noahfor

Ok. Thas question is old, but I have another one. Does something exist if you can never observe it or observe any effects from it, but it is being observed by other beings? It exists to the being observing it, but does it exist universally, or is its existence subjective? Is existence subjective? Think of another universe existing outside of this one. Where exactly is it? How can something exist outside of this universe. It seems like an imagination, but what if it exists. Does it really exist to us in this universe or only to the people in the other universe? Anyone feel what I'm saying, or am I just an idiot?

KellyC

Would I still exist even though you have no knowledge of my exitence but my family and friends do? Yes. So there you go.

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

Charlatan

Can be sure. With no one around to observe it... you can never be certain...

Schrodinger's cat

Schrodinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrodinger in 1935. Schrodinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.
First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is both dead and alive, according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive).

We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrodinger himself said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

asaris

Existence is objective in a sense and subjective in a sense. Without observation, there is 'stuff', but there are no things; things only come into being when observed by a being that can project a conceptual framework onto 'stuff'. But we shouldn't think that this 'stuff' is somehow more primordial than, say, tables and chairs. It's the tables and chairs and other objects that we find ready to hand that are primordial, and the 'stuff' which is a potentially misleading philosophical abstraction.

__________________
"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

Bobaphat

Does the universe exist if noone observes it?

Yes.

__________________
--size matters not-- yoda

seretogis

I've never really understood the interest in questions like this. Not observing something does not cause it to cease to exist. Regardless of what your first grade teacher tells you, ignoring the bully will not cause him to vanish from the earth.

With this logic (that things exist whether we observe them or not), I think it is easier to understand that things exist which we cannot possibly observe yet, but which drive the universe.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Yakk

The short form of the answer is "sure, why not".

The long form is longer.

It depends what exist is.

It is convienient to assume we are poking away at some thingy that has some thingyness to it.

It is also convienient to assume that my perspective, or even my ability to percieve, has no real specialness to it. It keeps me sane and all.

As for Charlatan's cat arguement, using a convienient multiverse interpritation of the QM mathematics, the cat is always both alive and dead: just, when the box is shut, the alive containing box and the dead containing box are simply non-orthogonal to each other. "Opening the box" (and letting "information" in and out of it) causes the boxes to become orthogonal to each other, and no longer interact. It is convienient to assume that the box that becomes orthogonal to you when you look into the box still exists, based off the "I am nothing special" assumption.

In essence, it is convienient to assume that others existance and perceptions are more than just derived off my own perceptions and existance.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

CSflim

I have this crazy idea that the universe does not hinge on me for its very existence. Call it a hunch.

Quantum Mechanics is bound to show up in this thread, claiming that it proves that objective reality is an illusion.
QM is not needed to allow you to hold the bizzare belief that reality isn't there if no one observes it. The "riddle" of 'if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around, does it make a sound' predates QM. You can hold this belief if you want to, leave modern day physics out of it.

The fact about quantum mechanics is, that it behaves very strangely at tiny scales. But these scales are too tiny for us to be able to see them. We need to amplify them up to the macro scale in order to actually see what's going on.
It is the amplification of a quantum effect which causes the superposition to collapse. The fact that we can now "observe" the macro scale phenomena is irrelevant. It is the amplification to macro scales that "does the damage", not our conscious examination of that amplification.

So, I agree with Schroedinger...cats are alive or dead, not both at the same time. The geiger counter is what causes the collapse, not you looking into the box.

At least that is how I believe it too be.

The claim that 'quantum mechanics proves that there is no such thing as objective reality' is a myth, pure and simple. It does no such thing. You can certainly read that into QM, but it's not implictly there. Further more, you can read such a conclusion into the world without the aid of QM, as I said above.

__________________

Tophat665

Does it matter?

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

noahfor

I'm not talking about quatum mechanics at all. This is all about subjectivity and objectivity, and what existence is.

:::OshnSoul:::

You can always have "something", whether it's the Universe or a raindrop running down the window. It still exists, even if we don't observe it. However, being that if we don't observe, we may not even think of its existance unless brought attention to us.

noahfor

Just think about another universe. Where is it? It's not here. It's not anywhere relative to us. We can never be affected by it ever, no means. Does it exist?

