Define God

There are no observers, only the process of observing--sometimes there is observing of phenomena interpreted as observations and obervers who make them.

The "observer" is the existential complement of "the observed". JLN's use of the word "process" is correct. In the same way that say"predator" and "prey" are bound together by the process of "predation", "observer" and "observed" are bound by "observation". The argument that "prey" or "observed" has independent existence as "something else" merely begs the question of what process classifies the "else-ness".

It's the processes of either eating them or shagging them isn't it?

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms i.e. supporting a premise with the premise; as per the observer is the existential complement of the observed / the observed is the existential complement of the observer.

Wittgenstein's "meaning is use" encapsulates the point that all "definitions" are subject to an infinite regress, and to overcome this we need to refer to mutual usage contexts. Within the paradigm of "process" as a priori my "reasoning" is not circular. (This is analogous to taking "fields" or "forces" as a priori in physics as opposed to "particles").

BTW, Googling "Physics and Reality" gives various versions of this point:

matters of state should never be mixed with states of matter

As I see it, when objective reality disappeared so did subjective reality--each requires the other for its existence. There is only experience and the INTER-subjective nature of its meaningfulness (i.e., the social/cultural character of human reality, as Fresco reminds us).

The infinite regress you refer to demonstrates the weakness of semitics as found in your belief system, and not by necessity the physical world versus human observation.

Chumly,
What then do you make of the numerous references to the abandonment of "objectivity" in physics ? Naive realism is a "belief system", not its rejection.

JLN,
Yes, "subjectivity" is misleading. "Paradigmatic co-ordination" would be more appropriate.

No scientific model (old or new) should be taken as a definitive sweeping claim for/against absolutism, relativism, dualism, naive realism, non-dualism, eastern mysticism or any other philosophic and/or belief system.

The models of modern physics do not by default lend credence to your viewpoint, or any philosophic/ mystic belief system simply on the basis of what might appear (to some at least) as similarities (or for that matter differences!).

In fact by your own arguments said similarities are only true to the extent that an observer believes them to be so.

Being a long-term science fiction fan (admittedly mostly hard science fiction by the likes of Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Gregory Benford) I nonetheless have read many fine books by Philip K Dick (and a host of others) blending science, eastern mysticism, sociology, philosophy etc in intriguing ways.

Thus I am not without sympathy (modest play on words but also meant as understanding of your viewpoint).

However, being (to some degree) sympathetic to your viewpoint plus having an understanding that the boundaries of science, eastern mysticism, sociology, philosophy etc are not necessarily wholly clear (at least from the point of view of semantics and Man's present but limited understanding of the physical world) does not in and of itself make your viewpoint wholly merited.

The law was directed at perfection. That is because the law was created to point the way to Christ.
The poor nutcracker victim was not forgotten, BTW. Just not perfect.

Were the world still in a state of perfection, we would not be bothered by no-see-ums.

Don't fall into the trap of considering time and causality as linear.

My dog, Tobias Fleabitus, would agree.

Not I, though.

Good to see ya, Chumly

Every time I neglect to observe something, it goes away.

Darn!

How can we not see time and causality as linear? Reality is not broken up into distinct units of causes followed by effects, albeit that's the way humans construct them. And note that when we wish to "explain" a phenomenon as the outcome of causes, we do so by conceptualizing the prolematic phenomenon as an effect preceded by causes, but the explanatory process actually occurs--"in real time"-- as causes arrived at AFTER the identification of their effects. The temporal arrow moves from after to before even though the explanatory model moves from before to after. Nevertheless both are linear.
How do you see time and causality in non-linear terms?

I am curious of that as well.

And btw, why are we human so persistent in saying that time moves?

No. "Truth" is "what works" and that is socially negotiated.
To argue "truth" can be absolute is itself no different from "religion".

With respect to this thread a"God" concept works for some (especially in the US !) and threads such as this are merely attempts at negotiation.

All that the word "belief" does is acknowlege that a particular concept such as "objectivity" may have limitations to its functionality and is now a target for re-negotiation. The overview of this issue can hardly be called "a belief system" itself !

Why not?