An anti-realism

[Atla]

Yawn, VA's antirealism is boring, probably mostly wrong, and also quite impractical. Imo the more interesting antirealist questions probably exist on the universal level, not on the everyday human level. Here is a possibility, let's start with some examples:

Before (a temporal concept such as "before" may or may not make any actual sense, but let's ignore that now) it got "sufficiently intersubjectively established" that the Earth is round, was the Earth neither round nor flat, but more like in a superposition of them, and could have gone either way (and even before that, any other way)?

Same thing for the Earth going around the Sun or vica versa. Could it have gone either way, before one outcome got "sufficiently intersubjectively established"? (And even before that, could it have gone any other way?)

Did the universe always behave according to Einsteinian physics, or was it originally in sort of a superposition and could have gone either the Newtonian or the Einsteinian way (and even before that, any other way)?

And so on. This is a general principle that applies to everything. It works from a realist perspective too, it may mean that existence is made of infinite possibilities, and we keep narrowing down those possibilities, from our perspective (apparently, but not actually). So maybe it would be more accurate to say that this is a theory where realism and antirealism converge.

As far as I'm concerned, the above kind of antirealism might actually be true, according to science. But again we are led back to the observer problem. What is it that has this "intersubjective basis", that keeps establishing how the world works / keeps reducing the available possibilities? Is it many minds? One mind? A "shared mental field"? Is it not actually a mind at all, but more like some kind of geometric shape? Are there levels to this? If yes then how many, maybe infinitely many? Does it all loop around? And so on.

Was there some kind of primordial observer-thing, around which the universe keeps getting established? How did it get there? If temporal ideas such as "before" are nonsensical, then is all this an inevitable timeless arrangement that loops around somehow?

[attofishpi]

No.

[attofishpi]

HAPPY 2024!!!!

[Atla]

No.

On a side note, the observer problem, and antirealism in general, can run into even more complications when we consider humans that have two or more beings/personalities in their heads. If there are levels to the observer effect, what happens if one of the personalities is on a higher level? Does it get to play around with their shared reality somewhat, and the other one is just a passive victim here?

[Iwannaplato]

But again we are led back to the observer problem.

Was there some kind of primordial observer-thing, around which the universe keeps getting established?

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state. But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything - it might be that consciousness is inherent, there might be spontaneous emergence of consciousness or maybe that form of AR is just an incomplete system of belief.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

It seems to me in either the hard or the soft metaphysical antirealism it can't have depended on human consciousness. Like the universe arose with the first, what sufficiently advanced cro-magnon baby...and there was no universe before this??

[Atla]

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state.

Unless it's better not stated, which is how I see my best guess. That's why I never talk about my actual philosophy.

But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything

Being cyclical indeed doesn't explain anything. As usual, looping around without being cyclical is the logical idea imo.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

No, the theory wasn't about changing rules, things don't get replaced.

[Iwannaplato]

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state.

Unless it's better not stated, which is how I see my best guess. That's why I never talk about my actual philosophy.

But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything

Being cyclical indeed doesn't explain anything. As usual, looping around without being cyclical is the logical idea imo.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

No, the theory wasn't about changing rules, things don't get replaced.

So, we the universe has identity through time, but also not changing rules? Once it falls out of superposion (at a universal level), that's it, it's Einsteinian, or something else?

A to me related issue: the role, reality, existence of the past. It seems to me that a strong metaphysical antirealist should also consider every conclusion about the past as a useful fiction about something that cannot be directly sensed and then further...have some questions about its use as evidence.

[Atla]

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state.

Unless it's better not stated, which is how I see my best guess. That's why I never talk about my actual philosophy.

But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything

Being cyclical indeed doesn't explain anything. As usual, looping around without being cyclical is the logical idea imo.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

No, the theory wasn't about changing rules, things don't get replaced.

So, we the universe has identity through time, but also not changing rules? Once it falls out of superposion (at a universal level), that's it, it's Einsteinian, or something else?

A to me related issue: the role, reality, existence of the past. It seems to me that a strong metaphysical antirealist should also consider every conclusion about the past as a useful fiction about something that cannot be directly sensed and then further...have some questions about its use as evidence.

I'm not sure what to say. The rule could roughly be that the rest of the universe is consistent with our "identity" at every point in time, on a technical level. And this rule doesn't change.

Say take an organism or something else from say 4 billion years ago. It was a fairly simple "identity" and maybe could have existed in a very undefined, malleable kind of space and time that could act like both Newtonian and Einsteinian space and time and maybe even differently from both.

