Philosophical Realism – ... is the view that a certain kind of thing ( 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.
As such, they are all philosophical realists.
There is nothing 'philosophical' with philosophical realism because philosophical realism is an IDEOLOGY grounded on an illusion driven from an evolutionary default arising from cognitive dissonances at the related existential crisis.
None of which explains why philosophical realists can't be a moral realists.
This is so basic.
Per intellectual protocol, moral realism is off topic to the above article.
Do objective moral facts exist when no one is looking at them?
What do they look like? (you know, so we know when we are looking at objective moral facts and when we are not)
Are you looking at an objective moral fact right now in the room? at a cafe?
What does it look like?
If you mull those questions a bit - you could take them as Koans - you might realize that given most humans are realists - they think the furniture in their kitchen is still there when no one is in the kitchen looking at it - and moral realists - they think some things are wrong, period, or evil, period
AND there is nothing strange about this. Both positions allow them to believe in things that are not directly seen. It's not odd or inconsistant. And it sure is common, the commonest.
But if you want to declare realists all moral antirealists and eliminate the possibility that they might align with you on some issues, you go ahead.
Over the years I have seen you learn things and get better at expressing your views. The last 6 months...you've gotten less coherent and seem to dig in on positions that don't even help you, let alone make the slightest sense.
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 5:26 am
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.
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 future already happened and stuff is playing out then there really wouldn't be a point in living since everything is already known and determined. I think you're the one with a misunderstanding as that's the only place determinism leads ultimately, fatalism.
Though from what I've learned you are incorrect in what nonlocality is saying, it says nothing about macroscopic objects and it doesn't say that all the events in the universe have already happened. This is misunderstanding what nonlocality is.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 3:17 am
If the future already happened and stuff is playing out then there really wouldn't be a point in living since everything is already known and determined. I think you're the one with a misunderstanding as that's the only place determinism leads ultimately, fatalism.
Though from what I've learned you are incorrect in what nonlocality is saying, it says nothing about macroscopic objects and it doesn't say that all the events in the universe have already happened. This is misunderstanding what nonlocality is.
Again, we don't already know the future, but that's just the plain old determinisim debate. And if the "'universal wavefunction" is extradimensional which according to my interpretation it is by definiton, then from an everyday human point of view, it can seem possible that we could to some degree influence in the "present" what the unestablished (uncollapsed) "past and future" turn out to be like as long they are consistent with the established "past and future". For all practical purposes, there might be some degree of human freedom, but no one really knows.
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides when faced with the inability to make complete sense of QM.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:20 am
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides when faced with the inability to make complete sense of QM.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:20 am
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides when faced with the inability to make complete sense of QM.
I wouldn't celebrate just yet, the circumstances in which they did it were under extremely controlled settings so this doesn't really prove much at all, it's also just one experiment so it doesn't mean much. Even then the distance was pretty short and it still says nothing regarding the time or events happening that you mentioned. You can't mix philosophy and physics.
Also doesn't mean all quantum phenomenon will be applicable at macroscopic levels. I'm also skeptical of the site publishing it, seems rather clickbaity.
It's also not really relevant to my broader about about the point of living.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 3:17 am
If the future already happened and stuff is playing out then there really wouldn't be a point in living since everything is already known and determined. I think you're the one with a misunderstanding as that's the only place determinism leads ultimately, fatalism.
Though from what I've learned you are incorrect in what nonlocality is saying, it says nothing about macroscopic objects and it doesn't say that all the events in the universe have already happened. This is misunderstanding what nonlocality is.
Again, we don't already know the future, but that's just the plain old determinisim debate. And if the "'universal wavefunction" is extradimensional which according to my interpretation it is by definiton, then from an everyday human point of view, it can seem possible that we could to some degree influence in the "present" what the unestablished (uncollapsed) "past and future" turn out to be like as long they are consistent with the established "past and future". For all practical purposes, there might be some degree of human freedom, but no one really knows.
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides when faced with the inability to make complete sense of QM.
Macroscopic isn't something they pulled out of their butts it's something that is actual in QM and I highly doubt you have a degree to be able to say otherwise.
Again, nothing about it says that events have already happened. Universal wave function is only a part of the many-worlds interpretation, which isn't really widely accepted as true. Even then the many worlds interpretation still doesn't support what you are claiming which just leads me to think you don't know what you're talking about. It says nothing about past, present or future. From what I can tell his version says that time does not "flow" meaning all this stuff isn't one, there is no future or past or even present. It's certainly weird. Even then it's still just one interpretation not really a fact.
You still wouldn't be able to influence or change the past though, that's not what he's saying with Many Worlds.
Like...literally no one is saying what you're saying, I asked. I also have severe doubts you're getting what you're reading right.
Last edited by Darkneos on Mon Jul 24, 2023 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 3:17 am
If the future already happened and stuff is playing out then there really wouldn't be a point in living since everything is already known and determined. I think you're the one with a misunderstanding as that's the only place determinism leads ultimately, fatalism.
Though from what I've learned you are incorrect in what nonlocality is saying, it says nothing about macroscopic objects and it doesn't say that all the events in the universe have already happened. This is misunderstanding what nonlocality is.
