How Physics is Driving Philosophical Realism to Extinction

[Flannel Jesus]

I think I understand. My position is not that we don't need empirical learning. My position is that I don't rule out that we can gain knowledge in the Rationalist way of gaining it.

I think we can too. The entire field of mathematics is precisely that. They make the extra claim, not that we can gain some knowledge, but that we can gain ALL knowledge through those means. I think that's not possible, for the above stated reasons.

My writing earlier was unclear. I don't agree with Spinoza's binary position nor his rulling out empiricism.

Sure, I was just responding to you saying you don't rule it out, explaining what I rule out and why. I'm not afraid of expressing a little bit of confidence towards that position, I think my take on that is more or less correct, "objectivist" though I may be. And maybe I'm wrong in the end, that's okay. Incorrect isn't the worst thing someone can be, not even for a poor ol' objectivist like myself.

(Just for the record, for any potential audience, I don't actually identify as an objectivist in any meaningful way)

[Iwannaplato]

not even for a poor ol' objectivist like myself.

(Just for the record, for any potential audience, I don't actually identify as an objectivist in any meaningful way)

I went for a different take on being an objectivist in a post here...
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319&p=638807#p638807

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our inescapable subjectivity should give us reason to question the validity of what we call apparent reality, or our everyday reality.
In our subjectivity, Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the physical world, read apparent reality/everyday reality.
Spinoza lived in the seventeenth century and believed reality was appearance.
He pointed out that the physical world as object or objects was known to us through those objects altering our biological senses and thus, we come to know what has affected us.

Are you familiar with the Metaphysics of Spinoza?

Spinoza's philosophy has been associated with that of Leibniz and René Descartes as part of the rationalist school of thought,[87] which includes the assumption that ideas correspond to reality perfectly, in the same way that mathematics is supposed to be an exact representation of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Philosophy

Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).
[WIKI ibid]

Spinoza had a distrust for appearances;

Spinoza, however, discounted the relevance of observational data to the discovery of truths of nature.
His conception of sense experience seems, in fact, to disqualify it from being a reliable source of information about the world altogether.
He held that sense experience, in which the human body is affected by external bodies, can NEVER provide us with adequate ideas of either external bodies or our own.

He seems moreover to have denied that the method by which we discover new truths involves either the collection of new sensory evidence or the construction of crucial experiments. Indeed, much of the early Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect is devoted to establishing that “the fictitious, the false, and the other [ideas falling short of truth] have their origin in the imagination, i.e., in certain sensations that are fortuitous, and as it were disconnected, since they do not arise from the very power of the mind, but from external causes, as the body (whether awake or dreaming) receives various motions” (EMI, ¶84). The intellect unaided by imagination, however construed, is the sole source of knowledge.
Observation, which involves sensory ideas derived from external causes, has no role in the true method for acquiring adequate knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-physics/#Obs

I am impressed, I read some of Spinoza years ago and I am just getting back into his writings. I don't know as I would agree with the last statement, but perhaps I am not fully understanding it. I believe in full body consciousness; it would stand to reason that the info is processed through the understanding, so I guess I do agree after all. "The body is the mind's first idea." Great post!!

I asked,
Are you familiar with the Metaphysics of Spinoza?

My point is if you are familiar with Spinoza, you would NOT have banked and harped on 'energy' which is empirically-based [observation] conditioned upon a human-based science-Physics FSK.

Spinoza is a Rationalist, i.e. rely on the "intellect"

• "The intellect unaided by imagination, however construed, is the sole source of knowledge."
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-physics/#Obs

As such,

• Observation, which involves sensory ideas derived from external causes, has no role in the true method for acquiring adequate knowledge.
  ibid

My point is if you want to bank on 'energy' [which is empirical] then you cannot refer to Spinoza who is a dogmatic Rationalist and believe in the existence of an independent God as the absolute real knowledge.

• Spinoza would take the Cartesian definition of substance in the strict sense to mean an absolutely independent substance and conclude that there really is only one substance, the Divine Substance God, all finite things or beings (entia) being simply modifications of this one Substance (“According to Spinoza, viewed under the aspect of eternity (‘sub specie aeternitatis’) finite ‘things’ are only modes of the Infinite”6).
  “Employing Descartes’ method and his conception of substance, Benedict Spinoza gave a new definition of substance, which became the basis of his pantheism:
  ‘By substance, I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; in other words, that, the conception of which does not need the conception of another thing from which it must be formed’(Ethica I, def. 3).
  -Horrigan

Suggest you refresh on Spinoza thoroughly if you want to go into his direction.

