Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Flannel Jesus]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

I think you just discovered the secret to human immortality

There's already an "objective fsk" like that, and funnily enough you got the name right: The Secret

https://www.thesecret.tv/

[Iwannaplato]

Within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the science-biology FSK.

We're talking about the apple. Why does an apple that does not exist continue to age. You said the Moon does not exist if no one is looking at it. The apple would be the same and also, much easier to make sure no one looks at it. How can something that does not exist age?

I do appreciate the simplified experiment, now that I know that in some instances things do continue to exist when not looked at.

And why would someone entering the room later find an apple in the box?
What is it that allows that first perception to continue.

According to your interpretation of the physics FSK
1) I place an apple in the box and close the box.
2) No one can see the apple the apple does not exist
3) One month later someone else comes. I do not tell them what is in the box.
4) They find a mouldy mushy apple
5) Why? What leads to the continuity of the apple - there was nothing there and an apple appears. Why not something else from nothing?

We wait one month, get a new person to look in the box. Why do they see an old rotten apple?

As above, within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the human based science-biology FSK.

So the biology FSK overrides the physics FSK and the apple exists when no one is looking at it?????

Aren't apples made up of the same particles that the moon is?

Why doesn't your interpretation of the physics FSK apply to apples? What other things continue to exist when we are not looking? Because if you look at, say, the biology fsk, they describe ongoing processes in organic matter. Which means stuff is happening according to that FSK when we aren't looking?

And the same would be true for inorganic compounds that are unstable: a jar with liquid nitrogen in it. After a month the nitrogen will be evaporated and the apply will be rotten.

But organic and inorganic things (including the Moon) according to those FSKs continue to exist when we are not looking?

But both organic and inorganic things are things and these are not supposed to exist if we are not looking at them. Why doesn't the physics FSK apple?

And if it does apply what does it apply for if not organic and inorganic matter?

The reality is there is no mind-independent apple that changes in time as the philosophical realists will claim within their dogmatic ideology.

The reality of all the above actions is they are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, thus it follows deductively, those reality cannot be absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are insisting.

Look, there are two phenomena you are not explaining.
1) why there is consistancy over time
2) why there is consistancy between people.

And you do not have to give up antirealism to explain these, but your explanations do not make sense. You can't jump to realist FSR's to explain things when it is convenient. There are antirealist answers to my questions, but you are not providing them.

I have two boxes in a room. I put an apple in one and comb in the other box.
I leave the room and lock it.
One month later I ask someone to go in the room.

During the time when the room was locked and the boxes closed, no one looked in there.
According to your antirealism, the comb and the pear do not exist during that time.
Why when someone else opens the case do a pear and comb appear in the right boxes?
There was nothing there. No pearness. No combness. But they see what I saw when I put them in. At least, they would use the same word to label the two things. Wny?

Why did those precise two items arise out of nothingness?

You cannot jump to other FSKs to justify this.

Unless you are saying that apples DO still exist when we don't look at them. And combs DO still exist when we don't look at them.

So, why is this consistancy over time.

I know what you think about p-realism, so there is no need to bring that up. It has nothing to do with what I am asking you about.

[Atla]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

I think you just discovered the secret to human immortality

There's already an "objective fsk" like that, and funnily enough you got the name right: The Secret

https://www.thesecret.tv/

Manifesting stuff using the Law of Attraction sounds like hard work to me. I don't like hard work. I like VA's approach more where we just pick a pen and paper, and write down what our FSK does, and bam we're immortal.

[Iwannaplato]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

I know you are focusing on the more general: all FSK's are objective regardless issue.
But what stood out for me was that the biological FSK overrides the Physics FSK. Why does the biological FSK override the physics one?
So I introduced liquid nitrogen to my boxes. One has the apple, the other box has liquid nitrogen in a jar.
After a month the apple is rotten, because of the biological FSK, and the nitrogen has evaporated, presumably because of the chemistry FSK.
So, we have organic substances (matter) and inorganic substances (matter) both continuing to exist when not looked at because of realist FSKs.

So, one has to wonder where antirealism comes in. Not with organic substances and not with inorganic.
Both continue to exist despite not being seen.

So, I don't know why other things stop existing when not seen: like the Moon (inorganic matter).

Also, why does my having seen the apple a month ago lead the other person to find an apple after a month. The apple did not exist during that month, so why would appleness appear in the box?

IOW the issue I raised in our private messages about why different minds would experience the same things is now getting raised.

I would guess that VA thinks I am simply attacking antirealism. But actually I am trying to get him to see the problems with his version of antirealism so far.

