Morality: The Big Bang is not Mind-Independent

[Atla]

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).

You don't know that there's different kinds of information?
You don't know that the particular kind of information QM deals with is quantum information in which the "random" part is implicit?
You don't know that quantum information is a conserved quantity in physics?

You are obviously an idiot, but the details are curious indeed

No relevant objection here from you, looks like you're the idiot.

[Skepdick]

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).

You don't know that there's different kinds of information?
You don't know that the particular kind of information QM deals with is quantum information in which the "random" part is implicit?
You don't know that quantum information is a conserved quantity in physics?

You are obviously an idiot, but the details are curious indeed

No relevant objection here from you, looks like you're the idiot.

You can't even tell that my objection is relevant?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

[Atla]

You don't know that there's different kinds of information?
You don't know that the particular kind of information QM deals with is quantum information in which the "random" part is implicit?
You don't know that quantum information is a conserved quantity in physics?

You are obviously an idiot, but the details are curious indeed

No relevant objection here from you, looks like you're the idiot.

You can't even tell that my objection is relevant?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

No it wasn't. You're talking about some unproven interpretation, and probably misunderstanding even that.

[Skepdick]

No it wasn't. You're talking about some unproven interpretation, and probably misunderstanding even that.

You don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

[Atla]

No it wasn't. You're talking about some unproven interpretation, and probably misunderstanding even that.

You don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

On the contrary, you don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation.

Lmao

[Skepdick]

No it wasn't. You're talking about some unproven interpretation, and probably misunderstanding even that.

You don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

On the contrary, you don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation.

Lmao

I mean, I do. Which is why I am busy pointing out that "proving an interpretation" is a word salad.

Wow. Idiot.

[Atla]

You don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation?!?!?

Wow. Idiot.

On the contrary, you don't even understand the difference between a proof and an interpretation.

Lmao

I mean, I do. Which is why I am busy pointing out that "proving an interpretation" is a word salad.

Wow. Idiot.

Then why did you disagree with me disagreeing with the PROVEN conscious simulation?

XD

What a mothereffing idiot you are

[Skepdick]

Then why did you disagree with me disagreeing with the PROVEN conscious simulation?

Which one? The quantum or classical conscious simulation?

[Atla]

...

My advice to you would be, keep banging your head against a concrete wall until you are cured

[Atla]

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

In context Kant is even less friendly to VA's position because he considered positing noumena as existing as key to morality.

VA's anti-realist arose in response to realist challenges to the existence of objective morals (by PH and others). Somewhere in that interaction, VA saw an opportunity to undermine the entire realist critique of the idea of objective morals by becoming an antirealist. Great, interesting.

But Kant saw positing a noumenal freedom as necessary, or we have no morals at all.

Or maybe philosophy-gnat VA already believed that nothing out there is real, even before he read Kant. And then decided that obviously, that's what Kant must have meant too, which would portray Kant as an idiot imo.
Before that he was into Buddhism I think, which I assume he misunderstood too (for example what it means that all is emptiness). And before that he was into Vedanta I think, which I assume he misunderstood too (for example that all is Maya). But we're not there yet, for now we're still stuck at Kant.

I'm the worst possible opponent for philosophy-gnat VA, I went the opposite route: starting from science, psychology and a culture influenced by Kant, then Buddhism and then Advaita (and then beyond).

[seeds]

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

Further the above Kant quote is not atheistic, it is part of an agnostic position. He's not asserting there is no God, he's concluding that God is beyond the scope of knowledge (if there is a God). He is not ruling out God, one example of a noumenon.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... %20aspects.

His critical analysis of pure reason leads Kant to limit the scope of theoretical, demonstrative knowledge to the phenomenal world, i.e., to the world of sense perception, thereby denying the possibility of metaphysics, and consequently the validity of the traditional proofs for the existence of God – the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments (ibid., b811–25). But while Kant maintains that God, as a supersensuous being, cannot be an object of demonstrative knowledge, he does not claim that God does not exist, or that He is beyond the reach of reason as such.