Prior to his CPR, Kant was also dogmatic Rationalist, but then was awoken up from his dogmatic rationalism slumber by Hume's dogmatic empiricism.
Kant then abandoned his dogmatic rationalism and avoided Hume's dogmatic empiricism then treaded the middle-path between rationalism and empiricism with his Copernican Revolution.
Kant's approach is a TOP-DOWN mode starting with human experiences [empirical] and guided by rationality [not rationalism] to cognize what is reality; because it is TOP-DOWN, reality is ultimately human-based, i.e. collective-subjects, thus intersubjectivity.

Because, intersubjectivity prevails, Philosophical Realism [mind-independent] is extinct in the ultimate sense.

eta: "NOT"

[popeye1945]

I took Spinoza's example of how one comes to know one's apparent reality and just expanded upon it. I never professed to be an expert on Spinoza. I do not believe my speculations depend upon how Spinoza came to the conclusion that he did. I would much rather you just dealt with the statements I have made regarding human beings being of a reactionary nature, and there being no such thing as human action. If indeed this is so, then I believe this disproves the fee will point of few. From Spinoza's statement of how we come to know the physical world, I am just stating that this is the way apparent reality comes into being, as the reactions of organisms to the altering of their biology by the energy forces around them.

[Iwannaplato]

Spinoza is a Rationalist, i.e. rely on the "intellect"

Yeah, you can't be an empiricist and not rely, also, on the intellect. The rationalist believes, at a minimum that not all knowledge can be gained via sensory experience or experience alone. Spinoza was pretty far out on the rationalist edge. Of course, I can't know what VA means when he puts 'intellect' in quotes. This would seem to mean it is not what we think of as intellect', but who knows.

Kant then abandoned his dogmatic rationalism and avoided Hume's dogmatic empiricism then treaded the middle-path between rationalism and empiricism with his Copernican Revolution.
Kant's approach is a TOP-DOWN mode starting with human experiences [empirical] and guided by rationality [not rationalism] to cognize what is reality; because it is TOP-DOWN, reality is ultimately human-based, i.e. collective-subjects, thus intersubjectivity.

This doesn't make sense though it could be typos. First we are to see Kant as running a middle path between rationalism and empiricism. Then we are told that he doesn't use rationalism or isn't rationalist, but rather is guided by rationality. Which does VA mean?

In any case it's pretty much agreed that he had Rationalist and Empiricist qualities.

Because, intersubjectivity prevails, Philosophical Realism [mind-independent] is extinct in the ultimate sense.

[Agent Smith]

Physics is a certain _____. It, for some reason, doesn't ____ what (some) humans ___ is as ____ as happy ___.

Physics is, to state the obvious, about a choice ... between a man and a man and ... hold on ... another man.

[psycho]

Philosophical Realism as adopted by PH and realists is defined below;

1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

3. [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

5. [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Radical Embodied Cognition is a basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is real independent objective reality out there, where "the percepts we have must be direct reflections of information that is in the real world."

"If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true [Philosophical Realism] is a dead theory."

Radical embodied cognition is committed to the idea that perception involves some form of "pick up" of information from the environment. The mind constructs nothing. Therefore the percepts we have must be direct reflections of information that is in the real world. For example, our percept of a cup is the direct result of light interacting with a unitary object that has a definite location in space.

If it turned out that in the actual world there was not unitary object corresponding to the cup and it had no definite location in space, there would be a significant mismatch between what exists in the world and what is perceived about the world. Therefore our percepts of a unitary cup in a definite location must be a construction of the mind.

If the above assumptions about REC's claims are true and we indeed found that the world is such a weird place as in the example, then REC must be wrong. REC is committed to a fairly standard view of a veridical space-time world.

Quantum physics has revealed that a standard space-time world does not hold at the particle level. So if we lived in that world and took our perceptual measurements in it and if we perceived particles in definite locations (as seems to happen when we measure them with our instruments) then we would have to assume that perception is constructed and not just a direct pick up of information. REC would not be a viable theory at the quantum level.

