Absolute Truth

[talisman]

I think the fundamental problem here is that you think the universe is something through which observers move and go on about their lives, and I think that the universe is something which moves about the observers, in other words, when your eyes are shut, you can believe the universe still exists, but you really can't prove it until you open them again.

Furthermore, I can't agree more when you said "...it is most likely untrue." Of course, but the fact that it is most likely not true doesn't mean that it couldn't be true. In other words, its possible, but not probable, and certainly not logical.

(and as for your complaint about the sentient creator, consider the widely accepted Big Bang theory. Who or what started the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking himself admits that the theory seems to be more a proof of God's existence than a denial. But that is for a different argument.)

"That means observers do not matter and can not matter to the validity of an absolute truth."

I don't think that could be more wrong. If you look at an electron, you change it. The electron's existence, which is a kind of absolute truth, is thus changed by observation. You don't know if the cat is alive or dead, and can't say either way because you aren't looking at it. Logically, it seems that Schroedinger's cat must be either alive or dead, but it is either neither or both until you look at it to determine this. There is no absolute truth without the observer.]

To get back to what I was originally saying, we will never resolve this if we are thinking of the universe in different ways. If you actually think that the universe still exists when you aren't observing it, and by think I mean that you think you can prove this, then we will never be arguing on the same terms.