It seems subjectivity is incoherent... attack this argument!

[xts3]

How can your thoughts be subjective if by definition they exist and you can detect, change and modify them?

To say your thoughts are not objectively real is a contradiction because they exist.

Is there any flaw here I'm missing? because if we say our thoughts are not objective, we'd really be saying they don't exist, and if we say we can detect, see and change our thoughts, well we can't do that if they are not real.

It would seem to be that there are only levels of existing real statements that map to or don't map to reality. i.e. there is no such thing as a subjective statement, because by definition an existing statement is objectively real.

 

[KIAman]

Semantics.

By one definition, objective means something that is real and exists. Thoughts are real and they do exist. However, you are assuming that the antonym of your definition of the word, objective, is the word, subjective, thereby claiming that thoughts are not subjective because by definition, they are objective (according to one definition).

This is false, there is no correlating definition of the word, subjective, that is an antonym of the word, objective, of that specific definition. The word subjective does not describe, in any definition of the word, a state of non existence.

So, using your definition of the word, objective and the correct definition of the word, subjective, thoughts are both objective and subjective and not mutually exclusive.

 

[Gannon]

..... hit post by accident lol.

 

[CycloWizard]

I can write an equation, say y=x+5. That equation exists. However, whether it is true or false depends on the actual correspondence between x and y. If x is based on judgment or opinion, then the valuation of y is subjective. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the existence of the equation or its variables.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Semantics.

By one definition, objective means something that is real and exists. Thoughts are real and they do exist. However, you are assuming that the antonym of your definition of the word, objective, is the word, subjective, thereby claiming that thoughts are not subjective because by definition, they are objective (according to one definition).

This is false, there is no correlating definition of the word, subjective, that is an antonym of the word, objective, of that specific definition. The word subjective does not describe, in any definition of the word, a state of non existence.

So, using your definition of the word, objective and the correct definition of the word, subjective, thoughts are both objective and subjective and not mutually exclusive.

You've misunderstood, I haven't switched definitions because objective is defined as being real, and you can only be real if you exist and if your thoughts exist they are made from pre-existing somethings (not pre existing nothings). So existence and objectivity are equivalent, words obscure the core concepts they define.

I'm saying that the word objective derives it's root definition from the word existence, which means "to be", "to be real", "to exist". Or would you like to dispute that?

Imagine matter and energy as part of the set of all existence, and we are derived from matter and energy, thereby we belong the existence set, and anything derived from us also belongs to the existence set, because we ultimately all derive from the set of existence, which cannot have the property of being subjective, since we are derived from existence... words obscure the true meaning of what we are actually talking about in reality, when we form concepts we form concepts from reality, we make them from 'reality stuff' that already exists and form them into new patterns.

If we personally experience something and judge something, we have derived a conclusion from reality, even if it is wrong, that conclusion must be part of the existence set, which has the property, of being objective all the time, there can only be objective correctness or incorrectness (i.e. when we compare our thought to a shape "outside" our minds, it's not really "outside" in the ultimate sense).

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I can write an equation, say y=x+5. That equation exists. However, whether it is true or false depends on the actual correspondence between x and y. If x is based on judgment or opinion, then the valuation of y is subjective. That subjectivity has nothing to do with the existence of the equation or its variables.

I don't think you're understanding the problem: How are notions of mathematics formed in reality from our minds? (or any idea in your head) in the real world, i.e. they have to derive their existence from previous matter and energy, in the real world your thoughts are merely configurations of matter and enregy. i.e. your thoughts are not seperate from reality, they ARE reality, partly or wholly. Consider two rooms, which are both connected by a door, in one room (your mind) you have a bed, in another room, you have a TV, they both exist within the same domain (space and time), and both derive their existence from the same set (the universe of matter and energy).

The idea that matter and energy can posess the property of being subjective is where this all comes to a head, what you're not getting is that the property is inherited all the way down the line..

We make a boat out of playdough, now we make a doll, etc, etc, everytime we change the shape of the playdough we create new statements but they are ultimately derived from the same playdough.

Imagine a shape that cellularly divides but when division is done leaves a line connecting from where it divided from, this is exactly the problem, since the cellular shape would be derived from the previous shape, new shape from old shape, but the new shape is not ever ultimately disconnected from the old one, in the absolute sense of the term.

