Lunchbox7

First of all your assuming the egotistical position that your perception is what ensures existence from the quote. The last line says that either that view is correct or an omnipotent presence (AKA God) is the one percieving the universe and thus ensuring its existence.

Almost everyone has adopted the reasoning that just because I cant see something doesnt mean it doesnt exist and that knowledge of the universes existence comes from sensations from it. Both arguements are usually put together even though they are contradictory. It is a logical fallacy. If I know the universe exists because I sense it then how can I predict continued existence once the sensation has ceased?

I'll address the first logical reasoning first. If I can acknowledge that the universe exists even though I dont percieve it then where does any knowledge come from? All the people who have used QM to supposidly prove this assumption are failing to acknowledge that knowledge of QM are based on certain laws derived from perception of the universe. I have knowledge of gravity due to the repeated experience of the proverbial apple falling. As our technological knowledge grows we can say the same thing with more complexity. This is still based on perceptional experience though. It is irrelevant to use a set of theories/laws that are derived by perception to prove universal existence outside of perception. It is a circular argument. This also brings up the point made by the previously mentioned Kant with his Wizard of OZ analogy. We interact with our universe through our perceptions. We formulate rules and laws based on these same perceptions. If our initial perceptions are wrong due to our inherent disability for all forms of perception (we are limited to our 5 senses) then the subsequently formulated laws will also be wrong. As such using those laws to prove existence is impotent. The only way this logic can come to fruition is to prove that perception does accurately correspond with what the universe truly is, if at all. Then we have to prove that our limited abilities of perception are adequate enough to percieve all froms of phenominon in the universe (eg ghosts, ki, God etc).

This is what brought up the original question of whether the universe exists only through perception. How do we intereact with the universe? Through perception. How do our knowledge correspond with our perceptions. This is a philosophical debate that is pretty active in the field of psychology. We have several options as to what perspective we take to answer this question.

We could adopt Cartesian Dualism which ends up defeating itself. Example we can watch sex on tv but it doesnt give us true insight into the real experience of sex.

We could adopt the naturalist view that our perceptions correspond directly with the universe. If this is the case then how do we explain perceptual illusions such as after images or drug induced states such as prickly skin when nothing is on it or swimming vision? It shows there is an element of error in the interaction between mind and universe. Which is true? If the universe is true then we are in no position to say whether it exists or not at all. If the mind is true then what evidence is there that the universe doesnt exist soley in our minds?

This last point touches on the second common peice of logic in this argument, ie that knowledge of the the universes existence comes directly from perception of it. If the universe exists soley in our minds then essentially we are God who sustains its existence only as long as we maintain perception of it. When we stop percieving it (sleep, coma, death etc) where does it go? I personally think this is a very egoist philosophy but there is no way to argue against it. That is because all knowledge has the chance of being in error (Kants analogy). Our knowledge of the universe comes from perception and our perceptions can be wrong thus our original conclusion is invalid. We would have to prove that knowledge, perception and the true universe all correspond perfectly. This is obviously not so. Thus the existence of the universe can not be proved at all.

If the universe doesnt exist at all then where does my sentient awareness come from? I have no answer. Thats all I have time to talk about the existence of the universe but I will give a question relating to the previous conversations on alternate universes/realities.

It has been said by some that the universe is the ultimate. That nothing exists outside our universe. It is generally accepted in scientific circles that the universe has limits, after all it is growing. So everything that exists is IN the universe. My question is that assuming that is true what is OUTSIDE the universe. This might be hard to fathom considering the universe is huge beyond imagination. If this is so then think back to when the universe existed only as the black hole prior to the big bang. Still big but not as much. Everything that the universe is was condenced into the black hole. What was outside the black hole? Is it alternate universes? Is it alternate realities? Is it Heavan/Hell? It cant be nothing because then there would be no boundry for the blackhole, and therfor universe, to expand.