Again, we don't already know the future, but that's just the plain old determinisim debate. And if the "'universal wavefunction" is extradimensional which according to my interpretation it is by definiton, then from an everyday human point of view, it can seem possible that we could to some degree influence in the "present" what the unestablished (uncollapsed) "past and future" turn out to be like as long they are consistent with the established "past and future". For all practical purposes, there might be some degree of human freedom, but no one really knows.
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides
Darkneous wrote:
Macroscopic isn't something they pulled out of their butts it's something that is actual in QM and I highly doubt you have a degree to be able to say otherwise.
Like...literally no one is saying what you're saying, I asked. I also have severe doubts you're getting what you're reading right.
That is typical with Atla [an Ultracrepidarian] who is often very arrogant but actually very ignorant of the topic discussed.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 3:17 am
If the future already happened and stuff is playing out then there really wouldn't be a point in living since everything is already known and determined. I think you're the one with a misunderstanding as that's the only place determinism leads ultimately, fatalism.
Though from what I've learned you are incorrect in what nonlocality is saying, it says nothing about macroscopic objects and it doesn't say that all the events in the universe have already happened. This is misunderstanding what nonlocality is.
Again, we don't already know the future, but that's just the plain old determinisim debate. And if the "'universal wavefunction" is extradimensional which according to my interpretation it is by definiton, then from an everyday human point of view, it can seem possible that we could to some degree influence in the "present" what the unestablished (uncollapsed) "past and future" turn out to be like as long they are consistent with the established "past and future". For all practical purposes, there might be some degree of human freedom, but no one really knows.
And again, "macroscopic" is just something instrumentalists pulled out of their backsides
Darkneous wrote:
Macroscopic isn't something they pulled out of their butts it's something that is actual in QM and I highly doubt you have a degree to be able to say otherwise.
Like...literally no one is saying what you're saying, I asked. I also have severe doubts you're getting what you're reading right.
That is typical with Atla [an Ultracrepidarian] who is often very arrogant but actually very ignorant of the topic discussed.
No, it's just the Dunning-Kruger VA who simply lacks the intelligence to comprehend the issues being discussed.
Darkneos wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:52 am
Macroscopic isn't something they pulled out of their butts it's something that is actual in QM and I highly doubt you have a degree to be able to say otherwise.
Dude why don't you just try to support your belief with actual scientific evidence for once. WHERE, HOW is the world actually divided into "microscopic" and "macroscopic"?
Again, nothing about it says that events have already happened. Universal wave function is only a part of the many-worlds interpretation, which isn't really widely accepted as true. Even then the many worlds interpretation still doesn't support what you are claiming which just leads me to think you don't know what you're talking about. It says nothing about past, present or future. From what I can tell his version says that time does not "flow" meaning all this stuff isn't one, there is no future or past or even present. It's certainly weird. Even then it's still just one interpretation not really a fact.
You still wouldn't be able to influence or change the past though, that's not what he's saying with Many Worlds.
I neither said "events have already happened" in this discussion as that would be rather misleading, nor was I specifically talking about the MWI. Which is btw easily top 3 interpretation today.
Like...literally no one is saying what you're saying, I asked. I also have severe doubts you're getting what you're reading right.
Then you are, like, literally lying here. And I'm highly confident that while my understanding of QM may be mediocre, you've no idea what you're talking about.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:29 pm
I neither said "events have already happened" in this discussion as that would be rather misleading, nor was I specifically talking about the MWI. Which is btw easily top 3 interpretation today.
I was surprised to see that a majority of qm cosmologists believe MWI is the case. I knew it was on the table, but didn't expect it to have so many adherents.
Do objective moral facts exist when no one is looking at them?
What do they look like? (you know, so we know when we are looking at objective moral facts and when we are not)
Are you're looking at an objective moral fact right now in the room? at a cafe?
What does it look like?
If you mull those questions a bit - you could take them as Koans - you might realize that given most humans are realists - they think the furniture in their kitchen is still there when no one is in the kitchen looking at it - and moral realists - they think some things are wrong, period, or evil, period
AND there is nothing strange about this combination. Both positions allow them to believe in things that are not directly seen. It's not odd or inconsistant. And it sure is common, the commonest.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:29 pm
I neither said "events have already happened" in this discussion as that would be rather misleading, nor was I specifically talking about the MWI. Which is btw easily top 3 interpretation today.
I was surprised to see that a majority of qm cosmologists believe MWI is the case. I knew it was on the table, but didn't expect it to have so many adherents.
Why not? Most scientists are realists, and when we take QM literally, as a totally real thing, imo we probably end up with an extradimensional framework. The MWI imo was the first, rather inept attempt at an extradimensional interpretation, but it's often associated with nonsense like splitting universes and locality.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:38 pm
Why not? Most scientists are realists, and when we take QM literally, as a totally real thing, imo we probably end up with an extradimensional framework. The MWI imo was the first, rather inept attempt at an extradimensional interpretation, but it's often associated with nonsense like splitting universes and locality.
I thought the main motivation was that it preserved determinism.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 1:38 pm
Why not? Most scientists are realists, and when we take QM literally, as a totally real thing, imo we probably end up with an extradimensional framework. The MWI imo was the first, rather inept attempt at an extradimensional interpretation, but it's often associated with nonsense like splitting universes and locality.
I thought the main motivation was that it preserved determinism.
I don't know.. the pilot wave theory also seems to be deterministic but it never became mainstream. But deterministic theories are obviously favoured over indeterministic ones.