Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not personally seeing in those words any explicit or implicit disagreement with what I've said, nor any sort of confirmation that the physicists who I've listened to are misleading me because they don't know better.

[Darkneos]

Because of these words:

That's because you've been mislead by people who themselves didn't know any better

I only think measurement means that because I've been misled by people who don't know better, that's what that says. And the people who do know better are the ones I'm apparently ignoring.

You've been told by some physicists what a measurement is. Even though physicists and philosophers who know better, of course know that no one knows the answer to that one for sure.

Maaaybe it's some kind of interaction, maybe not. Personally I think it would have to be some kind of asymmetric interaction which is sort of an oxymoron, but that's just my a guess.

Anyway, I'll just copy-paste stuff from Wiki and ChatGPT about how it's "definitely" interaction, and leave it at that.

Despite the consensus among scientists that quantum physics is in practice a successful theory, disagreements persist on a more philosophical level. Many debates in the area known as quantum foundations concern the role of measurement in quantum mechanics. Recurring questions include which interpretation of probability theory is best suited for the probabilities calculated from the Born rule; and whether the apparent randomness of quantum measurement outcomes is fundamental, or a consequence of a deeper deterministic process.[61][62][63] Worldviews that present answers to questions like these are known as "interpretations" of quantum mechanics; as the physicist N. David Mermin once quipped, "New interpretations appear every year. None ever disappear."[64]

A central concern within quantum foundations is the "quantum measurement problem," though how this problem is delimited, and whether it should be counted as one question or multiple separate issues, are contested topics.[54][65] Of primary interest is the seeming disparity between apparently distinct types of time evolution. Von Neumann declared that quantum mechanics contains "two fundamentally different types" of quantum-state change.[66]: §V.1  First, there are those changes involving a measurement process, and second, there is unitary time evolution in the absence of measurement. The former is stochastic and discontinuous, writes von Neumann, and the latter deterministic and continuous. This dichotomy has set the tone for much later debate.[67][68] Some interpretations of quantum mechanics find the reliance upon two different types of time evolution distasteful and regard the ambiguity of when to invoke one or the other as a deficiency of the way quantum theory was historically presented.[69] To bolster these interpretations, their proponents have worked to derive ways of regarding "measurement" as a secondary concept and deducing the seemingly stochastic effect of measurement processes as approximations to more fundamental deterministic dynamics. However, consensus has not been achieved among proponents of the correct way to implement this program, and in particular how to justify the use of the Born rule to calculate probabilities.[70][71] Other interpretations regard quantum states as statistical information about quantum systems, thus asserting that abrupt and discontinuous changes of quantum states are not problematic, simply reflecting updates of the available information.[53][72] Of this line of thought, Bell asked, "Whose information? Information about what?"[69] Answers to these questions vary among proponents of the informationally-oriented interpretations.[62][72]

In quantum physics, measurements play a fundamental role in determining the properties of quantum systems. However, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics is quite different from classical physics.

In classical physics, measurements are typically thought of as processes that reveal preexisting properties of an object. For example, when measuring the position of a classical particle, the measurement simply provides information about its location.

In quantum physics, measurements are inherently probabilistic and can cause a quantum system to undergo a fundamental change. When a measurement is made on a quantum system, it "collapses" the system's wavefunction, which represents the probability distribution of its possible states, into a specific state.

The outcome of a quantum measurement is not determined with certainty but is rather described by probabilities. The measurement result corresponds to an eigenvalue of the operator associated with the observable being measured. The probability of obtaining a particular outcome is given by the squared magnitude of the corresponding eigenvector's projection onto the system's wavefunction.

The act of measurement in quantum mechanics is often described as an interaction between the quantum system being measured and the measuring apparatus. This interaction introduces a level of uncertainty and can disturb the system being measured, particularly when precise measurements are made. This effect is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

It's important to note that the interpretation and understanding of measurements in quantum mechanics have been the subject of extensive discussion and debate among physicists. Different interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, and others, offer different perspectives on the nature of quantum measurements.

Almost threw it out because you used Chat GPT.

That said this is a whole lot of nothing that still doesn’t support your point.

Like I said, observation when it comes to QM is just interaction with the system. What is that interaction means and its impact is up for debate but what it IS is settled.

And like I already said interpretations are just our attempts to explain the math, which is very much settled.

You could also link the page too instead of just quoting it. Doesn’t seem philosophy has much to say on QM which makes sense given how intensive of a math field it is.

[Atla]

Oh I think I get it now. They are saying that an interaction with a quantum system is an interaction with a quantum system, and the whole "collapse" part went over their heads. Yes an interaction is an interaction.

[Darkneos]

No, that’s just what the term observation means when used in QM. Any interaction with the system. These interactions collapse the wave function.

Again this isn’t that hard

[Atla]

Woooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Darkneos]

Woooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yeah I’m just gonna write this off as you not wanting to understand.

You’re good at philosophy, science…not so much.

[Skepdick]

All talk, that’s all you are.

Just like your nihilism stunt in my other thread.

What else (other than talk) would you like me to be on an internet forum?

Do you want me to do summersaults while juggling hedgehogs?

[Darkneos]

All talk, that’s all you are.

Just like your nihilism stunt in my other thread.

What else (other than talk) would you like me to be on an internet forum?

Do you want me to do summersaults while juggling hedgehogs?

*static*

Hmm, must be a bug in the thread.

