BaalChatzaf Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 In a sense, you could say that nothing would exist if there were literally no one to observe it. Or at least the existence would be meaningless. With nobody in existence, it wouldn't matter a damn whether the rest of the universe continued on obliviously or winked out. What difference? We wouldn't be around to care.You are getting close to what Korzybski said - there is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation, at the very least there must be an observer. This is a statement to combat what he called 'elementalism' - the act of dividing verbally what cannot be divided empirically. You see this throughout our language as in 'reason' and 'emotions', it's not possible to separate the two empirically yet we speak about them as if we can.What did the poor Kosmos do until observers evolved from simpler matter? In The Beginning, there were no (sentient) observers. Could it be that your idea of what an observer is, might be flawed?Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now