4 ms·
> if conscious observers didn't exist, in what sense would anything else exist? > [A] universe can only exist in the sense that some conscious observer in the
by habitue 11y ago
> if conscious observers didn't exist, in what sense would anything else exist?
> [A] universe can only exist in the sense that some conscious observer in the future will VERIFY ITS EXISTENCE.
> So, in what sense would OUR universe exist if humans never arose?
I think things exist independently of whether anyone is observing them. That's because "observing" is just a description of a bunch of particles interacting with each other. Some of those particles are part of a larger pattern of particles we call human brains. There's nothing particularly unique about our brains in terms of physics.
At a higher level, we can look at the interactions between our brains and the environment and think about brains as a different kind of thing. A pattern recognizer, a prediction maker, an effective evolutionary adaptation that leads to the propagation of the genes that create it. But there's no reason to suspect it creates universes.
I absolutely agree that a lot about our brains is mysterious and there are a lot of questions that need answers. The next few decades are going to be very interesting as we discover many of those secrets. I just don't think we'll discover that among those secrets is the ability to make universes real or not.
Certainly, we can only observe the universe we are in and phenomena that are within our light cone. But that's a limitation on us, not on universes.
- EGreg 11y agoI think things exist independently of whether anyone is observing them Can you define what existence means as you use the term?
- habitue 11y agoWhat you're saying is that there's no difference between something that exists and is unobserved by a conscious mind, and something that doesn't exist. I'm talking about the definition of existence that makes the sentence before this one make sense. It's true there are no observational differences between the two, but nevertheless there is a conceptual difference. To illustrate the difference, look at the universe before intelligence evolved. The most reasonable scenario is that this universe existed, even though there were no observers. Something was going on before anyone was looking, because that process led to the creation of intelligence. It's possible that the universe didn't truly exist until consciousness existed to be aware of it. That it popped into existence once consciousness did, and everything just happened to be consistent with a universe that already existed beforehand for billions of years. But that's a pretty surprising theory. It's much more likely the universe just already existed.
- EGreg 11y agoThat's not what I am saying. You and I think this universe existed before humans arose because we are aware that it exists now, and that gives us a good starting point for extrapolating. If that last part wasn't there -- eg about some other universe in a multiverse -- we wouldn't know what it means for it to "exist". Or do we? You'd have to define the word "exist" in some terms that relate it to things we are familiar with. Otherwise it is meaningless. That's my point. Trying to define existence is like trying to explain consciousness. If you think consciousness explained by souls is "woo" perhaps you should consider the nature of your concept of existence! You take it for granted and use it in a sentence without really exploring its definition.