KellyC

Again..I'd like to use myself as an example. I'm not where you are, any where relative to you. You can never be effected by me as far as I know. And I still exist.

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

noahfor

By writing that you have affected me, and you are somewhere relative to me. You probably thought I meant "relatively close" or something like that.

Charlatan

It may exist but how would you know?

It isn't as simple as the tree in the forest or the bully in the school yard...

Alternate universes, which may or may not exist, concurent with or prior to our own universe, could very well have entirely different values for their physics. Would they exist as we understand existance?

QM aside, without observation there is no way to be absolutely certain something exists... of course you must remember that there is more than just seeing something. You can witness the effects of something other objects and postulate its existance...

Dark matter is an example of this... it exists in theory because of what we see happening around it... we don't know for certain that it exists.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Yakk

I was using QM to generate an example.

An interpritation of QM puts forward the possiblity of entire universes that where once connected to ours that are now utterly disconnected from ours. It is convienient to view them as 'still' 'existing' even if there is no way to verify their existance, because it makes some math easier.

Simularly, it is convienient to believe the univese outside my room still exists when I close the door, dispite a complete lack of evidence. It makes my model of the universe simpler.

You don't know, and I claim I don't know, if I know the absolute truth. If you want a claim of absolute truth, sorry, I don't plan on giving one. Find another oracle.

In a less low level conversation about exitance, I would claim that it does exist, because the more precice language is awkward to use. But when you are trying to iron out what exactly you mean by exist, I figure one should be pedantic.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

KellyC

Ok..can you define what "relative" means in your case then?

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

CSflim

Let me say this much: Quantum Mechanics is irrelevant.

Hopefully, this thread can get on without further mention of it, as it serves only to cloud things.

I have a question for those who don't believe in reality. Why do you require nobody to observe something for it not to exist? Since you are being so anthropocentric anyway, why not go the whole hog and declare that nothing exists unless you personally observe it. After all, since the existence of the entire universe depends exclusively on a couple of insignificant creatures crawling around an insignificant rock, is it really such a leap, as to come out with a 100% egocentric world view, and declare that when you shut your eyes, nobody else exists? Sure, they may claim that they still exist when you are not looking at them, but a rock, an ocean, a taperecorder, whatever, all show signs that they still exist when you aren't looking.

Both arguments seem equally "reasonable" to me.

So with this in mind, taking a realist stance on things, parallell universes (if they exist) exist, regardless of whether we can observe them or not.

__________________

Mantus

noahfor,

The answer is: “you can’t know”. There is nothing mysterious or puzzling about this, it is a logical conclusion based on the properties of the concept you proposed.

Your question plays word games. If you have a universe (dimension) that cannot come into contact with our own, then attaching the attribute of “existence” to this universe would contradict its description. Another words you can’t claim that something exists unless you have knowledge of it. Since you describe this universe as something that we cannot experience it would mean that we couldn’t have any knowledge of it.

Hence we can't know if such a “non-relative” universe exists or not and never will because of the way we defined it. Asking for proof of the existence of such a universes is asking for a contradiction of its definition.

noahfor

The question isn't whether the stuff is there, it is what is existance if it isn't being observed. That is the first question. You know, does the universe blah blah.

The second thing. I'm not trying to figure out if the stuff is there. I'm saying it is being observed by other beings, but it is nowhere relative to us. It in no way spacially relates to where we are. It's not really supposed to eb a discussion. It's just suppsed to be insightful to the nature of existance. I mean it almost seems nonexistant if we can in no way ever be affected by it, and it is nowhere, dreamlike almost, but to beings that are there the place we are is nothing. It's like having a whole universe exist nowhere.

Mantus

So you are “not trying to figure out if the stuff is there”…you are just trying to figure out if it exists?

Well, I am not trying to get my point across; I am just trying to explain my view of things.

