And in case you ever have a sane moment again: The only claims that I made were that initially, for your value-ontology to have a logical foundation, the verb “valuing” had to have a subject and object. After a great deal of explaining why, you mentioned “self-valuing” and I said that I could construct a valid logical foundation for “self-valuing-ontology” and recommended that you call it SVO, not the more ambiguous VO. You didn’t want to change, so you kept it as merely VO. But from that point forward, you always referenced “self-valuing” rather than merely valuing. And during a much later conversation concerning the logic issues, I stated (aka “claimed”) that I was the one who told you that it had to be “self-valuing” (or at least that it had to have a subject and object for the verb).
From that, You with the demented help of your “friends” turned it into a claim that I was trying to take ownership of VO - a seriously stupid conclusion to draw, but drugged up broken brains do that sort of thing pretty regularly.
“Technically” it is the belief that the refrigerator is there that is “construed”. The refrigerator, assuming that it actually was there, remains unaffected.
Actually that is exactly what Quantum Physics teaches. Quantum Mechanics is merely statistics utilizing virtual particles, not much different than RM:AO using afflates. Quantum Physics had been taught instructing university students that the act of observing an event causes the event to become different than it would have been if it had not been observed. They got that idea by a specific means.
What they were unwittingly referencing was that statistical equations describe truth and only by inserting that right values into the unknowns in an equation, can the equation describe truth with certainty. Until an observation is made, the equation’s values are unknown and thus, in an ontological sense (as childish as it is), “truth is described by all remaining possibilities” (the truth is that anything is possible - because they don’t have enough information yet). Einstein and Bohr argued about this issue. Only by observing in order to gain more information, can the equation that describes reality be completed into a specific, 100% known truth. Thus it is said that by observation, the “truth” became what it is. Before the observation, the “truth” was something else. Of course “truth” is but a description. Truth is not the reality itself, except to the solipsists. Quantum Physics has become just an outlet for solipsism.
To an ontologist, such claims are very obviously naive and a bit manipulative and malevolent. But how many ontologists are in the world? The people promoting the idea are extremely philosophically naive, yet because they are typically physicists, they are granted elitist status. They are technicians attempting to take over the engineer’s or architect’s job. They are the priests of the new-age religion.
That is how the idea that observation affects reality came about. It is currently used to bemuse the ignorant masses much the same as any fascination with magic.
And such “notice” and “perception” can only happen in the mind. It isn’t MY definition. It is just about everyone’s. You simply learned it incorrectly.
We never, ever “see light photons”. What does a light photons look like? You can’t tell me, because it doesn’t appear to the eye at all. Instead light photons are the carriers for the energy involved, the EMR. They affect your eyes. You do not see them at all, ever. You only use them, as FC stated, to construe that they refrigerator is there. And in English, that is said to be “seeing the refrigerator”.
This is merely an issue of language. English means by “seeing”, that eyes receives light photons and deduced the presents of its environment. A person experiences photons in order to see other things. They never see the photons, nor experience the other things except by direct touch.
Again, they never observe the photons, nor experience the other things except by direct touch.
The universe does not rotate … cannot rotate. One cannot be at the center between two walls that do not exist.