Then at some point in time, the "identity" of some organism or something else got to a level where it was only compatible with Newtonian and Einsteinian space and time anymore, so the universe got reduced to those two possibilities. Then later "identity" got more particular again, and space and time got reduced to just one, Einsteinian.

This one Einsteinian spacetime may still be a narrow band of infinite possibilites though, that we may not be able to narrow down further.

There are unresolvable questions. The time problem is a problem for all of philosophy imo, if time doesn't timelessly loop around without cycles and without actual change, we have a logical problem. Then there's the problem that the above picture with three seemingly inconsistent slices of the universe may either need an extra dimension or some kind of mental magic, is also a problem for all philosophy imo. Although maybe there are other explanations.

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

[Iwannaplato]

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

[Atla]

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Either those aren't anomalies, like the star isn't actually older. Or they really are anomalies to our current knowledge, but our current knowledge was a misunderstanding but everything available to us was also 100% compatible with another view all along without us realizing.

Imo this kind of antirealism is unprovable and would look exactly like the world we live in. The bigger question is, what would happen if in the future, the number (if there's such a thing) of observers got drastically reduced so they cancel each other out a lot less, and/or one observer gets to a higher level (if there's such a thing) than all others. And tries to 'take control'.

[Iwannaplato]

Another example for the theory would be modern space telescopes. Let's say until recently, only a tiny fraction of the ~100 billion galaxies took the shape that we would call galaxies, the rest were smeared out superpositions. Now whenever we look at new galaxies with our telescopes, they are forced into a shapes that are consistent with the specifics of our looking and consistent with everything else we have already established about the world. And in the future, we will continue to force the world into taking shape as more galaxies and other stuff.

How do we encounter anomalies then? Like they just found a star (Methuselah star) that is older than the universe (with some potential for error, as always). Or some of the archaeological finds that don't fit the main tribe to civilization narratives in history and archaeology.

Either those aren't anomalies, like the star isn't actually older. Or they really are anomalies to our current knowledge, but our current knowledge was a misunderstanding but everything available to us was also 100% compatible with another view all along without us realizing.

Imo this kind of antirealism is unprovable and would look exactly like the world we live in. The bigger question is, what would happen if in the future, the number (if there's such a thing) of observers got drastically reduced so they cancel each other out a lot less, and/or one observer gets to a higher level (if there's such a thing) than all others. And tries to 'take control'.

The overriding idea is that minds and their capacities are entangled with ontology and natural laws (which aren't quite like laws, it seems to me).

They evolve together. Or, really, aren't two processes, but one.

[Age]

Yawn, VA's antirealism is boring, probably mostly wrong, and also quite impractical. Imo the more interesting antirealist questions probably exist on the universal level, not on the everyday human level. Here is a possibility, let's start with some examples:

Before (a temporal concept such as "before" may or may not make any actual sense, but let's ignore that now)

Does the word 'before' not make any actual sense to you at all "atla"?

The reason I ask would be obvious to some already, but for those who it is not obvious, the only reason one would contempt whether the concept of a word may or may not make any actual sense is if when that word is seen or heard and to one any concept arises does not many any actual sense at all.

For all the others a temporal concept as 'before' makes perfect sense, even to those who know that there really is only the NOW existing.

it got "sufficiently intersubjectively established" that the Earth is round, was the Earth neither round nor flat, but more like in a superposition of them, and could have gone either way (and even before that, any other way)?

What are you on about here "atla", the thing what the word 'earth' refers to as always been exactly what it is, or was, if we are thinking prior to when this is being written, or 'before'.

Same thing for the Earth going around the Sun or vica versa. Could it have gone either way, before one outcome got "sufficiently intersubjectively established"?

No.

It can only ever actually be what it is. No matter what human beings think, perceive, or even wonder.

(And even before that, could it have gone any other way?)

Not in regards to the 'thing', itself. But obviously the thinking done by human beings can go in many ways.

Did the universe always behave according to Einsteinian physics,

Some will soon find out that the Universe does not actually even behave the way according what that human being said and claimed.

or was it originally in sort of a superposition

What do you even mean or are referring to when you use the 'superposition' word "atla"?

and could have gone either the Newtonian or the Einsteinian way (and even before that, any other way)?

In the days when this is being written human beings are still only in a stage of learning, and/or discovering, and understanding how the Universe actually behaves.