Recent work in physics has suggested that something like quantum weirdness applies also to the very large, that space-time doesn't exist at all.
If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true REC is a dead theory.

Put differently, if ecological psychology wants to be serious about the interaction of the physical world and the body giving rise to all things human, then it HAS to take discoveries in physics seriously because that is the means by which the true nature of the world can be revealed. In this sense, REC can be falsified by developments in physics.

PH is relying on his philosophical realism [dead theory] to deny morality is objective.

On the other hand, my view is anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian], i.e. there are human based moral FSK facts which are objective, thus morality is objective.

I don't understand the objection.

Space-time is an interpretation of a part of reality. Do you interpret that space-time is matter and energy?

Your cup is a material object with which you interact.

In space-time, the cup is the continuous flow of the elements that form it, through the entire continuum.

---

Perception is not information transmitted by light. The cup is not light with a certain structure. The cup is a part of reality, from which you deduce its existence by interacting with elements that have interacted with it.

There is, the cup (part of external reality) and the concept cup (a neurological structure in your brain).

The fidelity between the two cups does not only depend on your interaction with light that has interacted with it. It also results from your electromagnetic interaction (touch), from the result of its interaction with other objects in the cases that you use it as a mediator of some action, from the coherence in the cases in which you refer to it with other humans, etc.

Each element of the cup does not have a definitive location in space. The cup has a probabilistic location in space. The probability of its location is almost accurate. For practical purposes, it is placeable.

That space and time are emergent phenomena is only speculation useful for exploration.

I have the impression that mathematical models are being explored that allow scientists to analyze whether this is a non-contradictory possibility.

That is not the same as saying that Quantum physics has revealed that space and time are illusory entities with no correspondence to reality. only illusions

Without the concept "interaction" not only would classical physics not exist, nor would quantum physics exist.

Without space-time there is no interaction. The concept falls.

On the other hand, when you look at what is recorded by a video camera, the reality that it represents has lost a dimension. But you see events that have a complete correspondence with what happened in reality. Your understanding of the situation allows you to make the right decisions based on what the video showed.

If I were to show you a crude stick figure animation showing a certain circumstance. you would be completely effective in interpreting what was shown.

What's more, I could convey to you what happens in a certain circumstance without you having to have what is narrated spatially arranged. By narrating it orally, for example.

These factors do not affect the matching fidelity between the two cups.

I don't see how this is related to a supposed objective morality.

[Agent Smith]

Physics is a catastrophe! Don't believe me?! Look at the sky!!

Hey!! You're ... you're ...

Right! Of course I'm right! Like I said, look at the sky!!

No! I didn't mean ...

[Holds head in both hands, turns it up ... towards the sky. There, you see?!]

What am I supposed to see?!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism as adopted by PH and realists is defined below;

1. Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

2. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

3. [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

4. Philosophers who profess [Philosophical] realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

5. [Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

6. In some contexts, [Philosophical] realism is contrasted with [Philosophical] idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Radical Embodied Cognition is a basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is real independent objective reality out there, where "the percepts we have must be direct reflections of information that is in the real world."

"If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true [Philosophical Realism] is a dead theory."

Radical embodied cognition is committed to the idea that perception involves some form of "pick up" of information from the environment. The mind constructs nothing. Therefore the percepts we have must be direct reflections of information that is in the real world. For example, our percept of a cup is the direct result of light interacting with a unitary object that has a definite location in space.

If it turned out that in the actual world there was not unitary object corresponding to the cup and it had no definite location in space, there would be a significant mismatch between what exists in the world and what is perceived about the world. Therefore our percepts of a unitary cup in a definite location must be a construction of the mind.

If the above assumptions about REC's claims are true and we indeed found that the world is such a weird place as in the example, then REC must be wrong. REC is committed to a fairly standard view of a veridical space-time world.

Quantum physics has revealed that a standard space-time world does not hold at the particle level. So if we lived in that world and took our perceptual measurements in it and if we perceived particles in definite locations (as seems to happen when we measure them with our instruments) then we would have to assume that perception is constructed and not just a direct pick up of information. REC would not be a viable theory at the quantum level.

