Comment Two problems with this problem (as I see it) (Score 1) 568
I know this isn't amateurphilosophyhour.slashdot.org, but, if you will indulge me, I see two problems with the common philosophical issue surrounding topics like quantum nonlocality and cruely confined half-dead cats. The first is that I can't think that something exists if I have no reason to think it might. I can't argue that my computer might not exist when I'm not observing it, because I would need to know that it's possible for it to disappear. Nothing in my experience suggests that when I take a shower, for example, my computer takes a vacation.
However, It has crashed while I was in the shower, so I could argue that it gets depressed when I'm not around. And I like to think he does.
What I can argue in this case of my computer disappearing is that I can imagine an <i>imaginary</i> situation in which my computer might not exist when I am not observing it. I cannot imagine such a <i>real</i> situation, where "real" is of course limited to my experience of reality.
The second problem I see is that saying that an object disappears in my absence is the same as saying that it is absent from my experience of it when I am not experiencing it, which is effectively saying nothing. And saying that an object might disappear in my absence is the same as saying that it might be absent from my experience of it when I am not experiencing it, which is proven false by personal experience.
However, It has crashed while I was in the shower, so I could argue that it gets depressed when I'm not around. And I like to think he does.
What I can argue in this case of my computer disappearing is that I can imagine an <i>imaginary</i> situation in which my computer might not exist when I am not observing it. I cannot imagine such a <i>real</i> situation, where "real" is of course limited to my experience of reality.
The second problem I see is that saying that an object disappears in my absence is the same as saying that it is absent from my experience of it when I am not experiencing it, which is effectively saying nothing. And saying that an object might disappear in my absence is the same as saying that it might be absent from my experience of it when I am not experiencing it, which is proven false by personal experience.
