Objective Reality

[philosopher]

Let's suppose we have an event (I'm not goint into any particular event, just any event that fits into this post).

We call the event E.

E was noticed by an Observer (O).

Now, let's suppose nobody except O noticed the event. Nothing in the universe, except O was affected by E.

Nobody saw, nobody heard and nobody had their atoms moved around by E, except O, which of course, told the rest of the world of E.

Only through O do we notice E. We don't know wether O was correct.

Now, let's suppose O is a human being. Lots of stuff can happen to a human, including the brain making tricks on itself. But let's suppose for this example, that E was an external event. That is, it did not come from within the human Observer. Let's suppose E cast a beam of light that travelled into O's eyes creating a vision of something. The light beam did not travel anywhere else. But it did happen, externally that is!

The rest of the world is in the unknowing wether E happened to O. The only thing they know was that O told them about E, but it could be imaginary, or it could be real. The rest of the world will NEVER know wether E was real.

Now, since E never affected anything in the universe, except O, and only through O's actions (public speeches about E) affects the the rest of the world, what is the Objective Reality?

Did E happen?

Another example of my thought-experiment is more visual:

Let's have a singularity in pure nothingness. For the sake of understanding this, let's visually represent "nothing" as a clean white piece of paper.
The singularity is an X anywhere on the paper.

Does X exist?

In relation to what, you might ask. In relation to nothing. X exist in relation to nothing, so IS X?

Now let's have another X (X2) anywhere on the same paper.

Does X exist in relation to X2? Where? What is location in this nothingness, what is distance?

Let's have a third X, X3. Now we can have distances. X relates in angles to X2 and X3.

Now we can say for sure, X exist. But does X still exist if we erase X2 or X3?

In short, can we only talk about existence, in relation to something else, or can something exist on its own?

[HexHammer]

Objective Reality

..this is ONLY for people lacking very basic cognitive abilities, "Rain Men"..............

[Noax]

Did E happen?

Your whole description seems to be tackled from an epistemological standpoint, where nobody else sees the result of the coin toss picked up by O, so do we trust him? We can't know for sure. But now you ask if the event (heads say) actually happened, which is a whole different question. The event E cannot happen and affect only one thing. There are balances to be kept. If light was emitted, energy is lost by the thing emitting the light, which is an effect to something other than the observer.

Let's have a singularity in pure nothingness. For the sake of understanding this, let's visually represent "nothing" as a clean white piece of paper.
The singularity is an X anywhere on the paper.

Does X exist?

To the paper, I guess it does. In relation to nothing, it exists if the paper does. It seems not to matter at all to anything. Existence is the passing on of the paper's ontological status to the X, which seems to serve no distinctive purpose to anything.

Now let's have another X (X2) anywhere on the same paper.

Does X exist in relation to X2? Where? What is location in this nothingness, what is distance?

This is easy. Points would be better. There might be a distance relative to the size of the X's, or an orientation relative to the rotation of the X's. If points, then distance and orientation is meaningless in a 2-existant scenario. But both X's already exist. The third X makes no difference now. If they're identical (size and orientation), neither is distinct, so you have only X and other X, but not X1 and X2.

Let's have a third X, X3. Now we can have distances. X relates in angles to X2 and X3.

Now you can number them, assuming symmetry is broken.

I think there's a name for the mathematical theory behind all this. It eludes me.

But does X still exist if we erase X2 or X3?

Now you've gone and introduced temporality with the concept of 'used to be there', a much more complicated structure. This requires you to redefine what parts of the history are the parts included in the set of parts that exist.

In short, can we only talk about existence, in relation to something else, or can something exist on its own?

I think there is no distinction in talking about existence on its own, but I'm probably in the minority on that point.

[Impenitent]

Let's suppose we have an event (I'm not goint into any particular event, just any event that fits into this post).

We call the event E.

E was noticed by an Observer (O).

Now, let's suppose nobody except O noticed the event. Nothing in the universe, except O was affected by E.

Nobody saw, nobody heard and nobody had their atoms moved around by E, except O, which of course, told the rest of the world of E.

Only through O do we notice E. We don't know wether O was correct.

Now, let's suppose O is a human being. Lots of stuff can happen to a human, including the brain making tricks on itself. But let's suppose for this example, that E was an external event. That is, it did not come from within the human Observer. Let's suppose E cast a beam of light that travelled into O's eyes creating a vision of something. The light beam did not travel anywhere else. But it did happen, externally that is!

The rest of the world is in the unknowing wether E happened to O. The only thing they know was that O told them about E, but it could be imaginary, or it could be real. The rest of the world will NEVER know wether E was real.

Now, since E never affected anything in the universe, except O, and only through O's actions (public speeches about E) affects the the rest of the world, what is the Objective Reality?

Did E happen?

Another example of my thought-experiment is more visual:

Let's have a singularity in pure nothingness. For the sake of understanding this, let's visually represent "nothing" as a clean white piece of paper.
The singularity is an X anywhere on the paper.

Does X exist?

In relation to what, you might ask. In relation to nothing. X exist in relation to nothing, so IS X?

Now let's have another X (X2) anywhere on the same paper.

Does X exist in relation to X2? Where? What is location in this nothingness, what is distance?

Let's have a third X, X3. Now we can have distances. X relates in angles to X2 and X3.

