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?
If the author of the question by “external physical world” means worlds (other universes) outside our universe, then I suggest a way to prove the existence (or absence) of such worlds. The method is very simple. If our universe rotates, then it must have an angular momentum (L โ 0). Then, for reasons of symmetry (ฮฃ L แตข = 0), it follows that there are other universes or-the external world exists. If our universe does not rotate (L = 0), then the existence of an external world is unlikely.
To the question โ “Does our universe rotate?“, there is already the first answer.
Based on long-term satellite data (Planck, ESO) on the distribution of temperature and polarization of cosmic microwave background radiation in the universe, in 2016, for the first time, clear evidence was obtained that the universe is the same in all directions. This excludes the hypothesis of the rotation of the universe, since it is on the image of the oldest (relict) radiation that the rotation of the Universe should have left its mark. But it didn't leave it (see here for details).
Thus, for today, the existence of the external world is unlikely.
“Existence” is not an object of proof, it is a characteristic inherent in everything. Being is, non-being is not. I am. Everything that is given to me in sensations is there. Everything I think is there. There is no need to prove that it exists, the very meaning of the word “is” is such that all this exists by definition.
Then there is the question of the quality, the nature of this existence. It seems obvious and needs no proof that what is given to me in sensations and what is given to me in thinking are things that exist in different ways, even if we do not really know how. If I think of a wall, it is subject to me. I can think of her any way I want. If I feel a wall, I can't affect it with my mind alone.
You can argue about what is behind this division, but it is a given. “The external physical world” is just a traditional label for the reality given in sensations. You can make an inversion and call this reality an inner product of our imagination and this will not change anything. There will still be a conceivable wall that is subject to me and a perceived wall that is subject to (not) comprehensible physical laws.
So this reality is an unavoidable point in my thinking, and I can't get rid of it. Therefore, I do not need proof of its existence as something autonomous in relation to my thinking. And if you're a human being like me, you don't need them either.
This is not proven and cannot be proven. Moreover, it is not possible to prove anything at all. You can be persuaded or forced to say that you were convinced.
There is no difference between the fact that the external world is physical or a program. That's exactly why it can't be what it is. We can say that the physical world is a computer that works on known physical laws and this will not change anything in your fate and “feelings”, which in the same “physical” world, when dissected at the level of electrons, also mean nothing, like a set of zeros and ones in the program.
To prove that the physical world exists, you just need to pinch your backside. And if you feel pain, then everything is right, you are in the physical world. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't, or it's someone else's ass.
In fact, everything is simple. There is no need to prove the existence of the “external world”. It is sufficient to prove the existence of a second observer.
If there is no” outside world”, then there are no” outside observers ” either. You are alone in the universe. If there are at least two observers, there is a certain “reality” that they observe together.
And so. You can prove the existence of an” external observer”, for example, by entering into a battle with him. Your body will receive damage that was caused by someone or something.
that's really a question so a question, so you can't find the right answer on the spot, but you just need to answer correctly. I think that anyone who asks such a question right from the very beginning should decide for themselves without delay, … and whether there is its own internal physical world, and if it exists, then there is an external one, because we can not talk about the internal world if we have nothing to compare it with, that is, if there was no external world, then we would not be able to know about the existence of the internal world, and if a person knows for sure that his internal world really exists, then Find yourself within yourself and find the world outside.
NOTHING. Everyone GENERALLY lives in THEIR OWN system of ideas, in THEIR OWN LOGIC, Simply, people unite in insignificant topics, by a superficial coincidence of ideas. And EVERYTHING will be overwritten, going into the depth.
The question is interesting and what can be said (almost) for sure, there is no unambiguous answer to it at the moment.
