# Objective Reality

Mass and shape are not relative.
And I think even a case could be made for color and firmness up to a point, as these perceptions have objective causes.

I would say shape is relative. Any 'real' object's shape depends on the size of the measuring unit. A seemingly flat surface becomes quite irregular if you look closly enough. The closer the observer looks, the more it changes

Maybe you can say the same about mass. Wouldn't an object have to have an effect on something else to say that it has mass? e.g. bend space-time. If so, mass is relative to its environment

I think color & firmness are definately perceptions of an observer.

I would say shape is relative. Any 'real' object's shape depends on the size of the measuring unit.
Wot ? lol

A seemingly flat surface becomes quite irregular if you look closly enough. The closer the observer looks, the more it changes
No dude, it doesn't change. It was like that all along, you just didn't look close enough.

Maybe you can say the same about mass. Wouldn't an object have to have an effect on something else to say that it has mass? e.g. bend space-time. If so, mass is relative to its environment
No.

I think color & firmness are definately perceptions of an observer.
Our perception of it is completely subjective, but it's nonetheless based on objective data (for color it is reflecting only certain wavelengths for example).

Every discription of reality is a subjective one.

Unless reality agrees.

Any list of the properties of the universe are discriptions of perceptions, which require a conscious preciever.

All properties of the universe exist whether or not there is a conscious perceiver; however, to make a list of them would likely require a conscious perceiver.

Which existed first, consciousness or the universe?

Universe.

How can an objective universe exist, have properties,evolve, without an observer.

It can't

In science an observer is any system capable of receiving information. Rocks are observers for example.

I suspect your question is concerned with sapient observers, in which case the question doesn't make sense. You might as well have asked why birds don't poop elephants.

there must be a god who's objective view of the universe causes its reality and gives rise to conscousness.

No. 'God' is a human psychological phenomenon called anthropomorpism which looslely equates to putting human characteristics on non-human events/objects. Think about commercials with talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and the grim reaper.

God's view of the universe is unknowable to us. The universe we precieve is simply a model formed by by our consciousness, it may or may not have anything to do with the object (God's) truth.

Truth is when a notion / concept in your mind corresponds with actual reality. That whole paragraph has zero correspondence and therefore is not true.

For an object to exist it must have properties, Properties are descriptions, descriptions require describers

For an object to exist it must have properties, Properties are descriptions, descriptions require describers

Properties are not descriptions.

Hammie, what if you come across a fallen tree in the forest. You do acknowledge that it fell in the past right ?

If I perceive myself to be walking in a perceived forest and perceive a tree lying on the ground, I will accept the possibility of it having once been rooted and upright. I will also embrace the possibility that it all popped into existence for me to perceive just prior to my perceiving it.

For any object to exist, it must do so without my perception. How can I be sure it exists in the absence of my direct perception?

Properties are not descriptions.
Actually they are. In fact if there is a property that is not a description you cannot talk about it, nor can you prove it exists.

But can you give an example of a property that is not a description.

For an object to exist it must have properties,...

Incorrect. Properties are not dependencies of objects. They are unique qualities of objects.

...Properties are descriptions,...

Incorrect. They are qualities of objects. Humans of course can differentiate between these qualities and assign them sequences of phonetic and / or visual patterns (i.e. spoken and written phrases).

descriptions require describers

Sort of correct... but good enough.

Incorrect. They are qualities of objects. Humans of course can differentiate between these qualities
They are perceptions of objects or effects of those objects.

Crunchy-Isn't quality something perceived? :shrug:

They are perceptions of objects or effects of those objects.

Perceptions of objects are well perceptions of objects. Effects are effects. The concept of a property is the concept that objects and events have unique qualities. Whether or not there are people to conceptualize this, objects will still have those qualities.

Crunchy-Isn't quality something perceived? :shrug:

Quality is a human concept that references an object or events differences. Those differences are there whether or not a human is perceiving them.

They are perceptions of objects or effects of those objects.

Crunchy-Isn't quality something perceived? :shrug:

Actually they are. In fact if there is a property that is not a description you cannot talk about it, nor can you prove it exists.

