I am adding a poll.
If you answer Subjective, what type of philosophy do you hold, if you know? (solipsism, nondualism, ...) Also, what are these commonly observed objects like the Moon, if the universe is subjective? We seem to share subjective observations. And what is the role of consciousness in your view?
If you answer Objective, do we perceive this objectivity, objectively? Where does consciousness fit in?
Facts and reality are objective. Our perceptions are subjective. Being human we are pretty much doomed to always be using an incomplete set of knowledge on whatever subject. Its depressing really.
Facts and reality are objective. Our perceptions are subjective. Being human we are pretty much doomed to always be using an incomplete set of knowledge on whatever subject. Its depressing really.
How can facts and reality be objective if the only way we interact with the world is subjective?
The earth orbits the sun, that's a fact; the sun orbits the earth, that was our perception.
Reality is reality regardless of how we perceive it.
How can facts and reality be objective if the only way we interact with the world is subjective?
Well, facts and reality exist independant of us (unless our actions create those things, but even then, they are still there if we all up and die one day). However, if I make a chair in my workshop, the chair exists and will continue to exist in spite of me, until such a time that erosion, microbes, fire, or whatever causes that chair to no longer exist. That chair existing is fact, however, my experience of it is subjective. I may experience sitting in it a different way from another person. I may see a pattern in the wood grain that nobody else sees. It may feel heavier to me than someone who works out if I try to lift it. Some botanist may look at the chair and see some qualities in the wood that I don't understand. All of us take away different things from that chair, but the chair itself contains all of those qualities at the same time and each of us will only ever see some of them.
That's the point, reality does not exist independent of us. The quirks of quantum mechanics demonstrate that you MUST have an observing consciousness in order for particles to take form. Without an observing consciousness, there would be no matter. That is inherently subjective.
I never bought into that. If a tree falls in the woods you're darn straight it makes a sound, whether there's anyone to hear it or not. Just because I don't see a falling steel I-beam doesn't mean it won't squish me flat.
My only exception would be if the "observer" required for the existence of matter was God. :mrgreen:
Relativity still applied 1000 years before Einstein was born.... we just didn't know it.
When someone expands beyond Einstein and puts Relativity into a limited box (like Newton's theories were boxed, "applies only to non-relativistic frames"), we will be discovering something that already existed.... we just didn't know it yet.
Tucker, while I agree to an extend with what you are saying, I would go further. In the case of an elephant, we have a creature that is consciously percieved. It has capabilities which are not consciously percievved, but since the whole is percieved, the undetectable parts occur. This same is true of a forest. the forest behaves in a certain way which is perceivable. In the absence of an immediate observer it still behaves in its foresty way and so a tree which falls makes a sound. So to me it is all about conscious observation which realizes systems of objects with internal behaviors, which can exist independent of observation once realized.
All we can perceive is historical data about a star.
We assume that these things have occured because we believe in the laws of physics we have described through observation.
We know that one of those options must be objectively factual, regardless of our inability to make current observations about the validity of either statement.
One of the two choice is an objective fact right now.
And an interesting fact about the light we are observing from Andromeda is that this light was shed before humans even existed to perceive that light.
Hell, we have observed light from Quasars that was shed from well before the Earth even existed.
That which we observe had to exist prior to all things that we know of that could have make observations.
We know that they cannot come into existence with observation because we know that we are observing things that had to exist millions, even billions, of years before any known observations could be made.
So the only thing that can be affected by observation is our knowledge of what exists in reality.
This is a very compelling case and analogy. I am not sure that predictable, according to the laws of physics, and observable, make it objective. It involves the concept of time which is pliable at quantum scale.
Again, Quantum Mechanics REQUIRES a conscious observation to collapse a wave function. Whether WR-104 has supernovaed or not is part of it's wave function. Observation of a Quasar is necessary to collapse its wave function and bring it into existence. The fact that the light from the Quasar emitted billions of years ago is inconsequential to this.
Generally, the laws of physics are discovered adn specified based on observation, so it is based on a subjective view of the universe. that these experiments verifying the laws of physics are verifiable adn repeatable, and so that the laws are "universal" does not reduce the fact that they are subjective.
There is no objectivity. Nothing exists outside of our ability to observe it. This is independent of time.
It seems as though you're viewing a wavefunction as a representation of something real instead of being a mathematical tool of quantum mechanics.
The wave function is merely a description of things used to determine probabilities and such.
Schrodinger's cat was an argument about how to describe how Quantum mechanics views things, but it really wasn't meant to be a description of the reality.