[Skepdick]

All talk, that’s all you are.

Just like your nihilism stunt in my other thread.

What else (other than talk) would you like me to be on an internet forum?

Do you want me to do summersaults while juggling hedgehogs?

*static*

Hmm, must be a bug in the thread.

Seems your receiver is broken.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=649133 time=1686968943 user_id=7896]
Philosophical Realism deny the existence of moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

[list][b]Philosophical Realism[/b] ....... is the view that a certain kind of thing (like numbers, morality, or the physical world) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism[/list]

There is an inherent evolutionary default of external-ness or mind-independence critical for basic survival.
But Philosophical Realists cling to this default as a dogmatic ideology as the [b]most real[/b] which is absurd and illusory.
Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION as really real in reality.

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

[list]1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].[/list]

Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?
[/quote]

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. All things exist as a pattern in a mind and have a neural correlate. Whether they have a physical referent is a separate question.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting that you call your approach anti philosophical.

He responds that he meant anti-philosophical realism. I pointed out what this would mean to a native speaker. He ignored that. A realism that is anti-philosophical. There certainly are realisms out there like that, though they won't call it a realism, those who have it. They'd say it's just common sense and the like.

[Flannel Jesus]

We all misspeak and make typos sometimes. This particular miscommunication was a bit... poetic, but we gotta be charitable with our anti realistic brother.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism deny the existence of moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective.

• Philosophical Realism ....... is the view that a certain kind of thing (like numbers, morality, or the physical world) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

There is an inherent evolutionary default of external-ness or mind-independence critical for basic survival.
But Philosophical Realists cling to this default as a dogmatic ideology as the most real which is absurd and illusory.
Philosophical realists are insisting in taking an ASSUMPTION as really real in reality.

Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

• 1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.
  
  2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.
  
  3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.
  
  4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].

Therefore, Philosophical Realism which claim reality [things in reality] is mind-independent is absurd.

Views?

Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. All things exist as a pattern in a mind and have a neural correlate. Whether they have a physical referent is a separate question.

All terms within a language is subject to 'meaning indeterminacy"

• In linguistics and literary studies, the term indeterminacy refers to the instability of meaning, the uncertainty of reference, and the variations in interpretations of grammatical forms and categories in any natural language.
  As David A. Swinney has observed, "Indeterminacy exists at essentially every descriptive level of word, sentence, and discourse analysis" (Understanding Word and Sentence, 1991).
  https://www.thoughtco.com/indeterminacy ... rm-1691054

In my case, what is mind is this typical meaning;

• The mind (adjective form: mental) is that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses, or is the set of faculties responsible for such phenomena.[2][3][4]
  The mind is also associated with experiencing perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, and emotion.
  The mind can include conscious and non-conscious states as well as sensory and non-sensory experiences.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

The above mind [as defined] can be reducible to its neural correlates which are neurons in action within a process which is its physical referent.
Surely it is undeniable all neural activities are reducible to their physical neurons as the physical referent?

What is physical [nothing to do with physicalism] is that which can be verified and justified via Physics and other sciences.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no certainty that every human [>8 billion at present] on Earth realized, perceived and know the same physical object-X when presented what is supposed to be object-X.

Since all humans are unique down to their DNA, genes, psychological states, it is likely the there will be >8 billion versions of what is deemed to be object-X.

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities [e.g. due to different psychological states] in the realization of object-X.

For example, if there is a piece of rope under the shade, from a distance the majority may realized it as snake.
If the people sampled were of different psychological states and mental states, it is likely there will a wide realizations and perception of object-X.

As such to ensure credibility and objectivity of the variations of realization and perception of object X under various conditions we have to identify and specify the human-based FSK that is grounded upon; the most credible FSK at present is the science-FSK.

Because we inevitably ground our reality to the human-based FSK, it follows deductively, whatever the resultant reality that is realized and perceived subsequently is conditioned to the human-body-brain-mind [human-based].
What is reality as realized via the human-based FSKS CANNOT be absolute independent of the human-body-brain-mind

As such, Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent is absurd, illusory and nonsensical.

So far, no one has shown proof Philosophical Realism which claim reality and things are absolutely mind-independent is true and real.

Again. I didn't get a response to my response to this. I am not claiming that the objects are exactly the same objects. We can black box that. I am saying we will get the same lists of the kinds of objects.
Why would there be such consistancy?
Again: why do we keep finding the same things in rooms we enter.

Sure, we can't prove that those are the exact same things. But that's not the point. Why could we get everyone on PN to walk into a room with a pad and pen, and make a list of what's in there and there would be time and again, if common objects were put in that room, would all these different minds find the same list of objects.

It's peachy if there are not actually the same toaster and spoon and bed (with the same color sheets and same size). Why would they all come out with so much consistancy of objects?

You've posted images of the quantum foam before perception. You have the undfferentiated quantum foam when no one is in the room. You have different minds with different pasts and psychologies and expectations of what they mind find....

And they all come back with nearly the same list of objects regardless of race, age, personal psychology....

Why would that happen?

Why not very different lists from people?

Why aren't we experiencing with great regularity that when rooms are left empty they don't suddenly have new objects in them? Or people experiencing with regularity very different contents to rooms? Or strangers entering a house find very different things in the rooms from what the people living there have listed as the contents/furniture there?

[Flannel Jesus]

What does objectivity even mean to someone who doesn't believe the rope is real? Objective with respect to what?