Now we can say for sure, X exist. But does X still exist if we erase X2 or X3?

In short, can we only talk about existence, in relation to something else, or can something exist on its own?

there is no "objective" reality

nobody noticed the event as O did anyway...

every other observer in the universe would observe the event as a unique observer...

language is a way observers roughly agree on what was observed even though each observation was unique (and ultimately private)...

of course, old Mac Donald would argue E I E I O...

[henry quirk]

That is: E is independent of O.

So: E happened (observation, by one, many, or 'no observation', has no bearing on E's existence).

...and...

"there is no "objective" reality "

Yes, there is.

There are as many subjective takes on reality as there are minds, but there's only one reality.

Joe looks at the camp fire, remembers good times with his pop, feels warm and comfortable.

Stan looks at the same camp fire, remembers how he was seriously burned as a child, moves a little further out from the flames.

Two very different takes on the same object (the camp fire [which does what it does, is what it is, independently of what any mind thinks of it]).

[Impenitent]

That is: E is independent of O.

So: E happened (observation, by one, many, or 'no observation', has no bearing on E's existence).

...and...

"there is no "objective" reality "

Yes, there is.

There are as many subjective takes on reality as there are minds, but there's only one reality.

Joe looks at the camp fire, remembers good times with his pop, feels warm and comfortable.

Stan looks at the same camp fire, remembers how he was seriously burned as a child, moves a little further out from the flames.

Two very different takes on the same object (the camp fire [which does what it does, is what it is, independently of what any mind thinks of it]).

different takes... yes... as many different takes as there are observers...

which take is the "objective" one?

the noumena remains elusive

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Neither.

The camp fire, the 'noumena', isn't elusive: it's right there between Stan and Joe.

Joe and Stan each overlay 'themselves' on the camp fire, yes, but this is overlay, not obfuscation.

Both can still 'access' the camp fire, apprehend it.

[Impenitent]

each only has access to their impressions...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

"each only has access to their impressions..."

Impressions (feelings, ideas, etc.) informed by past experience with 'fire', an event existing independent of Joe and Stan.

That is: Joe and Stan each have subjective views on an objective reality, an 'object' both men have direct access to by way of sight, hearing, smell, and touch.

That is: both men live in the same world, the same (the only) reality, a reality they each overlay with 'impressions', 'impressions' that don't trump reality.

Stan hates fire and fire don't care.

Joe respects fire and fire don't care.

Fire will eat those logs and it'll do it the same way no matter who's watching or what anyone thinks or feels about it.

[Impenitent]

if no one is watching, nothing is happening

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

The only way the watcher can know it is watching is by seeing it's reflection, and seeing that there is nothing behind the reflection that can be seen to be reflecting it, there is only the reflection herenow.

A reflection is knowledge, and so knowledge in-forms the illusory nature of the watcher.

So yeah, no one is watching, nothing is happening.

.

[henry quirk]

So, if Joe and Stan leave the camp fire, abandon it, hop in the car and drive away, the camp fire ceases to be?

C'mon, you know that ain't so.

[Dontaskme]

So, if Joe and Stan leave the camp fire, abandon it, hop in the car and drive away, the camp fire ceases to be?

C'mon, you know that ain't so.

No, you are missing the point...the camp fire is known knowledge. And that which is known can never be unknown or cease from being known. For a camp fire to exist, there first has to exist the knowledge of it via a knower. The Image of a camp fire is a known concept, but no one has ever seen a camp fire, it's just a concept known by the watcher that has never been seen.

The camp fire did not exist until it became a known concept in the watcher, a concept has no reality outside of the watcher, the camp fires only reality is a concept known by the watcher. There is no concept outside of all that is everywhere at once...aka awareness aka empty space of the watcher, therefore, allconcepts are empty fullness. In other words, emptiness appearing full, images of the imageless.

We are talking about the illusion of separation here. There is nothing outside of awareness that is not first of and in awareness known to awareness only. Awareness is primary, concepts are secondary, illusory images of the one light of awareness.

.

[Impenitent]

esse est percipi - berkeley

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

So, if Joe and Stan leave the camp fire, abandon it, hop in the car and drive away, the camp fire ceases to be?

C'mon, you know that ain't so.

Lets put this another way.. the camp fire does not exist unless it is being looked at in the same instant. Subject and Object are intantaneously one in the same reality.

So then you might say, but I saw it, so it must exist when I am not looking at it, but remember, the camp fire is not looking at you, you as awareness are looking at the camp fire, the camp fire is inseparable from the awareness that is looking at it....which once conceived as perceived can never leave or cease to be...it's now a known concept of awareness forever unchanged.

So who is seeing? what is awareness? ...and can that be seen ? can awareness be seen, or is awareness the seeing inseparable from the seen in the same instanteous reality going live stream right now in real time?

So then you might say, even if stan and joe are no longer seeing the camp fire, someone else will confirm they saw it too, so it must still exist even when stan and joe are not looking at it. ......but stan and joe are concepts, like the camp fire is a concept, concepts are not the lookers, they are the looked upon.. by the only looker there is which is everywhere at once..

The looker never moves, the looker is everywhere at once, ..only the mind is moving as concepts known, stan and joe are mind construced concepts / ideas within awareness that never moves. The mind is conceptual knowledge a fictional image of no thing...aka awareness aka empty space.

.