The assumption about the superposition of states is necessary for Quantum mechanics to work out as a predictive tool, but should nto be mistaken for reality, IMO.
While quantum mechanics uses mathematical tools to express probability, which is not an accurate depiction of "reality" - I agree with you - this description does specify that you cannot know position/velocity or energy/time until the wave function has collapsed under observation. These attributes are undefined prior to observation.
Where I think the conundrum is is in assuming the macro world within which we percieve is "reality". People desperately want it to be independent of observer and thus objective. It is not. Therefore, it is not "reality".
We cannot know anything prior to observation. Knowledge has always been dependent on observation and perception.
That's where the problem with using quantum mechanics to support you argument lies. Quantum mechanics is all about increasing knowledge, and therefore always requires the subjective.
The superposition of states is not occurring with the matter. It's actually occurring with our understanding of the matter.
The wave function has to collapse in order for us to gain understanding.
Take Schrodinger's cat. The cat is either alive or dead inside the box. It doesn't really exist in both states. Only our understanding of the cat exists in both states. this is because we cannot perceive which potential reality is factually correct.
My supernova example is merely Schrodinger's cat without going to reductio ad absurdum (as Schrodinger himself was doing when he created the argument).
And I would say that people would much prefer a reality dependent on the observer because it appeals to the homo-centric way of viewing reality that seems most common. From what I can see, people tend to think in very limited ways that make humanity the center of the universe despite all of the evidence proving otherwise.
From a Universal perspective, humanity in it's entirety (all four dimensions) is less than a grain of sand is to the solar system. I see a truly objective reality as far less appealing on an emotional level than a subjective reality would be because it forces us to look at our own insignificance.
Our understanding of reality is the only thing that is subjective.
Schrodinger's cat is different than observation of the universe in this respect: The cat has already been observed prior to being placed in the box, so the cat is already realized in the macro sense. Then it is an issue of knowledge. In the case of the universe, initial observation has not yet occurred so realization has not happened.
In the case of quantum mechanics with quantum particles, it is not merely the absence of knowledge which leads to the wave function, but the lack of observation and detection.
Particles really are in many states of existence, at least this is my understanding of QM.
The puzzling thing is the transition from many quantum particles with uncollapsed wave function to macro level things. At which point do macro level things become realized (wave function collapses)?
I don't see the evidence proving otherwise. I think it is an open question. This leads to holding a belief about the issue. If the universe is subjective, you are correct, the existence of the universe is dependent on observation, thus our consciousness is the center of the universe and we are not insignificant.
I would say that the existence of "reality" is subjective, once again calling into question: what is the nature of "reality"? In a subjective world view, it is consciousness which is reality, not the universe.
Observation has to be secondary to existence.
In a subjective universe, this star could not have gone through it's entire life-cycle due to never having been observed. But it had to already have been destroyed prior to being observed due to the properties of light. The day before it's light reached Earth in order to be observed, it did not exist in both states. It could not have existed in both states.
If it had, it would have been producing light from both states.
Observation and detection are inherently intertwined with knowledge and are inseparable. Knowledge is the product of observation and detection. The wave function describes mathematically all of the potential observations that are possible. The collapse of the wave function occurs through observation because at that point knowledge is accrued. The knowledge in this case is which potential realities are invalidated and which one is validated.
This isn't certain. The issue could be that the fourth dimension is vastly different at the micro-level than it is at the macro level. If the rate of time at the micro level is massively different than it is at the macro level, the issue isn't that these things exist in many states at the same time, but instead that they appear to do so because of the difference in the rates of time relative to the observer and observee.
Imagine that you and I existed in areas with vastly different rates of time, and that we were immortal. Let's say that the comparative rates of time were for every nano-second in your region, a millennium passed in my region. Now lets say that you are able to observe what is happening in my region.
Since the things going on in my region are happening over a relatively long period of time, there is a whole lot going on. But all of that is occurring, form your perspective, in a nano-second.
Of course, to the observer in such a situation it will appear that the occurrences in my region are happening simultaneously and that everything exists in multiple states until the observation occurs, which would be a "Snapshot" of a nano-second in my relative time frame.
That's how I imagine it.
I think you're getting down to the more metaphysical question of "What is the meaning of reality/life".
Ironically, my belief in an objective reality and human insignificance has lead to a personal philosophy of existentialism when applied to the individual.
Since I believe in individual, even species-wide insignificance, and that is a terribly depressing belief, I have adopted an existential worldview regarding personal significance.
I believe that since there is no objective meaning to life, at least at the individual level, we have to subjectively create our own meaning.
