The coherence of the universe is not surprising. If it wasn't coherent we wouldn't be here to discuss it. I don't know anything about these books but the argument that the universe's order is linked to the existence of a superior entity that we don't see doesn't convince me. The coherent objective universe, language and perception are interlinked and emerge together. Neither of the three tells us anything about an underlying reality. They can only define each other, just like the words in a dictionary define each other, and nothing else. The key is that objective reality is indeed objective but is not absolute. It is relative to perception and language. Here is another way to say it. Objective reality = the reality of objects, as opposed to the subject, aka the observer. Objective reality is not absolute because it is relative to the perspective of an observer. In common language, the observer is a "person", usually approximated as a human body. In science, the observer is not a particular person, it's a consensus between members of the scientific community using a common language. The objective reality of science is relative to the perspective of that community and that language. It plays a role in how our society functions. It contributes to shaping our perception and our perception contributes to shaping it. But it doesn't tell us anything metaphysical. Therefore, objective reality is an approximation. It is a model, and like any model it only works within certain limits (e.g. of scale, energy, temperature or pressure). Here, the limit is the exclusion of the study of the subject. The perceiver is obviously here. But it is not part of objective reality. There are many objects that the observer tends to identify with. But they are all incorrect approximations, for lack of an exact solution. Identifications of the subject to objects are always false. In conclusion, the notion of objective reality allows us to function as part of the system it describes as long as we don't seriously ask "who am I?", or "what else is there?".
Respect. Nature is everything for everyone.
All is SPIRIT. ♾️✨️💎🙏
Koszonjuk szepen ❤😊
❣❣❣Thank you from the bottom of my heart❣❣❣
Sending love and light
💞🐣💞🐣💞🐣💞🐣💞🐣💞🐣😊
A truly great man.
Thank you
Beautiful wisdom 😎
❤ 💯
A wise man.
BE
very good
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young
Great aletheia
The coherence of the universe is not surprising. If it wasn't coherent we wouldn't be here to discuss it. I don't know anything about these books but the argument that the universe's order is linked to the existence of a superior entity that we don't see doesn't convince me. The coherent objective universe, language and perception are interlinked and emerge together. Neither of the three tells us anything about an underlying reality. They can only define each other, just like the words in a dictionary define each other, and nothing else. The key is that objective reality is indeed objective but is not absolute. It is relative to perception and language.
Here is another way to say it. Objective reality = the reality of objects, as opposed to the subject, aka the observer. Objective reality is not absolute because it is relative to the perspective of an observer. In common language, the observer is a "person", usually approximated as a human body. In science, the observer is not a particular person, it's a consensus between members of the scientific community using a common language. The objective reality of science is relative to the perspective of that community and that language. It plays a role in how our society functions. It contributes to shaping our perception and our perception contributes to shaping it. But it doesn't tell us anything metaphysical.
Therefore, objective reality is an approximation. It is a model, and like any model it only works within certain limits (e.g. of scale, energy, temperature or pressure). Here, the limit is the exclusion of the study of the subject. The perceiver is obviously here. But it is not part of objective reality. There are many objects that the observer tends to identify with. But they are all incorrect approximations, for lack of an exact solution. Identifications of the subject to objects are always false.
In conclusion, the notion of objective reality allows us to function as part of the system it describes as long as we don't seriously ask "who am I?", or "what else is there?".