Arlo --
[Andrei Linde, quotesd by Ham]: > "It's necessary for somebody to look at it. In the absence of > observers, our universe is dead." [Arlo]: > So the universe did not exist before "man"? I take it you would say > that "man" appears "fully formed", like Adam, suddenly and without > ontogenesis. The moment the eyes of "Adam" opened, the rest of the > universe suddenly pops into existence? Methinks we've gone this round before, and if experience has any value as knowledge, it tells me that you'll ridicule anything I say. History repeats itself because people keep making the same mistakes, like my trying to talk sense with Arlo. The above quote, by the way, was the statement of a distinguished contemporary astrophysicist. First of all, your terms "fully formed" and "suddenly pops" are time-related, but they abuse the way man experiences existence. Time and space are the mode of experiential awareness. Existence is experienced as the continuity of process in time. Therefore, nothing in existence happens instantaneously, least of all organic development, and the belief that things will go on as they always have is an intellectual deduction. This precept is part of what we call "knowledge", and while all knowledge is proprietary to the individual subject, much of it is universally shared by other subjects. Since that "affirms" the universal precepts, nobody questions the underlying premise (i.e., that objective reality is primary to the observer). We know, however, that many commonly-held assumptions--earth is flat, the sun orbits earth, fire is an element, ether fills the void of space, for example--have been proved to be false. I think Pirsig wrote somewhere that experience defines reality. (Possibly one of the MoQists here can locate the quote.) If he's right, then, as Prof. Linde said, in the absence of an observer there is no universe. Then, the universe begins to form as the newborn individual experiences it. It takes on the aspects of dicersity, change, relations, causes/effects, and structural order as the child begins to intellectualize his experience. And -- Presto! -- the physical universe comes into existence. We have all the evidence in the world to support this concept, and nothing but "intellectual assumptions" to the contrary. > Also, here you try to consider a "group solipsism", but it doesn't > hold. By this logic, its not necessary for "somebody" to look at it, > its necessary for ME to look at it. What evidence do you have, for > example, that the universe will continue after YOUR death? By > saying that a Koala bear in deep Australia suddenly exists because > a bushwacker on walkabout spots it makes no sense. How does it > exist any more "real" for you then than it did before it was spotted? Think about it, Arlo. Is this Koala bear that you've conjured up "real" for you? Is it any more real than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? If you haven't experienced something it does not exist in your world. You can only accept it as the experience of somebody else, and you can only "prove" it by universal consensus. Since the Value of the Primary Source is essentially the same for all of us, we all experience one universe in common. Does this prove that its existence is primary to experience? No. It suggests strongly that experiential awareness is primary. And awareness, like intellect, is a property of the "knower". I can't expect this to make sense to you, Arlo. But what can you lose by pondering on it?. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