[Veritas Aequitas]

OK, so it stays an apple, even when no one is looking in the box.
That's realism.
The particles there retain the imprint of appleness.
Not philosophical realism but rather empirical realism [Kantian].

To invoke philosophical realism is absurd and illusory as explained in the OP.

The particles do not retain the imprint of appleness; appleness is within the human-based science-biology FSK.

The apple does not exist when on one is looking at it.
How does something that does not exist age? And why would it?

Within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the science-biology FSK.

We wait one month, get a new person to look in the box. Why do they see an old rotten apple?
As above, within the science-biology FSK, biological things has a life-cycle in time.
That the apple ages is in alignment with the principles within the human based science-biology FSK.

The reality is there is no mind-independent apple that changes in time as the philosophical realists will claim within their dogmatic ideology.

The reality of all the above actions is they are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, thus it follows deductively, those reality cannot be absolute mind-independent as the p-realists are insisting.

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

Yes, but Only a big IF; there is no way the current science-biology FSK will agree to that condition in time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a repeat of the following critical points I raised;
viewtopic.php?p=654498#p654498
I suggest p-realists to read and understand [not necessary agree with] the points thoroughly.

This is the confusions from the rigid dogmatic hardcore philosophical realists;
There are many types of realists and many types of anti-realists.
Also an anti-realist can also be a realist in certain context.
A Kantian anti-realist is also an empirical realist.
However, ultimately, empirical-realism is subsumed within Kantian-anti-realism.

The Transcendental Idealist [anti-philosophical_realist] is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.
CPR A371

see also:
A Realist is also an Idealist [anti-realist] in different contexts
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

Note also;
Reality as conditioned within a human-based FSK comes in various perspectives, i.e.
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian, biology
3. QM sense.

Thus for a Kantian, the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism
while in the QM sense, it is realized with the anti-philosophical_realism perspective.

In the case of the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns listing things in a room, that is done within the common and conventional sense not QM.
In this case, what is relevant to the Kantian would be empirical realism.
Thus what is listed can be empirically verified and justified as real within the science-FSK.

The p-realists will list the same things in the room, but the difference is the p-realist adopt their listing within the hardcore ideology of philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

On the other hand, the Kantians empirical realists will list those things and recognize them as merely relatively mind-independent subject and subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [anti-PhilosophicalRealism].

Re "quantum soup" of particles and quarks, the p-realists will insist on the absolute mind-independent ideology while the anti-p-realist do not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I note the whole hoo-ha raised is based on strawman and conflation of principles.

Note the above principles;
viewtopic.php?p=654773#p654773


We're talking about the apple. Why does an apple that does not exist continue to age.
You said the Moon does not exist if no one is looking at it.
The apple would be the same and also, much easier to make sure no one looks at it.
How can something that does not exist age?

For a Kantian, there are various perspectives of reality with its respective FSR-FSK;
1. the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism [& anti-philosophical_realism]
2. while in the QM sense, it is realized with ONLY the anti-philosophical_realism perspective.
(there are three senses, but I will lump them into 2 for convenience)

As such a Kantian will have two competences [hats, perspectives] at his disposal where he can toggle between the two perspectives and apply them where applicable.
These two perspectives cannot be conflated.

When a Kantian [anti-p_realist] look at an apple directly or supposedly is in a box, it will depend on what perspective is applicable or necessary.

1. the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism [& anti-philosophical_realism]
Within this perspective, the Kant anti-p-realist will view all things based on common sense or empirically justifiable within a science-FSK as within a mind-independent external world, but not ideologically and dogmatically like the p-realists.
Within this perspective, the apple whether outside the box or inside the box will age in time in accordance to the common sense and science-biological FSK.

The QM sense
In the QM sense, the Kantian anti-p_realist do not view things as mind-independent but rather rely on the principles of Wave Function Collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
where whatever is there it can either be a particle or a wave.
With this principle, the apple do not exists until it is "observed" or interact with the human conditions.
There is no question of aging in this case but merely in terms of the states of that dense bundle of particle/wave of the supposedly 'apple'.

The science-biology FSK do not overrides the science-physics-QM FSK.
Rather each FSK must be used and qualified depending on which perspective of reality is focused on.

The problem with the philosophical realist view is that there is only one view, i.e. reality and things as fixed and are absolutely mind-independent held dogmatically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would guess that VA thinks I am simply attacking antirealism. But actually I am trying to get him to see the problems with his version of antirealism so far.