But can you give an example of a property that is not a description.

All correct. Qualia only obtain within the realm of perception.

Sorry CC, you are incorrect:

Quality is a human concept that references an object or events differences. Those differences are there whether or not a human is perceiving them.
my emphasis

You can't see how this is contradictory?

Once again, I see the philosophers are getting tangled up in what 'property' is, what we mean by 'the meaning' of this and that.

This is a recording: everything in your head that you can 'remember' is because of little particles called 'neurons'. They 'talk' to each other, and we sort of 'hear' what they say because something 'arrives' from the store, delivered by the 'neural delivery' service.
Recording ends. 'click'

What shape or quality, is a tree that's fallen over? What if there are two?
Does it matter? Is there any difference between 'a tree' and 'some trees', or any number of trees? Or any of anything? What's 'different' about 1? Compared to 'more than' that many?

This is a recording: everything in your head that you can 'remember' is because of little particles called 'neurons'
.
Cart before the horse. In fact your whole theory rests on ideas dragged out of perceptions. The map called brain or neuron (which is not a particle) can not be more real than the territory.

They 'talk' to each other, and we sort of 'hear' what they say because something 'arrives' from the store, delivered by the 'neural delivery' service.
Recording ends. 'click'
I assume this is metaphorical, but even so it causes all sorts of problems since it implies a mediation between 'us' and perception.

What shape or quality, is a tree that's fallen over? What if there are two?
Does it matter? Is there any difference between 'a tree' and 'some trees', or any number of trees? Or any of anything? What's 'different' about 1? Compared to 'more than' that many?
It's a big difference for that second tree that's fallen over and for all the incoming decomposers and perhaps for me if I am collecting wood for the window or if I loved to sit under that second tree.

But then i am not sure what you are getting at here.

Quality is a human concept that references an object or events differences. Those differences are there whether or not a human is perceiving them.
Whatever is there that are there whether or not a human is perceiving it or not is not something we can talk about. Any property we can make sense of is one that is 'for us': IOW needs our presence to mean anything. The observer is included in that property. It is not the same property for the alien who sees only infrared or the bat avoiding it in its night swing toward a mosquito.

Simon Anders said:
The map called brain or neuron (which is not a particle) can not be more real than the territory.
Have you ever looked down a microscope at any 'cells'??

If you haven't, here's a hint: they look like particles, enclosed by a boundary (something like a bubble); neurons have extensions in their 'membranes' or boundaries. Bio 101.

Are you sure that the representation of "the territory", i.e. neural structure/interaction, a pattern IOW, can not "be more real" than what it represents? You mean something like: "waves on a surface cannot be more real than the surface"?? WoFo does that mean?

Have you ever looked down a microscope at any 'cells'??If you haven't, here's a hint: they look like particles, enclosed by a boundary (something like a bubble); neurons have extensions in their 'membranes' or boundaries. Bio 101.
Yeah, I've had bio 101. They did not look like particles to me, and, definitely, neurons even less than other cells. Particles with bubbles around them is getting closer. I suppose if one used low magnification then some cells might look like particles. But then I am not sure why we should bring in what they look like in those magnifications.

Are you sure that the representation of "the territory", i.e. neural structure/interaction, a pattern IOW, can not "be more real" than what it represents? You mean something like: "waves on a surface cannot be more real than the surface"?? WoFo does that mean?
I don't think the analogy is quite right. A diagram of waves is not more real than waves or my experience of waves. And it cannot be. Because it is dependent one experience for meaning, validation, relevence....etc.

There is nothing more real than experience.

This does not mean that one's interpretation of that experience is always correct, but that is another issue.

Sorry CC, you are incorrect:

Crunchy Cat said:
Quality is a human concept that references an object or events differences. Those differences are there whether or not a human is perceiving them.

my emphasis

You can't see how this is contradictory?

I don't see how it's contradictory. On one hand we have objects and events which have differences. On the other hand we have a humans whom detect those differences and assign linguistical patterns to them.

It's quite clear that the former's existence is not dependent on the latter.