Of course perhaps Kant is wrong about this. He's one philosopher. But once you put him out there as an authority and use the CPR as the demonstration of truths, you have to eat, also, the things this philosopher baked that you don't like, or you undermine that authority.

And given that Kant is not a gnat, certain insults must be modified.

How dare Atla accuse little V of being an "ultracrepidarian"?

Doesn't he (Atla) realize that little V, after having spent three whole years of privately studying Kant's writings, has unilaterally declared himself as being one of the world's leading experts on Kant?

I mean, come on now guys, forget about ChatGPT, because if you really want to know what Kant truly believed, then from now on you simply need to direct any and all of your questions about Kantian philosophy to - "ChatVA" - who, again, according to his own personal assessment of the worth of his 3 years of reading Kant's writings, has declared himself to be one of the world's leading experts on Kant.

And I say "...one of..." the world's leading experts, because his legendary modesty inhibits him from saying what he really believes.

By the way, noumena truly do exist.

Indeed, I have provided what I suggest is a clear example of a noumenon, several times in other threads, in the form of the noumenal (superpositioned/non-local) status of an electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen of the Double Slit Experiment,...



...for what is taking place in that interim space is something that is obviously "real" yet can only be apprehended by way of the "intellect and intuition" and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

It is the near perfect example of the existence of a noumenon which, according to Wiki,...

"...is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

Unfortunately, "ChatVA's" faulty self-programming has failed to include (encode) some essential fields of information and has thus severely limited the scope and range of his ability to assess the workings of reality.

Therefore, anything he says must be prefaced or pre-qualified with the term: "...with reservations...".

Oh, and one last thing, I strongly suggest that the existence of literally everything...

(be it us, the planet, the universe, morality, etc., etc.)

...is dependent upon mind in one way or another.
_______

[Atla]

I agree with Allison's view within the whole context of Kant's CPR.

This is Allison’s second main characterization of transcendental realism: the assumption that there is a way reality is, independently of a perspective on it (Allison 2004: 48). In the main entry, it is noted that many of Allison’s reconstructions of particular Kantian doctrines and arguments presuppose this conception of transcendental idealism.

...

Secondly, if transcendental idealism is equivalent to the thesis that there is no standpoint independent perspective on reality, Allison owes us a reconstruction of Kant’s argument for that (incredibly strong) thesis. But Allison never gives this argument. The argument from the discursive nature of our intellects to the claim that objects, considered as they are in themselves (abstracting from the specifically spatiotemporal nature of our intuition), is not such an argument. Kant, after all, takes the Critique to establish the truth of transcendental idealism, not merely to assume it.

Looks like the clumsy Allison wasn't up to the task, luckily we have VA here to set things right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

Yes, both Allison and Guyer [each with >50 years full time on Kant] are giants of Kant scholarship, but they both disagree on the fundamental issues. I agree with Allison's view within the whole context of Kant's CPR.

Atla: "Show that he wasn't agnostic, ..."

You the problem here who had not studied Kant thoroughly yet speak as if like a Kantian expert.
It is so obvious, at the end of the CPR, the noumenon -> thing-in-itself is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion. How can it then be a real mind-independent reality?

Note Kant's warning again:

• Kant: If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the Idea of the Whole. CPR Bxliv

Note the case of the Category Imperative related to 'No lying, Period' where the majority interpret it literally which make Kant look very stupid as insisting 'one cannot lie regardless of the condition even to save someone's life'.
But that is not the case in the context of the whole of Kant's philosophy.

That's just handwaving. Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent. Is it illusion? Illusory? In what sense? Is nothing there, or something else there? Which noumenon? Why is it useful? etc.

No handwaving please. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility. It may be so obvious to you that Kant was an imbecile who denied the possibility of the noumenon, but you'll have to show it to us first.


Here's a little help from ChatGPT to get you started:

In summary, Kant did not deny the existence of the noumenal world but instead argued that it was unknowable to us because of the inherent limitations of our cognitive faculties.

As I had stated you are the philosophical-gnat and ultracrepidarian where you imagine you're an expert in Kant when you have not read and understood Kant's work thoroughly.