On the one hand, each of us minds / consciousnesses, perceives a certain flow of information. At least it seems to us that there is an “external world” and even our body (it is also external in relation to consciousness). The question of the existence of the external world, in this case, can be slightly reformulated. Here there is a certain mind (it does not even know whether it exists somewhere or in itself), and the question arises: what the mind perceives as a certain flow of information is the external world? maybe it (the mind) is such that it creates such an “external world”for itself? And in general, the question of whether the mind can exist (as it were) in itself, without the external world (can Munchausen lift himself by the hair, even if there is nowhere to lift)?
Roughly speaking, there is no strict proof of the existence of the external physical world (not yet, maybe someday it will be possible to prove it strictly, depending on what we will understand by the word “prove” and other terms), but there is a reasonable assumption that it (the external physical world) exists. As if you have never seen a bear with horns, you assume that all bears do not have horns, but if you suddenly find at least one of them, you will have to review the tz.. And there are quite a lot of such assumptions, without them there is nowhere (yet nowhere, I don't know if it will always be so and whether it was so before, if there was anything at all before, somewhere… I swam …).
None at all. At least suppose that the World is fundamentally One and EVERYTHING is a DREAM WITHIN the One, subject to certain laws. ALL dream characters, as elements of a hologram, depict certain laws, differences, experiences by their actions, obeying that internal law, think what they think, etc … no way.
This argument is closer to proving that there is NO EXTERNAL WORLD and that the WORLD is PSYCHIC.
EVERYTHING we see and think is a PSYCHIC INTERPRETATION.
First, we will prove the falsity of solipsism. This follows from the postulate about the existence of time, i.e. changes-at least in the form of a change of thoughts in consciousness. The ” I ” that is only aware of itself is a contradiction in itself, because even before it can reason about itself by defining itself as “I”, it must be aware of something. Therefore, the “not-self”, that is, the external world, exists, and solipsism is false.
It remains to prove the physicality of the external world (i.e., that it is not a computer simulation). Proof to the contrary.
Let's assume the opposite: our reality is a simulation. Then let's call our reality a child, and the one in which the hardware on which the simulation is implemented is located – the mother (which, in turn, may well also be a simulation – but this has nothing to do with the essence of what is being proved). Then
I believe that the “external physical world” means the world surrounding the body (biological).
The question implies that there is an “inner physical world”. But the physical world of a biological body cannot be isolated. It needs constant feeding, at a minimum, with energy that must come from the external world.
You are a physical body (we'll leave the rest for now).
The wall is a physical body (we'll leave the rest for now).
A small headbutt against the wall will prove the existence of the physical You and the physical wall.
Citizen Newton's third law will help you – the forces with which two bodies act on each other are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
This means that the bump on your head is proof ๐
If we feel this world with all our senses, then we are in the real world. There is no material world as such. And the more you delve into the structure of the universe, it becomes clear that everything consists of some vortices of energy. If you compare it so figuratively, the universe is like a huge piece of iron in which Foucault currents are induced. And we feel our world as in a certain frequency of the displayed image.
When we say that something exists or does not exist, we mean that some concepts or images in our inner world correspond or do not correspond to objects of the external world. That is, the division into the internal and external world is primary in relation to the division into existing and non-existing. So the question, if taken literally, doesn't make sense.
Another thing is how adequate the interpretation of our experience is through the division into the internal and external world. Here we can recall Zen Buddhism, which says that there is neither the perceived nor the perceiver, but only the process of perception. Or something like that, I can't guarantee the accuracy. But with this approach, it is difficult to talk about anything at all. At least, I haven't heard of anyone coming up with a way to do this.
Of course, by Moore's argument, which goes literally like this:
Seriously.
In formal logic:
And if it looks like a joke, then alas, it has a significant logical justification.: that certain facts in support of one hypothesis are much more familiar to us than any facts that might support or refute another hypothesis.
Ludwig Wittgenstein certainly had something to say about this, but that's another question.
I do not know about the existence of the “external material world”, but I know about the real existence of the subtle,pre-material world firsthand
No way. Solipsism is irrefutable.
