Observer Theory

Introduction

This is the next essay in the establishment of a universal objective truth. We have ascertained the existence of the truth, which is the existence of reality. However, we have yet to determine the nature of such reality, that is what kind of reality exists. That problem, while mentioned in the previous essay has not been described in full detail. As such, this essay serves to describe such reality using the theory of the observer. In summary, the theory aims to determine what kind of reality exists, and will also concern the issue of knowledge and its relations with reality.

Reality

We have determined in the previous essay that reality indeed exists, and there is only one reality as a whole, there can not be more than one reality. Even if there is more than one reality, there must be an ultimate reality, that becomes the source of further realities, in which case it is merely another iteration of reality. And in the end, we still end up with one true reality, as that is the only reality guaranteed by the truth. Still, what kind of reality exists? Is it the world? Is truth reality in itself? As of now, we have no evidence to determine what is reality, as such, we will assume that reality is as we see, the world.

Universe as Reality

Let us first assume that the universe is reality, meaning that the universe is real, and everything within it is real. Of course, we must always attempt to question the existence of whatever it is that we assume to be real. Let us assume the existence of the planet earth. How do we determine the existence of the earth? That is indeed hard, so why don’t we assume the existence of something smaller and simpler, such as a car. Let’s say we own a car and that car exists. How do we know that the car exists though? Here, we will be examining the practical evidence, and not theoretical evidence.

The car exists, why do we say so? Perhaps because we can see  the magnificent red mustang, listen to the thunderous noise of its engines, smell the choking scent of gasoline, touch the smooth body of the car, and for the adventurous of us, taste the bitterness of the metal hull. Well sure we can describe every property of the car possible to be described, but we’re not alone now are we? What if no one else can see that car? Or perhaps the car only exists to us? If that happens, it is possible for us to be delusional and we should go to the doctor immediately, perhaps we’ve been smelling the exhaust pipe for too long.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that everyone else agrees that our beautiful red mustang does exist. Of course, does that mean that the mustang does exist? No, not yet, as while everyone else corroborates it, who or what is corroborating their existence? After all, if the people who claim that mustang to exist are just our own hallucinations, well the mustang might not exist either. In the end, we’re stuck, we have so much information, that seems to support each other’s existence, yet in the end, we have no idea what supports the existence of all of it. This is the crux of the problem, the observer problem.

Observer Problem

The essence of our dilemma is that we become separated from the world, we can observe and record information regarding the universe, yet we are wholly unable to determine the truth of such information. At this point, we seem to be hitting an utter dead end, however we must remember that we still have the truth, that inevitably and ultimately, reality must exist. So, why don’t we take a look at this problem from another perspective? Instead of us, the world, and the red mustang, why not just us and a random object?

Imagine that there is only an object and a person. While technically we are separate from those two, we are assuming that the person is ourselves and thus we can only obtain information regarding anything from that person. Now, the person here can be described as an observer. The observer records the properties of the object, and say that the object is a apparently a ball. The observer can detect the ball and record its various properties. Of course, in the knowledge of the observer, such ball exists. Yet, if both the ball and the observer exists, then there are two realities, which makes no sense, how do we resolve this contradiction?

Let us assume that the ball exists independently, and if that is true, that would mean that if the observer is gone, the ball will still exist. That seems odd now doesn’t it? Because it is odd, as you see, the ball is dead. It is unable to record any information about the outside world, the observer on the other hand can. Now since the observer is the only thing that can create observations and record such observations of the ball within themselves, what do you think will happen once that observer is gone? No information can be obtained about that ball or object. In fact, we can’t even know if there is any object at all, since the observer which can gain information, does not exist. This claim however, has serious implications as follows.

The common claim of the world is that the world exists independently of observation. This makes absolutely no sense, as if there is no one to observe the world, how can the existence of anything be determined in the first place? Such as if a tree falls in the woods where no one has been there or is there, effectively, the tree never existed, let alone fall. Going back to our problem, an observer is required to obtain any information regarding the object. Without it, we can’t even guarantee the existence of the object. It seems we have reached another dead end. Of course, we can never solve this problem, unless we recall the previous deduction, reality exists.

Resolution

There is an observer and an object, the observer observes the object. The observer is the only entity able to perform observations on the object, and thus determine the existence and properties of the object. The question is simple, which exists between the object and the observer? We know that if we assume the object, unable to perform observation, exists, then it inevitably does not exist as nothing is there to observe it. However, if we claim that the observer exists, and the object does not exists, that does not make sense as the observer claims the existence of the object, and thus we have information that is created. And if we claim that both the observed and the observer exists, we contradict with the truth that only one reality exists.

Let us return to the basics, that reality exists, and only one reality is guaranteed to exist. What happens if we apply it to our problem? We have always been assuming that we can only assume the existence of either the observer or the object, however there is one other scenario that would allow us to explain the observation of the observer and the existence of the entities. It’s simple, that is we must assume that the object and the observer, is actually one and the same. Wait, isn’t that ludicrous? No, of course it isn’t, what it means that the observer never observed anything, what the observer is observing, is themselves. What this means though in the end?

True Reality

From an absolute logical perspective, only one conclusion can be taken, that is only the observer exists. Everything else, is merely another form of the observer, and while in the logical sense it is an observer, there is another name that it goes by, the consciousness. In the end, the ultimate reality is of consciousness, and everything else is just another form of it. This means that our red mustang, is technically just another part of ourselves. In the end, the only thing that exists, is ourselves, but does that mean we are alone and everything we see is a hallucination? Of course not, they are just part of ourselves, and we are always in company, in the company of ourselves.

Conclusion

Honestly, I didn’t wish to write this essay, it’s very depressing to me, as when you have to make this into a purely logical deduction. As consciousness is more than just logic, there also exists feelings and emotions, which is another property of reality. Perhaps the only reason I am depressed as logical deduction can not give out a purpose of life, logical reasoning only describes life and how it is. We need our feelings to actually shape ourselves and find a purpose. However, I know there are stubborn people who still deny the truth, so I have to create a rational explanation on cosciousness, though I seriously feel frustrated for reducing consciousness to merely observers. We’re not just observers, we are beings with emotions. Regardless, that is all I have to say for now, have a nice day and see you later.