Let's have a look at "objective reality" -- the notion that the universe is there, separate from any observer, and that if there were no conscious observer, the universe would still be there -- thus, there are objective, measurable, quantifiable laws that are true in the absence of any observer.
In other words, the observer is relative, these laws are absolutes, and they can exist in the absence of any observer.
There's just one problem: "absolute" is relative to "relative".
What is a dependent observer (who has postulated objectivity) dependent on -- if the universe is truly independent of them?
What is an independent universe independent of, with no subjective observer in it?
OK, let's overlook this for a moment. All observers are now gone.
With no observer anywhere in the universe at any point in history, every universal law is true everywhere in the universe, throughout all eternity, despite the fact that all of them have been discovered on Earth during a 100-year or so timespan.
Let's re-insert an observer the size of the universe into the observer-independent universe. "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". Except when this observer reaches down to scratch his balls, and covers Earth to Andromeda in 0.5 seconds.
Whew. OK, an infinitely tiny observer. A single fundamental particle gazes out at the big bang (where the atom next door starts) and calculates it's been 8 billion years since.
Take 'em out, and stop overlooking the obvious: Existence requires nonexistence to mean something, and nonexistence requires existence to mean something.
Absolute requires relative to have meaning, and relative requires absolute to mean anything.
A subject requires an object to be a subject, and an object requires a subject to be an object.
No. Independent. Existence.
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/oldweb/bdoor/archive/nutshell/teach9.htm
In other words, the observer is relative, these laws are absolutes, and they can exist in the absence of any observer.
There's just one problem: "absolute" is relative to "relative".
What is a dependent observer (who has postulated objectivity) dependent on -- if the universe is truly independent of them?
What is an independent universe independent of, with no subjective observer in it?
OK, let's overlook this for a moment. All observers are now gone.
With no observer anywhere in the universe at any point in history, every universal law is true everywhere in the universe, throughout all eternity, despite the fact that all of them have been discovered on Earth during a 100-year or so timespan.
Let's re-insert an observer the size of the universe into the observer-independent universe. "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light". Except when this observer reaches down to scratch his balls, and covers Earth to Andromeda in 0.5 seconds.
Whew. OK, an infinitely tiny observer. A single fundamental particle gazes out at the big bang (where the atom next door starts) and calculates it's been 8 billion years since.
Take 'em out, and stop overlooking the obvious: Existence requires nonexistence to mean something, and nonexistence requires existence to mean something.
Absolute requires relative to have meaning, and relative requires absolute to mean anything.
A subject requires an object to be a subject, and an object requires a subject to be an object.
No. Independent. Existence.
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/oldweb/bdoor/archive/nutshell/teach9.htm