It shows that outside of thought, the material world we experience likely doesn't exist which is similar to your belief on the existence of math. That is, for you math requires a mind (I agree), and you take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe it didn't exist prior to humans (I disagree). Similarly, we know particles are influenced by an intelligence observing; we might take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe such too doesn't exist without human observation (which experiements support).Kenny wrote:So how does this explain math having an actual existence outside of human though?Kurieuo wrote:I believe there is more than meets the eye.Kenny wrote:I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.
Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?
- Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
- Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?
For example, the user interface of an operating system such as Windows, MacOS or a smartphone device. The icons on the screen, folders, files, applications and the like, when broken down are bits (1s and 0s), and then even ultimately based upon voltages. Yet, so we can easily and meaningfully perform certain tasks, whether such is sending an email or word processing, everything is represented to us in a certain usable way as intended by the developers of the operating system and/or software. We don't have to go adjusting voltages to produce 1s and 0s, if we did, we'd never get tasks done.
What I believe, and what physics seems to support, is that the universe contains a whole lot of information. Whether this is in the form of energy, waves, or something deepers, we interpret this information in meaningful ways, ways that make sense to us, ways that allow us to function and survive. For example, we experience colour, yet colours are ultimately different "colourless" wavelengths. It is our human "operating system" if you will, which interprets such in a meaningful manner to ourselves as colour. Yet, colour nowhere physically exists out there in reality apart from us.
If we take this further, quantum theory and scientific experiments support that particles behave as such when observed. For example, with the old the double-slit experiment (or a good alternative video here) - when electrons are left unobserved a wave pattern is the result, however when observed we see the behaviour of particles as the end result. This is highly suggestive that an objective material reality just isn't real in and of itself, but is rather dependant upon some sort of observation and consciousness as such. With other interesting results had in quantum physics and also adding in cognitive science, many believe that we experience and interpret the world around us with useful representative constructs that are beneficial to us living.
Perhaps YECs are correct, the universe has just been around as long as humans -- we just don't understand the fundamental nature of the quantum world and its relationship to us. This is no more absurd to me than saying math or physics have been around for as long as humans have thunk it.