6 Answers

  1. Why is it assumed that non-interacting = non-existent?

    Here it would be necessary to clarify what is considered not always by everyone, but specifically in science. In science, this is considered so that the subject of research is narrowed down from anything to what can be investigated (because research is an interaction), eliminating the need to explain for each Russell teapot why science does not investigate it.

    Does objective reality exist without an interacting observer?

    Yes. No. Maybe. You can say anything about her. But we will have to admit that even if such a reality exists, it exists in a slightly different form than the reality observed by the observer, about which it is absolutely certain that it exists.

    This distinction is sometimes formulated in the form of the anthropic principle of participation, according to which universes without conscious observers exist potentially, but not actually. Therefore, only such a universe can actually exist, the parameters of which allow a conscious observer to exist in it, who can consciously fix the fact of the existence of this universe. And potentially there is anything, up to a crimson unicorn with a rainbow tail.

  2. You can “count” anything and any way you want, and therefore thinking/thinking with “counting cards” is an empty matter (meaningless “conversation” even “with yourself”).

    But to be existing means to interact with other beings in the universe (not necessarily with everything that exists, and not always and not “right here now”). For example, our eyes and instruments “catch” (interact) electromagnetic and other “radiation” from distant stars, emitted by them for a very long time, we hear thunder later than “lightning flashed”, etc. There are substances and “things” that are transparent to light of a certain frequency, this just means that such” substance ” is not affected by such light (and therefore passes freely through it), etc., which is equivalent to the fact that such light “does not exist” for this substance, as it were.

    This is much easier to understand if you remember (because the life experience of each of us is quite rich) that everything that exists is real to us as either “felt”, or directly (“with the senses”), or indirectly by the influence of this “invisible something” on something else around us. For example, we don't seem to “see” gravity, an electrostatic or magnetic field (with our senses), but we can “indirectly observe”its effect on everything around us.

    If there is no interaction, then there is no influence on anything that exists, including our sense organs, and there is no influence of any indirect influence either (mediated through the influence on something “other” that we already “see”).

    We still feel invisible air (in the form of “wind”, if it moves relative to us, or through dust and other things that move with it, and even more so we will feel its “absence” because we will be trite “nothing to breathe”). Just remember how something “affects you” and how you perceive it (how you feel that it is = really exists).

    There are things in the universe from which it is believed that no “physical interaction” comes out, called “black holes”. But they really exist, because they interact with the topology of space-time (metric), and therefore significantly affect everything that exists around them (the same “gravity” easily “comes out” of black holes and it is difficult to “miss” it). But gravity can't “interact” with something that doesn't have “mass” (any, not just “rest mass”). Some believe that there are “massless particles”, if so, then gravity will not be able to interact with them (which means they will be able to “fly out of the black hole” without hindrance). I.e., any of the most fantastic “counters” can be checked if you understand how they interact with existence (and if they do not, then this is equivalent to the fact that this “simply does not exist”).

    In short, something that never interacts with anything is completely indistinguishable from something that simply “does not exist” (there is no point in distinguishing this even “speculatively” because it cannot affect anything in any way).

    But there are “sensations” that we “feel” as if selectively, one person is susceptible to this, and the other does not “see” it at all (like other ” soulless matter “also” does not see ” it). Since ancient times, people called this “spiritual”. Science denies the independent existence of the “spiritual” from the “material” (or tries to “not distinguish” one from the other, calling everything that exists “material”, i.e. mixing everything that exists in one “small pile”).

    Let's take some “idea” (which “occurred” to one person, but did not” occur ” to another), for example, take a stone and break a nut with it. It can only be passed on to another person through interaction.: say it in words, draw it, show it with gestures… in the end, just do it yourself “take a stone in your hand and crack a nut with it” in front of the other (showing him an “example”). To what “matter” does thought “belong” (a “property” of which particular matter is thought)? To the sounds of words, or to the letters of a description, or to a drawing (on sand or paper), or maybe it belongs to “gestures” or “example”? Of course, anything and everything can be considered, but this simplest experience clearly shows that ” thought “does not depend on any” matter “(with the help of which it is” transmitted “between us) and there is no such” form of matter “whose special” property ” would be thoughts. Science reveals to us the laws of nature, but where and in what properties of matter, energies, fields, or even quantum effects are these laws” spelled out ” visibly?