 

[DrPizza]

I think the problem is that the statement you're attempting to make is referring to itself. That leads to all sorts of bizarre situations. i.e. "This sentence is false."

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think the problem is that the statement you're attempting to make is referring to itself. That leads to all sorts of bizarre situations. i.e. "This sentence is false."

You're partly right, but I'm saying that all statements are made out of previously existing reality, i.e. previously existing energy. Im saying that all statements must always refer back to the ultimate statement (the universe), because each statement is derived from reality(the universe), and reality is self-referential by definition. i.e. existence exists. (a self referential statement). This is exactly what makes naturalism logicaly coherent i.e. in reality environmental causation (in the universe) is self-referential, or would you dispute that? We look for patterns in reality, that match other patterns, in reality!

So I'm saying that all statements are made of out of prior existing statements which are actual real things (because they exist). In the real world this would be energy, we use energy to create statements, therefore any statement must be derived from energy and cannot be subjective, because it inherits the properties of energy, because a statement is a form of energy, i.e. you can only make statements out of energy that previously exists. This makes total sense.

I'm saying that when you create a concept you're deriving it from pre-existing matter and energy, you have to make stuff out of what already pre-exists, just like our parents ate food that eventually became us before we were fully formed. i.e. energy possess the attribute of being objective, so your thoughts which are derived from these pre-existents, cannot possess the attribute of being subjective, because your thoughts are made of something that has the attribute of being objective by definition of it emprically existing before you collected it and reshaped it. i.e. there is a conflict of attributes. If I reshape a piece of playdough into a new shape, the shape existed beforehand for me to make something with.

Therefore the contents of your thoughts cannot possess the attribute of being subjective, they can only possess the attribute of existing in a pattern, that is either wholly correct, partially correct or totally incorrect.

Consider the statement "I am" that's a self-referencing statement, yet it is perfectly valid.

Or what about the statement: The universe is self-referencing. After all this is exactly what science is, isn't it? i.e. the universe refers to itself, we compare the universe to itself.

 

[Super Nade]

Your whole argument, IMO hinges on how you define "exists". I'm of the opinion that it can be measured if it exists.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: xts3
I don't think you're understanding the problem: How are notions of mathematics formed in reality from our minds? (or any idea in your head) in the real world, i.e. they have to derive their existence from previous matter and energy, in the real world your thoughts are merely configurations of matter and enregy. i.e. your thoughts are not seperate from reality, they ARE reality, partly or wholly. Consider two rooms, which are both connected by a door, in one room (your mind) you have a bed, in another room, you have a TV, they both exist within the same domain (space and time), and both derive their existence from the same set (the universe of matter and energy).

The idea that matter and energy can posess the property of being subjective is where this all comes to a head, what you're not getting is that the property is inherited all the way down the line..

We make a boat out of playdough, now we make a doll, etc, etc, everytime we change the shape of the playdough we create new statements but they are ultimately derived from the same playdough.

Imagine a shape that cellularly divides but when division is done leaves a line connecting from where it divided from, this is exactly the problem, since the cellular shape would be derived from the previous shape, new shape from old shape, but the new shape is not ever ultimately disconnected from the old one, in the absolute sense of the term.

You assume that subjectivity or objectivity of the energy/matter would propagate and, therefore, any thoughts must be objective. However, you have not justified why this would be the case. If I take sticks on the ground and write "4=5," that doesn't make that statement true, and truth is a large component of objectivity. Subjective things do not necessarily fall in the realm of truth. Not everything I think is true, but that doesn't mean I have no thoughts. It's trivial to demonstrate this. If person A believes in bigfoot and person B doesn't, both of them must have thought about the existence of bigfoot and arrived at a subjective conclusion based on existing processes.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: KIAman
Semantics.

By one definition, objective means something that is real and exists. Thoughts are real and they do exist. However, you are assuming that the antonym of your definition of the word, objective, is the word, subjective, thereby claiming that thoughts are not subjective because by definition, they are objective (according to one definition).

This is false, there is no correlating definition of the word, subjective, that is an antonym of the word, objective, of that specific definition. The word subjective does not describe, in any definition of the word, a state of non existence.

