This is very unintelligent in claiming what is assumed or posited in the theory is itself real.
Here's a sample of such a claim;
It can, by using referents posited outside the human mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 5:09 am The human-based scientific FSK deals with the empirically external world.
Because it is human-based, it follows deductively, its resultant reality cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent [countering philosophical realism mind-independence].
Which is exactly what science does.
viewtopic.php?p=652165#p652165
Yes, science does assume a mind-independent referent outside the human mind, but since it is an inherent ASSUMPTION, it can NEVER be real at all [especially in this case]."Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:25 am
Yes, science does assume a mind-independent referent outside the human mind, but since it is an inherent ASSUMPTION, it can NEVER be real at all [especially in this case].
viewtopic.php?p=652266#p652266
The only way the assumption can be real is to take it as an hypothesis, then verified and justified it within the human-based scientific FSK that it is real.
BUT then, because the scientific FSK is human-based, it follows deductively, its resultant reality as proven cannot be absolutely human-body-brain-mind-independent.
Science need assumptions;
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[43] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
These assumptions would then be justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[44]
Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts.
These assumptions – a paradigm – comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Here is reference where Science merely assumes the existence of a mind-independent external world, i.e. external objective reality which is unprovable by Science itself;
Assumption by Science: in {} = mine.
The Ten Assumptions of Science: Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D.That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[47][48]
"The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external {mind-independent} objective reality."[49]
"Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed."[50]
"Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously.
People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51]
"Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
The External Reality is not accepted [ignored or rejected] by all scientists [in QM];THE FIRST ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE:
MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, Matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt.
The Ten Assumptions of Science
Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D.
I believe no rational person in philosophy would insist scientific assumptions of mind-independent reality is really real.External Reality Hypothesis (ERH):
There exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans.
Although many physicists subscribe to the ERH and dedicate their careers to the search for a deeper understanding of this assumed external reality, the ERH is not universally accepted, and is rejected by, e.g., metaphysical solipsists. Indeed, adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may reject the ERH on the grounds that there is no reality without observation.
In this paper, we will assume that the ERH is correct and explore its implications. We will see that, although it sounds innocuous, the ERH has sweeping implications for physics if taken seriously.
Physics theories aim to describe how this assumed external reality works. Our most successful physics theories to date are generally regarded as descriptions of merely
limited aspects of the external reality.
In contrast, the holy grail of theoretical physics is to find a complete description of it, jocularly referred to as a “Theory of Everything”, or “TOE”.
The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., “particle”, “observation” or indeed any other English words. Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid
of human “baggage”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf
Whatever is scientifically real is what is realized and proven as conditioned [grounded] within its human-based scientific FSK.
As such, it follows deductively, the whatever the resultant reality from the human-based scientific FSK, it cannot be mind-independent.
Anyone disagree with this?