    Official science (“materialistic”), in fact, aka an ostrich, hid its head in the sand so as not to” see the spiritual world”, and therefore it is not able to study its laws (stupidly because it does not interact with the spiritual separately from the material), but” knowledge about the world ” (a product of science) is not material (spiritual). Funny? I don't really care.

    Therefore, I warn you that I will continue to describe completely non-scientific “things” (but you can check all this yourself by interaction/experience, because it really exists and only for this reason can you check it independently of me).

    We have much more than 5 sense organs (we are able to “feel” much more than is commonly “assumed “among people, even very”scientists”). For an example of “unaccounted-for sense organs” , I can cite the “vestibular apparatus”, which we use to sense the same “gravity/inertia” (and which “scientists” are well aware of, but for some reason do not consider it a “sense organ”). Just do not forget that those “sense organs” that you do not use in life, atrophy (at least significantly reduces their “sensitivity”). The same cosmonauts after being in zero gravity and “scientists” have problems with the vestibular apparatus. If you train your” invisible to science ” sense organs, then your perception of the world will be much more comprehensive and richer (you will be able to “see what is invisible” to you earlier).

    But there is one “trick” in the spiritual world (as opposed to the “material” one). Everything “material” can be neither false, nor erroneous, nor “buggy” in any other way (it either exists really and therefore is checked independently by all of us, or it only “seems” to exist, and its independent verification always shows a strictly negative result: mirages, hallucinations, many of our ideas and, alas, even dreams are often so “deceptive”).

    But after all, “lies” are transmitted between people as well as” truth ” (fact). And if so, then it really exists in the “spiritual world”, but for some reason it cannot be realized (along with something “material”). I.e., you can falsely convince a person that having buried a gold coin on the field of miracles in the land of fools, he will dig up 10 coins in a week (and he, being convinced that he is being told the truth, will bury them, but will not dig up 10 coins, of course). Or you can convince a person that jumping off a mountain and vigorously waving his arms, he will fly like a bird, but he will not “fly like a bird”, but only crash (possibly to death, alas).

    That is why we call the “inner world of a person “(the content of his worldview) subjective (if the “material world” is considered by us to be “the same and one for all” = objective, then the “spiritual world” is considered to be “a personal matter of everyone”). Basically, spiritual “differences” lead to people's misunderstanding of each other (quarrels between us and even wars), one wants one thing, and the other another, incompatible (someone must therefore “win”, and someone “lose”).

    Why is everything “arranged” so “unfairly” between the spiritual and the material (some “thoughts” are realized materially, while others are not)? This is an unspeakably ” lumpy question “(leading us to the “essence of all things”, not “metaphysical” or mystical, but real essence), but “superficially” it is very easily explained. We simply forget that “material” has “invisible” laws of its existence (both already discovered by science and not yet discovered), and they also belong to the” spiritual world “(which” directly “does not interact with” soulless matter ” in any way). But (as in the material world), one spiritual thing can either interact with another spiritual thing or be “transparent” to it (i.e., not interact). Here is a “lie” as if completely “transparent” to the spiritual laws of material nature, so it can not “materialize” in any way (like many of our false dreams, wishlist, mysticism, etc.). That is, any deception (self-deception, including) can be independently verified of our beliefs in it (no less independently and precisely than the same verification of the material). But people traditionally (including” scientific “ones) test their “spiritual discoveries” with the help of spiritual “things” – their personal experience, theories, teachings, ideas, criteria, rules, etc. Well, what prevents “personal experience”, theories, ideas, etc. from being wrong? Therefore, “checking” something with either something false, we get a false test result (we take a lie for the truth, stupidity for wisdom, we “see meaning” in nonsense, etc.). It seems to be clear that “you can't do this”, but almost all of us do exactly this, alas (because we “teach” each other from childhood to do exactly this, that is “trust words” and “authorities” rather than entities).