So, using your definition of the word, objective and the correct definition of the word, subjective, thoughts are both objective and subjective and not mutually exclusive.

You've misunderstood, I haven't switched definitions because objective is defined as being real, and you can only be real if you exist and if your thoughts exist they are made from pre-existing somethings (not pre existing nothings). So existence and objectivity are equivalent, words obscure the core concepts they define.

I'm saying that the word objective derives it's root definition from the word existence, which means "to be", "to be real", "to exist". Or would you like to dispute that?

Imagine matter and energy as part of the set of all existence, and we are derived from matter and energy, thereby we belong the existence set, and anything derived from us also belongs to the existence set, because we ultimately all derive from the set of existence, which cannot have the property of being subjective, since we are derived from existence... words obscure the true meaning of what we are actually talking about in reality, when we form concepts we form concepts from reality, we make them from 'reality stuff' that already exists and form them into new patterns.

If we personally experience something and judge something, we have derived a conclusion from reality, even if it is wrong, that conclusion must be part of the existence set, which has the property, of being objective all the time, there can only be objective correctness or incorrectness (i.e. when we compare our thought to a shape "outside" our minds, it's not really "outside" in the ultimate sense).

Then your title is misleading. Subjectivity is not incoherent, rather, something that is not objective (as in, does not exist), is incoherent.

In that case, everything is objective by definition. But people should not be fooled into thinking that just because all of our thoughts are objective (they exist) do not make the content of them necessarily real. For example, I think of fairies...

 

[Onund]

Maybe I missed something... What definition of objective are you using?

So you're taking 'objective' to mean "exists in reality" then applying that to thoughts to mean "must be correct"? And then saying subjectivity does not exist because all thoughts are correct?

It sounds like you're arguing about two different things. You're arguing that thoughts, as a container for a thought, exists and is therefore objective. Then you're making a jump here saying that since thoughts exist, the actual thought itself must be correct.

Here's my analogy:

Paper exists. Paper is 'correct'. What I write on paper exists therefore statements I write on paper must be correct.

So, paper is your 'thoughts as a container' and the written statements are the contained thoughts.

I dont' think because a container has the property of 'existance' means by default the contained item has a property of 'correctness'

Besides, when talking about thoughts are we not using the following definitions?

Objective: not biased by personal opinion
Subjective: biased by personal opinion

Objective: The lord of the rings 1 extended edition is 208 min long
Subjective: LoTR 1 is too long

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: KIAman
In that case, everything is objective by definition. But people should not be fooled into thinking that just because all of our thoughts are objective (they exist) do not make the content of them necessarily real. For example, I think of fairies...

Ahh but in this case you're not understanding what is real, a fairy is derived from something that exists ... your mind, your thoughts, your exposure to previously existing information. i.e. a "fairy" is two objective things you derived from the world "a human being" and "wings" so you combined the two "a humanoid with wings". You just combined shapes and colors and made a new image, but those shapes already existed, therfore they inherit the property of being objective all the way down the line, because each statement is derived from the universe. Everything you derived your idea out of is previously existing objectively existing geometric patterns in nature.

I'm saying that all statements are made out of previously existing reality, i.e. previously existing energy. Im saying that all statements must always refer back to the ultimate statement (the universe), because each statement is derived from reality(the universe), and reality is self-referential by definition. i.e. existence exists. (a self referential statement). This is exactly what makes naturalism logicaly coherent i.e. in reality environmental causation (in the universe) is self-referential, or would you dispute that? We look for patterns in reality, that match other patterns, in reality!

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: Onund

Besides, when talking about thoughts are we not using the following definitions?

Objective: not biased by personal opinion
Subjective: biased by personal opinion

You're missing the point personal opinions are derived from stuff that exists, opinions (ideas) are made of energy, i.e. your thoughts (any opinion, which is really a statement) derives itself from the world, you didn't get it from nothing, you got it from something that existed previously.

