Would the universe exist without observers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straight

John Wheeler, physicist: "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being".
And I'm strongly agree with him. "To exist" means "to be perceived"... by me. Yes, I am solipsist.

Almost everyone forget one main thing. There is only one observer - the one each of us calls "I". It is not any weirder than Big Bang or Multiverse or indeterminism. You just need to get used to it :alien:

---

The problem with accepting that means you willingly divorce yourself from other valid viewpoints altogether. I don't think a quote from a physicist means much in the way of this argument, especially without an explanation behind it other than a roundabout "cogito ergo sum". Nor does it help to say that you define a word differently than most everybody else, and it is somehow correct because you are averse to theories that don't confirm your bias. I have to ask, why even bother with a quote to persuade us, or even to persuade us at all if you are what brings us into existence? I'm sure most people that replied are fully aware of the idea you're putting out there for us, and I find it a bit presumptuous of you to say that most of us forgot something as paramount as the "main" thing... especially to even go one step further and claim there is only one observer. What exactly do you mean by that anyway, you spoke somewhat ambiguously in that regard. Do you mean that you are the only one that exists because you are the only entity whose thoughts and perceptions you are aware of? Or do you by chance mean something else? Is it only you that observes? Can nobody but you observe? Or are you speaking about each of us on a personal level, and if that's the case, aren't there then multiple observers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VagalTone

Consciousness can not exist without consciousness

---

Uh... can you expound upon your point a bit? All I can get from it is that it's circular reasoning. I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic because you don't even mention existence or its observation. A statement like this is inherently meaningless. Existence cannot exist unless it exists. A rock can not exist without rocks (or in other words, if rocks don't exist). All that's happening is that we're acknowledging consciousness exists, and if it doesn't then it doesn't. That's self evident, which is why I'm genuinely confused by what you're trying to say by posting this, lol.

I mean exactly what I said: "to exis" is "to be perceived by me".

^^ So... if you didn't exist, the physical universe would also not exist? Seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?

... I guess if that's the case then we all should hope you continue existing, for the sake of the universe! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Straight

I mean exactly what I said: "to exis" is "to be perceived by me".

---

Isn't it safer to assume that "to be perceived by you" means "to exist to you, as far as you can tell", rather than just "to exist"? If you subscribe to the reality being subjective and there not being any objective reality beyond that idea, then why do things exist just because they're perceived by you? How can even you be sure you exist? Honestly, I don't think cogito ergo sum actually covers this idea. As far as you can tell for sure, none of existence really exists. This is why I really don't like to treat this concept seriously. It's fun to entertain the idea, but if you actually subscribe to it as a belief and let it guide your actions, then it leads to a seriously delusional, closed-minded mindset (in fact it can't really get any more closed-minded than believing you are the only thing that exists, and that everything only exists because you perceive it). It's an intellectual dead-end, which I find boring and a bit too convenient. It would mean nobody could ever challenge my ideas, and I would cease to grow as a person because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Uh... can you expound upon your point a bit? All I can get from it is that it's circular reasoning. I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic because you don't even mention existence or its observation. A statement like this is inherently meaningless. Existence cannot exist unless it exists. A rock can not exist without rocks (or in other words, if rocks don't exist). All that's happening is that we're acknowledging consciousness exists, and if it doesn't then it doesn't. That's self evident, which is why I'm genuinely confused by what you're trying to say by posting this, lol.

---

Yeah, thanks for asking. I will use a bitch style on my answer, hope you don´t take it personally,
that just a matter of rethorics and emphasis . Also, i think i might not address what you may want to...i might go off-topic ( but i hope you don't think so). That's not my intention

It's something of a personal style, i like to use paradox and tautology sometimes so as to crash the old old system...

You know our intelect is just one of the senses that we humans have, it does not understand paradoxes and it always want to understand things in a symbolic sense, but some-things can not be reduced to symbols, they are only an aid to point to...

Therefore, these kinds of discussion, while of the utmost importance, really get weird when translated into symbolic language, and some-things are "lost in translation" (see the movie btw)

Therefore, i am afraid we won´t get satisfied with phylosophy..with this discussion,
but tha's not fair of my proud self to give up entirely this discussion

( because then one would see the truth and this mind rambling would be over and "we" would be quite disappointed having nothing else to do or think about, trust me in this: our ego is more interest in entertaining some suspicion of truth, in order to validade itself and deny reality )

The only option is to get out the matrix of conceptual dualistic thinking and shift location from a thought based self into a multisensorial, non grasping, nonlocatable (that is, omnipresent, and perhaps omnisciente they say) pointless point of being.
The problem is: science does not have the tools to shift, only to measure and observe the physical correlates thereby creating a duality between measurer and measured. Rememeber you can not catch a photon ?