Actually, there is nothing to add here, but Yandex believes that the response cannot be less than 140 characters, so you don't need to read this paragraph)
This is called a social protocol. When everyone defaults to what they have. In social life, these are laws and rules of behavior. In deeper processes, it is the synchronization of brain activity. That is, we assume that a square is a square and red is red, even though we can't tell exactly what the person is seeing. This thing is not a feature of higher beings. Earlier, at a primitive stage of evolution, the organism was connected by threads: https://www.popmech.ru/science/news-554784-pervye-zhivotnye-zemli-byli-svyazany-setyu-strannyh-nitey/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com
this is how we see the world exactly as it is.
How do I find out if I am a closed system L(x) = 0 or an open system L (x) = a ?
Very simple-by the presence of chaos around. If you're alone and you're imagining everything around you, then there's no unpredictability or surprise.
And the second method is similar to the first, by the presence of orderliness inside you. If you are alone, the degree of disorder inside you is maximum and nothing can be damaged or disturbed. Take a hammer and hit yourself on the head. If nothing bad happens, then the outside world doesn't exist.
What is the EXTERNAL physical world? This is not proven by anyone)
There is an inner (our world) physical world.
Even if we imagine that our reality is just a simulation, then the internal physical laws in the simulation work perfectly.
If you don't believe me, run away and try to jump through the wall))
But this is precisely the inner physical world.
As for the EXTERNAL ONE (even if it exists), there is no information, so this is not proven in any way.
Given the current state of Knowledge, the correct answer to the question should contain definitions of the inaccurate concepts applicable in the question. In other words, you should first define: what is “there”?, what is “the physical world”?, what is “external”?, what is “proof”?, what is “exact proof”. And since different apologists of different philosophical trends do not have a single view on these questions, there can be no single answer to the question posed.
Personally, I like the way this question is answered in the Forensic Theory of Reflection. “The concept of reflection in criminalistics is used in a broad and narrow sense. In a narrow sense, reflection is defined as the interaction of material bodies or as the result of this interaction. Understanding reflection in a narrow sense is mainly determined by the applied meaning of the theory of reflection and is associated with the task of identifying a specific subject who left in the traces of a crime a reflection of certain own properties inherent in him as a material body.”
By definition, the physical world is understood as all material objects and the laws of their movement or change. I.e., the physical world is everything that concerns matter. Matter is the substance that underlies everything and exists on its own. Thus, the physical world exists simply by definition within the framework of a materialistic worldview. That's all the proof ๐
But! The question uses the word “external”. This means that we are talking about a division into the external world and the internal one. And the question is apparently not about the existence of the physical world, but the external one. And this is a completely different song. Here we already go beyond the materialist picture, because the question concerns the opposition of two views on the world-materialistic and idealistic. I.e., the question of primacy, what really exists, and what is the product of the movement of the former? The author requires proof of the existence of the external world.
The key words here are “existence“and” external.” “External” to what? “Exists” where and when?
As you can see, both concepts are relative.
Usually, the boundary between the external and internal world is drawn between what is observed around as the world of material objects, i.e., the same physical world, and what is perceived as images of consciousness and mental activity. Some believe that the objects of the external world are also images of consciousness, and therefore there is no external world. Others, on the contrary, believe that these images of consciousness are only special connections and movements in matter.
As evidence, the latter use the fact that not everything in the movement of images of consciousness obeys the will, which means that it is outside of consciousness. As a rule, as an” indisputable ” argument, they offer “a brick on the head” or “pinch yourself in the ass”, not realizing that all this can also be just images of consciousness.
The mistake here is that we unconsciously confuse the two situations. On the one hand, we draw the line between matter and consciousness, and on the other, between the laws in the observed and the will. We always associate laws with matter, and will with consciousness. And all this is completely unsubstantiated and even unconsciously.
But in fact, no one has proved that there are no laws in consciousness, and that will and consciousness are one and the same? But if we assume the possibility of patterns of movement of images in the minds of those who are not subject to will, then there will be no need for the external world. And with the separation of consciousness and will, consciousness itself becomes external to the will ๐
But the question is about the external physical world.