Objective: The lord of the rings 1 extended edition is 208 min long
Subjective: LoTR 1 is too long

But LoTR was physically causing you agitation for you to derive feelings that it was "too long" getting bored is a physiological response to patterns of previously existing matter and energy that were being beamed into your mind via your eyes and ears. Consider: Lotr was too loud, it is objectively too loud (i.e. hurting your ears, agitating your nervous system via objectively existing sound).

From the third person, your agitation is a physiological response to stimuli. You can't derive "lotr" from non objectively existing stimuli.

You're under the false impression that reality is disconnected from itself, hence the confusion. This is exactly why I started this topic... if lotr didn't exist you could not derive the statement "lotr is too long", lotr (as a pattern of matter and energy) must exist previously for you to derive that statement.

 

[KIAman]

Like I already wrote in a previous post, assuming your definitions, all thoughts are objective, I never disputed that. Somehow, you keep going back to thinking that subjective means NOT objective (you cannot have a subjective fairy) However, you are still taking the real thought and trying to derive real content by loosely connecting that the formation of the idea come from real concepts.

Regardless of what you have written so far, real thoughts do not lead to real content of those thoughts.

I fully understand what you are attempting to do but you must first do several things before your arguments get torn apart before you make them.

1. Clearly define the words in which you are using
2. Clearly show the flow of logic in your assumed connections
3. Clearly define the reference in which you are using your words

Anybody can make a play on words and use loose logic and prove that the moon is bigger than the sun.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: KIAman
Like I already wrote in a previous post, assuming your definitions, all thoughts are objective, I never disputed that. Somehow, you keep going back to thinking that subjective means NOT objective

Because subjective is the antonym of objective See here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective

So yes subjective actually means not objective, it is the opposite of objective, that is, NOT objective.

 

[xts3]

Diagram -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...05/2766190508/sizes/o/

 

[Onund]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: Onund

Besides, when talking about thoughts are we not using the following definitions?

Objective: not biased by personal opinion
Subjective: biased by personal opinion

You're missing the point personal opinions are derived from stuff that exists, opinions (ideas) are made of energy, i.e. your thoughts (any opinion, which is really a statement) derives itself from the world, you didn't get it from nothing, you got it from something that existed previously.

Objective: The lord of the rings 1 extended edition is 208 min long
Subjective: LoTR 1 is too long

But LoTR was physically causing you agitation for you to derive feelings that it was "too long" getting bored is a physiological response to patterns of previously existing matter and energy that were being beamed into your mind via your eyes and ears. Consider: Lotr was too loud, it is objectively too loud (i.e. hurting your ears, agitating your nervous system via objectively existing sound).

From the third person, your agitation is a physiological response to stimuli. You can't derive "lotr" from non objectively existing stimuli.

You're under the false impression that reality is disconnected from itself, hence the confusion. This is exactly why I started this topic... if lotr didn't exist you could not derive the statement "lotr is too long", lotr (as a pattern of matter and energy) must exist previously for you to derive that statement.

ok, so your point is that subjectivity cannot exist because it is derived by some stimlus or input into a particular state? You're saying if you can put another observer in the identical state then they would have the same opinion? Or if we could accurately understand the portion of the brain that responds to these stimuli, say opinion of the flavour of butterscotch pudding, we would be able to accurately determine if any other given person will like or dislike the flavour? Thus subjectivity does not exist and is just our explaination of our brains output of a system to complex for us to understand?

Is this what your point is?

 

[TuxDave]

How about using the idea that an objective statement must be derived solely from an external observation of an object. Your opinions may have a physical manifestation and in essense "real" but an opinion is a joint derivation of the external observation and other internal physical manifestations in your brain.

The only way to test whether if statement about something is objective or subjective requires rigorous testing of the same external observation while changing the person often to see if the statement holds true to changing internal manifestations. If stops holding true, then we can conclude that it was a "subjective" statement.

If it remains true, that means all the information needed to make that statement came from external forms.

(hmm.. good thing I don't design experiments. What if you get a person whose internal manifestations cause him to always say the opposite of what he observes. Then objective statements would seem subjective...)

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
How about using the idea that an objective statement must be derived solely from an external observation of an object.

Because we are not observing external objects, because all objects are derived from matter and energy which is derived from itself. We are a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble. Think of it in terms of geometry: your observation is the act of detection, you could only detect something else if it exists on the same geometric plane of existence.

