4 ms·
Hm, I think we are discussing different topics here. I doubt that we use the same definition for something being "real". I'd like to avoid that discussion, an
by smokel 2y ago
Hm, I think we are discussing different topics here.
I doubt that we use the same definition for something being "real". I'd like to avoid that discussion, and talk about what constitutes a thing.
To me, _things_ merely exist in someone's brain, and their corresponding physical representation sure is real, it exists there in reality. But the physical "thing" does not have any relevant meaning other than to us observers. For all the universe could care, the chair is just a bunch of atoms, similar in value to a chunk of space on the left of it.
Consider also some problems, such as the chair not being in an absolute position in time. It is constantly moving with the earth, and with the solar system, at an incredible speed. Also, the chair will probably not be here anymore in 1 billion years. Also, if you zoom in, all the atoms are moving like crazy. It just works fairly well as a chair to us human observers, but it seems irrelevant to aliens with different life spans.
- layer8 2y agoI believe that the properties that give a “thing” meaning to observers are by and large independent of the observers. They are properties of the thing more than they are properties of the observer. That’s why I believe they are real in their own right, and not (just) as a function of observers (which may or may not be present). With regard to “meaning”, I would agree that meaning only exists in our heads. But that is true concerning the fundamental description of reality just as with regard to emergent “things”. Reality doesn’t have any inherent meaning. Meaning is something that only exists in our psychology.