mikiel wrote:First, why is it that the whole can not exist without "an observer" dividing it up into parts?
I never meant to imply that "the whole" can not exist without an observer, because "the whole" obviously doesn't have boundaries.
mikiel wrote:This is why I was setting aside the question of human perception projecting boundaries. I grant that distinctions between "things" are a relative matter, i.e., that all things are inter-connected as parts of the Whole. Yet an atom pf hydrogen is way different in form than an atom of uranium... tho they are ultimately "made of the same stuff."
That's one way of looking at things which I do not have a problem with.
mikiel wrote:Next, do you posit an Ultimate Observer/ Creator of the whole cosmos (as I do) or do you deny the existence of all beyond human perception?
If I am understanding you correctly, an ultimate observer/creator is a logical impossibility, and I don't see what that has to do with denying or accepting the existence of what is "beyond human perception", whatever that means.
mikiel wrote:But when you personally die, the sun will cease to exist. (Yet you are not a solipsist!)
Maybe out ought to give me your definition of solipsism before we walk this path any further.
mikiel wrote:How does making a distinction between two things imply that they don't cause each other's existence?
Like this: This human body is, relatively speaking, one individual form, and the sun is another. It exists whether my body does or not. You know... common sense... or do you benefit from any of that?
I agree with that, but it doesn't really answer my question. Let me ask you this instead; would you agree with the idea that the sun causes you to exist because the sun is not you, and that you cause the sun to exist because you are not the sun? Ultimately meaning that once a distinction is made between one thing and another, they automatically enter a causal relationship.
mikiel wrote:So you believe it's possible for one thing to exist independently from another?
This body certainly doesn't cause the sun to exist, tho it is obviously dependent upon the sun for its existence. All but solipsist will agree, and the latter are deluded fools.
See response above.
mikiel wrote:So you are fixated on "boundaries" as the defining factor in what does and does not exist. (See my opening statement above.)
I don't know if I'd call it a fixation. It's simply a recognition of truth. I mean, how can something exist if it doesn't have boundaries, i.e. something to distinguish itself from? The answer is simply that it can't. And guess who sets those boundaries?
mikiel wrote:The "terms we've coined" designate human concepts *about reality.* They do not create reality but for "our personal subjective realities"... which, of course cease to exist when we personally die.
They don't designate anything about reality, they designate concepts about finite phenomena. Ultimate reality is boundless and does not depend on anything because there is nothing aside from it.
mikiel wrote:Beyond human distinctions and concepts is objective reality itself. It has always existed... before Earth was formed and humans evolved... and will continue forever after Earth and humans are long gone. It is pure idiocy to believe otherwise. Seems you qualify.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with the fact that all finite phenomena, i.e. anything that falls short of actually being the Totality, is dependent upon an observer for it's continued existence.
mikiel wrote:How do you support your absurdity that sun will cease to exist when you die? (I get that your subjective experience of it will cease to exist. That's a no-brainer.)
And my conception of the sun is part of my subjective experience, so it logically follows that it would cease to exist along with it.