as" childish talk" or 'idiotic philosophy", which I find offensive and preposterous.

It's like asking is left to the left of right or is right to the right of left.

Originally Posted by Jim Colyer

It's like asking is left to the left of right or is right to the right of left.

What you are doing is called "refuting a straw man", a common fallacy. Why is it like saying what you said?

Originally Posted by Wise Man

Note: I am aware there are people who may strongly object to this, like Strange ( I remember him well on this forum)

Hello!

, but seriously, try not to be the people who laughed at Galileo before he dropped the two balls off the tower, and became stunned when they landed at the same time.

Don't forget, they laughed might have at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

1. A reality without an observer is pure surmise. No one has ever been to such a reality, and if anyone does, that reality ceases to be unobserved.

2. The cognition of the existence of reality relies on an observer (this is irefutable) Without an observer, it is not known whether reality exists or not.

I think from this we deduce that imagining a pure objective reality is non sense, it's meaningless and cannot be ever verified.

I don't see how you conclusion follows logically from the antecedents. Even if we can never prove that an objective reality exists, you can't conclude from that, that it doesn't.

This is, like its cousin, solipsism, one of those things that can never be proved or disproved. It seems to me that it is therefore of no value. Of course you can believe the world is entirely subjective. How far do you want to take it? Does it cease to exist while you are asleep? Or does it require all sentient life in the universe to die out before it pops out of existence? Did the universe suddenly come into existence fully formed, in all its complexity, when the first sentient creature opened its eyes?

Trying to find support in quantum theory is just new-age woo; there is nothing in quantum mechanics that requires an intelligent observer (at least, no more than any other type of physics).

I'm afraid I still don't see it as anything than one of those schoolboy games like, "if a tree falls ..."

Hello Strange, I expected to see you.

Don't forget, they laughed might have at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

You have a natural gift to insult people, but not to reason and argue.

I don't see how you conclusion follows logically from the antecedents. Even if we can never prove that an objective reality exists, you can't conclude from that, that it doesn't.

I never declared subjective reality to be true, I'm inclined to believe it, although there's work to be done. But that doesn't mean either that objective reality prevails.

This is, like its cousin, solipsism, one of those things that can never be proved or disproved. It seems to me that it is therefore of no value. Of course you can believe the world is entirely subjective. How far do you want to take it? Does it cease to exist while you are asleep? Or does it require all sentient life in the universe to die out before it pops out of existence? Did the universe suddenly come into existence fully formed, in all its complexity, when the first sentient creature opened its eyes?

All that I am saying is that, in a subjective reality, observations depend upon the observer, nothing more. Don't make generalizations and use them to argue against me.

Trying to find support in quantum theory is just new-age woo; there is nothing in quantum mechanics that requires an intelligent observer (at least, no more than any other type of physics).

No this is not new-age woo. Speak like so shows that you haven't much knowledge of quantum physics. The double slit experiment, is a demonstration that an observation on a system altars the outcome of it. I never said the observer should be intelligent whatsoever, you are going on a tangent.

I'm afraid I still don't see it as anything than one of those schoolboy games like, "if a tree falls ..."

Again with this ... can you learn to be logical instead of abusing others?

Originally Posted by Wise Man

You have a natural gift to insult people, but not to reason and argue.

That was not an insult. I'm not sure why you would think it was. (It was a quote from a guy called Feynman who was way smarter than me.)

All that I am saying is that, in a subjective reality, observations depend upon the observer, nothing more. Don't make generalizations and use them to argue against me.

Those were not "generalization", they are very specific questions that your view raises. That is the problem. If you accept objective reality (i.e. the universe is real in some sense and was there before us) then there are no awkward questions. As son as you propose that it is subjective then like solipsism, it raises all sorts of awkward questions:

1. If the universe is purely subjective, then it must have created when the first "subject" was here to perceive it. If so, how did that first subject come into being?

2. If the universe is purely subjective, why is it so complex? How could we have created a universe that we have not yet been able to fully understand?

3. Is this a personal subjectivity, as you have suggested before, so when any one of us is unconscious the universe ceases to exist? Or is it "global" - the universe continues to exist as long as there is one conscious entity somewhere in the universe?

You can't just wave away these awkward questions and pretend they don't matter. They are fundamental to your concept. If you haven't thought of these questions, and therefore have no answers, that's fine. But they do suggest the idea is unnecessarily complex (Occam's Razor, and all that).

The double slit experiment, is a demonstration that an observation on a system altars the outcome of it. I never said the observer should be intelligent whatsoever, you are going on a tangent.

If it doesn't require an intelligent or conscious observer (which it doesn't, just a measurement) then it is hardly relevant to a subjective universe.

Again with this ... can you learn to be logical instead of abusing others?

Again, why would you think that was abuse? You seem somewhat over-sensitive...

IF it's subjective why is there so much agreement on what things are?

Perhaps the problem here is essentially that of definition. I suspect that Wise Man may be discussing Intersubjective verifiablity as a method to evaluate matters instead of interjecting quantum theory.

Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.

This by no means affirms that reality is entirely a subjective experience.

Intersubjective Verifiablity

But that would argue for non-subjective existence...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

But that would argue for non-subjective existence...

Agreed.