Recent work in physics has suggested that something like quantum weirdness applies also to the very large, that space-time doesn't exist at all.
If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true REC is a dead theory.

Put differently, if ecological psychology wants to be serious about the interaction of the physical world and the body giving rise to all things human, then it HAS to take discoveries in physics seriously because that is the means by which the true nature of the world can be revealed. In this sense, REC can be falsified by developments in physics.

PH is relying on his philosophical realism [dead theory] to deny morality is objective.

On the other hand, my view is anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian], i.e. there are human based moral FSK facts which are objective, thus morality is objective.

I don't understand the objection.

Space-time is an interpretation of a part of reality. Do you interpret that space-time is matter and energy?

Your cup is a material object with which you interact.

In space-time, the cup is the continuous flow of the elements that form it, through the entire continuum.

---

Perception is not information transmitted by light. The cup is not light with a certain structure. The cup is a part of reality, from which you deduce its existence by interacting with elements that have interacted with it.

There is, the cup (part of external reality) and the concept cup (a neurological structure in your brain).

The fidelity between the two cups does not only depend on your interaction with light that has interacted with it. It also results from your electromagnetic interaction (touch), from the result of its interaction with other objects in the cases that you use it as a mediator of some action, from the coherence in the cases in which you refer to it with other humans, etc.

Each element of the cup does not have a definitive location in space. The cup has a probabilistic location in space. The probability of its location is almost accurate. For practical purposes, it is placeable.

That space and time are emergent phenomena is only speculation useful for exploration.

I have the impression that mathematical models are being explored that allow scientists to analyze whether this is a non-contradictory possibility.

That is not the same as saying that Quantum physics has revealed that space and time are illusory entities with no correspondence to reality. only illusions

Without the concept "interaction" not only would classical physics not exist, nor would quantum physics exist.

Without space-time there is no interaction. The concept falls.

On the other hand, when you look at what is recorded by a video camera, the reality that it represents has lost a dimension. But you see events that have a complete correspondence with what happened in reality. Your understanding of the situation allows you to make the right decisions based on what the video showed.

If I were to show you a crude stick figure animation showing a certain circumstance. you would be completely effective in interpreting what was shown.

What's more, I could convey to you what happens in a certain circumstance without you having to have what is narrated spatially arranged. By narrating it orally, for example.

These factors do not affect the matching fidelity between the two cups.

I don't see how this is related to a supposed objective morality.

Note sure what is your point?

The OP point is this;

1. For example, our percept[ion] of a cup is the direct result of light interacting with a unitary object [the-perceived-cup] that has a definite location in space.

2. Recent work in physics has suggested that something like quantum weirdness applies also to the very large, that space-time doesn't exist at all.
If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true REC is a dead theory.

3. Therefore there is no independent objective cup within a definite location in space.

4. Peter Holme's [PH] sense of what is objective reality is the same as 3, thus ultimately false.

5. PH denial of moral objectivity is based 4 above, thus false.

6. My claim of moral objectivity is not based on PH's basis, but rather based on human-based FSK basis of objectivity. I have argued this human-based moral FSK is tenable, thus moral objectivity in this sense is tenable.

[psycho]

Philosophical Realism as adopted by PH and realists is defined below;



Radical Embodied Cognition is a basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. there is real independent objective reality out there, where "the percepts we have must be direct reflections of information that is in the real world."

"If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true [Philosophical Realism] is a dead theory."



PH is relying on his philosophical realism [dead theory] to deny morality is objective.

On the other hand, my view is anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian], i.e. there are human based moral FSK facts which are objective, thus morality is objective.

I don't understand the objection.

Space-time is an interpretation of a part of reality. Do you interpret that space-time is matter and energy?

Your cup is a material object with which you interact.

In space-time, the cup is the continuous flow of the elements that form it, through the entire continuum.

---

Perception is not information transmitted by light. The cup is not light with a certain structure. The cup is a part of reality, from which you deduce its existence by interacting with elements that have interacted with it.

There is, the cup (part of external reality) and the concept cup (a neurological structure in your brain).

