Moderation Questions

I’m struggling to understand what concepts you’re actually referring to. Is there anyone that thinks that the universe is pitch black that you can refer us to? And of course light isn’t luminous, because luminous means being the source of light or emanating light.

I don’t dispute that our brains organize information in a unified way that might not be an accurate representation of the “things in themselves” though, that’s probably true. It doesn’t mean that it’s a simulation though unless you just equivocate on the meaning of the word.

Light is just electromagnetic radiation. On its own, it isn’t bright or visible; it’s no different from all the radio waves around us. But, like a digital camera, our brain takes those signals and lights up corresponding “pixels” on our internal visual screen. That's the world we see.

So there are no shining stars in the night sky without perceptual beings to perceive them. Just pitch black.

Electromagnetic radiation stimulates the receptors in our eyes that in turn send signals to fire synapses in our brain that we perceive as a subjective experience through the power of thought and consciousness. The experience itself depends on the frequency/wavelength and the amplitude of the electromagnetic wave(s). I don't see how that in and of itself means that there is no objective reality if that's what you're driving at. If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, it still causes a longitudinal wave to propagate through the surrounding air.

Not really. If you’re a nominalist (which is what I lean to) you would just say that there’s no one around to interpret the physical facts into some kind of experiential framework. Of course if there’s no one to assign a framework based off experience there will be no framework based off experience. That doesn’t mean that the physical reality that underlies what is being perceived disappears if someone isn’t perceiving it, it just means someone isn’t perceiving it. It’s all still the same “stuff” (ontology) though.

And strictly speaking “pitch black” is another experience so there would not be pitch black in this “observerless” world either.

If this is also going on behind a curtain (in a box) then from the external pov it's all just probabilities. The tree has neither fallen or not fallen etc etc. This is true even if there are (possibly) observers on the stage (in the box) who have observed the tree fall or not fall.

I suspect you are attempting to make some sort of Shrodinger's cat reference here, but this is basically total gobbledygook.

It was fine. Even you almost grasped it.

and this

3D is pretty special. No other number of dimensions allows for stable orbits. The fact that the Earth was orbiting around the sun and not either spiraling into it or escaping for billions of years before brains existed contradicts your claim.

Right. Distant stars emit photons and when you look at a star those photons are absorbed by electrons in your eye. But if you hadn't looked it would have been absorbed by a rock, grass or anything else. Your eye is made of the same stuff as everything else and it makes no difference whether you look or not to a photon from a distant star emitted 1000 years ago.

I don’t really know enough about quantum mechanics to mentally map this out, but in certain theories what you’re really looking at is just one of the many possible worlds when you open the box, so if you’re standing outside of one of these possible worlds (box), what’s going on is one of those things once observed. So the box stands for all the possible worlds or just one of the set of all possible worlds? Because if it’s just one of the set then it wouldn’t be indeterminate, it would have collapsed, but if it’s all of them that’s when it’s indeterminate.

I don’t know if that’s off base or not, like I said I’m not big on quantum mechanics and what moves are on the table there.

Schrödinger gyrating in his grave, screaming "SHUT UP CHEZLAW, YOU UNEDUCATED LOSER!"

Neither gyrating nor not gyrating in his grave

Anyway, he is pretty upset with your blatant attempt to rape his work.

I'm not so convinced of the afterlife or he cares about me as much as you do mate

Oh, you took it literally. Sorry, wasn't prepared for so much childish stupidity....

He might care abut how his ideas are routinely bastardised online by people trying to make themselves look more intelligent than they really are.

I’m neither affirming nor denying a physical reality. I’m not making claims about ultimate reality with that. My point is that whatever reality is, the world we experience isn’t it directly. It’s an internal model built from incoming signals.

And “brain” is part of that experienced world too. The brain I talk about in everyday language, the one I picture inside my skull, is itself something I only ever encounter as a perception or a concept within the model. I’m not stepping outside experience to look at a real brain doing the processing. I only ever see the representation of one.

So when I say the world we experience is a simulation of data, I mean that the colors, brightness, objects, depth, and even our sense of having a body and a head with a brain in it are part of the rendered interface. The underlying reality (whatever it is) doesn’t show up as a visual scene. The scene is the simulation, like a chart is a simulation of two data dimensions.

Very long winded way of saying my green might not look the same as your green.

Maybe be better prepared next time mate

More along the lines of we don't know What it's like to be a bat.

I lean towards the idea that probabilities are our way of grapplng with an ulimate reality where everything that could happen, happens everywhere all at once.

There's no sufficient amount of time to prepare for your stupid, childish posts....the universe will be empty and dark at some point in the far far future but your horrible lack of education will still linger.

jesus lol

Im not sure you are correct that I transcend the universe but thank you very much anyway