We have to rely on contemplatives, who shift the lens inwards and outwards at the same time and dissolve the duality of observer and observed, of consciousness and its contents. Who measure reality without dividing it into a tool and a result

By their humble reports, we get the description ( as they struggle to put in words) that there's no division. Everything is the same nature, appearing as
different by the force of spontaneity and creativity which are atributes of the source (God, Self, Atman, and whatnot)

That is just fancy words, i know. But i hope they point and inspire you to another references, which in the end must bypass the limited point of view of intelectual reductionism and materialism and it's inherent divisive assumption

Therefore i have not much to add to this discussion, besides pointing you to try another answering tool besides the intellect, and yes consciousness is everything (if you want me to be linguisticly clear)

Hope you get utterly disappointed by my lack of satisfying arguments, because then will your mind stop grasping pleasant logical insights and open itself to the unknown, which it fears, because it recognizes the deliberate intention to divide itself - which implies the automatic recognition of its absurdity, the great cosmic joke ( by which it has become hypnotized and asleep already)

It is just very relative and beyond this or that, so utterly meaningless and disappointing for the mind

So, why keep chopping and dividing things into mental labels and nice little different boxes ?
Why not just accept thoughts as thoughts, not as original labels of reality ?

That is, why rely on this to know that ? on a limited tool to know a limitless unknowable isness ?

Isn´t the question itself trying to prove its absurdity ? so, why try to answer an absurd question ?
And why not try ? there's never a problem, it is all fine btw

We never depart from truth, from okayness, even while seeming to do so...
so good question ! and good thread !

I like your response, I don't think it was bitchy or whatever, you just seem rather passionate about what you're saying. Passion like that can lead to a bitchy response I suppose, but it doesn't always... I digress. I disagree with some of the conclusions you come to, but not necessarily the base assertions, facts, and "truths" you use to come to said conclusions. I really get where you're coming from with the idea of subjective reality and what not, but my point about it is to gauge how useful that line of thinking is. Granted, how useful something is doesn't mean it's right or the truth either, which is why I think you have to strike a proper balance between how pragmatic a way of thinking or specific beliefs are compared against how true they may or may not be.

Also, quick note about your question about trying to answer such an absurd question... I think the results of this thread should speak on their own about that. A few people believe the universe can't exist without observers, and a few believe it can. In turn, as long as none of us get really angry or refuse to continue meaningful discussion, we can potentially have our perspectives change. I think that's worth something, personally.

Anyway, I have to wonder how far the rabbit hole goes when you believe the outside existence is really there beyond our perception of it. The idea is that the idea necessarily has limits and reduces everything it experiences into symbols with contextual meaning that can change based on associations with other stimuli. You can say we can't actually know anything using this idea, and on that matter I agree. Strictly speaking, everything we know is a reconstruction of the outside world that is subject to interference, any kind of noise, oddly behaving neurons, or malfunctioning/defective cells can result in a wholly false perception of the outside world. Given this, how can you make a statement about anything? You also bring up how everything is a relationship between the measureer (wait, that's how you actually spell that?) and the measured, which is true of even perceiving anything in the first place. Everything we experience is an approximation, and you can say that, as a result of this knowledge, nothing has meaning beyond what you experience and give it... in a sense, the only kind of meaning something can have must be assigned to it. This too is true. Where I start to diverge from this line of thinking is that we can't trust anything; the knowledge we have about how wrong the perception of reality generated by the mind can be, we can't trust any conclusions we come to whatsoever other than to possibly quote Descartes and say "cogito ergo sum". Even that can't really be sure unless you define existence, and that requires a little more technical skills... including but not limited to using something as inherently flawed as language to apply descriptions of existence is like. The only thing prescriptive we have here explaining existence is that something must "be", but we don't even have a good idea of what not being really entails to understand what to be really means in the purest sense. Again, we just make an approximation.