The fidelity between the two cups does not only depend on your interaction with light that has interacted with it. It also results from your electromagnetic interaction (touch), from the result of its interaction with other objects in the cases that you use it as a mediator of some action, from the coherence in the cases in which you refer to it with other humans, etc.

Each element of the cup does not have a definitive location in space. The cup has a probabilistic location in space. The probability of its location is almost accurate. For practical purposes, it is placeable.

That space and time are emergent phenomena is only speculation useful for exploration.

I have the impression that mathematical models are being explored that allow scientists to analyze whether this is a non-contradictory possibility.

That is not the same as saying that Quantum physics has revealed that space and time are illusory entities with no correspondence to reality. only illusions

Without the concept "interaction" not only would classical physics not exist, nor would quantum physics exist.

Without space-time there is no interaction. The concept falls.

On the other hand, when you look at what is recorded by a video camera, the reality that it represents has lost a dimension. But you see events that have a complete correspondence with what happened in reality. Your understanding of the situation allows you to make the right decisions based on what the video showed.

If I were to show you a crude stick figure animation showing a certain circumstance. you would be completely effective in interpreting what was shown.

What's more, I could convey to you what happens in a certain circumstance without you having to have what is narrated spatially arranged. By narrating it orally, for example.

These factors do not affect the matching fidelity between the two cups.

I don't see how this is related to a supposed objective morality.

Note sure what is your point?

The OP point is this;

1. For example, our percept[ion] of a cup is the direct result of light interacting with a unitary object [the-perceived-cup] that has a definite location in space.

2. Recent work in physics has suggested that something like quantum weirdness applies also to the very large, that space-time doesn't exist at all.
If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true REC is a dead theory.

3. Therefore there is no independent objective cup within a definite location in space.

4. Peter Holme's [PH] sense of what is objective reality is the same as 3, thus ultimately false.

5. PH denial of moral objectivity is based 4 above, thus false.

6. My claim of moral objectivity is not based on PH's basis, but rather based on human-based FSK basis of objectivity. I have argued this human-based moral FSK is tenable, thus moral objectivity in this sense is tenable.

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
You mention this:

". Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-

independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder."

But

Quantum theory does not contradict the existence of something independent of mind.

Quantum theory does not contradict that the human mind results from a functioning brain.

Quantum theory does not contradict that the elements that behave quantum, exist independently of the functioning of the human brain.

The fact that there is a limit to the knowledge of the position of an element of reality does not mean that this makes it dependent on the human mind.

That space-time is speculated to be emergent properties of other underlying levels does not mean that the quantum elements are dependent on mind or that they do not have a causal relationship between them and that this relationship is described in temporal-spatial terms.

---

On the other hand, it seems to be affirmed that:

- If the mind does not build anything

- The perception of a cup must be the result of the interaction between light and a cup in space.

and

- If in the universe there are no unitary objects (cups).

- Perceiving a cup must be a creation of the mind.

They are incompatible with each other.

Also your quotes:

"If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the

fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true [Philosophical Realism] is a dead theory."

No. That space-time is supposed to be an emergent phenomenon does not mean that it does not exist. In the same way that if the polarity of a molecule is an emergent property, this does not mean that the polarity is an illusion or that polar molecules do not exist.

Once again, the fact that space-time is an emergent phenomenon does not mean that an element of reality does not exist or does not have a certain particular relationship with the rest of the elements of reality.

Affirming that the elements of reality do not exist leaves you in an absurd position from which you cannot affirm anything.

An element of the universe is a unitary object? Does an elementary particle exist or not? (The one that behaves quantum).

---

The concept of objectivity is just a practical convention to indicate where the factors that affect something are minimized, when they have no relevance in a certain interpretation.

Since "objective" is that which does not depend on human interpretation and that there is no circumstance that humans can distinguish that does not depend on that interpretation, it is absurd to suppose that there is anything objective.

including morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note sure what is your point?

The OP point is this;

1. For example, our percept[ion] of a cup is the direct result of light interacting with a unitary object [the-perceived-cup] that has a definite location in space.

2. Recent work in physics has suggested that something like quantum weirdness applies also to the very large, that space-time doesn't exist at all.
If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true REC is a dead theory.

