Existence Without Mankind: Forum Discussion

[Daiquiri]

The two statements you seem to be backing here represent a contradiction in your logic in my view.

You are right. I have not read your statement after the asterisk in the correct way and so the phrase "And finaly, that is what I meant" is not correct. The interpretation by which the things "do not exist unless we understand it to" doesn't rappresent my thoughts and it should be quite clear by now. I was eager to end my long reply and the result is a mistake due to misreading your final phrase. I have no problems to admit my mistake.

I was, and am, desperately trying to talk about proofs of existence.
You could have arrived quite easily to my point by reading everything else that I wrote before that stupid phrase. Did you do it? Do you have something to say about my arguments?

There's an entire page of my thoughts on the issue up there.

So let me repeat one more time my point:
"What I've said is that we have no proof of their existence if we are not able to observe them."

something spontaneously beginning/ceasing to exist as a result of observations and more essentially their interpretations, is quite alien to me.

Tell me, is this seriously all that you have understood of all the things I've said?

 

[Daiquiri]

One day I was looking at a tree. It was standing tall. I left the area and came back a few days later. I noticed the same tree had fallen down. I guess I should of assumed that things magically go "poof!" when I'm not around.

I have to admit that I don't get what you mean... Can you elaborate on this one?

 

[White Ink]

Tell me, is this seriously all that you have understood of all the things I've said?

No. That was just something I wrote based on your agreement with the comment after the asterisk (something which we have now cleared up). Unfortunately I don't have time to write a longer reply right now, I'm in a bit of a rush.

 

[scupydog]

So let me repeat one more time my point:
"What I've said is that we have no proof of their existence if we are not able to observe them."

The Quantum entanglement of photons

 

[Daiquiri]

The Quantum entanglement of photons

Scupydog, if you don't elaborate on that phrase a little bit more, how can I get what's up on your mind?

 

[LightbulbSun]

I have to admit that I don't get what you mean... Can you elaborate on this one?

Meaning we can reasonably conclude with enough evidence that events are taking place even if we're not around to see them.

 

[Daiquiri]

Meaning we can reasonably conclude with enough evidence that events are taking place even if we're not around to see them.

I think we should go back to the original question, the one in the title. The only possible and demonstrable answer to that question is, IMHO, that we don't really know and will never be able to know.

A universe without observers is possible only as a thought experiment. And even so it is a paradox because that same thought experiment is a violation of such a universe.

In the very moment when you think about such kind of universe you become it's observer and that makes it possible for you to conceive the possibility of existence of things.

 

[scupydog]

In the very moment when you think about such kind of universe you become it's observer and that makes it possible for you to conceive the possibility of existence of things.

OK I've had enough of this, now thinking is observing

this is my last post on this subject, but i will be looking in the philosophy forum again.

good by all.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think we should go back to the original question, the one in the title. The only possible and demonstrable answer to that question is, IMHO, that we don't really know and will never be able to know.

A universe without observers is possible only as a thought experiment. And even so it is a paradox because that same thought experiment is a violation of such a universe.

In the very moment when you think about such kind of universe you become it's observer and that makes it possible for you to conceive the possibility of existence of things.

You have to take the self aspect out of this. If we did not exist as species, yet everything was here then things are still existing. We confirm it through our own senses, but ultimately we don't need to be around for something to exist. I know that's counter intuitive, but if you think about it from an outsiders perspective you can see that it's definitely possible.

 

[Daiquiri]

All in all, I cannot demonstrate my point of view, and you cannot do it with yours. And we could go on with this for the next couple of years, I think (btw: yes - I think therefore I observe, scupydog).

I agree with scupydog, this pub is closing and maybe it's time to go home. Anyone for a last beer?

 

[HallsofIvy]

Why do you assert that mankind is the "observor participator"? Are you going to use this to argue against evolution- that since nothing could exist before mankind existed, there could have been no "primoridial" one-celled creatures, no dinosaurs, etc.?

 

[LightbulbSun]

This topic seems senseless and conceited. We don't need to be here for all of this to happen. That's my point of view.

 

[kokain]

Here are some crazy, mixed thoughts from me. I don't think "observer" means "one who sees". Does it not mean something that makes a measurement. In the experiment, isn't the apple an observer? Isn't the light source? Don't we, as an observer of the apple, prove the existence of an apple tree, dirt, water, sunlight, minerals, gravity (unless the apple is floating)...
The first particle that observed another particle proved the existence of the first particle. Did the second particle exist before the first one was observed by it?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Here are some crazy, mixed thoughts from me. I don't think "observer" means "one who sees". Does it not mean something that makes a measurement. In the experiment, isn't the apple an observer? Isn't the light source? Don't we, as an observer of the apple, prove the existence of an apple tree, dirt, water, sunlight, minerals, gravity (unless the apple is floating)...
The first particle that observed another particle proved the existence of the first particle. Did the second particle exist before the first one was observed by it?

Think of it like this. If I'm the only human on the planet and no one with enough intelligence can measure me does that suddenly mean my existence ceases to be? Existence doesn't need any confirmation.

These Rush lyrics are very useful: You can twist perception. Reality won't budge.

Meaning even if we never bothered to discover the origins of the Universe, that doesn't make everything that happened before us suddenly never happen just because we didn't confirm it.

 

[Eric DMC]

A more relevant question, perhaps, is if the laws of the universe are inherent or imposed. Does the existence of observers force the universe to behave logically, or is it a limitation the universe imposes upon us? Perhaps we are prisoners of our own logic.

We are prisoners of our own logic, and we are prisoners of what is imposed on us!