Note this from ChatGPT [with reservations]

So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism.
He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

The full statement from ChatGpt after I have provided it the appropriate references:

You are correct in pointing out that Kant's position on the noumenon, also known as the thing-in-itself, is more nuanced than just agnosticism. Kant indeed goes further in his Critique of Pure Reason to argue that the noumenon, in the positive sense as a mind-independent entity, is fundamentally unknowable to humans due to our cognitive limitations.

Kant's assertion that we would need a "special mode of intuition" or intellectual intuition to know the noumenon is crucial. However, Kant also argues that we do not possess such a mode of intuition; our cognitive faculties are limited to sensible intuition, which is the way we perceive and understand the phenomenal world.

Therefore, Kant's position is that while we can think and speculate about the noumenon as a concept, we can never have positive knowledge of it as it truly exists independently of our mental framework and sensory experiences. In this sense, he does not affirmatively assert the existence of the noumenon, nor does he claim that it definitely does not exist. Instead, he emphasizes the inherent epistemic limitations of human cognition when it comes to the noumenal realm.

So, you are correct in emphasizing that Kant's position goes beyond mere agnosticism. He argues that the noumenon, if it exists, is forever beyond our reach due to our cognitive limitations, and thus, we cannot claim positive knowledge of its existence or non-existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's just handwaving. Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent. Is it illusion? Illusory? In what sense? Is nothing there, or something else there? Which noumenon? Why is it useful? etc.

You are talking nonsense.
Where did Kant state "Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent."

Kant presented phenomena as the reference-referent and the noumena as the supposed mind-independent referent as claimed by philosophical realists.

Kant asserted in the CPR, the noumenon can only be used as a limitation* in the negative sense; this mean the noumenon cannot be empirical-rationally real, but merely a rational ideal, e.g. a perfect square which is impossible to be empirical.
Such idealization of impossibility nevertheless facilitate science and other fields of knowledge to strive to improve toward the impossible ideals.

As a limitation, the noumenon is the empirical-rational barrier that prevent the reification of whatever it thought beyond the empirical-rational as really real.
This is where you jumped the barrier to la la land in reifying a positive noumenon; theists jumped the barrier to reify the thing-in-itself as a soul, God, & absolute freedom.

No handwaving please. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility. It may be so obvious to you that Kant was an imbecile who denied the possibility of the noumenon, but you'll have to show it to us first.

Here's a little help from ChatGPT to get you started:

In summary, Kant did not deny the existence of the noumenal world but instead argued that it was unknowable to us because of the inherent limitations of our cognitive faculties.

Note the more nuanced view from ChatGPT above.

[Atla]

That's just handwaving. Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent. Is it illusion? Illusory? In what sense? Is nothing there, or something else there? Which noumenon? Why is it useful? etc.

You are talking nonsense.
Where did Kant state "Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent."

Kant presented phenomena as the reference-referent and the noumena as the supposed mind-independent referent as claimed by philosophical realists.

Kant asserted in the CPR, the noumenon can only be used as a limitation* in the negative sense; this mean the noumenon cannot be empirical-rationally real, but merely a rational ideal, e.g. a perfect square which is impossible to be empirical.
Such idealization of impossibility nevertheless facilitate science and other fields of knowledge to strive to improve toward the impossible ideals.

As a limitation, the noumenon is the empirical-rational barrier that prevent the reification of whatever it thought beyond the empirical-rational as really real.
This is where you jumped the barrier to la la land in reifying a positive noumenon; theists jumped the barrier to reify the thing-in-itself as a soul, God, & absolute freedom.

No handwaving please. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility. It may be so obvious to you that Kant was an imbecile who denied the possibility of the noumenon, but you'll have to show it to us first.

Here's a little help from ChatGPT to get you started:

In summary, Kant did not deny the existence of the noumenal world but instead argued that it was unknowable to us because of the inherent limitations of our cognitive faculties.

Note the more nuanced view from ChatGPT above.

Are you mentally retarded? I'm never talking about non-empirical-rational noumena. We can never say anything about that, if such a thing even exists.