3. Therefore there is no independent objective cup within a definite location in space.

4. Peter Holme's [PH] sense of what is objective reality is the same as 3, thus ultimately false.

5. PH denial of moral objectivity is based 4 above, thus false.

6. My claim of moral objectivity is not based on PH's basis, but rather based on human-based FSK basis of objectivity. I have argued this human-based moral FSK is tenable, thus moral objectivity in this sense is tenable.

You mention this:
". Philosophical Realism is .. about a certain kind of thing .. is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder."

But
Quantum theory does not contradict the existence of something independent of mind.
Quantum theory does not contradict that the human mind results from a functioning brain.
Quantum theory does not contradict that the elements that behave quantum, exist independently of the functioning of the human brain.

The fact that there is a limit to the knowledge of the position of an element of reality does not mean that this makes it dependent on the human mind.

That space-time is speculated to be emergent properties of other underlying levels does not mean that the quantum elements are dependent on mind or that they do not have a causal relationship between them and that this relationship is described in temporal-spatial terms.
---

On the other hand, it seems to be affirmed that:
- If the mind does not build anything
- The perception of a cup must be the result of the interaction between light and a cup in space.
and
- If in the universe there are no unitary objects (cups).
- Perceiving a cup must be a creation of the mind.
They are incompatible with each other.

Quantum Theory states that things are realized, materialized thus exist ONLY when observed and measured within the human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Since the grounding of QM is human-based, Quantum Theory CANNOT be independent of mind [humans].

Note I am not asserting QM is DEPENDENT [can be misleading] on the human mind, rather QM is somehow related, connected, intertwined, to the human mind. It just cannot be independent of the human mind.

Also your quotes:
"If space-time doesn't exist then that cup is not a 3D object fixed in a particular location in space, despite the fact that my perception tells me it is.
And if this is true [Philosophical Realism] is a dead theory."

No. That space-time is supposed to be an emergent phenomenon does not mean that it does not exist. In the same way that if the polarity of a molecule is an emergent property, this does not mean that the polarity is an illusion or that polar molecules do not exist.

Once again, the fact that space-time is an emergent phenomenon does not mean that an element of reality does not exist or does not have a certain particular relationship with the rest of the elements of reality.

Affirming that the elements of reality do not exist leaves you in an absurd position from which you cannot affirm anything.

An element of the universe is a unitary object? Does an elementary particle exist or not? (The one that behaves quantum).
---

The concept of objectivity is just a practical convention to indicate where the factors that affect something are minimized, when they have no relevance in a certain interpretation.

Since "objective" is that which does not depend on human interpretation and that there is no circumstance that humans can distinguish that does not depend on that interpretation, it is absurd to suppose that there is anything objective.

including morality.

Space and Time do exist, but they do not exist independent of the human mind.

I never stated "the elements of reality do not exist".
Elements of reality do exist, but they CANNOT be independent of the human mind.
Note;
1. Reality is all-there-is driven deterministically since the Big Bang.
2. All-there-is all things which include human beings and their mind.
3. Because of determinism, elements of reality CANNOT be independent of humans and their minds.

Objectivity [opp. subjectivity] is defined as independence of 'a' [one] subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
All knowledge, truths and facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which is on a collective basis [intersubjective, not one subject], thus it is Objective.

Morality is dealt within a human-based Moral FSK, thus morality is objective.

[psycho]

Quantum Theory states that things are realized, materialized thus exist ONLY when observed and measured within the human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Since the grounding of QM is human-based, Quantum Theory CANNOT be independent of mind [humans].

Note I am not asserting QM is DEPENDENT [can be misleading] on the human mind, rather QM is somehow related, connected, intertwined, to the human mind. It just cannot be independent of the human mind.

No. Quantum theory does not claim that the elements of the universe only exist when they are observed.

Currently there are theorists who find intriguing certain experiments that could be interpreted in this way.

But it is not the only interpretation of those experiments and that conclusion is not widely accepted by the scientific community.

You would have to prove that the only way the wave function collapses is by human observation.

There is nothing corresponding to QM grounding. And much less is it supposed to be humans. It is true that all theory is human, but that does not mean that quantum behavior results from the existence of humanity.

To say that QM depends in an unknown way on the human mind is irrelevant. Affirming something about what is unknown is of no use.

Space and Time do exist, but they do not exist independent of the human mind.

