On such matters, I'm talking from the ideal of the 'absolute' or 'objective' perspective, which contains all other perspectives, obviously. When I'm talking from a non-absolute perspective, I'll let that be known.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:28 amWhatever the truth, it cannot be a standalone truth, it has to be qualified.
In the same of dream and external world the common denominator are the sense-data being processed in the same brain of a human being.
That is the point we need to qualify the perspective and context of the point we are making.
Note an iceberg appear to a separate thing from the ocean it is floating on in one perspective, but in another, the are not separated by merely made of the same H20 molecules in different compactness.
It is the same with a piece of charcoal and diamond in a tub of carbon powder, there is difference in one perspective but no separation of one view them in term of carbon element.
Which shows that there is no 'actual' observer as in: entity/subject/being, but instead we are an inseparable part of the world.What?
Don't you know, the more advance Science progressed from Newton's independent world, the more it give the observer [humans] a role in it.
Note the Observers effect.
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. wiki
There is no internal and external world in physics, and the interaction idea has always been quantum woo. It was finally experimentally refuted in the 90s. It is yet unknown what a 'quantum observation' is, but not the above, what you read on the wiki is the FAPP noninterpretation.Note the 'Wave Function Collapse'
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world; this is called an "observation". -wki
Both your points backfired badly, by now physicists have regretted a million times that the word 'observer' was chosen as the name for these things.
Okay I looked at the Kant quotes but have no idea how they relate to what I'm saying. What does some 'a priori knowledge' have to do with nondualism?
I don't see where. Looks like he said that if an object conforms to human intuition, then a priori knowledge may be possible about that object. That doesn't mean that all of reality conforms to human intuition.The last point is where Kant claimed whatever the ... reality, it has to conform to the human mind.