From the above explanation, there is no problem with my version of anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian].
The term anti-realism is often associated with my views, which can be very misleading especially when dealing the more refined aspects of reality.

Philosophical Realism is an ideology like say, communism.
To be specific, my version is ANTI-philosophical_realism (philosophical realism as an ideology) i.e. against philosophical_realism.

My version of anti-philosophical_realism is similar [not exactly] to Kantian Empirical_Realism subsumed with Transcendental_Idealism thus relative to the appropriate version of reality within the specific human-based FSK.

[Flannel Jesus]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

Yes, but Only a big IF; there is no way the current science-biology FSK will agree to that condition in time.

Lmao okay. This point of view is clearly inconsistent with how science has worked in the past, so I don't know why you think science is on your side lmao. No amount of people agreeing made astrology true, why would any amount of people agreeing make "the apple doesn't age" true?

Your model of reality (or non reality) in fact does not match what the FSKs you revere actually say.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So I introduced ...... to my boxes. One has the apple, the other box has ......
After a month the apple is rotten, because of the biological FSK,..........

Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are mind-independent to the extent the moon pre-existed humans and will exist after humans are extinct.

In the case of the apple in the box, to the philosophical realists, what is the real mind independent apple in the box?

1. The apple has a life cycle and will age and thus changes every nano-second.
Is there a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second in space.
It cannot be that there is a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second t because time and space are not mind-independent.
Thus it follows deductive, the resultant reality of the apple cannot be mind-independent.

2. Is the p-realists' mind-independent the real apple that specific dense bundle of either particles or waves.
But particle or waves moves a light speed in an out of that dense bundle of particles/waves.
Is there a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second in space.
It cannot be that there is a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second t because time and space are not mind-independent.
Thus it follows deductive, the resultant reality of the apple cannot be mind-independent.

3. What is the supposed p-realist real mind-independent apple also rely on the Wave Function Collapse which is dependent on measurement by observers [minds] looking at that apple.
Because observer are implicated in this sense of reality, there cannot be a mind-independent apple.

From 1, 2 and 3, the claim of philosophical realists that there is a mind-independent is absurd, philosophical realism is absurd.

On the other hand, anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian] is realistic because what is real is conditioned upon the specific human-based FSKs, i.e. in the case of 1, it is the science-biological FSK and 2 and 3, the science-physics-QM FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So if the biology fsk decided that the apple didn't age, then it wouldn't

Yes, but Only a big IF; there is no way the current science-biology FSK will agree to that condition in time.

Lmao okay. This point of view is clearly inconsistent with how science has worked in the past, so I don't know why you think science is on your side lmao. No amount of people agreeing made astrology true, why would any amount of people agreeing make "the apple doesn't age" true?

Your model of reality (or non reality) in fact does not match what the FSKs you revere actually say.

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

[Atla]

It cannot be that there is a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second t because time and space are not mind-independent.

They are mind-independent, according to the science-FSK. This view was scientifically proven 100% of the time. Now what.

VA had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

[Iwannaplato]

Here is a repeat of the following critical points I raised;
viewtopic.php?p=654498#p654498
I suggest p-realists to read and understand [not necessary agree with] the points thoroughly.

This is the confusions from the rigid dogmatic hardcore philosophical realists;
There are many types of realists and many types of anti-realists.
Also an anti-realist can also be a realist in certain context.
A Kantian anti-realist is also an empirical realist.
However, ultimately, empirical-realism is subsumed within Kantian-anti-realism.

The Transcendental Idealist [anti-philosophical_realist] is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.
CPR A371

see also:
A Realist is also an Idealist [anti-realist] in different contexts
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32913

Note also;
Reality as conditioned within a human-based FSK comes in various perspectives, i.e.
1. Common Sense
2. Conventional Sense -e.g. Newtonian, Einsteinian, biology
3. QM sense.

Thus for a Kantian, the common and conventional sense are realized within empirical-realism
while in the QM sense, it is realized with the anti-philosophical_realism perspective.

In the case of the 100 non-mentally ill Westerns listing things in a room, that is done within the common and conventional sense not QM.
In this case, what is relevant to the Kantian would be empirical realism.
Thus what is listed can be empirically verified and justified as real within the science-FSK.

The p-realists will list the same things in the room, but the difference is the p-realist adopt their listing within the hardcore ideology of philosophical realism with absolute mind-independence.

On the other hand, the Kantians empirical realists will list those things and recognize them as merely relatively mind-independent subject and subsumed within Transcendental Idealism [anti-PhilosophicalRealism].

Re "quantum soup" of particles and quarks, the p-realists will insist on the absolute mind-independent ideology while the anti-p-realist do not.

