Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Would the universe not exist if...

YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 8:50:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

Is existence caused by perception? Hmm... It seems to me like perception is caused by existence. Were there nothing which existed, there would be nothing to perceive, and as such, perception itself could not be.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 8:51:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 4:18:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The universe is non existent in-spite of our perceiving it.

I wrote a long paper about alternate realities and drugs that entertained that hypothesis.
Tsar of DDO
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 2:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

I believe Descartes asked this same question, although he ultimately used it as an argument for the existence of God.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 5:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?
1) The above is a paradox: "be non existent" = "existence of non existence".

2) Existence is not contingent upon anything, especially not perception.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2012 4:54:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

Generally we assume yes, if something exists then it exists regardless of whether we perceive it or not.

The claim that somethings existence is dependent on it being perceived raises a few problems.....

1) Does that mean something exists when it is perceived, disappear when it stops being perceived only to reappear later when perception at it happen again ?

2) There is no way to test this claim, an object that exists regardless of it being perceived looks the same as an object that disappears when no one is looking only to reappear later on when some one goes to take a look. I invoke occams razor here, to add the appearance and disappearance of something is an unnecessary step.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 11:10:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

Could we exist in a universe we could not preceive? I think one could not exist with out the other
morgan2252
Posts: 89
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2013 5:24:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think the universe (or multiverse, if there is one) is a matter of perception. Either something exists, or it doesn't.

By the way, could someone do me a favor and vote on my debate on whether or not he universe is infinite?

http://debate.org...

Thanks!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 12:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 11:10:44 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

Could we exist in a universe we could not preceive? I think one could not exist with out the other
Obviously we could. A blind person lives in a universe that he cannot perceive visually.

**************************************

At 1/9/2013 5:24:43 PM, morgan2252 wrote:
I don't think the universe (or multiverse, if there is one) is a matter of perception. Either something exists, or it doesn't.
^^^This.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 12:57:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could we exist in a universe we could not preceive? I think one could not exist with out the other

Obviously we could. A blind person lives in a universe that he cannot perceive visually.

You dont need to see the universe to preceive it. Blind people still have 4 other sense they can use and there are a lot more senseitive than yours or mines. I'd say they preceive it very well. I dont even know how a person can not preceive the universe.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 2:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 5:18:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?
1) The above is a paradox: "be non existent" = "existence of non existence".

2) Existence is not contingent upon anything, especially not perception.

The case could certainly be made that the term "existence" presupposes consciousness, especially when you consider the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics, theoreticallly at least, consciousness is required to make possible become actual. As far as quantum theory is concerned, observer and observed can't be seperated, the implication is that you can't have one without the other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 4:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

The Fool: THIS IS AN ADVISEMENT
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2013 4:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: ITS A STUPID QUESTION. And you guys fell for it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 9:47:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2013 12:57:15 PM, Df0512 wrote:
Could we exist in a universe we could not preceive? I think one could not exist with out the other

Obviously we could. A blind person lives in a universe that he cannot perceive visually.

You dont need to see the universe to preceive it. Blind people still have 4 other sense they can use and there are a lot more senseitive than yours or mines. I'd say they preceive it very well. I dont even know how a person can not preceive the universe.
How about a person who's blind, deaf, dumb, and paralyzed, genius? How about before there were people? As if the Universe needs to be perceived in order to exist. Come on, use your brain.

*****************************************

At 1/10/2013 2:21:48 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
The case could certainly be made that the term "existence" presupposes consciousness, especially when you consider the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics, theoreticallly at least, consciousness is required to make possible become actual.
Not really; that's an extreme interpretation of QM. It's not the OBSERVER that causes the collapse of the wave function but rather the MEASUREMENT. So when you make a measurement, the wave function collapses whether you "look" at the measurement or not.

As far as quantum theory is concerned, observer and observed can't be seperated, the implication is that you can't have one without the other.
It depends how you define "observer"; if by observer you mean "a measurement" then yes; if by observer you mean a "mind" then no. Example: you perform a measurement on a quantum system BUT you have the device print out the answer which you do not look at. The wave function was collapsed, the answer was printed, and no mind was needed to observe it.

The reason this happens is because there is no "passive" way of measuring quantum systems and thus our measurements are always "active" in that they interfere with the quantum system. This "active" measurement of the system allows us to KNOW the state of the quantum system at the time of he measurement BUT said measurement has now placed the quantum system into a new UNKNOWN state.

*****************************

At 1/10/2013 4:58:45 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: ITS A STUPID QUESTION. And you guys fell for it.
There are no stupid questions only stupid answers from stupid Fools!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 9:52:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

yep! ... Ayn Rand, objectivism.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 3:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 8:51:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/1/2012 4:18:26 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The universe is non existent in-spite of our perceiving it.

I wrote a long paper about alternate realities and drugs that entertained that hypothesis.

Do you perhaps have a PDF?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

What exactly is to exist?
Existence seems to cover a wide variety of things. We can close our eyes and imagine things, and right there they exist. However they only exists to ourself (unless we have(were to have) a machine that can read imagination).
So like someone pointed out, in this instance, they can exist when you perceive, and cease to exist when you don't, and can re exist again.
Is hard to say what this reality is. To us what we see is what it exists, but does what we see looks exactly how we see them? I come to the conclusion they don't. So what we believe to exist is probably just a perception, therefore, the answer to your question would be a yes.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 3:13:41 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

What exactly is to exist?
The fact that you can ask the question means that you know the answer.

