One could suggest that what is 'real' is only considered real if it's a potential object of perception by some sentient being; or, one could take the more limited view that what's real is only that which is perceived, but I think that's too limiting. Without a perceiver, there is no way to know if something is real; reality without measure is void or meaningless at best. Is there still a rock isf there is nobody there to perceive it? For one thing, the name 'rock' is itself a construction; moreover, the physical features of the rock have no names without a perceiver. One could take this argument further to suggest that language is required in order for something to exist. Of course, the
objection is that if you don't perceive the rock I'm throwing at your yet, that doesn't mean the rock doesn't exist. But that's a cheat, since you're already a perceiver in the situation, and of course I'll know all about the rock once it smashes into my head.
To take things a bit further, let's consider what happens if we strip language or consciousness from the picture. If there is no perceiver, how do we refer to what's "out there". Even if it's formless stuff, that;'s a description; that is, it depends on us. There is yet one stronger objection that might be mounted. Its called quantum activism, and it's described here (GL if you have 2.5 hours to watch it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlSILWkZMkThis suggests that consciousness is in fact the ground of being, in which case material science is practical but not quite right (it includes objects, but that's not nearly enough). If consciousness is the ground of being, then axioms like "to be is to be a (bound) variable" (W.V.O. Quine) must be re-engineered (at best). The idea that when we take quantum probabilities to be decision-like entities, we must consider whether the universe is conscious at some level. Amit Goswami calls this type of consciousness 'subtle consciousness'--in tune with, for example, Tao. If this view is correct, then we don't need language to have existing objects. And if there is no grand perceiver, but rather just grand perception(s) itself/themselves, then we have an objection to the original suggestion. In order to exist, something must form an actuality out of the seas of probabilities. And, according to some physicists, eventually all of the possibilities gte some face-time. Quite plainly, this would suggest that "everything exists", without really forcing us to come up with a crisp definition of everything. For one thing, the sum of probabilities (or we could take the soft view and just allow the actualities) is rather gigantic, and so we really only have two ways to lump them all together.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.