Knowledge, belief & agnosticism (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 23, 2008, 15:43 (6087 days ago) @ clayto

" I understand your use of the term 'extreme' view but in what sense could the universe be said to exist if there was no consciousness present to perceive it, directly or indirectly ----- nothing visible, touchable or able to be felt, nothing audible, nothing to be smelt ---- nothing to be apprehended in any way because there was nothing capable of any form of apprehension? " 
 
 Chris, interesting reply, and I too like to read Paul Davies. At least he is looking at science and wondering what might be 'really' going on. I've not read the Dalai Lama, but I understand that Eastern Religions (other than the Hindus with millions of Gods) do not have a Godhead. And speaking from some ignorance, I had the impression they considered divine levels of creation to exist.
 I still don't buy the need for an observer; was there a noise in the woods when the tree fell and no one was nearby to hear it? I'm personally too direct. Of course there was a noise. Things happen all the time and no one observes it. I didn't see the eggs laid in the bird house, but they are there when I peak inside. I think this is all part of circular reasoning like the anthropic principle. If multi-universes exist but we can never observe them, do they really exist, or do they have consciousness also so they can exist? But your point of view still raises the issue: how did our inanimate universe develop consciousness? You imply it had to because of your interpretation of quantum theory. That makes it sound almost purposeful, and I'm sure you don't mean that.