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.

noahfor

The thing about that is you are observing your stomach because it tells you when you are hungry. Observation isn't just seeing.

tecoyah

If you could see only the Infrared wavelengths of light, and walked towards a large block of ice. Would you be able to avoid tripping on it, or would you fall over that which you cannot see.
It can be argued that the ice is not there to you until you trip over it, but I watched the whole thing.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

Lunchbox -- I think you misunderstand Mantus' and my position. It's not that the house doesn't exist unless it's perceived -- it that's it's not a house unless it's perceived. To slip into Heideggerese (if you'll forgive me), the being of objects is primordially readiness to hand; that is, objects have their being as objects of use for us.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

SVT01Cobra

Well, to put it simply. If I didn't exist, the universe would not exist.

The same applies for everyone. We all live in our own seperate universe. If we die, it will no longer exist to us.

Slavakion

This may or may not add to the discussion, but... if everyone in the universe is blind, and everyone ever has been blind, we would not know about the existence of light. Does it still exist? To us it does.

But then again, what about dimensions beyond the third? The fourth we have (I think) defined as time. What about beyond the fourth? Do they exist? They exist mathematically, but we can't perceive 4th and higher. You may think that you can feel time, but from what I've read and heard, time is an illusion anyway. But, whatever, my brain hurts.

Spanxxx

I think it boils down to one simple statement: There is no spoon


:P

__________________
I think that's what they mean by "nickels a day can feed a child." I thought, "How could food be so cheap over there?" It's not, they just eat nickels. - (supposedly) Peter Nguyen, internet hero