Dec 26, 2025 06:51 PM
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...ive-exist/
KEY POINTS: The old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest but there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” seems to obviously have an answer: yes. Whenever a tree falls, its trunk snaps, its branches collide with others, and it collides with the ground. Each one of those actions should make a sound [actually "sound" as pertains to gas vibrations, not the brain-produced mental experience or auditory manifestation of "sound"]. But relativity teaches us that the sound each observer experiences is relative to their position and motion, and quantum physics tells us that the act of observing changes the quantum state of this system. What does that all mean for the existence of “objective reality?”
EXCERPT: One such question that we cannot answer is whether there is such a thing as an objective, observer-independent reality. Many of us assume that it does, and we build our interpretations of quantum physics in such ways that they admit an underlying, objective reality. Others don’t make that assumption, and build equally valid interpretations of quantum physics that don’t necessarily have one. All we have to guide us, for better or for worse, is what we can observe and measure. We can physically describe that, successfully, either with or without an objective, observer-independent reality. At this moment in time, it’s up to each of us to decide whether we’d rather add on the philosophically satisfying but physically extraneous notion that “objective reality” is meaningful... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
You don't have access to a metaphysical external world, only the empirical external world instantiated by brain-related manifestations. If you kill yourself to try to reach the "physical" speculated version of the former (get rid of that brain barrier), then you simply return to a non-mental realm that is accordingly absent of all manifestations (including yourself). A materialist, metaphysical postulation which via its very definition lacks both reason-mediated and experientially presented evidence for itself, when without those contingent and emergent psychological affairs.
Instead of such a non-phenomenal or metaphysical manner of existence that can't be verified, you have to ground the objectivity or mind-independence of the outer world (that you do have access to) in the fact that it does not obey your wishes -- you can't control it by will alone. It's events are regulated by its own rules. And that outer-represented environment is also inter-subjectively global. It is available to other people, as well as animals (not just you).
KEY POINTS: The old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest but there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?” seems to obviously have an answer: yes. Whenever a tree falls, its trunk snaps, its branches collide with others, and it collides with the ground. Each one of those actions should make a sound [actually "sound" as pertains to gas vibrations, not the brain-produced mental experience or auditory manifestation of "sound"]. But relativity teaches us that the sound each observer experiences is relative to their position and motion, and quantum physics tells us that the act of observing changes the quantum state of this system. What does that all mean for the existence of “objective reality?”
EXCERPT: One such question that we cannot answer is whether there is such a thing as an objective, observer-independent reality. Many of us assume that it does, and we build our interpretations of quantum physics in such ways that they admit an underlying, objective reality. Others don’t make that assumption, and build equally valid interpretations of quantum physics that don’t necessarily have one. All we have to guide us, for better or for worse, is what we can observe and measure. We can physically describe that, successfully, either with or without an objective, observer-independent reality. At this moment in time, it’s up to each of us to decide whether we’d rather add on the philosophically satisfying but physically extraneous notion that “objective reality” is meaningful... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
You don't have access to a metaphysical external world, only the empirical external world instantiated by brain-related manifestations. If you kill yourself to try to reach the "physical" speculated version of the former (get rid of that brain barrier), then you simply return to a non-mental realm that is accordingly absent of all manifestations (including yourself). A materialist, metaphysical postulation which via its very definition lacks both reason-mediated and experientially presented evidence for itself, when without those contingent and emergent psychological affairs.
Instead of such a non-phenomenal or metaphysical manner of existence that can't be verified, you have to ground the objectivity or mind-independence of the outer world (that you do have access to) in the fact that it does not obey your wishes -- you can't control it by will alone. It's events are regulated by its own rules. And that outer-represented environment is also inter-subjectively global. It is available to other people, as well as animals (not just you).