Unless, of course, you believe that all has already been resolved here "atla".

And so on. This is a general principle that applies to everything. It works from a realist perspective too, it may mean that existence is made of infinite possibilities, and we keep narrowing down those possibilities, from our perspective (apparently, but not actually). So maybe it would be more accurate to say that this is a theory where realism and antirealism converge.

Remember what is so-called 'more accurate' still has some way to go of reaching being Accurate.

As far as I'm concerned, the above kind of antirealism might actually be true, according to science.

These people spoke as though when the 'science' word was used, then what was being purported or claimed therefore must be true.

Purporting or claiming that 'this' might actually be true, according to science, leaves one completely and utterly OPEN to 'this' might not being actually True at all, as well.

So, essentially, what you are saying and claiming here, and as far as you were concerned, is really nothing at all.

But again we are led back to the observer problem. What is it that has this "intersubjective basis", that keeps establishing how the world works / keeps reducing the available possibilities?

When you also find out, know, and understand, then you too will know:

1. There is no observer problem at all here.

2. Who 'you' and 'I', the different 'observers', are exactly.

3. What 'it' is, exactly, that you are talking about and referring to here.

Is it many minds? One mind? A "shared mental field"? Is it not actually a mind at all, but more like some kind of geometric shape? Are there levels to this? If yes then how many, maybe infinitely many? Does it all loop around? And so on.

The answer here is already known, and has already been referred to and somewhat talked about already, also.

As for you and 'loops' "atla" you are showing how you keep on circling and thus going around in circles here.

Was there some kind of primordial observer-thing, around which the universe keeps getting established? How did it get there? If temporal ideas such as "before" are nonsensical, then is all this an inevitable timeless arrangement that loops around somehow?

The answers to each and all of your questions here have already been uncovered, and thus resolved.

But as you have been continually informed, while you keep maintaining your own presumptions and beliefs here, then you will keep missing and misunderstanding things here.

[Age]

No.

On a side note, the observer problem, and antirealism in general, can run into even more complications when we consider humans that have two or more beings/personalities in their heads.

One of the biggest complications these human beings had, back in those olden days, was presuming or believing that there was some sort of so-called 'observer problem'.

Either one, an observer, looks and sees things from a Truly OPEN perspective, or they do not.

Now, obviously there was no actual 'problem' here.

If there are levels to the observer effect, what happens if one of the personalities is on a higher level? Does it get to play around with their shared reality somewhat, and the other one is just a passive victim here?

What happens when a personality, or ego, like yours "atla" believes that it already knows the truth of things?

Will that little egotistical personality let you grow, mature, and become wiser, like one on a higher level, where they would be above and thus be able to see things much more clearly and thus far better?

[Age]

But again we are led back to the observer problem.

Was there some kind of primordial observer-thing, around which the universe keeps getting established?

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state. But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything - it might be that consciousness is inherent, there might be spontaneous emergence of consciousness or maybe that form of AR is just an incomplete system of belief.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

Both of which are only leading to the actual Truth. Obviously neither was the actual Truth.

It seems to me in either the hard or the soft metaphysical antirealism it can't have depended on human consciousness. Like the universe arose with the first, what sufficiently advanced cro-magnon baby...and there was no universe before this??

[Age]

If you're the hard metaphysical antirealist this should be a bothersome question or you have an answer that you are really proud to state.

Unless it's better not stated, which is how I see my best guess. That's why I never talk about my actual philosophy.

So, your so-called philosophy "atla" is just more theories based on guesses right?

Also, what you wrote explains further why you appear so very afraid and scared to just clarify or elaborate on your views and claims here.

But then, yes, it might be cyclical - which doesn't really explain anything

Being cyclical indeed doesn't explain anything. As usual, looping around without being cyclical is the logical idea imo.

So, not that you would clarify or tell us, but how exactly would so-called 'looping around' explains things any better than 'being cyclical' or 'circling around'.

Just saying or claiming thing 'loop around' does not really explain anything, either.

Which fits in perfectly with your absolute inability to explain and clarify your claims here.

As far as the rest and changing rules, processes and relations and consciousness expands - would there necessarily be identity through time.

Like the universe became Einsteinian vs. there was a Newtonian thingie and it got replaced by an Einsteinian thingie.

No, the theory wasn't about changing rules, things don't get replaced.

So, if things do not get replaced, as you claim here, are you then saying that actually the Universe only behaves in 'the ways' purported by human beings, 'after' the way human beings say and claim the Universe behaves?