In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve

[TimeTraveler]

Huh?

Energy can't be self-aware, it has no brain to percive things with.

The brain is made of atoms, and the eyes, ears, nose etc percieve, the brain interprets.

[TimeTraveler]

What an arrogant, anthropocentric attitude. In a universe whose size is measured in billions of light-years and whose age is measured in billions of years, there's this one tiny fly-speck of a planet that hasn't even been around the entire time, and it hosts this one species of biped which, in the last couple of million years, has evolved language, reasoning, and the ability to ask such silly questions.

We have managed to make a barely measurable impact on the gas envelope that surrounds this planet, and even that is arguable. And a large impact on a much smaller volume of space, the region directly adjacent to the surface of the planet. Both of these impacts may in fact work counter to our survival. Our impact on the rest of the universe is zero, except for some radio waves that have traveled a maximum of barely a hundred light years in any direction, and some spacecraft that are still within our solar system.

Man's importance to the universe is zero down to the 24th decimal place. Man's feelings about the universe are equally unimportant. Whether or not man is here to observe the universe, have feelings about it, and launch his pathetic radio waves and metal artifacts into it is of no consequence.

The universe was here before us and it will be here after us. If there are any other intelligent lifeforms with the ability to read this thread, they must be really amused. But then, I guess they've heard it before: it was called "religion."

I never said anything about man being the only living thing species in the universe or even the only lifeform. I specifically said self aware energy, which can apply to anything, even to things we might not recognize as being alive, but which may have some level of self awareness.

[TimeTraveler]

Were the rocks beneath your non-existent feet there before you and nobody else didn't have any feet to not walk on them with?

Yes, of course they were.

So don't be silly.

How can there be anything if nothing exists?

[TimeTraveler]

Yes.

Perception is fallible. Moreover, perception is, at least contingently causally related to that which is perceived.

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.

We have tried experiments already which seem to prove that measuring atoms and quantum scale objects, changes the object. It might be that this whole universe exists only because something is aware of it. It might be that awareness itself is existance, and if this is the case, of course nothing exists outside of that.

[glaucon]

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.

??

You're assuming your conclusion here.

You've created a necessary relation between the existence of a thing and that thing's being perceived.

[ladyhawk]

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.

We have tried experiments already which seem to prove that measuring atoms and quantum scale objects, changes the object. It might be that this whole universe exists only because something is aware of it. It might be that awareness itself is existance, and if this is the case, of course nothing exists outside of that.

That is my best guess. Because we are aware of what is expected, changes the outcome. Our brain is electrical impulses that may not change larger objects, but on a quantum level could easily have impact.

[S.A.M.]

Interesting question.

Does a color/fragrance exist if no one can perceive it?

What would define its existence?

[glaucon]

...
Does a color/fragrance exist if no one can perceive it?
...

Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

[Tnerb]

Glaucon , you're one person i'll always enjoy.
Because, the only conclusion with me, is friendship.
sorry to troll....

[S.A.M.]

Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

Isn't everything in the universe subject to our perception of it?

What makes a rock hard? Or black?

If one were blind, deaf, dumb and had no tactile feelings, what would the universe be to such a person?

[glaucon]

Isn't everything in the universe subject to our perception of it?

What makes a rock hard? Or black?

If one were blind, deaf, dumb and had no tactile feelings, what would the universe be to such a person?

It would be a place for that person to be.

[S.A.M.]

It would be a place for that person to be.

But how would he/she define it?

[glaucon]

I imagine that he/she wouldn't define it.

Why should this matter?

The universe doesn't need to be defined to exist, let alone perceived.

[madanthonywayne]

If there were no perception there would be no such thing as a ground, or feet.
Without existance, nothing can exist, and existance is perception. Can you prove anything exists without the ability to percieve it?

How many millions of years did the universe exist before life evolved, let alone sentient life? How did it maintain its existance under your scheme?

Your theory would necesitate the existance of a creator (god) to percieve the universe as it was being created. Otherwise, lack of perception would cause the nacient universe to spontaneously abort.

[TimeTraveler]

??

You're assuming your conclusion here.

You've created a necessary relation between the existence of a thing and that thing's being perceived.

No, I'm saying self awareness is existance. I'm saying the universe is fake and only the self aware are "real". I'm saying only that which can percieve of itself is real. A rock is not real, it has no awareness that we know of. A plant has enough awareness to grow and track the sun. An animal has even more awareness, which ranges from awareness of it's environment, to partial self awareness, to full self awareness. I'm saying this is all that exists.

I'm saying, if there were no awareness, there would be no material universe. I'm saying the material universe is a result of our peceptions which created it.
This is just like saying, time would not exist if there were no movement and no change, it should be self evident right? Well the 3d universe would not exist if there were no perception and no awareness.

Awareness is existance itself, it's self evident. Nothing is REAL which cannot be percieved, or thought of. But if you can say something can be real outside of perception and thought, give me one example.

[glaucon]

No, I'm saying self awareness is existance. I'm saying the universe is fake and only the self aware are "real". I'm saying only that which can percieve of itself is real.

So.. just to be clear.... you're saying that the universe doesn't exist?

[S.A.M.]

But if you can say something can be real outside of perception and thought, give me one example.

I would be interested to hear this too.

[TimeTraveler]

Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

It's the exact same thing because if there are no eyes in the universe then theres no such thing as color, color would not exist. If there were no existance in the universe, then of course the universe would not exist. Basically if there were no self aware beings in the universe at all, the universe would cease to exist.

[TimeTraveler]

So.. just to be clear.... you're saying that the universe doesn't exist?

I'm saying the material universe is an illusion of perception. I'm saying the only reason the universe exists is because something percieved it into existence. You can call it God if you want to, or it could just be the collection of all self awareness in the universe, we don't know how much of the universe is self aware, all I'm saying is that a universe cannot exist without self awareness because self awareness is all that is real.

An example of this. You are real. SamCD is real. A rock is not real. A rock cannot move on it's own, it has no sense of self and no free will. Do you have free will?

[glaucon]

I'm saying the material universe is an illusion of perception. I'm saying the only reason the universe exists is because something percieved it into existence. You can call it God if you want to, or it could just be the collection of all self awareness in the universe, we don't know how much of the universe is self aware, all I'm saying is that a universe cannot exist without self awareness because self awareness is all that is real.

You've limited existence to those entities that are self aware.

So, either you say that the universe is self-aware, and therefore exists, or it is not, and therefore doesn't exist.

Those are (according to your definitions) your only two options.

Which is it?