And nowhere do you address the main issue I raised as to why for an 'anti-philosophical realist' those objects sustain their presence over time. Since the objects do not exist when they are not looked at, why do the same objects (same type of object) return to the boxes?

Nothing you say above is a response to this main issue.

You mostly complain and judge realists. I understand the main realisms. I don't need to know what you think realists think, nor do I need to know your position on their position. I am asking you about your position.

And nowhere do you explain why the objects, after not existing, arise again for the next person who looks.

[Iwannaplato]

So I introduced ...... to my boxes. One has the apple, the other box has ......
After a month the apple is rotten, because of the biological FSK,..........

Philosophical Realism claims reality and things are mind-independent to the extent the moon pre-existed humans and will exist after humans are extinct.

Stop telling me about realism.

In the case of the apple in the box, to the philosophical realists, what is the real mind independent apple in the box?

1. The apple has a life cycle and will age and thus changes every nano-second.
Is there a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second in space.
It cannot be that there is a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second t because time and space are not mind-independent.
Thus it follows deductive, the resultant reality of the apple cannot be mind-independent.

So you are criticizing realism, without explaining your own position.

2. Is the p-realists' mind-independent the real apple that specific dense bundle of either particles or waves.
But particle or waves moves a light speed in an out of that dense bundle of particles/waves.
Is there a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second in space.
It cannot be that there is a real mind-independent apple at every nano-second t because time and space are not mind-independent.
Thus it follows deductive, the resultant reality of the apple cannot be mind-independent.

And still no explanation of why the apple ages, or the jar that had liquid nitrogen is now empty. Why the same objects (or type of object) appears for the next person.

3. What is the supposed p-realist real mind-independent apple also rely on the Wave Function Collapse which is dependent on measurement by observers [minds] looking at that apple.
Because observer are implicated in this sense of reality, there cannot be a mind-independent apple.

From 1, 2 and 3, the claim of philosophical realists that there is a mind-independent is absurd, philosophical realism is absurd.

I am going to explain something very basic about claims.
Person A claims X.
Person B claims Y.

Person A may well argue very well that B's claim is incorrect.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE PERSON A's CLAIM X TRUE.

Nor does it explain what I am asking for an explanation around.

When I ask you why in your view, your anti-philosophical realism why there is continuity of existence with objects in the boxes.

You repeatedly tell me what is wrong with realism. Perhaps realism is wrong and your position is wrong. Perhaps you haven't explained something well about your position. It does not matter the slightest bit, in this context, if philosophical realism is poop. That doesn't explain your anti-philosophical realism's explanation for what seems like continuity.

It's like if I am talking to a Republican and I say their position on X is wrong and they tell me that the Democrats are stupid about Y. It's not relevant.

Maybe there is a third position that is correct. Perhaps there is another non-realism that is correct and both your position and realism are false.

On the other hand, anti-philosophical_realism [Kantian] is realistic because what is real is conditioned upon the specific human-based FSKs, i.e. in the case of 1, it is the science-biological FSK and 2 and 3, the science-physics-QM FSK.

That is not an explanation for why the objects recur. Why they become non-existant and then return.

And I specifically used an inorganic substance, liquid nitrogen. Now for organic substances you refer to the biology FSK, for inorganic perhaps Chemistry or some part of physics FSK, but the Moon is inorganic. You are sure it doesn't exist when not seen.

So the question remains, why do objects placed in boxes return. What makes the same object or the same type arise, again? That object did not exist, then it does, again. Why?

Why doesn't the physics FSR count for things made out of particles?

It does not explain why an organic object continues to exist and an inorganic substance (liquid nitrogen) continues to exist.
It does not explain why there are exceptions to the physics FSR which should govern ALL MATTER AND OBJECTS.
You jump to the biological FSK but the physics FSK would count for all matter, yet suddenly you refer to another FSK. The science Physics FSK governs ALL MATTER. If it doesn't let us know why you think that's the case.

You have not answered the question.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, but Only a big IF; there is no way the current science-biology FSK will agree to that condition in time.

Lmao okay. This point of view is clearly inconsistent with how science has worked in the past, so I don't know why you think science is on your side lmao. No amount of people agreeing made astrology true, why would any amount of people agreeing make "the apple doesn't age" true?

Your model of reality (or non reality) in fact does not match what the FSKs you revere actually say.

I had stated,
The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and Objective at present;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

What Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

So what if you had stated that? I once stated that kfc makes the best chicken. What does stating random things have to do with the post you quoted?