Suppose that every time you close your eyes the universe around you becomes completely different. When you open them it becomes “normal” again. Since you will never be able to experience the other side of the universe, such a sate of the world would not exist for you. You will never know about it and thus the only universe that exists is the one you are aware off. You cannot be aware of something unless you experience the lack of it.

Yet thanks to your mind, you are able to create the concept of this other side of the universe, and thus it exists in your mind but since you can't experience this universe you will never know if you concept is true or false.


Though as Tophat665 pointed out early on: It doesn’t bloody matter if it exists or not. Why should we concern ourselves with something that can never influence us?

Yakk

Sure, but:
I used it to explain how I find it convienient to believe that parallell universes exist. Meanwhile, you made the statement (If X then X) when answering the question of parallell universes, a meaningless tautology. A implies A is not a deep statement.

The example of QM has let me speak about "universes which have no connection to our own" in a coherant way. I apologize if you find me using this particular example irrelevant, but you are wrong.

I am not claiming things don't exist because I can't see them.

I am not claiming things don't exist because nobody can see them.

I can not claiming that parallel universes don't exist because they can't interact with me.

I am not claiming things exist even if I can't see them.

I am not claiming that things exist even if nobody can see them.

I am not claiming that parallel universes exist dispite the fact they cannot interact with me.

I am saying that treating things as existing, even if I cannot see them, or someone else cannot see them, or sometimes if they cannot interact with our reality, is sometimes useful.

If you ask me "does a universe which has no connection to our own, and is in no way useful or interesting to assume exist, exist?", I'd ask why you cared. =)

There is no excluded middle: you can lack both an objective and subjective view of reality.

Talking less strictly, you can use words loosely, and say "the universe outside the room exists", rather than "I find it convienient to assume the universe outside the room exists". But, I personally just use the loose words as a convienient shorthand.

There are places and things which can never come into contact with me anymore, but whose existance makes some math and physics easier and simpler in my estimation. There is no way to prove or disprove the assumption they go "poof" once they can no longer interact with me.

I will claim it exists, even though I have no knowledge of its continued existance. I cannot prove it exists. There is no way to disprove it exists.

I will claim it exists because it makes my life fractionally easier. It's existance is Foma[?]. Your existance to me is also Foma. But, that's good enough for me.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Lunchbox7

There was a psychologist named Kant who used the Wizard of Oz as an analogy when discussing this question. In the book the emerald city is called the emerald city because everyone wheres green tinted glasses in it (Hence everything looks green). NOw propose that a sneaky operation went on where green tinted contact lenses were surgically put in everyone was sleeping and they never knew about it. They would percieve the world only in shades of green. Now does this mean that is is green? No. It just means that they as individuals can only describe their world in terms that they can understand. It is quite possible that stuff exists that we just cant percieve eg ghosts. But it is just as possible that stuff doesnt exist at all and our perceptions are completely wrong. If our perceptions of the universe is wrong then how can we prove or disprove its existence? But if we adopt the naturalist view and stand by the common philosphy that everything exists just as I perceive it, then we would have trouble explaining sensory illusions. If our senses are tricked by whatever reason (eg after images, funny taste in our mouth when we are sick etc) then how can we validate the naturalist assumptions.

There was a philosopher called Berkely who coined the term "Esse est percipi" (to exist is to precieve) which keys into what an earlier philosopher had said "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefor I am". What they were saying is that the only thing I can be sure of is my own existence because I have the ability to doubt my own existence. I cant be sure of any other existence in the universe if it exists at all. Now Berkely was the first to say such an egoist philosophy is madness but he had to admit that the possibility that everything existed only because he could perceive it was valid.

Mantus

Perception is different from existence. We may not be aware of the exact nature of our world around us, nor even of ourselves, yet one thing we can be certain off is that we experience something, which we categorize as ourselves and as the various things in the world outside ourselves.

Therefore we can be sure that whatever we perceive actually exists even though we can not be certain of its nature.

noahfor

yea, i've been trying to say that existence without a consciousness to observe it is different than just stuff being there. there is nothing outside of the universe, nothing, non existance, but I'm saying things exist outside of the universe, not outside spacially, just not anywhere within the space of the universe, right, so im saying something is outside of the universe and nothing is, right, so its there but nowhere to us, because where is a relative spacial attribute, and its there because it exists, and i dont mean in another dimension that is part of this universe, i mean like where is the universe if there is nothing outside of it, nowhere really, so this universe is nowhere, but if it is not being observed it doesnt really seem real, and if it is then it does to the observer, but if there is nothing outside the universe, and this is all there is, how can there be anything else, im saying it does not exist to us because this is all that exists, but someone else is observing it, really im just rambling on so at least someone gets what im say.

the whole "who cares" attitude is pretty lame considering this is a philosophy discussion board, its just fun to talk about, thats why i care

kl0pper

ok so if you answered yes to this question
then
does a thought exist if no one has thought it?

CSflim

No.

Does a book exist if no one has written it? Does a painting exist if no one has painted it?

Thoughts need to be created by a conscious person.

__________________

CSflim

I'm not trying to be profound, merely sensible.

I did not state if X then X, what I said was:

if parallel universes exist then they exist whether or not we observe them.

Stated another way:
Things don't need to be observed in order to exist.

Quote:

The example of QM has let me speak about "universes which have no connection to our own" in a coherant way. I apologize if you find me using this particular example irrelevant, but you are wrong.

Ok. I accept that. But I think this is a dangerous example, as since the question is "do unobserved things exist?", when you speak of QM, you are liable to me misunderstood, due to the fact thet there is another "interpretation" which may appear relevant.

You are saying that there are "many worlds", all of which objectively exist, regardless of our inability to interact with them.

By using QM you could be misunderstood as refering to the "nothing exists unless it is observed" claim.

I think a much less ambigous example would be brane theory,

Quote:

I am saying that treating things as existing, even if I cannot see them, or someone else cannot see them, or sometimes if they cannot interact with our reality, is sometimes useful.

Sure. I agree with you on this one. In fact, I find it very likely that there are other universes. I don't mean this in the "every possible world exists" quantum mechanical way, just that, just as there are other planets, other strars, other galaxies, there could be other universes, the difference being, a universe is (probably) causally closed, planets and galaxies aren't.

__________________

CSflim

Ok, to answer the original question:

Of course. I may not have any knowledge of it, but it still exists. My girlfriend may cheat on me, and bring the secret to her grave. I would never know that it happened, doesn't change the objective fact that it did actually happen.

No. It's not.

Think of a piece of music. Where is it? Is it located in the pages of the sheet music? In the instruments? In the air molecules? In the brains of the musicians?

Where is pi?

Some questions are meaningless. Some things don't have a position.
Things have a position relative to each other. So this computer is "in front of me". London is "in England". etc. Asking where an unobserved, non-interacting, universe is, is a meaningless question. It doesn't have a position.

What does the phrase "exist to us" mean? Things exist or they don't. Things don't exist "to" other people.

We know our universe exists, and we act accordingly.
We know nothing of any other universe which may exist, hence we don't act in any way with relation to this universe.
Perhaps that is what you mean.

But the point is, that these are facts describing people not universes.

__________________

Yakk

No. I never stated anything existed or not. I in fact denied stating anything existed or not. I will state that it is convienient to assume they exist.

There is a third path, between "reality is objective" and "reality is subjective".

I don't know if things exist or not. I don't know if there is any relationship between existing and observing. It is convienient (makes my life simpler) if I assume that there is no relationship between being observed and existing. So, I often make that assumption.

I don't know the universe exists, but I act as if it does, because it is convienient to do so. Is it a grand, sweeping, statement of absolute Truth? Nope. Not as pretty as that.

Now, there isn't much wrong with having "existance is objective" as an article of faith. Comfortable and harmless lies (Foma) are a good way of dealing with existance. However, I thought I'd be overly honest, rather than pleasant, given that this is a philosophy forum.

If it makes your life happier if you assume that there is a universe that is divorced from our own, with absolutely no connection to ours, then have that belief and be happy.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

noahfor

I wasn't actually asking where it was. It was moer of a rhetorical question. I'll reply with more of my nonsense later.

Does the past exist, not did it, but does the past currently exist?