Well, let's now consider what is meant by its existence? It was said above that “existence” is a relative concept, since it presupposes a place and time. However, this was only until the Greeks (as we are assured), who absolutized this concept by inventing “Being” as existenceBY ITSELF, without reference to anything. From this moment, all this leapfrog began with “matter”, “reality”, “reality”, “in fact”, “not being”, etc.Philosophers still can not figure out what to understand by all this.
And they will never figure it out, because the Absolute. And the Absolute is always complete uncertainty. In general, all the burning questions in philosophy and science usually concern precisely those concepts that are absolutized. And these are all kinds of singularities, infinities, totalities, points, continuities, etc. First they come up with a term based on the negation of specifics, and then they persist in trying to concretize it at least somehow. The fun is this ๐
So with the existence of our external world, first we came up with the existence of it in itself, and now we are wondering how to prove it, i.e. tie it to at least some specifics. You can only prove its relative existence, because to do this, you need and can connect it with something. Absolute existence by itself cannot be proved, it is irrelevant. This is pure FAITH. So all materialists are believers just like everyone else :)) Only not in God, Spirit, or Soul, but in Being, that is, in EXISTENCE.
By the external physical world, the author most likely means the objective reality surrounding a person, which a person perceives subjectively. And the author is concerned about the question: whether the world environment is not his personal, subjective, worldview.
I will try to answer the question this way: The world's objective reality exists in the form, or form of Images. Absolutely everything has its own Image: The Image of form, the Image of content and the Image of action.
All these Images are superimposed on the Image of the Mind, which creates these Images. But there is no permanent Image of the Mind. The mind exists in Its manifestation. To exercise your Intelligence, a person must know something. That is, it must have an internal reasonable content. Simply put, be able to think based on the acquired Knowledge about the external physical world. And, then, the external physical world will be revealed to a person in all its depth and breadth.
It turns out that a person, with his knowledge, creates for himself an external physical world, the unknown part of which does not exist for him. But the impact of the external world on a person does not depend on whether he knows about it or not. And the impact of gravity, which no one really knows anything about, is the main proof of the reality of the existing world. We ourselves, subjectively, are unlikely to be able to come up with and figuratively reproduce what we have no idea about.
By the large Hamburg account, this is NOT provable and becomes clear to a person after he understands that his life is the life of the mind (brain) of the perceiver…what it already has and analyzes it
And it is no worse than the materialistic scheme given by Castaneda and implemented in a vulgar form in the widely known “Matrix”
And didn't the spiritual Wisdom of the East tell us for thousands of years that the World is an Illusion ?
A relatively reliable “proof” is the stability of the World (as opposed to sleep)…but wasn't the World “stable” in the same Matrix?
In any case, this or that view of the World does not change anything in your brutal life game ! So what does it matter ! ?
In any case, we are God's creations and live in God, and to try to get out of His violent and beautiful World means to go out into NON-Existence, means to cut down the branch on which we are sitting….yes, and fortunately it is impossible !
The question is a provocation. It contains six concepts that need to be reduced to a common denominator. Exact proofs belong to the field of mathematical knowledge that shows some aspects of life experience, the empiricism of its use, the practice of optimization, and the field of theoretical (read, methodological) knowledge. The basis of the” proof ” of the existence theorem, it is necessary to take a certain axiom, which itself turns out to be the language of many abstractions and alphabetization with the rules of its application. Hence, the conclusion follows that the physical world exists as an object of consumption for the biological subject who has set the goal of knowing the world.
Protagoras of Abdera, Greece, c. 450 BC, answered this question unequivocally: “The measure of all things is man, existing that they exist and non-existing that they do not exist.” Simply put, get to know yourself and get to know the world around you.
