Do we see the universe the way it is?

[Galteeth]

This is an old philosophical debate. If we were to assume the world is an illusion, but the illusion is consistent, it's the same thing as the world being "real" since the "truth" behind the illusion, if not perceivable, does not necessarily have any meaningful existence. Now, if this "reality" affects our illusion in a way that we can decipher, it then exists in a meaningful way, but is also perceivable. It is possible the in the future, we will discover aspects of reality that we are currently not aware of, or evolve in a manner that widens or perceptual capacities. This is the process of obtaining knowledge, and is is part of the ongoing process of science and the evolution of the universe.

 

[Willowz]

If we were to assume the world is an illusion, but the illusion is consistent, it's the same thing as the world being "real" since the "truth" behind the illusion, if not perceivable, does not necessarily have any meaningful existence.

Yeah. So, better drop the "illusion" part at all.

 

[Willowz]

It matters greatly how we "observe". For instance, SDSS imaged the parts of the sky visible from their site in a range of bandwidths. Their filters are labeled u, g, r, i, and z. It is possible (and has been done quite well) to combine such imagery to simulate the appearance of broad-band visual images. Schmidt telescopes in the northern and southern hemispheres were used to make whole-sky surveys on photographic plates over a course of decades. The images were made in blue, red, and infrared bands. IRSA hosts those images, and supplies functionality to combine those images in multiple bands to simulate the appearance of broad-band images, though that is not as well-implemented as the SDSS method.

In each band, observations are subject to natural extinction (luminosity falls off as the square of our separation) and our perception of the observations is skewed by Malmquist bias, in which the brightest, most energetic objects at every redshift are over-represented while the fainter, more spread-out objects fail to show in our imagery.

Are there dwarf galaxies, low-surface brightness galaxies, or galaxies populated by old, red stars at high redshift? They may exist, but we would have great difficulty in detecting them because of natural extinction. The OP posted in philosophy, but there is plenty of hard science to apply to the question.

I'm not sure if I'm able to comprehend all those wondrous things you have mentioned. But, my point is that a person will see the world as that person does. A bat sees the world as a bat does. A bee as the bee does. And so on.

 

[turbo]

I'm not sure if I'm able to comprehend all those wondrous things you have mentioned. But, my point is that a person will see the world as that person does. A bat sees the world as a bat does. A bee as the bee does. And so on.

Humans choose how they observe. Animals do not.

 

[Willowz]

Humans choose how they observe. Animals do not.

I don't understand. How do they choose?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't understand. How do they choose?

Well, to name a few, by reflecting, hypothesizing, abstracting, metaphorizing and building models.

To a bee, a tree is no more than its color, texture, taste and smell. To a human, it is a symbol of myriad concepts.

 

[Physics-Learner]

when the philosophy forum was more open, i participated in similar discussions.

where i seemed to disagree with many of other pf members is whether the universe has substance in itself.

many seem to think that it is how we observe it to be. i disagree.

i think the universe is something exact. and anyone viewing it is basing his conclusion on the tools that he used. much like the blind men and the elephant.

 

[Oerg]

I think the OP is referring to unfalsifiable theories a la the matrix. Biological limitations in trying to perceive nature the way it actually is. The universe could be created a second ago for all we know.

 

[Darken-Sol]

I think the OP is referring to unfalsifiable theories a la the matrix. Biological limitations in trying to perceive nature the way it actually is. The universe could be created a second ago for all we know.

or reconfigured at each event providing new data at each interval. if this happened at a frame rate that is quicker than we can percieve it would appear analog. we have evolved to percieve things in our environment. keep in mind Earth is isolated by lots of space, then our solar system and more space. we can take this up to galaxy and observable universe. although the OU seems subjective. i mean your OU is at least our distance apart different than mine.