Here's a video to help you understand what is happening, notice the bubbles within the sphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cnTTto&feature=related

If we're two dots on a piece of paper, me and you, we are both part of the paper (connected to it), therefore when you observe me I am "external" to you, and you are "external" to me, but we were both derived from the same paper (connected to), that is how we can observe each other, if there is a connection (a circit, a bridge, a road, a pathway)

If it exists on the same plane of existence, it is not truly external in the ultimate sense. i.e. if energy from the outside world can enter your mind and body, then it can exit your mind and body back into the world. i.e. we can transmit behaviour back "outside".

The concept of "insideness" vs "outsideness" is an optical illusion of concsciousness.

See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...izes/o/in/photostream/

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
The only way to test whether if statement about something is objective or subjective requires rigorous testing.

All statements are partially objective (i.e. they exist), because they derive themselves from previously existing energy. Because to say otherwise is a contradiction. Therefore before a statement is tested, it exists as a part of reality, but it exists as a description of some other part of reality. A false statement still exists objectively, but the pattern that description contains simply does not match, it does not mean it is subjective, since the false pattern was derived from reality itself (reality maps to reality, partially or wholly). i.e. something can be partially true.

You can't detect a non-existent thing, even a subjective experience, must exist in some way as an objective physical event.

Observer A is experiencing a "subjective" physically objective event (experience)

Observer B actually know the objective physical events that is causing him to misinterpret the events.

But both observer A and Observer B are derived from pre-existing objective reality C, therefore each observer and everything derived from both, inherits and derives itself from C. So they must always have part of C with them. Else the whole shenanigans collapses.

Anything that exists, must by definition exist in some partial way, because it is all derived from the same existence... someone has a hallucination, the actual physical events of that hallucination exist, and so does that persons experience, but he can't read (interpret) the information of the experience unless that information physically objective exists, and he derives his statement from the former objectively existing energy that is causing the occurance.

Lastly we are scientists by default (in a partial way), our testing equipment 'external' to our minds is merely a mental prosthetic, we do science with our mind, our tools are merely prosthetics.... we all must be scientists in some basic way or else we couldn't think, navigate, or function in pre-scientific times. That means our minds must have some access to objective reality, else we couldn't function or make decisions, period. We must have some way to automatically to determine some of what is objective in the world, without scientific method, else we could not navigate, think, or do anything. i.e. without logic we can't have even a single thought.

All science reduces to logic in the end...

logic (countable and uncountable; plural logics)

1. A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
How about using the idea that an objective statement must be derived solely from an external observation of an object. Your opinions may have a physical manifestation and in essense "real" but an opinion is a joint derivation of the external observation and other internal physical manifestations in your brain.

The only way to test whether if statement about something is objective or subjective requires rigorous testing of the same external observation while changing the person often to see if the statement holds true to changing internal manifestations. If stops holding true, then we can conclude that it was a "subjective" statement.

If it remains true, that means all the information needed to make that statement came from external forms.

(hmm.. good thing I don't design experiments. What if you get a person whose internal manifestations cause him to always say the opposite of what he observes. Then objective statements would seem subjective...)

I'm thinking along the same lines. I don't think the terms subjective and objective are quite as concrete they would need to be for the argument xts3 is making. I did a little thinking about it and my conclusion is similar to TuxDave's in that a thought/statement becomes objective when the majority of people would agree. This is not a perfect situation since there will always be people who disagree for some reason. Here's a few thought experiment situations I went through to come to this conclusion:

Typical representation of objective and subjective using statements about temperature:
Objective: This object is 100 degrees C.
Subjective: This object is hot.

The reason the first statement becomes subjective is because we have an agreed on temperature scale. If you don't know the temperature scale, you can't disagree with the statement. It is tied to a standard. The second statement is subjective because hot does not mean the same things to everybody. What is hot and what is not depends largely on what the object is, and why a person needs to know its temperature. If this was the temperature in your bath you might agree that it is hot, but if it is the temperature inside a blast furnace, most would agree that it is cold.