For whatever reason, humans have the need to find meaning even where no meaning might exists.
So at the individual level, I would say that reality can be viewed as existing subjectively even if it is truly objective, because this subjective interpretation of reality is more beneficial to the human psyche than a truly objective universe is.
I should add that if a Deity were to exist, it would lead to a subjective reality because the subjective interpretation that creates existence would be that of said deity, which would add meaning of some sort to existence.
In a truly objective universe, though, there can be no meaning to existence. Since this is what I believe in, despite my own psyche's distaste for such an idea, I then feel that one must essentially invent a false, subjective meaning to existence/reality.
So if I view your question from a Universal sense, I would say that the Universe exists in an objective sense.
But when viewed from a personal sense, I would say My universe exists in a purely subjective sense.
This is a huge and excellent post, Tucker. Thanks for taking the time to write it. I apologize for not being able to get to it yesterday, as I was very busy at work and exhausted by the time I got home. I had to read it several times to figure out how I wanted to respond. I'll pull out what I think are the things I can respond to.
I don't think so. I am assuming you mean existence in the macro sense of having had the wave function collapse. I think you can have quantum existence prior to observation, but that observation is required to realize the macro state. This state includes the history of states, so the observation can occur after the object is seemingly in existence.
We have hit on whether this "reality" is true reality or if consciousness represents true "reality". A corollary to that is the concept of time, I think. It is possible that time does not exist in the realm of consciousness and is only an illusion like space, mass, etc.
Yes, but I feel that the implications of an objective universe vs a subjective universe leads to different answers to this question.
This is a very interesting view. I think you are right in the aspect that humans need to create meaning. The subjective universe provides that meaning and it does not have to be added post facto.
Indeed. I was determined to not be the one who brought up the possibility of deity in this discussion. I am glad that you did. A subjective universe, specified by consciousness does lead one to consideration of the existence of deity.
And thus no compelling reason for deity.
Again, this is very interesting.
I suppose I see things in an opposite sense. From a Universal sense, I would say that the Universe exist in a subjective sense. This opens the possibility of Deity.
Viewed from a personal sense, both subjective and objective senses are represented. Subjective senses tend to be supported by the religious and spiritual. Objective senses are represented by the scientific who discover laws of behavior of commonly experience phenomena, like the revolution of the planets and moon around the sun. A subjective universe does not preclude the laws of nature.
Thanks again for your response and great discussion so far!
I'm not sure I understand this. Could you explain what you mean by "observation is required to realize the macro state."I don't think so. I am assuming you mean existence in the macro sense of having had the wave function collapse. I think you can have quantum existence prior to observation, but that observation is required to realize the macro state. This state includes the history of states, so the observation can occur after the object is seemingly in existence.
Have you read McTaggart's "The Unreality of Time"? The Unreality of Time You might find it interesting.
I've read a lot of on the subject of time.
You should also check out some stuff by Henri Poincare. It's a facinating subject and sort of a hobby of mine.
True, an objective universe does not provide a compelling reason to believe in a deity, but it also doesn't necessarily negate the potential existance of one. A deity similar to that proposed by Deists could exist within such a worldview because it remains apart from it's creation.
Also, if a more traditional "involved" deity exists, one could argue that the Universe exists objectively relative to humans, but subjectively relative to said deity.
I agree that we seem to have opposite beleifs. It's very interesting. I'd like to learn more about your views regarding th erealization of the macro strate and how observations of the past can come prior to that realization.
I'm assuming that you are using realization to mean the final potential reality coming to be, instead of in a sense related to our own realization of which potential relaity is in existence.
I will try to straighten my own thoughts about it. One of the things that has always confused me is the transition from micro/quantum reality to macro/classical reality. In micro reality we have uncollapsed wavefunctions, if not observed. When many quantum particles are combined into a macro state, it seems as if the wave functions may already be collapsed and the object realized. Yet, they require observation. So what do you get when you have a macro assemblage of quantum particles which have not been observed? Is it a macro object with a composite wavefunction which have not collapsed? If so, then all possible states are still available to the macro object and this includes it's history per the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Could you explain this a bit more?
I guess it's confusing to me because I look at the wave function as little more than a mathematical attempt at understanding, while this seems to give it more merit than that.
Well, by this I mean that the deity would be the ultimate observer making all of the interpretations. Any non-deity would have no affect on reality because they would be the secondary observer. If a thing is realized upon observation, and the deity is omniscient, it is constantly observing all. That would create an "objective" reality from the human frame of reference, but a subjective reality form the deitys frame of reference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?