If There Is No External World, Why Does Physics Explain Vision So Precisely?

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura I understand your point that reality is direct experience and that there is no external world behind appearances. But I have a question:

Physics explains vision through light reflecting off objects, entering our eyes, stimulating the retina, and being processed by the brain.

We can even predict and manipulate perception through glasses, eye surgery, retinal damage, or changes in lighting.

If there is no external physical world behind our experience, why do these mechanisms work so consistently and predictably?

I understand that you might say the eyes, light, brain, and scientific explanations are themselves appearances within consciousness.But doesn't that just move the question one step further?

Why does consciousness follow such precise physical laws, as if there were an independent external world?And what exactly causes vision to change when the physical eye is damaged, if the eye itself is only an appearance within consciousness?

//chatgpt helped to formulate my thoughts 

Edited 7 hours ago by OBEler

[Jirh]

The word 'appearance' is broad, and it includes more than just the visual field. Sound is an appearance. Physical laws are appearances as well in that framework. Basically, anything you experience can be considered an appearance or something you're interfacing with instead of directly interacting with the real thing underneath. This means there's no direct connection between you and the world, and that there's at least some layer(s) of interpretation between those two. So you aren't really accessing the world through your visual field with the eyes. The eyes are just interfacing with the world in a certain way that includes physicality and such. This model bypasses the question of correcting vision deficiencies with glasses.

There's also the emitter-transmitter model, which means the world sends signals and brains receive and process them and eyes and other organs interpret those signals and send the interpretation back to the brain for creating experience. If the interpreter is damaged, it can be fixed. Correcting vision deficiencies with glasses doesn't contradict this model.

Not that I necessarily agree with any of the above, but just my 2 cents.

Also, physics doesn't really explain anything. It only provides utility. If it explained anything, you wouldn't be asking.

Edited 7 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

The more depth given to the dream, i.e. physics, is what makes tbe thing real.  When you're dealing with an Infinite Intelligence, the more depth the more believable. And this is so real.  You have to sit back in awe actually on how well physics has everything put together so coherently. But then there are things like quantum entanglement. Magic.

Edited 6 hours ago by Inliytened1

[kavaris]

2 hours ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura Why does consciousness follow such precise physical laws, as if there were an independent external world?

Its even simpalerly understood (simpalerly, i havent slept) but it is more simplerly understood to realize physics as not having explained the suggested things, nor anything else its ever said to explain.

Right now, you are getting the baseline to all of this, via internet of exceedingly costly and hard to communicate bounds that we assume is free and unlimited... All of those questions of limitation are answered in time for yourself. Granted, some ppl do go there entire lives ~fixated on the whole m aterial world, encapsulated w/ how mathematically precise it is... I mean Does the universe have a limit, does it have a beginning? Do you know like, what *cosmos* is? what universe means?... like is that something you can point to in the direct experience? Theres several steps that lead you back to the beginning, but youd really need a large jump to make it over the bridge, someone like Leo or possibly Joseph or one of those who are specializing in said large leaps over bridges... Im sure someone out there is working on a program like that, for them kinds of purposes.

[Leo Gura]

Skyrim has such precise and consistent physics so Skyrim must be a real place, right?

[OBEler]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Skyrim has such precise and consistent physics so Skyrim must be a real place, right?

Yeah but why all the effort for technical details. We humans are too dump. Why not create a reality where it's not needed that light falls to an object and then to our eyes and then processed by our brain. In the middle age, God could just skip that. Why does God imagine in such a logical structure. 

Edited 4 hours ago by OBEler

[Inliytened1]

13 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Yeah but why all the effort for technical details. We humans are too dump. Why not create a reality where it's not needed that light falls to an object and then to our eyes and then processed by our brain. In the middle age, God could just skip that. Why does God imagine in such a logical structure. 

Then it would be a dream.  This is a master you're dealing with. Not some chump off the street. And he is a perfectionist. 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Harikrishnan]

15 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Yeah but why all the effort for technical details. We humans are too dump. Why not create a reality where it's not needed that light falls to an object and then to our eyes and then processed by our brain. In the middle age, God could just skip that. Why does God imagine in such a logical structure. 