I never stated "the elements of reality do not exist".
Elements of reality do exist, but they CANNOT be independent of the human mind.
Note;
1. Reality is all-there-is driven deterministically since the Big Bang.
2. All-there-is all things which include human beings and their mind.
3. Because of determinism, elements of reality CANNOT be independent of humans and their minds.

Objectivity [opp. subjectivity] is defined as independence of 'a' [one] subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
All knowledge, truths and facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which is on a collective basis [intersubjective, not one subject], thus it is Objective.

Morality is dealt within a human-based Moral FSK, thus morality is objective.

That something is an emergent phenomenon does not mean that it depends on the human mind but on other sublevels of reality.
You have a problem with the order of causality in assuming that the Big Bang depends on the human mind.

We are not a hive-mind. The interpretation of reality is always individual and subjective. Including morality.

Morality will never be objective and neither will any other human interpretation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Quantum Theory states that things are realized, materialized thus exist ONLY when observed and measured within the human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Since the grounding of QM is human-based, Quantum Theory CANNOT be independent of mind [humans].

Note I am not asserting QM is DEPENDENT [can be misleading] on the human mind, rather QM is somehow related, connected, intertwined, to the human mind. It just cannot be independent of the human mind.

No. Quantum theory does not claim that the elements of the universe only exist when they are observed.

Currently there are theorists who find intriguing certain experiments that could be interpreted in this way.

But it is not the only interpretation of those experiments and that conclusion is not widely accepted by the scientific community.

You would have to prove that the only way the wave function collapses is by human observation.

There is nothing corresponding to QM grounding. And much less is it supposed to be humans. It is true that all theory is human, but that does not mean that quantum behavior results from the existence of humanity.

To say that QM depends in an unknown way on the human mind is irrelevant. Affirming something about what is unknown is of no use.

As I had claimed, the grounding to QM is as follow;

1. QM is only valid within a human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
2. FSK is not merely perceiving, knowing and describing existing facts.
3. Prior to the above, there is a entanglement, emergence and realization processes of whatever is reality.
4. In addition, what underlies the FSK is conditioned upon all-there-was and is way back to the Big Bang.

Observation re QM is not merely 'seeing or perceiving' but involved the whole complex processes 1-4 above within the specific human-based FSK, in this case, culminating in the human-based QM FSK.

Thus, regardless of the detail mechanisms, logically it follows;
all realization of whatever of QM CANNOT be independent of human beings.

Space and Time do exist, but they do not exist independent of the human mind.

I never stated "the elements of reality do not exist".
Elements of reality do exist, but they CANNOT be independent of the human mind.
Note;
1. Reality is all-there-is driven deterministically since the Big Bang.
2. All-there-is all things which include human beings and their mind.
3. Because of determinism, elements of reality CANNOT be independent of humans and their minds.

Objectivity [opp. subjectivity] is defined as independence of 'a' [one] subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
All knowledge, truths and facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which is on a collective basis [intersubjective, not one subject], thus it is Objective.

Morality is dealt within a human-based Moral FSK, thus morality is objective.

That something is an emergent phenomenon does not mean that it depends on the human mind but on other sublevels of reality.
You have a problem with the order of causality in assuming that the Big Bang depends on the human mind.

We are not a hive-mind. The interpretation of reality is always individual and subjective. Including morality.

Morality will never be objective and neither will any other human interpretation.

Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.

We are not a hive-mind. The interpretation of reality is always individual and subjective. Including morality.

The individual subjective realization of reality is very limited and vulnerable to errors.

Do you agree scientific facts [depend on 'hive-mind'] is the most credible and reliable which has contribute the greatest utility to the progress of humanity to date?

As such, morality based on the "hive-mind" [human-based moral FSK] is objective and more effective to contribute to moral progress within humanity.

[Iwannaplato]

Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.

Sigh. So, the Moon isn't there if we don't look at it, but the Big Bang happened...even though we didn't see it. Just like the primordial soup before the first organisms was there, even though no organism was looking at it. The Moon is not there when we don't look but the entire universe was there.

[psycho]

Quantum Theory states that things are realized, materialized thus exist ONLY when observed and measured within the human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Since the grounding of QM is human-based, Quantum Theory CANNOT be independent of mind [humans].