    Do our fictions, dreams and fantasies (any fiction, “artistic” or not) really exist? – Of course, in your “personal inner world” this is real, as well as hallucinations in some “diseases” (the fact is the same), but if they are not in harmony (to put it mildly) with the spiritual laws of the “material” world, then they will not be able to” materialize ” them in any way. But of course, they can always be generously “transferred to others” (because unlike the material ball, which you will lose by transferring it to another, in the spiritual world, “transferring” something does not deprive you of it yourself). This is exactly how and why we recruit “like-minded people” (who will then sincerely “confirm” your “correctness” to others). Hence, people have such a passion for “convincing” others (because many people trust much more than one). Propaganda and advertising (and not only them) really now work on this banal simple “principle” (the difference between the worlds of internal and external). And the coming century, I don't give a tooth, will essentially be the “age of disinformation” (because otherwise it is impossible to force others to act against their real interests except by outright violence, and this, unlike false beliefs, is clearly visible to everyone). Please be prepared for this (at least “mentally”).

    Or can it be that there is a special supernatural “world of eidos” from which brilliant “a priori” ideas and other revelations/inspirations sometimes “come” to our heads (metaphysics, “paradise tabernacles” or some magical nirvana)? Well, as if once they “come” to us (the fact is?) then it seems impossible to deny the existence of such “magic worlds” unequivocally. But every time I hear from people about these “supernatural worlds” (any), I start to be “tormented” by a childish question:

    Why didn't Plato think of the Periodic table or Archimedes think of quantum mechanics? After all, it is somehow very strange that from the” supernatural “to us” comes ” either something in which we are experienced in “this world”, or outright fantastic nonsense consisting of incompatible experiences of our life in “this” world: all sorts of devils, flying elephants, towers to the sky, pink rhinos, and even “mittens blooming on aspen birches”).

    Moreover, it is even more strange that the same “aborigines” (who have not read or heard anything about the popular mysticism among us) do not” come “such” ideas “at all, but” come “others (who no longer”come” to us). I see a lot of really amazing things in the real world that people don't know yet, but for some reason, brilliant ideas about this never “come up”in anyone's head. So, excuse me, I strongly doubt that any “metaphysics” there can really exist as either and where either (except for” sick ” minds with it).

    All “dreamers” are punctured by the banal, they can “invent” only what they already know in a variety of (often absurd) combinations, but “breaking” some “laws of nature” in their wonderful dreams, they naively forget to “break” other laws of nature that are interconnected with them, and therefore it is not difficult to see the absurdity of these “fantasies”.

    Even the “Lenin” grandfather (whom I love and respect at least for the ability to clearly Express their thoughts, Yes, and often not about) silently to yourself at the same “mistake”, because as a staunch materialist, he believed that “being determines consciousness“, and real life convinced him that “ideas are embraced by the masses, and the masses make history” (indeed if the being determines consciousness, then you need to change the being of the masses that they “possessed” the right ideas, right?). )))

    Hence the full answer to your first question:

    What does not interact does not really exist (it does not matter whether you “believe it” or not), of course, only in the real world does not exist, which is the interaction of the” material “and” spiritual ” worlds.

    Well, your second question (knowing the answer to the first) is very easy to answer.

    Of course the objective reality without interacting with it observer exists, and it exists without it (corny when You are sleeping do You “see” a different reality, i.e. Your interaction with Your “inner world” = dreams/dreams, and objective reality is not in fact for You to exist temporarily until you Wake up or forever if you never “Wake up”). Moreover, we can observe two “realities” at once (some of us are able to “dream” very well in reality).

  3. Incorrect. More correctly: non-interacting=irrelevant. It lies outside of science. Outside of human practice. And it can only be the subject of purely scholastic chatter. Fans of which quite exist.: -)

  4. Why is it assumed that something that doesn't interact equals something that doesn't exist?

    Because if X�absolutely does not manifest itself in the world we observe, then, most likely, X'a does not exist in our observed world.

    However, it is still possible that X may be located, say, in a distant galaxy or in a parallel universe.

    That is, if X doesn't interact with us personally, it doesn't mean that X doesn't exist anywhere or with anyone else. it doesn't interact, just like it does with us.

    But as long as X does not manifest itself in any way in our world, we have no serious reason to believe that X exists, although we can assume it.

    Does objective reality exist without an interacting observer?

    Objective reality does not depend on the subject's perception. If there is no observer, then this only means that the objective reality consists in the absence of an observer interacting with the universe, but this does not cancel the objective reality.

    Objective reality is what it is, and it is what it is.

    Reality may change in one way or another, but it is there. It's just a reality that doesn't depend on us.

    «Objective reality “is a world that exists independently of the “subject“(person) and his “consciousness“. The idea of the�world as an external (surrounding)oneреальности a reality that does not depend on the position, understanding, or “perception” of the subject.

