Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:25 pm
So you mean this: that in order for the universe to exist, it cannot be disentangled, separate from humans.
Then at a certain point in time, homo-sapiens gradually emerged out to the original soup of star dusts but they are still deterministically connected [entangled] with the all of reality.
Jesus!! That was fast...I never thought my points would be so effective as to change your stance of "
the universe exists only if there are humans" in one post to "
the universe started and then humans gradually emerged out" in the very next post.
I am trying to be effective in getting to the eventual point.
To be effective I had also dealt with each point separately.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
4. The only reason why humans think they are disentangled is when they are endowed with a higher consciousness of self-awareness and it was only around 500+ years ago that Descartes' heavy influence that
separate the mind from the body and made everything else of reality independent of the mind.
Which humans think they are disentangled from reality? Dualists?
It is the realists, i.e. the philosophical realists,
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
5. Fundamentally humans are connected [entangled] with all the things of reality as parts of the whole.
"Humans" in an abstraction of the set composed by every human, but every human is a contingent being that begins to exist and then ceases to exist. Therefore, all entanglements/disentanglements with the reality of the universe are contingent, dependent of each being coming to existence. No matter the nature of entanglements, it is the universe that
brings about human existence, not vice versa.
Your views are that of the common and conventional sense.
As I had stated, within the common and conventional sense, it is very evident all humans are disentangled from the external independent world. So it is also evident that the universe caused and
brings about humans into existence.
The term 'brings about' is very misleading.
Btw, are you theist or non-theist.
As I had stated earlier, there is this soup of star-dusts particles [even this is mind-entangled fundamentally] that enable things and humans to
emerge from it.
It is too complex to state, humans were brought into existence or were caused to exist which implied by something [what can that be??].
Thus the best [still limited] we can say is, humans
emerged out of the soup of star-dust and that entail fundamental entanglement or some sort of inevitable relations. Thus whatever follows cannot escape this fundamental entanglement and relationship.
Therefore philosophical realism [whilst acceptable at the common and conventional sense] is not realistic and tenable at the fundamental level of reality.
This is what happen with Newtonian Physics being acceptable at the conventional sense but not sound at the more fundamental levels of reality which has to be handled by Einsteinian and QM physics.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
What is critical here is from point 1 [believe the big bang is true] to point 5, all the above are conditioned upon the human conditions.
First, belief in the big bang is not necessary for acknowledging the universe exists. It is a theory of how it came to exist as we know it and experience it.
That is the best theory we have so far and thus acceptable to explain my position.
How else? If you are a theist, then you will of course resort to 'God did it'.
Secondly, your use of words in not appropriate. "Conditioned upon the human conditions" is ambiguous and sometimes you use it to mean "existence determined (therefore caused) by humans" and sometimes "knowledge of its existence determined (therefore caused) by humans". You have a confusion between the metaphysical aspect of the problem and the epistemological aspect of it.
"
Conditioned upon the human conditions" meant we cannot be disentangled whether it is epistemological [obvious] or even the ontological [not so obvious] from the human conditions.
Note I posted various threads re this ontological issue;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
Therefore the reality that humans know [epistemologically] and described is co-created [ontologically] by humans themselves.
Note "create" in this case, it not like humans waving a wand and the universe appear.
It is more subtle like the entanglement and relationship via star-dusts I mentioned above.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
Thus whatever you claim, i.e. humans are independent of the universe which could be true in the common and conventional sense, this claim is subsumed within the ultimate entanglement.
What ultimate entanglement? You mean between the abstract concept of humans and the universe, which boils down to nothing meaningful.
"Ultimate entanglement" [not common or conventional sense] means at the most deepest level reducible, humans are entangled or related in someway to the reality which they co-created.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:27 am
There is no way you can take any independent objective stance [i.e. God's eye view] to make any objective independent claim.
All claims about the world are propositions of knowledgeable states of the world, and all claims come from subjects.
Objectivity, having an independent objective stance, has nothing to do with "God's eye view", but with propositions that arising from the subject's point of view, acknowledge the existence of real objects independent of that subject, so that the subject itself is part of the set of all real objects, and such domain and other objects will continue to exist even when the subject is not present anymore. It takes subjectivity to reach objectivity.
As I had stated what you are expressing is from the common and conventional sense but not the ultimate sense of reality.
As I had stated, at the ultimate sense of reality, we and the universe and all of reality are related and entangled on the level of being star-dusts or the particles which we are still comprised in the present albeit in 'coalesced' forms.
The point that humans emerged with self-awareness and a sense of independent do not make the difference at the fundamental level of reality.
ps. I am having problem loading with the internet, will address the other posts later.