Maybe God wanted the best logical structure, why create a weak one when u have all power to create the best. 

There is a logical answer, there is metaphysical answer and there is God.

your post made me wonder whether if light reflecting off objects, entering our eyes, stimulating the retina, and being processed by the brain was a story I created for answering how is vision 

Edited 3 hours ago by Harikrishnan

[Jirh]

22 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Yeah but why all the effort for technical details. We humans are too dump. Why not create a reality where it's not needed that light falls to an object and then to our eyes and then processed by our brain. In the middle age, God could just skip that. Why does God imagine in such a logical structure. 

It only feels logical because you think of it as a closed circle with clear parameters. But in reality, it's infinite. You can zoom into it infinitely, and it won't feel so logical anymore. The more you zoom in, the more groundless it will start to feel.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

It only feels logical because you think of it as a closed circle with clear parameters. But in reality, it's infinite. You can zoom into it infinitely, and it won't feel so logical anymore. The more you zoom in, the more groundless it will start to feel.

Right. Try zooming into atoms.  It is turtles all the way down!

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Jirh said:

It only feels logical because you think of it as a closed circle with clear parameters. But in reality, it's infinite. You can zoom into it infinitely, and it won't feel so logical anymore. The more you zoom in, the more groundless it will start to feel.

What would you get if you got beneath quarks? Probably a layer under quarks.  And a layer under that. It will keep exposing itself to you. And it will confuse the scientist.  But then light was a wave. And it exposed only what you needed to see when they did shine it on it. You can't know what's in the box. Because it is always in a superposition 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jirh]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Right. Try zooming into atoms.  It is turtles all the way down!

Except in this case, we can't actually see atoms. There's no photo of the outlines of an actual atom. All the images we have are computer-generated visualizations i.e. electron microscope reconstructions. Our ability to see at that level breaks down. The regular microscope can't reach atom level.

Of course, atoms are real physical objects with mass and other qualities. But they're not what we think they are. We are familiar with atoms more conceptually than actually.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Except in this case, we can't actually see atoms. There's no photo of the outlines of an actual atom. All the images we have are computer-generated visualizations i.e. electron microscope reconstructions. Our ability to see at that level breaks down. The regular microscope can't reach atom level.

Of course, atoms are real physical objects with mass and other qualities. But they're not what we think they are. We are familiar with atoms more conceptually than actually.

Except they aren't real objects. Make no mistake  - the Buddhists got a thing or two right.  This thing is made of  nothing. 

[Jirh]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

Except they aren't real objects. Make no mistake  - the Buddhists got a thing or two right.  This thing is made of  nothing. 

This gets into the semantics of what's real.

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

What would you get if you got beneath quarks? Probably a layer under quarks.  And a layer under that. It will keep exposing itself to you. And it will confuse the scientist.  But then light was a wave. And it exposed only what you needed to see when they did shine it on it. You can't know what's in the box. Because it is always in a superposition 

This breaking down of our ability to see the deeper layers doesn't mean it's nothing ultimately. It just means we are hitting limitations with our instruments and sensory capacity.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

This gets into the semantics of what's real.

This breaking down of our ability to see the deeper layers doesn't mean it's nothing ultimately. It just means we are hitting limitations with our instruments and sensory capacity.

It's nothing ultimately. The Buddhist said this many years ago.

[Jirh]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

It's nothing ultimately. The Buddhist said this many years ago.

🥱😪😴

[Inliytened1]

And when you realize it is nothing you will drop to your knees and cry.  Because you will realize you're nothing.  Its a major awakening  i cried and I cried. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

@Jirh which physicist is your favorite? The quantum boys i hope.

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

36 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Of course, atoms are real physical objects with mass and other qualities.

Of course?

How would you know that?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

Yeah but why all the effort for technical details. We humans are too dump. Why not create a reality where it's not needed that light falls to an object and then to our eyes and then processed by our brain. In the middle age, God could just skip that. Why does God imagine in such a logical structure. 

Because God is Perfect and it costs God nothing.

If you could have a perfect Skyrim with no bugs for free, you would select it.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura