What could make morality objective?

[CIN]

re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

[popeye1945]

re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

Objects are the experience of the energies of the cosmos, sensed and then projected by a conscious subject, this does mean that the energy is not there. The moon is in its essence energy; but not an object, not until it is sensed by biological consciousness. Yes, your own body is energy and object in the physical world to YOU a conscious subject.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A model is not the thing being modelled. A description is not the thing being described. The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions. It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.

Yes it is kindergarten, that a model is never the thing-being-modelled.

But you were just very blind with the term 'realism' in Model-dependent Realism where the focus is not on the 'model' per se but rather the 'realism', i.e. the reality.

You need to read Hawking's book, The Grand Design to understand what he was referring to re 'Model Dependent Realism'.
In his book, Hawking argued against the classical mind-independent objective reality of Philosophical Realism which is impossible, not tenable nor realistic.
As such Hawking proposed what is most realistic is 'Model Dependent Realism'.

The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions.
It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.

It just exists?? and we have empirical evidence for its existence??
How can you be so ignorant on this issue of reality? re philosophical perspective. That is because you are stuck in the kindergarten class.

Humanity can only claim [not described] whatever exists as real upon the verification and justification of the related empirical evidences its existence.

It not just, but the verification and justification must be conditioned and in compliance with a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality[FSR].
This is what I have been drumming into you for 'eons' but your skull is so thick.

You cannot claim 'it just exists' without qualify its existence to the specific FSK or FSR of your claim or reality.

At present the most credible FSK in justifying what is real is the scientific FSK which has its sub-FSK in terms of degrees of reality;

1. Newtonian FSK -classical reality and objectivity but limited
2. Einsteinian FSK - more realistic and objective than 1
3. QM FSK - more realistic and objective than 2 and 1.

Btw, the science FSK merely ASSUMEs the ASSUMPTION that is an objective reality out there awaiting discovery.
Note ASSUMPTION!

As such, WHO ARE YOU to think your FSK is more credible than the science FSK, where you are claiming there is really a mind-independent objective reality out there.
What you have been claiming as a reality that is 'just is' is merely a reified illusion.

You keep babbling about 'description' with blinkers on within a silo.

What we have re reality is this;

1. Scientific-FSK-conditioned-reality [SFCR],
2. Description of that SFCR.

There is no objective reality that is 'just it' without its specific qualification or predicate.

Whatever is objective reality must be qualified to a specific FSK.
The morality FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK.
Since science is objective, morality is also objective.

Rubbish. We can describe things in many different ways. But the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with knowledge or description. You're just rehearsing a recently fashionable philosophical mistake.

And meanwhile, this has nothing to do with morality.

Strawman again.
I have never asserted "the existence and nature of things is directly due to our knowledge or description of it"

I posted this in the other thread.

Your appeal to quantum mechanics doesn't help your case, because the reality that quantum mechanics describes doesn't exist simply because we observe and describe it.

If you are right, then you can appeal to the Nobel Prize Committee to cancel the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics to argue your case that the thesis that won the award is false.

It is your ignorance that you think you are right. It is because you are operating at a very low level of intelligence of reality being stuck with common sense, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics.

Note: You are infected with the Dunning–Kruger-Effect virus.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.

And, if we invent or create what we call reality, then we invent or create our selves - human beings - because we are part of that reality. So then, reality is the invention or creation of an invention or creation - and so on down the rabbit hole.

We don't literally invent or create reality like we invent or create things.
The point is whatever we recognized as reality, you cannot exclude the human factor from it.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

Why not?
You argue and insist Morality is not objective because there are not moral facts.
I say, your argument is baseless because there are no 'facts' as defined by you; your 'independent facts' are meaningless, groundless, and illusory.
Note this:
There are no Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39502

Meanwhile I argue there are facts that are conditioned with a specific FSK, e.g. scientific facts, thus empirically based moral facts which are objective.
In this sense morality is objective.

Btw, when you respond to my posts, be mindful of creating strawmen.

[Veritas Aequitas]

re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

If humans are extinct, then there is no realization and emergence of humans.
This is obviously true.

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

[Veritas Aequitas]

re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

Objects are the experience of the energies of the cosmos, sensed and then projected by a conscious subject, this does mean that the energy is not there. The moon is in its essence energy; but not an object, not until it is sensed by biological consciousness. Yes, your own body is energy and object in the physical world to YOU a conscious subject.

The moon essence can be energy or fundamental particles or waves.

I am not using the term 'sense' which is restricted to the senses, perceptions and the like.

My point is
the is no essence of the moon like energy or fundamental particles or waves if no humans are realizing the emergence of them.
This means these things essence or whatever cannot exists as real without the human factor.

[popeye1945]

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

Objects are the experience of the energies of the cosmos, sensed and then projected by a conscious subject, this does mean that the energy is not there. The moon is in its essence energy; but not an object, not until it is sensed by biological consciousness. Yes, your own body is energy and object in the physical world to YOU a conscious subject.

The moon essence can be energy or fundamental particles or waves.
I am not using the term 'sense' which is restricted to the senses, perceptions and the like.
My point is
there is no essence of the moon like energy or fundamental particles or waves if no humans are realizing the emergence of them.
This means these things' essence or whatever cannot exist are real without the human factor.

It is all energy, there is nothing else. Things/objects and meanings do not exist in the absence of a conscious subject. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

[Peter Holmes]

re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

If humans are extinct, then there is no realization and emergence of humans.
This is obviously true.

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

So. If there are no humans, there is nothing. So. Right up to the 'moment' when homo sapiens evolved, there was nothing. Erm, So. From what did homo sapiens evolve?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Presumably, therefore, there are no humans if no humans are realizing the emergence of humans.

You don't see a problem here?

If humans are extinct, then there is no realization and emergence of humans.
This is obviously true.

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

So. If there are no humans, there is nothing. So. Right up to the 'moment' when homo sapiens evolved, there was nothing. Erm, So. From what did homo sapiens evolve?

Strawman again!
You missed my point;

I wrote;
The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

Thus, if you conclude there are entities before there are humans,
you cannot insist these entities exist absolutely independent of the human factor.
If that is a fact, then it is fact of the science-biology-FSK which not independent of the human factor.
It cannot be a mind-body-brain-human independent fact.

Thus my point,
whatever is a fact, it is conditioned to a specific FSK [conditioned by humans].

otherwise, without any reference to a specific FSK, you would be claiming as if you are a God, i.e. speaking from a God-eyes view with absolute independence.

[Peter Holmes]

I wrote;
The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

Oh dear. So far you've claimed (parroting Kant) that there can be no thing-in-itself. So now you're saying that humans create or invent things-in-themselves. How crap does your argument have to get before you recognise the mess?

Thus, if you conclude there are entities before there are humans,
you cannot insist these entities exist absolutely independent of the human factor.
If that is a fact, then it is fact of the science-biology-FSK which not independent of the human factor.
It cannot be a mind-body-brain-human independent fact.

Thus my point,
whatever is a fact, it is conditioned to a specific FSK [conditioned by humans].

otherwise, without any reference to a specific FSK, you would be claiming as if you are a God, i.e. speaking from a God-eyes view with absolute independence.

Yes, there must have been 'entities' (poncey posh word for 'things') before humans evolved, because humans evolved from those entities. And with that, your argument collapses. Give it up. It's unscientific.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wrote;
The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.
There is no thing-in-itself without the human factor.

Oh dear. So far you've claimed (parroting Kant) that there can be no thing-in-itself. So now you're saying that humans create or invent things-in-themselves. How crap does your argument have to get before you recognise the mess?

This is the "millionth" times I have charge you with creating strawman.

Where did I post the following context;
"So now you're saying that humans create or invent things-in-themselves."

I'll repeat again;

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.

Thus, if you conclude there are entities before there are humans,
you cannot insist these entities exist absolutely independent of the human factor.
If that is a fact, then it is fact of the science-biology-FSK which not independent of the human factor.
It cannot be a mind-body-brain-human independent fact.

Thus my point,
whatever is a fact, it is conditioned to a specific FSK [conditioned by humans].

otherwise, without any reference to a specific FSK, you would be claiming as if you are a God, i.e. speaking from a God-eyes view with absolute independence.

Yes, there must have been 'entities' (poncey posh word for 'things') before humans evolved, because humans evolved from those entities. And with that, your argument collapses. Give it up. It's unscientific.

Strawman again
Show me where did I deny the fact "humans evolved from other entities"?
I merely added the qualification;
"It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor."

It is quite common knowledge and even in grade school knowledge that humans evolved from other entities.
But it is based on the science-biology-FSK.
And the science-biology-FSK is conditioned by humans.
Therefore that biological-evolutionary fact is conditioned by humans.
It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor.

[Peter Holmes]

The point is whatever is reality including real humans, they cannot exist without the human factor.

It cannot be an human-independent-fact without the human factor.

Wtf? Nothing exists unless there are humans?

Do you think that quantum events didn't exist before humans observed and described them, and that they wouldn't exist if humans didn't observe and describe them?

A straight yes or no answer will suffice. Cards on the table.

[Skepdick]

Wtf? Nothing exists unless there are humans?

Do you think that quantum events didn't exist before humans observed and described them, and that they wouldn't exist if humans didn't observe and describe them?

A straight yes or no answer will suffice. Cards on the table.

You keep saying that abstract things don't exist! What or where is an "event" ?!?

[Peter Holmes]

There's no evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things.

Okay, so what and where is an event?

Why think an event is an abstract or non-physical thing?

What we call an event is something that happens. Why think of it as anything other than physical?

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

Without the myth, moral realists and objectivists have nothing. No evidence, and no sound argument. Hence the sodding about - denying that facts are what we say they are. 'There are no facts, but...there are moral facts.'

It's pathetic.

[Skepdick]

There's no evidence for the existence of abstract or non-physical things.

Okay, so what and where is an event?

Why think an event is an abstract or non-physical thing?

What we call an event is something that happens. Why think of it as anything other than physical?

It's so peculiar that you need all these words to tell me what an event is.

Just show me one.

The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep. It's been distorting our reasoning for millennia.

So lets clarify then. You have no problem with abstractions in general. You only have a problem with abstract "non-physical" things?

Lets start with some basics here:

Firstly. What or where is a "thing". I would much prefer it if you refrained from telling me what a "thing" is - just show me one.
Secondly. What's the difference between physical and non-physical things?

[CIN]

There are no Mind [brain, human]-Independent Facts

All facts are mind-independent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be facts.

You just don't understand what a fact is.