Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Leaving philosophy to philosophers, we can safely say that at least until the end of the first 150 million years of our universe's existence, when it was devoid of visible light, there could have been no observers by definition. These were dark times before the formation of the first stars. With a different value of the mass of a proton or neutron in our Universe, which differs from the current one only by about one thousandth of the original value, it would lead to instability of the hydrogen atom and then there would never be any stars in such a universe. This means that there would be no planets, no observer (details here).�
So the answer is YES, without an observer, the universe can exist, and according to String Theory, the number of such universes is almost infinite.
Man is Nature's attempt to realize itself. That which is not perceived by the five senses and perceived as an entity does not exist. This is what science and law say. If You are on the court stated that mermaids exist and they stole a purse, it will send You to a psychiatric hospital because �mermaid �was not �anyone �(and science with the help of instruments) �perceived as �a certain entity. Thus, “without” us (intelligent beings) “nothing exists:” neither the sky, nor the forest, nor the river-all these are just the boundaries of environments, chaos, which “also, in essence, does not exist. The fact that the observer “influences the physical process (this is proven)” confirms the fact that the unobservable (if there is no one to observe) does not exist.
It depends on what counts as an observation.
If observation is perception by the senses, then it is quite real. A person does not feel radiation, does not observe it, but it is quite real and can kill a person.�
If observation is an interaction, then no. If there is no interaction of electrons and protons, if there is no influence of neutrons, then there will be no universe. Everything is made up of particles and energy interacting and passing into each other. The observer in this definition is the particles themselves and the energy.
I am far from an expert in this matter, so I think purely logically. As far as I know, space exists only when time exists. And time is a derivative of observation. If there is no observer. then there is neither time nor space.�
Any �the arguments that�”it is possible to calculate what was to observations, predict, simulate, etc.” or�”the fact of the occurrence of an observer is a consequence of the existence to the observation period of the Universe” does not refute the fact that “No observer = no time = no space = no Universe (what we call the Universe)”.�
Because “modeling”, “predicting”, “calculating-what-happened-after-the-big-bang” is already an OBSERVATION. �
Fucking solipsism
The question is more philosophical than physical, now I'm just reeling in signs that need at least 140. Because the answer is very simple, only an observer can tell whether there is something or not. Otherwise, the question goes into the realm of faith. And you believe that there is a God.
No, just as the observer is impossible without the universe. The observer, the observed, the observation-these three appear simultaneously, and none of the terms is possible without the other two.
There is, I'm sure.Only our Land has a program of cruelty and bad qualities.The Inquisition, wars.theft, at all times.Goodness.What for?and maybe Bulgakov is right, to How to find out.good without evil.eternal light will not give shade. Someone needs a result. Only too much evil and injustice,And as a rule, the good is not always in favor
No, it doesn't exist. The universe mechanism is much more complex than, for example, a watch. And the watch is made by a watchmaker. Regardless of whether the universe is real or virtual, it must have a creator.� He's an observer.
To recognize that the universe does not exist without an observer is to recognize that the entire surrounding world and all the information that exists in it are only games of a certain consciousness, where even a person's identification of himself, as a person, is part of the game, one of the conditions.And it's not even a “matrix universe” that's even more plausible.
From the point of view of science, it exists because it is possible to calculate, predict, and verify certain physical phenomena in the universe even at those moments when we are not directly observing them. We use it in practice, it brings us certain results, which means it can be taken as a fact. But our knowledge is far from absolute to say anything for sure. Who can say that the universe does not exist without an observer, if you remove all observers? There will be no one to confirm this) So it doesn't make sense to us. If the universe does not exist or exists without an observer, then what difference does it make to us?)
Naturally there is. And the observation of people does not play a significant role. There is some kind of planet in the constellation Zeta Reticuli, and it is possible that a fig of everything is happening and has happened in it. And the fact that during the Stone Age, the Middle Ages, and Modern times we knew nothing about this planet and the processes in it did not play any role. And even now we may not know anything about it. It is the egoism of the knowing subject that is outraged. And anthropocentrism. But reality doesn't care. So the universe still existed even when people didn't have telescopes and thought the stars were the fires of the gods. There were parsecs worth of quasars shining there, black holes swallowing up matter, but there was no one to observe them. The universe is not a show, but just impersonal processes.
And what is the point of the universe if there is no one to observe it? How can we prove that it even exists without us? What is meant by existence?
If there is no one to determine that a table is a table, and a chair is a chair by some combination of signs that we have fixed in our head, then this is just formless and meaningless matter, nothing. Only consciousness gives all this meaning and form.