One of the clearest proofs that the reality observed by a person is just an illusion – a visual image delivered to the mind on the model of 3D reality of a computer game – is the failure of the illusion. Examples can be found on the web. The most impressive ones look like the image is scattered into pixels, but there are quite a few other interesting examples. The reality in which we exist strongly defends itself, and anyone who claims such failures risks being pelted with stones. But if a person has pronounced analytical abilities, then he will definitely come to the following conclusions::
In such a situation, our consciousness can be “fed” ABSOLUTELY any information.
Perhaps there is a real material world outside of our illusion, but it is of the same value as our illusion for computer Mario.
Based on the spectral analysis of light directed at an object and reflected by the object under study. Or by spectral analysis of the light expressed/emitted by an object.
The universe does not “exist” it is visualized in our collective consciousness.
consciousness. there is no space.There is no time. There are no measurements. Measure-
property of information perception. Everything is information. Material
-the world that exists from the point of view of the masses is impossible.
The author of this article puts forward the idea that time-space initially by itself, objectively has a single nature, a dynamic single form, which manifests itself, naturally, at the level of the micro-and macrocosm. It is already more than time-space, it is already time-space-energy-matter. Or a single primary elementary particle (EPEC), which manifests itself as a new scientific law.
The proof of this position is carried out by constructing a certain dynamic model of time-space-energy-matter, followed by checking it when explaining many modern issues of quantum physics and cosmology.
Most likely, we can assume that the only acceptable and only possible source of energy-matter is a closed time โ time moves in a circle in space or a certain force closed on itself. The main property of such time, of course, is its perpetual motion. ๏ฟฝOf course, it can be positioned in any way in space. But the following model most likely has a semantic meaning.
This is proved elementary. Let's say you're walking down a path and you meet something. You think about it, you decide to set up an experiment-well, as the author of the question, to find out if the outside world exists. So, for this experiment, you kick what you've met and wait for a reaction. Either the person you meet will whine, run away, or kick you back. And so, if it kicks, then you will not have any doubts about the reality of the external physical world.
But you can't prove it. The fact that you can touch something,touch it,conduct some experiments-all this does not prove the reality of what is happening. In a dream, you also see everything “real”. And where is the proof that you didn't dream that you were asleep and woke up?
Proof of the existence of the physical world is, in strict accordance with the laws of Newtonian mechanics, the manifestation of force interaction between physical objects repeated with repeated repetition, all other things being equal..
It is necessary to gather a team of those who doubt and those who are on the contrary and hit the doubter with an existing or vice versa brick. If the doubter remains alive , there is nothing around but the doubters. If everyone who is watching sees that he is no longer alive, then everything around him exists, and the one who doubted no longer exists.
The universe is so big that it can't fit in a person's mind. But there is not a single place in it where you can stick the thinnest medical needle so that its tip does not rest on something, does not come into contact with something. Understanding the essence of what has been said can give people of science a globally different view of the world order. In fact, people still do not know much about the invisible world, about how strong the Animal mind is in this world, and how important it is for each person to take care of their spiritual purity. This ghostly world. Authentic- – – on the other side of the curtain. We are not here, only our shadows are here.” So-called everyday life is just a game of shadows. On the other side of the curtain, on the other side of space and time, the soul is hidden-alive, energetic, immortal. With respect.
All the answers are in the Bible.
We humans, in our earthly shells, (our bodies) live on Earth. We have an eternal soul,(our will, feelings, consciousness).
That is: we have a physical life and a mental life.
But there is still our spirit. With the help of which we can know the spiritual (eternal) world.
Nothing.If you are not convinced by the presence of your nose, head, and other body parts when feeling.That is, receiving information both through the hands and through the receptors of the palpable organs….Then ANY other evidence will not help you if you do not believe in the reality of the world.If you doubt that you feel something real,then how can some squiggles on paper, or vibrations of the air, when someone tells you something about the reality or unreality of the world, color spots on the monitor, shake your Faith? How to convince a crocodile that he is a crocodile, if the crocodile feels like a fluffy hollow ball in a gay club, and does not believe anyone..even to myself?No way.So suffer, in ignorance, or enjoy it.