A subjective reality is one where belief shapes reality.

Of course, it's not that simple. If you were in a "true" subjective reality, you would be able to imagine something, convince yourself that it actually was true, and it would happen. In a way, it's like being in a dream.

But few believe in it to that degree. To most believers in a subjective universe, your beliefs (supposedly) affect the universe in subtler ways.

For instance, you've surely heard about "positive thinking". Many self-help books mention it. To some, "positive thinking" simply means that, by being more optimistic and carefree, you enjoy life more, take advantage of its opportunities, and don't let problems affect you so much. However, to others, it goes beyond that: reality, they say, actually adjusts itself so that more good things happen to you. Belief shapes reality. Yes, this is a mystical thinking.

Some would say that it's a question of numbers. This is mostly seen, actually, in fantasy books (a common theme in fantasy, for instance, is that the power of a god depends on the number of worshipers, so the gods wax and wane with time). In "our" reality, an example of this would be the following: once, almost everyone thought the sun went around the earth, instead of the other way around. If subjective reality existed to this degree, then, at the time, the sun would have circled the earth, because that's what everyone believed. Of course, suggesting that such a thing happened would be insane... for one thing, because then Copernicus and Galileo would have simply confirmed what everyone already believed!

To me, believing that the universe is subjective is a case of wishful thinking. It's a way to feel more "in control" than you really are, since an objective universe is certainly uncaring, and you can only affect any of it by respecting its laws (such as physics), not by disbelieving them.

Oddly enough, one of the most intelligent people I know, who writes one of my favorite blogs, believes in a subjective reality. Of course, he has all the usual defenses against objectivity ("subjectivity, by definition, can't be tested", etc.). Brilliance, it seems, is not a perfect antidote against wishful thinking.

Opinions, anyone? Know any subjective universe believers? Are you one?

This post was last modified: 11-28-2006 10:17 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

Have you ever seen the 1992 American movie Sneakers? A line in it is:

Cosmo: [I] learned that everything in this world--including money--operates not on reality . . .

Martin Bishop: But the perception of reality.

just food for thought.

But it serves us well to remember that only illusions are supported by illusions..

You can "perceive" that there is a bridge across the chasm in front of you, but unless there really is such a bridge, you will still plummet to your death.. All too often we hear these "reminders" that "all" is perception or the like, but these always overlook that without something to perceive, there is no perception. Reality is still at the core of it all and cannot be so easily denied, and it is ignored only at your own peril.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but there is more to it than you imply.
It is not the fact that we can change whatever we want of the universe (as you do credit yourself). Our capacity to change the course of things may be extremely weak. I see matter as mostly pre-determined (if it is governed by physical laws, then it cannot possibly be moved in a way that disrespects those, so how exactly do we make any volitional change in the world?)
Its like rafting down a violent river, you can paddle all you want, but you’re going where the course of water leads you, nonetheless.

It is not that weird. Have you heard of quantum entanglement? That’s a physical demonstrated effect that suggests precisely what you are dismissing. That you can change a little something in one part of the universe, and all the rest of the universe re-shapes itself to accommodate it.

Now this concept has been perverted, and profited from by many people who didn’t seem to understand it entirely. To think that these “laws” are concerned with bringing us more vanity, more materiality, and promote more of our attachment, and selfishness, is extremely shallow, to say the very least. That’s why I think all the “what the bleep’s” and “the secret’s” are crap. But these laws do work as far as self-development and self-knowledge are intended. And if one starts to correct himself, life seems to start to collaborate in advancing one even further.

How can one believe in an objective universe? No-one (except perhaps TXStorm ) knows what the universe really looks like (actually there is no “real” way that it looks at all), we only know our perception of it. And there is no way to tell if my perception is the same as yours, or if any of ours is the real one. Chances are none is. So there is no objective universe that we can experience (except by other means, but I’ll leave it at that by now). You can believe that, deep down, the universe is a precisely quantifiable, objective thing, and it looks like that on a macro level, but if you delve deeper, all your objectiveness is contradicted by science(*), and even if there is this objective universe somewhere, you can never perceive it objectively, no matter what, so it is irrelevant in any case. Its a matter of faith to believe in the absence of evidence.

(*)The usual “skeptic” view of the Copenhagen interpretation, is that any measure disturbs the actual status of the electron, thus spoiling the reading. For instance if we want to observe the position of the electron we light it, by throwing a photon at it, but that inevitably changes its course. But that is not true, because measurement means have been devised that do not tamper with the electron’s move at all (by using precisely quantum entanglement), and precisely the same effect (the so called "observer effect") has been confirmed, although there was nothing to mess with the measurement in this case (it is done on a distant entangled particle, not the electron itself)
So what the sceptics didn’t want to admit seems now even more plausible: That it is a conscious observer that messes with physical reality!

But don’t rush to buy the latest Joe Vitale, because there is in my opinion a very strict limit as to how we can use these facts to our benefit. And buying porches is not one of them.

Indeed, and we thank you for posting your example of it!

You do us both a disservice here when you pretend that I am the one assuming omniscience for I am not that arrogant, nor has anything I have uttered even approached this position. Contrarily you lessen your own self-congratualtions when you for the moment seem to imply that you are not omniscient as your own claims necessitate given that you have repeatedly denied that reality exists or that all of the mountains (literally and figuratively) of evidence can possibly ever count against your feelings. You are claiming that contrary to reality you know how reality really is. Setting aside the obvious contradictions here, to make such claim you must presume to know all of reality and that somehow you are greater than reality in order to claim that it is reality not your wishful thinking which must be mistaken.

Do not mistake the fact that we can know the nature of reality for any assumption of knowing all of it. I can know that the earth is generally spherical without knowing what is going on in the lives of every entity upon the planet. Your argument seems to be that without knowing everything, we cannot know anything, therefore you personally know everything including that the world is other than it is. The contradictions are of course self defeating, but they are also nested, turning back in upon each other repeatedly.

See comments above concering wishful thinking. No amount of it will actually make your claims true. Stipulating that somewhere out there X exists to disprove the claim, is insufficient to actually disprove the claim. Furthermore if you actually allowed that science could give us objective knowledge of reality (which is what is necessary for science ot disprove the fact) then you would have already accepted that the universe actually exists and necessarily we can know it, therefore your claims are false. No matter which approach you take, we end up with the necessary conclusion that your own feeling is false. Once you deny reality, or even this weaker version of denying that we can know reality, you cannot rely upon reality in your argument without necessitating that your conclusion is false.

Or in the case of your conclusions, in the direct contradiction to all available evidence, and all of reason.

BTW accusing others of operating on faith will no more make it the case than it does when you simply deny reality.

This post was last modified: 01-24-2007 11:37 PM by TXStorm.

Each of the above four, challenge your mechanicist view of nature and physics.
It is not as simple and objective as you want to believe.

This post was last modified: 01-25-2007 01:33 AM by Pedro Batista.

A bit of practical advice: if you are going to claim that you are attacking the position another holds, you might want to check first to see if they in fact hold the position you are attacking. That will prevent such embarassing posts as this last one you offer.