Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Darkneos]

observation is any interaction with the system

heh-heh-heh

That’s how it is in quantum physics, it doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness or actually looking at it.

[Atla]

observation is any interaction with the system

heh-heh-heh

That’s how it is in quantum physics, it doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness or actually looking at it.

You know the "interaction" talk is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides right?

[Darkneos]

What I said was accurate I think. I used "correlation" instead of "action" for the very reason that nonlocality does not allow for faster-than-light communication or action-at-a-distance. There is a world of difference between the two. Nonlocal correlations can also be thought of as absolute determinism across the universal wavefunction.

This is starting to sound eerily close to string theory. But from what I can tell nonlocality has nothing to do with time but distance, though even then it's weird since well:

Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/to ... e%20events.

So while it might make sense when it comes to the light of stars from across the universe I think it's a stretch to apply that to all events and say everything that will happen happened already billions of years ago. I'm sure no one is saying that.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

Since Einstein space can't be seen as distinct from time, nonlocality applies across spacetime.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

It means past present and future are one. But that doesn't mean that we know the future, doesn't mean that we have to resign ourselves to not trying to "change" things. That's just a deterministic misunderstanding.

If the past, present, and future are one then it would mean all those things. If it’s entirely deterministic then it’s set already and there’s no reason to try and change anything. You even air quoted change.

[Darkneos]

heh-heh-heh

That’s how it is in quantum physics, it doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness or actually looking at it.

You know the "interaction" talk is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides right?

It’s not, that’s literally what it is. People just misunderstand why they use the phrase observation and thing that means actually looking at it. But that’s no what it means in the field and not how it’s used.

You can ask someone who does this and they’ll tell you the same. People who try to imply consciousness from this are usually trying to push something akin to magic.

[Atla]

That’s how it is in quantum physics, it doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness or actually looking at it.

You know the "interaction" talk is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides right?

It’s not, that’s literally what it is. People just misunderstand why they use the phrase observation and thing that means actually looking at it. But that’s no what it means in the field and not how it’s used.

You can ask someone who does this and they’ll tell you the same. People who try to imply consciousness from this are usually trying to push something akin to magic.

You know just about nothing about the topic.

[Atla]

This is starting to sound eerily close to string theory. But from what I can tell nonlocality has nothing to do with time but distance, though even then it's weird since well:



https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/to ... e%20events.

So while it might make sense when it comes to the light of stars from across the universe I think it's a stretch to apply that to all events and say everything that will happen happened already billions of years ago. I'm sure no one is saying that.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

Since Einstein space can't be seen as distinct from time, nonlocality applies across spacetime.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

It means past present and future are one. But that doesn't mean that we know the future, doesn't mean that we have to resign ourselves to not trying to "change" things. That's just a deterministic misunderstanding.

If the past, present, and future are one then it would mean all those things. If it’s entirely deterministic then it’s set already and there’s no reason to try and change anything. You even air quoted change.

That's the misunderstanding.

[Darkneos]

You know the "interaction" talk is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides right?

It’s not, that’s literally what it is. People just misunderstand why they use the phrase observation and thing that means actually looking at it. But that’s no what it means in the field and not how it’s used.

You can ask someone who does this and they’ll tell you the same. People who try to imply consciousness from this are usually trying to push something akin to magic.

You know just about nothing about the topic.

I actually do because I’ve talked to people who do this and have degrees in the field.

You’re using observation incorrectly. It’s the dated term implying some sort of consciousness.

[Atla]

It’s not, that’s literally what it is. People just misunderstand why they use the phrase observation and thing that means actually looking at it. But that’s no what it means in the field and not how it’s used.

You can ask someone who does this and they’ll tell you the same. People who try to imply consciousness from this are usually trying to push something akin to magic.

You know just about nothing about the topic.

I actually do because I’ve talked to people who do this and have degrees in the field.

You’re using observation incorrectly.

No one knows what observation means. That's why we have interpretations, and I think it's likely that all of the current ones are wrong. Duh

[Darkneos]

Since Einstein space can't be seen as distinct from time, nonlocality applies across spacetime.


It means past present and future are one. But that doesn't mean that we know the future, doesn't mean that we have to resign ourselves to not trying to "change" things. That's just a deterministic misunderstanding.

If the past, present, and future are one then it would mean all those things. If it’s entirely deterministic then it’s set already and there’s no reason to try and change anything. You even air quoted change.

That's the misunderstanding.

It doesn’t seem so. If you’re arguing it’s all one then my conclusion is what follows.

Also while Einstein did show space and time are linked to each other I don’t think it means that the past and future are one not that everything happening already happened. It sounds like it’s just you thinking that.

[Darkneos]

You know just about nothing about the topic.

I actually do because I’ve talked to people who do this and have degrees in the field.

You’re using observation incorrectly.

No one knows what observation means. That's why we have interpretations, and I think it's likely that all of the current ones are wrong. Duh

They do, like I told you. You can think whatever you like but you’re just wrong on this one.

Observation meaning consciousness is what new agers think. Like I said, talk to people who do this.

[Atla]

I actually do because I’ve talked to people who do this and have degrees in the field.

You’re using observation incorrectly.

No one knows what observation means. That's why we have interpretations, and I think it's likely that all of the current ones are wrong. Duh

They do, like I told you. You can think whatever you like but you’re just wrong on this one.

Observation meaning consciousness is what new agers think. Like I said, talk to people who do this.

At least you could know that consciousness isn't the only alternative to interaction.

[Darkneos]

No one knows what observation means. That's why we have interpretations, and I think it's likely that all of the current ones are wrong. Duh

They do, like I told you. You can think whatever you like but you’re just wrong on this one.

Observation meaning consciousness is what new agers think. Like I said, talk to people who do this.

At least you could know that consciousness isn't the only alternative to interaction.

Interaction is interaction, that’s what I mean. But people think observation and just assume consciousness.

[Atla]

They do, like I told you. You can think whatever you like but you’re just wrong on this one.

Observation meaning consciousness is what new agers think. Like I said, talk to people who do this.

At least you could know that consciousness isn't the only alternative to interaction.

Interaction is interaction, that’s what I mean. But people think observation and just assume consciousness.

Fine

You use the double-slit to observe a particle. You interact with it. Do you collapse the particle's wavefunction or does the particle collapse your wavefunction or what is going on?

[Darkneos]

At least you could know that consciousness isn't the only alternative to interaction.

Interaction is interaction, that’s what I mean. But people think observation and just assume consciousness.

Fine

You use the double-slit to observe a particle. You interact with it. Do you collapse the particle's wavefunction or does the particle collapse your wavefunction or what is going on?

Without a degree I can’t give a solid answer.

Though citing the double-slit in this case is in error. That was just to demonstrate wave particule duality (though allegedly now some are arguing it’s all just waves).

Also at the macro level where we reside there is interference from several factors so the particle wouldn’t be collapsing anything. Collapse works within a closed system like a lab.

[Atla]

Interaction is interaction, that’s what I mean. But people think observation and just assume consciousness.

Fine

You use the double-slit to observe a particle. You interact with it. Do you collapse the particle's wavefunction or does the particle collapse your wavefunction or what is going on?

Without a degree I can’t give a solid answer.

Though citing the double-slit in this case is in error. That was just to demonstrate wave particule duality (though allegedly now some are arguing it’s all just waves).

Also at the macro level where we reside there is interference from several factors so the particle wouldn’t be collapsing anything. Collapse works within a closed system like a lab.

But you know without a degree that people (with degrees) who came up with all the alternative interpretations, were just deluded?