But notice that there always seems to be more wiggle room with the subjective statements. I think this is what makes them subjective, because there are so many "it depends". Similarly we could analyze the statement "this is a rock." Here it gets a bit fuzzy again. I think most of us can agree on what a typical rock looks like, but what if it is actually an insect disguised to look like a rock? So I argue that there is no clear line.

Also, while I agree that objective and subjective are antonyms and deal with reality, I think you carry their meaning a bit too far. By your definition, of course everything exists. But opinions also exist and most would agree that they are an excellent example of subjective. So maybe you have to revisit your definitions of reality. As others have stated, the fact that a thought exists does not make the material of the thought real or factual. I believe subjective/objective labels while applied to the thought, are based on the material of the thought and not the existence of the thought itself.

In this sense, I would argue that what you refer to as true, partly true, and false objectivity are in fact what is generally intended as objective, partly objective/subjective, and subjective. This is because the particular meaning of reality that I believe is intended for the objective/subjective assignment is based on our generally agreed upon concepts of truth.

One last example that just popped in my head. If I say "that person is mean," I think most would agree this is a subjective statement. But what if (hypothetically) we could have millions of people from a wide variety of cultures interview with this person and nearly all agreed that the person is mean. I would argue at this point that the statement becomes objective. How can we distinguish a generally agreed upon description of a thing like this from any other objective description such as "this object is green."

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
.... I did a little thinking about it and my conclusion is similar to TuxDave's in that a thought/statement becomes objective when the majority of people would agree. This is not a perfect situation since there will always be people who disagree for some reason. Here's a few thought experiment situations I went through to come to this conclusion:

Typical representation of objective and subjective using statements about temperature:
Objective: This object is 100 degrees C.
Subjective: This object is hot.

But you can only detect "hotness" if you can read the information that is defining what is hot, you can't detect non-existent "hotness", hotness must be an existing thing, that derives itself from objective reality. Consider this: I feel a non-existent hot, that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, if hotness exists, it exist as a part derived from previously existing reality. Not only that but: Hotness is information which is read from your nervous system, therefore hotness is objective information your nervous system is sending to your brain to inform you that you will be burned.

Object is hot --> I will be burned / destroyed, if hotness is subjective as you say, then why would you stop touching what is hot? You're getting an objective outcome (I will be burned) from a subjective statement (item is hot) because supposedly you can't objectively determine that hotness is real. This is where we find ourselves in contradiction: To define what hotness is, hotness must exist as a something, that objectively exists (information), that DERIVES itself from reality, i.e. inherits from reality and its properties all the way down the line.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: TuxDave
How about using the idea that an objective statement must be derived solely from an external observation of an object.

Because we are not observing external objects, because all objects are derived from matter and energy which is derived from itself. We are a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble. Think of it in terms of geometry: your observation is the act of detection, you could only detect something else if it exists on the same geometric plane of existence.

Here's a video to help you understand what is happening, notice the bubbles within the sphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cnTTto&feature=related

If we're two dots on a piece of paper, me and you, we are both part of the paper (connected to it), therefore when you observe me I am "external" to you, and you are "external" to me, but we were both derived from the same paper (connected to), that is how we can observe each other, if there is a connection (a circit, a bridge, a road, a pathway)

If it exists on the same plane of existence, it is not truly external in the ultimate sense. i.e. if energy from the outside world can enter your mind and body, then it can exit your mind and body back into the world. i.e. we can transmit behaviour back "outside".

The concept of "insideness" vs "outsideness" is an optical illusion of concsciousness.

See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...izes/o/in/photostream/

What if "insideness" and "outsideness" is the point of divergence of sharable stimuli? The apple is red.... the observable photons are shared and remain "external". The fact that it hits your eye is sharable and "external". The moment the "A photon hit my eye" changes to "that is bright", that is something that is derived from the photon stimiuli and second stimuli (stored in your brain) that is not available to another person. That point of divergence sets the boundary of "internal" and "external".

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3
Because we are not observing external objects, because all objects are derived from matter and energy which is derived from itself. We are a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble. Think of it in terms of geometry: your observation is the act of detection, you could only detect something else if it exists on the same geometric plane of existence.

One more point on this above statement. Just because you, me and the ball is derived from a superset of existance (the paper as you say), we can contain mutually exclusive properties thus making you, me and the ball external to each other.