However, through the development of a structured and methodical approach to exploring the world around us, we can lower just how much information about something is approximated. We really can be reasonably sure of things, otherwise we couldn't communicate with one another or be taking part in a structured society with developed technology. Truly, you can say none of this is real if you want, but the fact of the matter is that you're here. You do exist, and you live your life as if you do. Even if it's a falsehood, it's logically consistent enough to a healthy individual, based on knowledge passed down through the generations, that it is difficult to say none of it is real without purposefully holding on to a belief that limits your ability to learn. Other than the loads of empirical evidence we may have supporting a phenomenon, we also know that it must be true based on our ability to use the knowledge surrounding this phenomenon to make predictions and apply the knowledge to make things. This is a very compelling reason to ditch the idea that nothing is real beyond your perception; it only holds you back, and needlessly so. It may be the only thing you can be sure of, but again, I don't think you can even say that. Your experience of the world around you may be as unreal as there being an objective reality. All you can say for certain is that you exist in some way. Going off of that idea, you can't say anything exists at all other than yourself, which also implies anything you perceive to be utterly non-existent, something totally generated. You have no basis saying it exists at all, let alone that it only exists because you or others perceive it. This is why I entertain this notion in the back of my mind, but choose to dedicate my actual beliefs to something that allows me to grow.

The very end of your post is a reflection of an idea that I just don't understand choosing to believe. Overall, yes, it may be absurd and useless in any sense beyond yourself to try and understand anything, but is it any more absurd than doing nothing and learning nothing? You could probably justify both if you wanted to, but in my opinion, the one that allows progress to be made is the better doctrine to go with. And again, a point I made in another post: even if you can only be certain you exist, why do you believe that's the only case that can be? Your experience is so limited that you can't know anything for sure, right? For all you know, there is an objective reality. Limiting all possibilities to being equally likely in that manner is disturbing to me, because it's like saying Santa Claus could exist and the probability of his existence being 50/50. You're only working with two sets of information; you know you exist, and that a supposed Santa Claus could exist. You have no business making a conclusion either way about his existence in such a scenario, because the amount of reasonably reliable information you have is limited to you and Santa Claus. We can say, using the concept of the universe I support, with a much greater degree of probability, whether Santa Claus does or really could exist. This is because we can rely on evidence, even if they are approximations. That's the purpose of getting a wealth of evidence built up using all the different senses, etc. In the end I could be lying to myself about all this or deceiving myself, but given the probability of things based on the ideals it sounds like you believe, my beliefs, overall have just as much chance as being the case. Now, since we're talking about all kinds of knowledge, that number goes down considerably, but that's the point of learning about the natural world in the first place.

One last bit about categorization and measuring things and further categorizing them... these are the only real tools we have to understand anything. You do it because it's all you can do. To do any less means not being able to function. You will necessarily die within the time it takes you to starve or die of dehydration, because if you truly believe it is an absurd and pointless task to do these things, you wouldn't do them any more. The fact you participate in life, even if just to avoid pain and discomfort, means you utilize the same methods you bemoan for their absurdity. If you're truly committed to your own ideas in this regard, never get out of bed and let yourself die (please don't do this). If you aren't, don't you think you owe it to yourself to believe you aren't the end-all-be-all of existence? Unless of course this whole discussion is up to a matter of semantics, and what you mean to say by the universe exists because you observe it is that the universe you perceive exists only because you perceive it, and I'm just misunderstanding you. I've kind of said it already, but I agree with that idea, it just says nothing about the universe itself (as opposed to what and how I perceive it).

Quote:

---

Would the universe exist without observers?

---

Just a thought... :dreaming:

What would be the point? There is sensibiliy in universe, even all around us... everything responds to something.

Who can tell if the universe itself is not manifestation or proof of observation of existance of its main constituent part(icle)s which, of course, would be the observers. Maybe we are 'the eyes' of the universe and in some way we are IT'S selfawareness... Universe observing itself through us.

Can there be knowledge without the knower (who would containt it, for example)? So it is 'knowing'. Can there be love without the one (at least one) who loves? So it is 'loving'.

Does this makes sense to (any of) you? Or was I observing flickering lights from the whiteness of PC-screen for too long today...

Next question would of course be: Would (or) can the observer exist without (some) universe, or whatever that he (or she) would (or could) observe?

'Universe' as a noun seems so static and when I think of it, it is as a dead nonexistant thing. I would change it to verb: "to universing". Living.

Universe (to go back to noun) is not simply space around us. Universe is also inside us. There is universe of thinking, universe of feeling, universe of interacting (or laws of nature and living beings), universe of whatever. It's all the same universe...

