Here's one for you, @Rassah, since you assume an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality, or what you consider 'real' and 'unreal' respectively. If we acknowledge the phenomenon of cognition in general as a "real" event that can lead to the formation of entirely "unreal" concepts, don't we have a huge problem on our hands? How can something real produce something totally and utterly unreal?
What is actually being produced? If I project an image of a house on a white screen, am I producing a house? Or just a concept that looks like/represents a house?
You could say that an imagination is like a Universe in that the content of one's imagination obeys certain rules and laws; one of these rules is that imaginative content is binary, and accordingly we can not imagine simultaneous yes/no states (try imagining a shirt that is both red and not red).
I think imagination isn't following rules and laws, so much as it is following whatever we are capable of imagining based on our limited experience. Ever notice that all aliens in all our fiction are either humanoid, or resemble some other creature found on out planet? Creating something completely new and never before imagines is a difficult skill (we give out PhD's for such a task).
Ironically, while we can't imagine a shirt that is both red and not red, or an element that is there and is not there at the same time, that is, in fact, how the universe works on a quantum level. So, technically, our imagination is even too limited to imagine how the universe actually exists in our objective, observable reality. The funny thing is that people are claiming that our universe is only limited by our imagination, when the trust is that the our imagination is limiting our understanding of the universe.
@Rassah, when you talk about some objective reality that can exist totally independent of any subjectivity or observation, you make a logical fallacy (actually two) by imposing an assumption that happens to be false upon a hypothetical scenario that has never been observed, and in fact could never be observed.
Think of it this way. I can observe what is in my room right now. You can't. Just because you can't observe what is here, does not mean that this room doesn't exist. Someone else can, and is, observing it. Extending that to the rest of the universe, just because we are not observing it right now, doesn't mean someone else isn't. And, to me, anyway, its easy to come to the conclusion that just because I am not observing something else in the universe, that it doesn't exist. To think otherwise would be to believe that the unviverse doesn't exist where people are not seeing it, and is constantly being spontaneously created and destroyed as we walk through places, or even pan our vision across a landscape. Actually, that is something that humans do believe when they go through child spychological developlent. If you hide a ball away from a 1 year old, he will believe that it simply no longer exists. Object permanence is the term for the thing we learn when we grow up.
Your assumption is actually your conclusion; you assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive.
Aren't they by definition? Otherwise I would have to rethink my political view as an objectivist.
But, how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation? This is an inherent contradiction and it could never possibly happen. I find it really interesting that you're forming conclusions about a totally hypothetical and non-empirical event when you're such a stark advocate of empirical study and the scientific method.
Actually, I propose the exact opposite. Somewhat. What you describe there is EXACTLY my complaint about subjective universes, imagines realities, gods, and unicorns. As you say, "how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation?" By this universe I mean one in which a god, or some other imagines creature, exists. If you can't, then it has no relevance on us. Such a god would just angrily wave his arms at me, and have them pass through me without ever having an effect on my life. As for the parts of the universe we can't observe, the only assumption I make is that the rest of the universe follows the laws of physics that I have observed the universe following around me (around me includes things we see out in space with our telescopes). I think it's pretty logical to assume that the universe is consistent with the laws of physics, regardless of whether I am paying attention to them. Isn't it?
1) The fact that a projection of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean the projection doesn't exist. Likewise, the fact that a mere concept of a house isn't actually a house doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The difference is that the projection of a house on a screen is empirical while the concept is not, but rather is abstract (i.e. mental...non-physical). But you treat it as though even the concept doesn't exist which leaves you with an impossible task of explaining how you can experience something which doesn't exist or is totally unreal.
2) Of course imagination follows rules. The fact that you can't imagine simultaneous yes/no states (e.g. the both 'red' and 'non-red' shirt) implies a constraint. Constraints are imposed by rules and laws. That's where structure comes from...rules and laws. Without rules or laws, your concepts could have no form...no structure...no definition. To suggest imagination doesn't adhere to any rules would actually imply that it
transcends all rule and law. I don't think this is what either of us would suggest.
3) For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a pure dichotomy: Either there is 1) at least one observer in the Universe and 2) there are absolutely no observers in the Universe.
In scenario 1, the Universe exists. Reality exists. If that person is in your room, your room exists. But as soon as that person leaves the room, asserting that the room exists (and that it is still the same room) flies out the window. Why? Because it's always possible to imagine a case in which you could be deceived. So, maybe you'll go to the mall and you say your room still exists, but what you don't know is that a termite colony ate the wall between your room and the next room and now the state of that room has changed.
In scenario 2, the Universe can't be asserted to exist. The act of observation is an act of measurement. Without measurement, we cannot define anything. Without definition, there is no structure to uphold the concept. Measurement is absolutely required to define an event (e.g. such as calling something "a Universe" to begin with). You can't even so much as label anything without observation to give you a preliminary measurement.
By the way, you could learn one HELL of a lot from children. The Biblical quote that says something like "those with minds like children will enter the kingdom of Heaven" or something like that is wise as hell. I highly suggest you take some time to think about why that is. Children generally cope with stress better and much more realistically than adults, they aren't quick to judge things according to their personal biases, etc. And, when they lose something, they don't sulk and bitch about it endlessly. Object permanence isn't everything its cracked up to be, not to mention that quantum mechanics would have a field day with a such a concept.
4) Remember, everything is defined not only by what it is, but also by what it is not. You're simply defining subjectivity and objectivity according to their differences and not their similarities, and while differences exist (of course), differences can only arise out of similarity. As I've tried to tell you, trying to argue against this is attempting to argue against logical precedents that have been recognized and set millenia ago. You can refuse to believe it all you want, but it's hard not to just keep saying, "No, you're wrong, I know you're wrong, thousands of philosophers and mathematicians know you're wrong, so you're just wrong." It's really not even hard to grasp. If you can't even recognize that everything in existence shares a fundamental similarity of existing and thus a fundamental characteristic of identity, then I don't know what else to tell you. I can only keep telling you that you're dead wrong. Seriously, you need to concede this point.
Edit 5) Why are you talking about "physical laws" which are
abstract and
non-physical? If you're going to acknowledge that physical things abide by non-physical laws, then why don't even attempt to include those laws in your interpretation of reality? Do you believe something non-physical and abstract is objective? Or do you think that, perhaps (as I do), that another word for abstract might be...mental?
