The Physics Of Object Permanence

There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the notion that object permanence is untrue: the sum of my experiences suggests that material objects continue to exist when I am not perceiving them.  Of course, the only type of perception that proves the existence of matter is the sense of touch; sight and hearing do not necessarily correspond to anything outside of my consciousness [1].  Nevertheless, my collective sensory perceptions and memories together give the strong impression that material bodies continue to exist when I am not touching or seeing them.

From the standpoint of physics, an inanimate object does not move or change unless an outside force acts upon it in some way.  This phenomenon is described by Newton's "First Law" of motion, which holds that objects at rest stay at rest (and that objects in motion stay in motion) while left to themselves.  Newton's First Law suggests that object permanence applies to the external world, and there is no genuine evidence that this law is false.  What many people fail to realize, though, is that Newton's laws, like all other scientific laws, only describe observed phenomena.  In other words, no one knows if scientific laws remain constant when the external world is not being perceived.

Object permanence is not provable, as no one can actually demonstrate that matter exists unperceived.  It is impossible to tell merely from observing a given material object if matter that one is not observing persists in its existence.  The only facts that can be proven about that which cannot be perceived are logical facts; that is, no one needs to know if object permanence is true to know that the laws of logic govern the situation regardless (matter is always matter and non-matter is non-matter, so the necessary truths of identity are not nullified by scientific ignorance).  Scientific laws are not true by necessity, and thus the veracity of object permanence is uncertain.

Some are fallacious enough to truly believe that the consistent evidence for object permanence proves its validity, while others are fallacious enough to embrace the claims of certain quantum physicists who insist that matter does not exist whatsoever without the direct perception of a conscious being.  It is asinine to assume that sensory perceptions can inform one of how the external world behaves when unperceived and to assume that one can know that matter does not exist without perception.  How could one perceive what one does not perceive?  Such a thing is impossible!

Either way, the whole of reality does not reduce down to either consciousness or matter; logic [2] and space [3] do not depend on either mind or matter, and yet idealists and materialists alike are too stupid to admit this.  These facts are often neglected in inquiries about the nature of matter.  Furthermore, regardless of whether matter exists without being observed or otherwise perceived, the epistemological evidence in favor of object permanence is massive.

The physics of object permanence simply cannot be fully verified, but they certainly cannot be falsified!  One cannot know from mere perceptions if object permanence is either true or illusory, and yet all of the sensory evidence available strongly suggests that an object's existence persists even when one is not gazing at or touching it.  As with many other accurate philosophical positions, this stance is rather nuanced, but the complexity of nuance is far less costly than the dangers of error.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html