Without A Separate Observer, Can Anything Truly Exist?

Answer 1

You're talking about the notion of confirmation.

Why do you think that confirmation of existence needs to come from a separate observer in order to be motivational enough to be taken into consideration? This idea toys with notions of subjectivity and objectivity, too.

My answer would be yes. Existence remains existence even in the absence of a separate observer. A separate observer would merely confirm existence, not create it.

On the other hand... I'm not sure what your definition of a separate observer is. Let's suppose we have an event that is witnessed by an n number of individuals. Would the separate observer be he one who manages to raise above the crowd and look at the event from all perspectives, or would he/she be implied in the action but not as a part of the whole?

You can limit your horizons to the four walls of your room. This doesn't imply that you're not aware of the outer world that's behind your door. The world is built on mental walls. You can live your whole life behind a mental wall, unaware of the facts that hide on the other side of the wall. That wouldn't stop their existence, it would just limit your conscious interaction with them.

Answer 2

sure.

If things failed to exist when they were not being perceived then we would not break perception of a thing only to return and see the same thing. I'll use the cat in a box example.

put a cat in a box, and close the lid. If the cat would cease to exist due to the lack of observation, then when the box was opened the cat would be gone. observing the inside of the box again would not return a non-existant cat to existance.

you could also say that something (an observer) must exist before a thing (observed) could exist, in which case you must first have the ability within the rules of reality that existance is possible. Unless the rules of reality are subject to some form of random change, then anything existing exists. Once you have established that something can exist, if for no other reason then to observe another to exist, you have still established that existance precedes the observation. The observer must exist. existance would then precede perception. If you consider reality subject to random change then existance and it's "laws" are random as well.

Answer 3

In other words, you're asking, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would argue, in both cases, yes. The simple reason is that there was a world that existed before we people were around to observe it. If the existence of anything were dependent upon an observer to exist, then nothing would have existed before there were observers. So how did we observers come into existence? That becomes a chicken-and-egg problem.

In any event, I'm pretty sure we humans are not so special as to warrant special treatment by the laws of existence. As near as anyone has been able to prove, the world we live in exists regardless of us, subject to physical laws which would seem to be absolute and unbreakable.

Answer 4

Very good question!

This is what people who solve crimes always ask. And this is what criminals always forget or try to dodge.

There is always an observer. There is always something opposite something that exist. For hot to exist, there must be cold. For night to exist, there should be day. For happiness to exist, there should be sadness. For everything to exist, there should be nothing.

For man to exist, there must be woman. For woman to exist, there must be man. The presence of one is affirmed by the other. Nothing can truly be separate from its counterpart.

This is the explanation for "No man is an island".

Observe around you. Nature usually occurs in diads. This is how it was created. Anything not in diad is unnatural. Something opposite will always be created.

"For every action, there is always a reaction."

The observer always reacts. Because if it won't, then it cannot know itself.

So if you think no one is looking, think again.

Answer 5

Truth implies certainty, but; for whom?

Are you not certain of what you witnessed?

If you are, how will a second opinion make you any more certain.

And if you are not certain, why will someonelse's certainty replace your uncertainty?

Things either "are" or they "are something else".

Can you confirm what that something else is?

No.

Because if you could then it would exist as well, and there would be yet a new something else.

This is where you try to grasp the limitlessness of infinity and realize each time your perspective changes existence changes as well and the great unknown becomes a litlle less great in your mind.

Like I have said before with change comes existence.

And yes, six billion Chinese could be wrong and quite often are, so two osbervers could easily be mistaken.

Answer 6

The only reason why things exist is because god created them. That doesn't need a separate observer. To me any ways.

Answer 7

I can observe myself, this is a facet of self reference therefor I think something that can experience is necessarily extant. Can something that is unexperiencing exist without an experiencer? Yes, as we can see new things can enter our phenomenal field.

If such were not the case than when somethings was unobserved it would discorporate. Now, I think a more apt question would be to ask if something un-experience-able matters. But that gets into a God conversation you probably aren't in the mood for.

Answer 8

Something only truly exists if the individual believes it does... With or without a second observer.

Answer 9

Yes, they can exist without a Separate Observer!
Would bacteria or ants exist without us looking at them?
Dinosaurs? Lindsay Lohan?
.

Answer 10

Shoot! I just read something about that in Newsweek. Here it is, It's an article by Sharon Begley. Putting Time in a (leaky) bottle. "You can tell alot about a subject by who it's muses and mascots are. Neuroscience has philosophers who wax profound about the mind, geology has intrepid explores and subatomic physics has... Alice in Wonderland. 'Curiouser and curiouser,' as alice said, also describes the subatomic, or quantum, world. With age this centenarian (quantum physics is 107 years old) has gotten more bizarre."

I'll let you check the rest of the article out for yourself.