Lunchbox7

"Houses, mountains, etc are things we percieve by sense.
All we ever percieve by sense are ideas and sensations.
Therefore houses, mountains etc. are nothing but ideas.
Ideas can exist only in a mind.
Therefore if I am not percieving houses etc.,
then either they do not exist or they are percieved by some eternal spirit."
(Stove, 1991)

Mantus

I don’t agree with that quote.

We perceive something first and then we superimpose our idea on to it, not the other way around. When we are not looking at a house, it is still there, but it is not being observed as a house, it is simply being.

Yakk,

That is very well put. Though I have to add that if an object behaves as if it’s existence is continuous whether we are aware of it or not then by all means would it not qualify as a continuously existing object? How else can we measure existence?

Though we can never test the continual existence of all the things we come into contact with we can never be sure if they in fact continue to exist. But I would also point out that continual existence is a tried and tested theory

.

Yakk

That is the thing. I don't claim to be able to measure existance or non existance.

I just muddle by.

It is convienient to assume my senses are reflecting things that exist, usually: sometimes it is convienient to assume they fail, for example, when I play with optical illusions.

It is also convienient to assume things continue to exist when I don't look at them.

My philosophy cannot answer every question put to it. My philosophy is, formally, "incomplete". Personally, I don't trust anyone who claims to have a complete philosophy: it is far easier to lie and claim to know the Truth than to gain the Truth. So, I view this not as a flaw, but as a feature any reasonable philosophy must have... And I embrace it.

*nod*

I don't remember having my convienient assumptions about existance contradicted. And, I haven't heard of a report I consider reliable from others of my convienient assumptions about existance contradicted, dispite the work people seem to have put into contradicting them.

I don't always assume things lightly. =)

Now, functionally, in day-to-day events, this means I behave as if things continue to exist. And, when I think about strange subjects (like QM), I view the universes that spout off as having as much existance as the one I seem to be experiencing.

And, if one day it would make me a happier person to assume there is a universe with particular properties which we cannot observe from here, I might just assume it. No real harm.

Things with no real consequences, like such universes, should still be handled with care. If you ever draw conclusions about actions you should take, then you have made a mistake: for, if you could draw conclusions from its existance, you leave its existance up for the possiblity of contradiction. (if A implies B, and you demonstrate not B, then not A).

All of which is way way overly pedantic for a monday.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

noahfor

Yea, I wasn't trying to have some logical debate. I just thought it was neat to think about. I still don't think anyone gets what I'm saying.

shakran

No one is observing my stomach, but the fact that I'm currently hungry proves that it exists

This goes back to the old brick question. You can see the outside of the brick, so you know that it exists. What about the inside of the brick? Does it not exist until you break the brick, and then the inside is visible and therefore pops into existance?

That would be a rather silly way to run a universe, wouldn't it?

tisonlyi

*facetious*

Mu

*/facetious*

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

:::OshnSoul:::

Love it, great words shakran.

gorilla

I've always kinda been lost in the religious/existence sort of way and I used to believe that the universe only existed as far as I could see. Has anyone ever played a videogame like WarCraft where the whole map is black except for like a one inch circle with your character in the middle. I used to believe the universe was like that, I was in the middle and the only things that existed where what I could see. And I was the only actual person, everyone was a program/illusion (no, I did not develope this from the Matrix, I believed this long before the Matrix came out) But I was the only person in the world, but the world only existed half a mile in any direction. I guess theres no way to prove to me that Brazil exists, becuase I cant observe it in anyway. Of course, everyone thinks that Brazil is a place, but how can you be sure about it unless you can see it. And if you're in Brazil how do you know that Spain exists? The question sounds kind of asinine, but how can you really be sure? maybe im just an idiot

__________________
I'll bet you $5 that you read the previous word...

iamnormal

Existence is based on something known or proven logically. If its not known it dosen't exist to us. If you don't have contact with the others then thier is no way of knowing.

It's like the world use to be flat because no one in Europe knew better. But people proved it wasn't by sailing around the globe.
The Americas didn't exist even tho people live there because Europe didn't know.