Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[Iwannaplato]

I think you're rejecting what it said to me as narrow because it displeases you. I don't think you're doing it out of rationality or reason. There's nothing narrow about it, it's just correct.

You decide what's narrow or what's wide based on if it agrees with you or not. Nobody counters it because it's a game you made up, a game whose rules you decide. It's a stupid game

You tried to put me down with ChatGpt's answered to your narrow context.

I used the same ChatGpt to counter your narrowed view of the issue in a wider context here;
viewtopic.php?p=713752&sid=54593b206145 ... da#p713752

Do you have a more-wider view to counter my wider view above?

Million dollar question: what did VA counter here, when ChatGPT seems to have simply stated again that there are realist and antirealist interpretations?

Chatgpt is saying that there are various interpretations. It does not in any way support VA's judgments not only of realism but of realists. He has claimed that realism is outdated and leads to violence. That one has limited intelligence or is ignorant of science and philosophy if one has a realist interpretation. IOW he has laid down ad homs, insults and incorrect information in ways that Chatgpt, as quoted by him in his linked post, does not support.

When it is pointed out that he repeatedly says there is only one rational position and this is not supported by Chatgpt or scientists, he pretends, depending on the occasion, that he didn't say that or that in fact it does support his position. When it is pointed out that he has said that observation collapses the wave function, period, he denies it, even though it is easy to link to places where he does in fact say this.

I can't really see any reason to communicate with such a person.

A person can be stubborn and mount weak arguments, and still be a worthy conversation partner, but when someone can't admit obvious things about what he's put in his own posts, what's the point?

But perhaps people manage to find a way such an interaction can be useful. I suppose I did for a while.

[Skepdick]

But perhaps people manage to find a way such an interaction can be useful. I suppose I did for a while.

And here I thought philosophy is largely a futile attempt to have a "useful" interaction with people who either don't know; or if they do know - then they have no intention to reveal; what their utility-function is.

An excellent strategy to ensure we are talking cross-purposes.

[accelafine]

I don't know what he means by 'anti-realism' and he doesn't seem to want to explain it.

He's always been a bit wishy washy about it, but the only time he got close to clear about it, it was some hypothesis like "this entire place we call 'reality' is being constructed by minds and thoughts".

So physics and matter is all a communal hallucation, or something, by a bunch of disembodied minds. I guess.

Well actually that's exactly what it is. It's not a 'hypothesis' either. Perhaps not the way you are describing it but certainly not 'locally real' and the science has proven this. 'Anti realism' is just a term that differentiated those who believed that space/time was fundamental or 'real' and those who didn't, 'anti real'. That's what I've gathered anyway. Einstein was apparently not happy with the idea of 'anti-realism'. He famously asked if 'anti realists' actually believed the moon disappeared when you weren't looking at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC-HhWKRwjs

[Flannel Jesus]

not 'locally real'

For some reason you and va interpret "not locally real" as "not real", instead of "not local". And then you present that interpretation like it's an uncontroversial fact.

[Atla]

Another could say that the issue of local realism vs nonlocal realism has exactly nothing to do with a mind-dependent anti-realism.

[accelafine]

not 'locally real'

For some reason you and va interpret "not locally real" as "not real", instead of "not local". And then you present that interpretation like it's an uncontroversial fact.

I'm saying that 'anti realism' was the term originally used back when Einstein was debating this with Bohr. It's not MY interpretation.

[accelafine]

Another could say that the issue of local realism vs nonlocal realism has exactly nothing to do with a mind-dependent anti-realism.

The evidence says otherwise. We are all made of the same thing.

[Atla]

Another could say that the issue of local realism vs nonlocal realism has exactly nothing to do with a mind-dependent anti-realism.

The evidence says otherwise. We are all made of the same thing.

I think you are mixing different things..

- philosophical anti-realism generally isn't about space and time, it's about a mind-dependent reality
- space/time not being fundamental isn't the same as space/time not being real in any sense of "real". Should emergent properties be seen as real? Is a chair real?
- being made of the same thing doesn't mean that reality is mind-dependent
- evidence for nonlocality isn't evidence for mind-dependence, or at least I don't see how, or how it is even relevant

[accelafine]

Another could say that the issue of local realism vs nonlocal realism has exactly nothing to do with a mind-dependent anti-realism.

