Liquidrage

Premise: Existence is subjective and therefore based entirely on perception.
Evidence: From Plato's Cave Thingy to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

However, not all existence is based on our perception.
(Evidence: The objective order of the universe, our ability to discover things.)

Therefore, something must be observing that which we cannot. But in order to know what we are not observing, it must know what we are observing. This makes it omniscient re: our universe.


There was a time where science overwhelmingly supported this.
However, the theory that supported this is now out of vouge and is no longer the supported by a majority.

It was called the <a href="http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html" target="_blank">The Copenhagen Interpretation</a>

Under the Copenhagen Interpretation wave functions collasped with observation.
The moon would simply vansish if no one bothered to look at for 1,000,000 years (or some such number).

However, today, most physicists(no, I have not conducted a poll) do not accept the Copenhagen Interpretation(links presented at end).
Other theories exist that solve the collapse of a wave function without the need for an observer.

Therefor, I challange the statement:
"Existence is subjective and therefore based entirely on perception"

Existence is not based upon perception but instead exists whether anyone is there to precieve it or not.

*/
<a href="http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html</a>
<a href="http://physics-qa.com/html/kqm12.htm" target="_blank">http://physics-qa.com/html/kqm12.htm</a>

Suggested reading
Schrodinger's Kittens by John Gribbin

rainbow walking

Your entire argument appears to be predicated on the assumption that perception is a necessity of existence. Based on this assumption if god exists therefore, who's watching him to insure his existence?

Synaesthesia

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is decidedly at odds with the notion that existence is somehow subjective. It is an objective system. What it reveals is that we can describe a system elegantly even though it looks different from all sorts of perspectives. Perspectives are secondary, epistemic questions.

The only 'evidence' of your theory contradicts it.

Indeed the only perceptive systems we can detect have only been around for a few billion years. We are a very small and on the whole insignificant aspect of the universe.

We do so love the illusion at being the center of things though!

TheJesusConspiracy

"Existence is subjective and based entirely upon perception."

This statement is absurd.

To say something is subjective means that it is partially caused by consciousness.

However, existence is necessarily primary over consciousness.

If there is consciousness, then consciousness exists. However, if consciousness is the partial cause of existence, then it must be prior to existence. But if it is prior to existence, then it does not exist--in which case it can't beprior to existence.

Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exist). In order to perceive and identify existents, there must be existing things. In order for consciousness to be conscious, it must identify something that exists. Additionally, it must be able to identify something outside of itself. A consciousness that is conscious only of itself is an absurdity, for before it could identify itself as conscious, it would have to be conscious of something.

Existence is primary over consciousness.

If reality is fundamentally subjective, then all facts are malleable. However, sound proof requires facts that are not malleable. Therefore, one can never soundly prove that reality is fundamentally subjective.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: TheJesusConspiracy ]</p>