English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since every object is simply the sum of its qualities and since qualities exist only in the mind. The whole objective universe of matter and energy, atoms and stars does not exist except as construction of consciousness and edifice of conventional symbols by the senses of man.
-Lincoln Barnett
‘The Universe and Dr. Einstein’

2007-07-08 13:54:29 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

14 answers

It means nothing. The universe is empirically objective. Lightspeed is identical for all inertial observers. Newton's constant G and Planck's constant h are not subject to debate, majority vote, or change. The Fine Structure Constant has not changed over the whole of visible time (e.g., hydrogen Lyman forest).

Glib ignorance is not a way of knowing things.

Truths need not be believable, they merely self-consistently exist. Lies must be believable. Consequently, lies are usually much more believable than the truth.

2007-07-08 14:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by Uncle Al 5 · 2 1

It's true but I don't like the wording.

Since all objects are variations of light and energy - our very assembly of what we see is almost more about perception. We each construct what we see from our senses thus none of us see exactly the same thing (variances of health is a factor). Thus even in discussing an idea - we bring our own experiences and perceptions whether real or imagined.

We can look at the same object and believe to see the same item - but we will each see it with variations of light depending upon our ability to see accurately - 20/20 vision etc.

My question is why the question attempts to sound so intellectual when it's really quite simple.

Is there a way to word it so every person can respond or is that very question the answer?

http://www.SoGettingRich.com

2007-07-08 21:10:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

While it is trying to convince the reader to believe that 'the whole objective universe' is merely a 'construction of consciousness,' it fails to do so logically.

The very first statements are fallacious--"every object is simply the sum of its qualities." This commits the fallacy of composition. For example, everyone on the team is a great player; therefore, the team is a great team. It is always possible for something to greater or lesser than the sum of its parts.

2007-07-08 21:14:45 · answer #3 · answered by Think 5 · 1 0

the problem is that the phrase includes objective universe and then goes on the say its exists only in the mind of man. Thats not terribly objective. Intersubjectively valid is how I would phrase it. Since mathematics is just that some basics everyone agreed upon and are not necessarily objective. Take for example zero. Zero doesnt exist in nature. Why does it exist in mathematics because math was designed initially as a system for accounting.

2007-07-08 21:04:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If the universe is objective it must exist because an object is something that is external to the mind and actually exists.Now if the universe were a subjective entity then it may well not exist because subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity .So the quotation is incorrect.

2007-07-08 21:41:20 · answer #5 · answered by ROBERT P 7 · 1 0

More appropriately one should say that since everything exists as a sum of its qualities then the extent to which something is important or not is directly related to the importance that man places on said object.

2007-07-08 21:18:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I was exposed to this thinking when I was 12 and am a very left brained person, very logical but also broadminded. So my teacher in 7th grade said" that desk is only a desk because we see it as a desk" it really is only a sum of all its parts. (to a poor cold person it would look like good firewood in my day of wooden desks) Kind of blew me away, but I never forgot it and it is so true if you take conversations and what a word means to one person is not what it means to another, especially former President Bill Clinton, sorry, I just couldn't pass that up :0 but, we know in our communication with others, a feeler takes a word or even voice inflection one way and a thinker/debater takes it another. Did you know that when left brain thinkers go into their logic mode with words, the feelings they emit shut down the feelers brain and the feeler only wants to feel good and doesn't even hear the logic, I know I have wasted a lot of time this way. I now have a daughter with a very strained relationship and she is 28 and now I know. She is also a high introvert so I never new those first 18 years of logic only caused he sadness and shut her brain down.:)

2007-07-08 21:07:57 · answer #7 · answered by I Love Jesus 5 · 0 0

I think it means that if people weren't around to observe the world, the world would not exist. If you're interested in finding out more about that idea (with which I disagree, but it's good to entertain such ideas, if only to make fun of them), read George Berkeley's "A Treatise Concerning the Principals of Human Knowledge."

2007-07-08 21:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by Diana 7 · 0 0

Sematical metaphysics to impress the juvenile mind. We are aware of many constants that arise from a purely mathematical basis that are confirmed by observation and prediction.

2007-07-08 21:31:01 · answer #9 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1 0

A bit of complicated philosophical thinking, just know that if you think, you Are, and if you see it, it is, if you feel it, enjoy it, or put up with it, mainly just go about and try to BE. And while you are at it, Don't forget to smell the roses.

2007-07-08 22:41:08 · answer #10 · answered by Roberto 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers