4 ms·
What 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 talk
by habitue 11y ago
What 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.