    “Motion, space, time, life, etc. — all these are properties or manifestations of properties and interactions of various types of matter in terms of complexity, which together form the world as a whole or the entire Objective reality�(Genesis)».

    According to some scientists, the very term “objective reality”, introduced in the Russian philosophical tradition, is an example of a logical error (pleonasm), since the concept of” reality ” already means a given, free from subjective influences. In this sense, even illusions are “reality” for a particular psyche if we consider them as a natural continuation of the mental states of the individual and the sum of external influences (such “illusions”can even be reflected in the history of mental illness, or be the object of scientific experiments). On the other hand, this is precisely the logical separation of perception and reality, and therefore the term objective reality itself emphasizes the difference between perception of reality and reality”

    © Free Encyclopedia Wiki

  5. Here is my answer to the question of objective reality. There I also touched on the definition of “existence”. Among others, there is the ability of an entity to interact with physical and mental reality. The answer to the question posed follows from it – By definition of the very concept of “existence”.

    However, you correctly noted that the concept of “objective reality” contradicts this definition of existence. From the above definition of “existence” it follows that we can only judge the existence of something by having a chain of interactions leading from the entity under consideration to our mentality. Without such a chain, the existence of the entity in question is out of the question. This means that without the presence of the mentality itself, it is simply unacceptable to talk about the existence of something. (And we have not yet analyzed the mechanism of chains of such hypothetical interaction, which in fact results in a chain of mental interpretations.)

    However, “objective” by definition is something that does not depend in any way on the mentality of the subject. Thus, we have a clear contradiction between these two concepts. And this is not to mention the fact that the concept of objectivity is contradictory in itself, since it cannot itself be objective, being a product of mental activity, i.e. just an idea. In essence, this is a purely abstract invention. But it is very convenient for solving practical problems, which is usually cited as an argument supposedly proving the truth of this idea. But practical applicability doesn't really prove anything. There are many examples in the history of physics when a refuted theory can be used to solve some practical problems.

    As we can see, the very concept of “objectivity” is a big question. Some reduce it to a kind of agreement, calling it ” consensus objectivity.” But this is nonsense, contradicting the very meaning of the concept of “objectivity” as independence from the subject. In this case, people seem to confuse it with “consensus reality”, where there really is a rejection of” objectivity ” in favor of a consistent picture of the world in a certain community.

    Because of laziness in thinking, it is widely believed that giving up “objectivity” means moving into ” subjectivity.” Especially in such cases, they like to kick solipsism as an extreme form of subjectivism. After all, it's so easy to talk about a” brick on the head”. However, the rejection of” objectivity ” implies a rejection in general of the concept of dividing reality into objective and subjective, i.e., a simultaneous rejection of subjectivity.

    Even physicists eventually abandoned objective reality and defined “physical reality” for their work as a system of physical theories linked to an experimental base. We can say that this is the consensus reality of physicists involved primarily not in theory.

    In this connection, and the multiplication of many other possible realities, the very definition of “reality” as “existing in general”becomes questionable. In this context, “reality” should no longer be understood as the existence of something, but rather as a perception or mental picture of the world that is more or less consistent with existing social experience. Moreover, the experience itself is directly dependent on the accepted picture of the world in the community. I.e., experience, perception and mental constructions are inseparable mutually conditioned parts of reality. Humanity is gradually coming to understand the conventionality and primitiveness of the rough division of reality into objective and subjective. In place of “existence” and “subjectivity” comes the increasingly important “social”, which in the form of culture of different communities forms different kinds of reality as an inseparable combination of experience, perception and mentality. (But we should not conclude from this that mentality is inherent in matter, thus again trying to reduce everything to “being”)

  6. If “fundamentally never interacting with anything real” (like an unknowable god), then this is a strict, precise, unambiguous definition of”non-existence”.

    Never under any circumstances will “something” interact with something real, i.e. it will never affect anything and will not be required to explain something, and it cannot be studied – i.e., it does not exist.

    Does objective reality exist without an interacting observer?

    of course, it is also objective, it does not depend on the observer, his personality, his behavior, on interaction with any “reasonable object”.

    It will be enough to interact with other real objects, such as measuring and / or recording devices ))

    It will also be sufficient to perform “verification actions” in the future.

    Well, for example, when you close the refrigerator door, the products still exist in it, honestly!

Leave a Reply