Note I am not asserting QM is DEPENDENT [can be misleading] on the human mind, rather QM is somehow related, connected, intertwined, to the human mind. It just cannot be independent of the human mind.

No. Quantum theory does not claim that the elements of the universe only exist when they are observed.

Currently there are theorists who find intriguing certain experiments that could be interpreted in this way.

But it is not the only interpretation of those experiments and that conclusion is not widely accepted by the scientific community.

You would have to prove that the only way the wave function collapses is by human observation.

There is nothing corresponding to QM grounding. And much less is it supposed to be humans. It is true that all theory is human, but that does not mean that quantum behavior results from the existence of humanity.

To say that QM depends in an unknown way on the human mind is irrelevant. Affirming something about what is unknown is of no use.

As I had claimed, the grounding to QM is as follow;

1. QM is only valid within a human-based QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
2. FSK is not merely perceiving, knowing and describing existing facts.
3. Prior to the above, there is a entanglement, emergence and realization processes of whatever is reality.
4. In addition, what underlies the FSK is conditioned upon all-there-was and is way back to the Big Bang.

Observation re QM is not merely 'seeing or perceiving' but involved the whole complex processes 1-4 above within the specific human-based FSK, in this case, culminating in the human-based QM FSK.

Thus, regardless of the detail mechanisms, logically it follows;
all realization of whatever of QM CANNOT be independent of human beings.

Space and Time do exist, but they do not exist independent of the human mind.

I never stated "the elements of reality do not exist".
Elements of reality do exist, but they CANNOT be independent of the human mind.
Note;
1. Reality is all-there-is driven deterministically since the Big Bang.
2. All-there-is all things which include human beings and their mind.
3. Because of determinism, elements of reality CANNOT be independent of humans and their minds.

Objectivity [opp. subjectivity] is defined as independence of 'a' [one] subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
All knowledge, truths and facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which is on a collective basis [intersubjective, not one subject], thus it is Objective.

Morality is dealt within a human-based Moral FSK, thus morality is objective.

That something is an emergent phenomenon does not mean that it depends on the human mind but on other sublevels of reality.
You have a problem with the order of causality in assuming that the Big Bang depends on the human mind.

We are not a hive-mind. The interpretation of reality is always individual and subjective. Including morality.

Morality will never be objective and neither will any other human interpretation.

Of course I do not mean the Big Bang was created by humans.

The point is the Big Bang is a theory that emerged from a human-based science-physics-cosmological framework and system of reality [FSR] and system [FSK].
There is no way one can realize the Bib Bang without the above human-based FSR and FSK.
As such, the Big Bang cannot be absolute independent of human beings participation.

We are not a hive-mind. The interpretation of reality is always individual and subjective. Including morality.

The individual subjective realization of reality is very limited and vulnerable to errors.

Do you agree scientific facts [depend on 'hive-mind'] is the most credible and reliable which has contribute the greatest utility to the progress of humanity to date?

As such, morality based on the "hive-mind" [human-based moral FSK] is objective and more effective to contribute to moral progress within humanity.

Do you consider that QM is a theory?

Quantum mechanics is the behavior, the nature of the behavior of the elements of the universe.

The theory of quantum mechanics is a set of mathematical models that approximate that behavior.

If what you affirm is that all human theory is created by humans, I agree but I don't see the relevance of the comment.

The Big Bang is a hypothesis that speculates part of the behavior of the Universe from a certain stage of its development. Since almost the beginning of the expansion.

The behavior of the universe is not the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang (human) theory is a variety of mathematical models (some contradictory to each other) that attempt to represent that development.

The Big Bang does not depend on the human mind.

The mathematical models of that event depend on the human mind.

All theory will be structured within the accepted paradigm. This does not mean that what the theory describes is dependent on the human mind.

---

A simple and quick look at society will let you see that there is no Hive-mind.

Individuals hold the most varied beliefs and express vehemently and sometimes violently that they do not share the moral criteria of others.

That many look at Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube does not mean that we are a communal mind.

Each individual turns out to have moral values due to random factors. There is no transcendental access to an ideal moral plane. That is a fantasy.

If you are clear about the concept of "objective", you should only come to see that "objectivity" is not present in the human experience.