• Instantnudel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    Classical question. Heard it often. I mean, yes without someone being aware we can’t prove the existence of it. But I think this is a really human self centered world view. The earth existed for millions of years even before we or any other animal was aware of it. I mean we can prove that now later. Yes this prove now also only exists thanks to someone being aware. But it shows to the past to something that was there already even without it.

    I don’t think the Universe cares. It was before us, it will be after us. Yes we have no prove while we are gone, but the Universe doesn’t care.

    • chirayu_alias@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ok, new question: can something exist if there is, was, and will be, nothing or no one that is/was/will be aware of its existence?

      Note my definition of being aware here: if that something can be illuminated, photons are “aware” of it. If it can fall freely, gravitational fields are “aware” of it.

  • benderbeerman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Physical things exist, and will continue to exist. Energy is not created or destroyed, only converted.

    Abstract things may come and go. Thoughts and ideas, understandings, etc…

    Math and language are constructs we created to better understand and describe the world around us, and when the last human dies, so may all our amassed understandings.

  • sangeteria@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Girl, go read some Enlightenment philosophy, why’re you askin us 😭😭😭

  • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Of course.

    Unless we’re in a simulation, and only things you and other characters perceive are rendered.

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Yeah we find new bugs and animals and plants all the time. We find new planets. Stuff doesn’t pop onto existence once we find it.

  • PixeIOrange@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I have a similar question: can things exist if they have no physical connection at all to their surroundings? The double slit experiment shows that light seem to be information (if we pretend waves are information) until its forced (by observing) to exist. This works with photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms and even particles. So what if i take a cup and put it in a “magic box” that disconnects it from every “observing” system? Does it vanish? Is it gas if i open that box again?

  • Mikina@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    People were dying en-masse because you had doctors not washing their hands when moving from autopsies to giving birth.

    No one was aware about the germs that are causing this. It still killed people.

    This is true for most of the early medicine/illneses/hygiene, this was just an example I remember. Especially in regards to germs and bacteries, the humanity wasn’t even close to getting it right.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Perhaps I just confabulated all that, and your comment. Perhaps in the process, I manifested the history therein described.

      • Katrisia@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The primordial Universe itself may have only been possible with an observer. No Big Bang, no primitive Earth, no organisms and evolution without the All-Seeing-Eye that has allowed our Universe to exist.

        Haha, I wouldn’t put my faith on this, but still fun and disturbing to think about…

    • Ahmed@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      If that’s the case, would things outside our field of view still have an effect on us? And to what extent?

      • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        In a good game they do, but those effects can be abstracted rather than simulated to save processing power.

    • Meow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      As fiction exists but describes things that may not exist, I think the answer is also yes.

    • Ahmed@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      Maybe we’re not aware of a non-existent thing itself, but of an idea or perception in our minds.

      • pmk@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        How does this differ from having an idea or perception in our minds about existing things?

          • pmk@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            But are we aware of existing things in themselves, apart from the idea and perception in our minds?

        • Meow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I think me and Ahmed gave the same answer, but with mine being indirect using an example, and Ahmed’s answer being direct, so maybe people had a harder time understanding Ahmed’s answer.