The evidence says otherwise. We are all made of the same thing.

I think you are mixing different things..

- philosophical anti-realism generally isn't about space and time, it's about a mind-dependent reality
- space/time not being fundamental isn't the same as space/time not being real in any sense of "real". Should emergent properties be seen as real? Is a chair real?
- being made of the same thing doesn't mean that reality is mind-dependent
- evidence for nonlocality isn't evidence for mind-dependence, or at least I don't see how, or how it is even relevant

Who now believes that what we experience as 'reality' is 'real'? It's just not. I suppose it's 'real' on this plane of existence-- to 'us'. I think this will upset both atheists and theists alike. Unfortunately most people just go on their merry way without an inkling of awareness of all the kerfuffle this is causing. 'The meaning of life' is of no interest to most people--despite what they claim

[Veritas Aequitas]

not 'locally real'

For some reason you and va interpret "not locally real" as "not real", instead of "not local". And then you present that interpretation like it's an uncontroversial fact.

I'm saying that 'anti realism' was the term originally used back when Einstein was debating this with Bohr. It's not MY interpretation.

Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics] all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p]. There is no escape to this.

[accelafine]

For some reason you and va interpret "not locally real" as "not real", instead of "not local". And then you present that interpretation like it's an uncontroversial fact.

I'm saying that 'anti realism' was the term originally used back when Einstein was debating this with Bohr. It's not MY interpretation.

Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics] all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p]. There is no escape to this.

What are you even arguing about? I take it that English is not your first language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm saying that 'anti realism' was the term originally used back when Einstein was debating this with Bohr. It's not MY interpretation.

Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics] all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p]. There is no escape to this.

What are you even arguing about? I take it that English is not your first language.

Yes, English is not my first language.

What is wrong with this points? Will appreciate correction if there is a serious error in the use of English in this case?
Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics]
all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p].
There is no escape to this.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [antirealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Do you have a counter to the above?
Perhaps you do not understand the point due to bad English?
I believe the problem here is due to your lack [shallow & narrow of philosophical knowledge rather than my English.

[accelafine]

Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics] all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p]. There is no escape to this.

What are you even arguing about? I take it that English is not your first language.

Yes, English is not my first language.

What is wrong with this points? Will appreciate correction if there is a serious error in the use of English in this case?
Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics]
all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p].
There is no escape to this.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [antirealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Do you have a counter to the above?
Perhaps you do not understand the point due to bad English?
I believe the problem here is due to your lack [shallow & narrow of philosophical knowledge rather than my English.

Don't even know what I'm supposed to be 'countering'. You are writing gibberish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What are you even arguing about? I take it that English is not your first language.

Yes, English is not my first language.

What is wrong with this points? Will appreciate correction if there is a serious error in the use of English in this case?
Since we are discussing philosophy here [not purely science-physics]
all philosophical issues related to QM are reducible to realism[p] vs antirealism[p].
There is no escape to this.

All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [antirealism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Do you have a counter to the above?
Perhaps you do not understand the point due to bad English?
I believe the problem here is due to your lack [shallow & narrow of philosophical knowledge rather than my English.

Don't even know what I'm supposed to be 'countering'. You are writing gibberish.

It is a pity you are ignorant of your ignorance.

Try researching into realism* vs antirealism dichotomy and tracing it back to when philosophy first emerged. * i.e. philosophical realism and metaphysical realism.

[Atla]

The evidence says otherwise. We are all made of the same thing.

I think you are mixing different things..

- philosophical anti-realism generally isn't about space and time, it's about a mind-dependent reality
- space/time not being fundamental isn't the same as space/time not being real in any sense of "real". Should emergent properties be seen as real? Is a chair real?
- being made of the same thing doesn't mean that reality is mind-dependent
- evidence for nonlocality isn't evidence for mind-dependence, or at least I don't see how, or how it is even relevant

Who now believes that what we experience as 'reality' is 'real'? It's just not. I suppose it's 'real' on this plane of existence-- to 'us'. I think this will upset both atheists and theists alike. Unfortunately most people just go on their merry way without an inkling of awareness of all the kerfuffle this is causing. 'The meaning of life' is of no interest to most people--despite what they claim

I do for example. Sure, what we experience isn't how reality exactly it is, but it's close enough imo. Why do you think 'reality' isn't 'real'?