Existence seems to cover a wide variety of things. We can close our eyes and imagine things, and right there they exist. However they only exists to ourself (unless we have(were to have) a machine that can read imagination).
Exist in the mind; abstraction. This is not physical existence but I believe it to be predicated upon the physical.

So like someone pointed out, in this instance, they can exist when you perceive, and cease to exist when you don't, and can re exist again.
From the mind's point of view but not from a physical point of view. If that were the case, no one could ever accidentally fall into (say) a pit that no one knew was there.

Is hard to say what this reality is. To us what we see is what it exists, but does what we see looks exactly how we see them?
Well, yeah that's what seeing entails. Perhaps you are trying to say that our sight is not perfect? That is correct, but "perfect" sight or perfect perception is not a possibility.

I come to the conclusion they don't. So what we believe to exist is probably just a perception, therefore, the answer to your question would be a yes.
Just a perception? As opposed to what?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 4:48:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 3:24:44 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/11/2013 3:13:41 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?

What exactly is to exist?
The fact that you can ask the question means that you know the answer.

I kind of ask the question with the intend of the person who created the thread to answer, but then I use the question to formulate my message. I didn't even know I was going to arrive to that conclusion.
Existence seems to cover a wide variety of things. We can close our eyes and imagine things, and right there they exist. However they only exists to ourself (unless we have(were to have) a machine that can read imagination).
Exist in the mind; abstraction. This is not physical existence but I believe it to be predicated upon the physical.

Everything we see exists only in our minds. I believe that is very likely the physical exists, but because I see it throught a tool, which is my body, I cannot see what the physical trully looks like. When we talk about anything, including the universe, we talk about it as we can persieve.
So like someone pointed out, in this instance, they can exist when you perceive, and cease to exist when you don't, and can re exist again.
From the mind's point of view but not from a physical point of view. If that were the case, no one could ever accidentally fall into (say) a pit that no one knew was there.

But the physical cannot be know, as we are not looking directly, we are looking through our body and its capability.
Is hard to say what this reality is. To us what we see is what it exists, but does what we see looks exactly how we see them?
Well, yeah that's what seeing entails. Perhaps you are trying to say that our sight is not perfect? That is correct, but "perfect" sight or perfect perception is not a possibility.

How could we know what a perfect sight is?
I come to the conclusion they don't. So what we believe to exist is probably just a perception, therefore, the answer to your question would be a yes.
Just a perception? As opposed to what?
To what thing truly looks like, which cannot be know.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:28:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/11/2013 4:48:55 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 1/11/2013 3:24:44 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/11/2013 3:13:41 PM, Cometflash wrote:
At 12/1/2012 3:31:15 AM, pozessed wrote:
Would the universe be non existent if we were not here to perceive it?
What exactly is to exist?
The fact that you can ask the question means that you know the answer.
I kind of ask the question with the intend of the person who created the thread to answer, but then I use the question to formulate my message. I didn't even know I was going to arrive to that conclusion.
OK.

Existence seems to cover a wide variety of things. We can close our eyes and imagine things, and right there they exist. However they only exists to ourself (unless we have(were to have) a machine that can read imagination).
Exist in the mind; abstraction. This is not physical existence but I believe it to be predicated upon the physical.
Everything we see exists only in our minds. I believe that is very likely the physical exists, but because I see it throught a tool, which is my body, I cannot see what the physical trully looks like. When we talk about anything, including the universe, we talk about it as we can persieve.
When you say "truly looks like" what does that mean? If things can only be perceived, then "truly looks like" doesn't exist and the whole distinction is moot.

So like someone pointed out, in this instance, they can exist when you perceive, and cease to exist when you don't, and can re exist again.
From the mind's point of view but not from a physical point of view. If that were the case, no one could ever accidentally fall into (say) a pit that no one knew was there.
But the physical cannot be know, as we are not looking directly, we are looking through our body and its capability.
Obviously, but you need to realize that what cannot be, cannot be. So to claim that the physical cannot be known BECAUSE we are not "looking directly" AND "looking directly" is an IMPOSSIBILITY then that's NOT a possible reason for why the physical cannot be known.

Is hard to say what this reality is. To us what we see is what it exists, but does what we see looks exactly how we see them?
Well, yeah that's what seeing entails. Perhaps you are trying to say that our sight is not perfect? That is correct, but "perfect" sight or perfect perception is not a possibility.
How could we know what a perfect sight is?
Exactly! This is what I've been trying to point out above: if you don't know what "perfect sight" is then how could you possibly claim that it is not possible? Don't you see a problem with your reasoning?

I come to the conclusion they don't. So what we believe to exist is probably just a perception, therefore, the answer to your question would be a yes.
Just a perception? As opposed to what?
To what thing truly looks like, which cannot be know.
But as you said what things "truly look like" is an impossibility; therefore, what things "truly look like" does not exist and there is ONLY our perception!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.