Is this like Schrödinger's Cat?
Printable View
Is this like Schrödinger's Cat?
Yes, but not a perception of sound.
Like I said, humans are necessary for analysis of time, but not for time.
That's pretty out there. Can you prove it?
How old is the universe? How old is Earth?
Yes, that's what it is. I don't see it as anything more than interesting science fiction.
I think I should post this again.
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/06-07/a...1.06-09-18.jpg
Galaxies in a relatively narrow frame. We came from that kind of stuff. It was around long, long, long before we were.
You can arbitrarily say how old or new things are, how long things last, etc. This is a limited view. It's a projection of the perception of time.
Are you saying that we are not part of the universe?
The universe also does fine with our opinions. What's your point?
Aaah!!! A universe without consciousness is not a universe at all! Imagine if a whole universe existed and died without ever once having life anywhere at all in it. And all the matter and energy got crunched back into before the big bang and there was no trace of it and no perception ever of it. Would it have existed? Or would it have been only a potential dream undreamed?
Am I saying we are not part of the universe? Uh, no. Why?
How old is the universe? Answer it this time, please.
That we are miniscule, insignificant, and unnecessary.
Isn't your premise that it existed?
The past is less imaginary than the future? From any perspective of existing, causes will be manifold--infinite, under any serious consideration--while effects will seem constrained. This effect is only from facing out into the event horizon from where you are now, a condition that exists for every being, but only every being, in an infinite universe.
There is a perspective from which nothing is changing and nothing can change, but to even call it "a perspective" is personification. It is our perspective, of course, to the degree that we hold it, and to that degree may ease our passage as we move through this world.
If you think we are part of the universe, then saying that the universe carrys on without us implies that we were separate from it. That is no different than saying planets are minuscule. "Look at how many planets there are! When that planet dies, the rest will carry on without it." It's only a limited perspective of the universe. Life and death are part of the universe. It's all the same. That doesn't negate the importance of meaning in the bigger picture.
I don't know how old the universe is. About 14 billion years or something. My point is that age doesn't matter; time is an illusion.
Well! That must be your opinion!
Taosaur, how old is the universe? You are playing dodgeball.
No, I'm not saying we are separate from the universe. I am saying we could be nonexistent and it wouldn't make a shit.
How do you reconcile the next two quotes?
:whyme:
I know. I am saying so what, basically. It's just a perspective.
Ergo 14 Billion years is a limited concept that, in the bigger picture, is an illusion. Sure it's pragmatic or useful (or whatever) in science. But this is not about science.
Then tell me about the effects the extinction of humanity would have on the galaxies in that picture I posted.
I am illustrating that the universe is much older than we are, which means that we are not the basis of the universe.
What is you answer to the question?
For all 'lly's "fluffiness" in communicating his position, I can't deny his essentially accurate vision. While your 14 billion years are accurate within the context that they have meaning, that context is wholly dependent upon where we fix the present moment, and by what means. No means that we can employ are independent of consciousness--our consciousness, specifically. There are no objects within a universe without observers, no past and no future. The physical does not supersede the experiential; to favor it is merely a bias.
A materialist and a spiritualist can agree on what, essentially, is happening, and vary only on the weight they assign various actors.
You are talking about analysis of time again. I know that a human or other intelligent being is necessary for calling something the present and talking about the past. That is beside the point. The present is what it is and the past was what it was even if we never recognize it. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old, and humans have existed for about 100,000 years. That means the universe existed for many billions of years without humans. Did it not?
Again, I am not calling into question who can recognize that. I'm just saying that it is a fact.
There would be very little "effects", but you cannot say that if there were no humans than it wouldn't change anything. Remember that the scope through which you're observing the universe is the scope of meaning that you will comprehend.
The universe is defined to include all things that exist. Describing a small part of the universe, such as the human species, is nothing but that. That is just one perspective. If you want to narrow down the potential meaning it is to exist as a human as such, than you may as well go and bury your head in the sand. However, you can instead realize that you are part of all of this, or rather, at one with it.
In case you didn't get the message, the age of the universe doesn't mean anything to me because I don't believe in time.
Okay, I will admit to being rather confused right now. What exactly is it that we're debating here? I certainly understand that we're relatively insignificant compared to the rest of the universe, by sheer amount of volume and range of effect. Nothing we do can physically effect what goes on halfway across the universe, at least with current technology. I understand this. Yes, the universe was around before us, and will go on after us.
However, if you believe, as I do, that all consciousness is somehow intertwined at a base level -- that consciousness may, in fact, be one of the basis factors for our universe -- then suddenly we do have some importance on a grand scale. Our existence, or lack thereof, as a species has some effect on the other conscious, living beings in our universe, whether here on earth, or in distant galaxies. Perhaps minute, or even unmeasurable, but it's an effect nonetheless.
And meaning is a subjective, and entirely human, quality to project on to things. There is no objective meaning in anything. Personally, any universe, no matter how fascinating and complex, is rather meaningless if there are no conscious beings to be aware of its existence. From our perspective, with no observers it might as well have never existed. Would you agree with this? Whether or not the universe goes on without us is relatively unimportant, and indeed, impossible to say for sure. I couldn't care less what happens to the universe after all consciousness is gone... because I won't be around to see it. :P
I'm backing up because you're misunderstanding our position at a pretty fundamental level, here. 'lly and I are not talking about analysis of or symbolic reasoning about time. When we talk about observation or experience, it's not something happening in or to the universe, separate from it; observation or experience is the process that generates the local appearance of solid forms relating in space and time. The universe is not, in any fixed or complete sense, a collection of masses under the influence of physical forces operating in space and time--only from our incomplete perspective.
The point is not that humans or sentients in general are the super awesome center of the universe, but that the universe as we know it is only as much as we can see from where we are, a vision not only incomplete but in some fundamental respects, delusional. What you're suggesting is that in the absence of the madman, the hallucination would persist.
No, I do not think the hallucination would persist. The universe would. Our fuzzy understanding and questionable observation of it would be gone. IT would not.