I am aware that this was neither science nor mathematics, but as for what it was, it is 'my two cents' on the subject.
Hmh... time to stop there. :okbyenow:

Those questions make sense. I think my counter question(s) (yes, I know, I'm answering a question with a question) would be: what's the point even with observers? Does love or knowledge matter any more than anything else? Are they more meaningful than physical interactions between particles/large conglomerates of particles, or anything else for that matter? The meaning we ascribe to everything appears to be arbitrary from any perspective outside our own (I mean outside of being human or an otherwise intelligent being), but it doesn't mean the universe isn't ordered. That same order is what allows beings like us to exist in the first place, but we don't need to exist for it to have a point, do we? Or maybe it's better said that there never was and never will be a "point" that exists outside of someone's perspective. I suppose that makes the universe like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"; the points don't matter. The point to things are there for us, by us. Something that just is doesn't need a point to be, if that makes any sense. Of course, that's just talking about the universe itself. We happen just to be, but since we recognize we are, we often find we do need some reason for being. In that case, good news! We can make the points up as we go, lol.

I like your ideas, even if we are kind of getting a bit too far into a philosophical discussion since it's science/mathematics.

Interesting...

Ok, lets try it a bit more 'scientific' then... I'll try... no, really, I will :D

What actually are physical interactions between particles/large conglomerates of particles (let's stop there). Where will we put a border (with fences and all that?) and say: from this line on, physic(ality) ceases to exist, and something else begins? Or, we can treat it metaphorically... and then everything is physical in one way or another, known or unknown (yet). In the same way someone might say all is then spiritual in some sense... or whatever... So, here physicality as people usualy think of it starts becoming something else also, something more (not more than it is, but more than we think it is). And this physic then must greatly surpass both science and philosophy as distinct, clearly separated entities, concepts, branches-of-knowledge (or whatever). At one time, i believe, it (that greater physic) was named metaphysics. Even most simple physics (mechanics for example) ... what is it without mind who comprehends it, or even observes it? How can I separate existance of a cup-of-coffie in front of me from the fact that I perceive it? Even if I imagine it only... even from the process of imagining it... Just a peak back to metaphysical axiom of inseparability of the trio, knower-knowing-known, or lover-loving-loved, or observer-observing/observation-observed...

Having said that, even Mendeleyev, father of table of (not only chemical) elements invisioned atoms which do not chemically bond, but otherwise (not even only electrically, but otherwise). I won't even ask why are they not in our tables (scientific branches could not then be so 'sharply' demarcated). What is physical about mechanics of quanta? What is physical about presumed influence of observer on observed results (in such experiments) of which even today people write books of popular-science? What is physical about nonlocality and indeterminability of position of speeding particle/wave? The question: what is the speed of standing particle: is it physical or a trick question, or some modern variety of "zen-koan"? If it is not particle (moves), it's a wave. If it stands (or spins) in place, it's particle. What IS "it"? Please "it" - stand up and answer? At some point, the ability of observer? or lack of some unknown observing-abilities? Mirror mirror on the wall...

Is thinking (observing with one's mind) also a kind of observation? We have te ability, we do it, so it must be...

There is a notion 'out there somewhere' that observer creates universe (manifests) when he observes (say: invents) thing in his mind. Observer is here one who realizes (eureka!) and what he realized - becomes, manifests into visible form, visible by other sentient beings, or even, by all in and of a way consciousness works within them. It is not the same as "I think therfore I am" (as if if that I is not a thinking being it would not exist in the first place), but "I think, voila!, I am (become what I thought, realized about myself, envisioned)". Going backwards from this: fact that universe exists is all around us, we see and perceive what we see and perceive of it in a way we do. Is it possible that some Observer, "great unknown mind" brought this universe into (scientifically) physical existance and keeps it going in likewise way - retorical question. If it were not a retorical question, someone might stumble upon the idea to try it and envision something within himself and watch it manifesting... ;-) Would it be better to start with kindness or cinicism? Which would allow him to further his own self-realization, selfawareness, and which would hinder it (he himself being one that hinders himself)?

So, much would seem to depend on ... definitions of terms...

What is a zero but a glitch in the universe...:sheepishgrin: No, really.

Universe and its observer is the same thing. Only conceptual elaboration creates a separation.
Then only nonceptual loosening can show us how tightly we grasp onto concepts

Saint Francis said that what we are looking is whats looking

There really is no difference beteween subject and object, so the question does not apply, it can not be answered, the same way your calculator says error if you try to divide zero

Universe is all there is, it can not be defined by a small part ( ie, thoughts)

My point is that the answer to the question is seeing its absurdity :)