Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[accelafine]

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.

Oh, my sincerest apologies. I assumed that this thread was about QM because of my foolish assumption based on the title of the thread

[accelafine]

In case you hadn't noticed, the line between science and philosophy and even religion (especially religions like Hinduism) is becoming increasingly blurred.

Have some shrooms and watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyC68CIEio

[Iwannaplato]

However, there is a perspective where antirealism can be physical and objective.

Could you define 'physical'?

This is illustrated within Quantum Mechanics which is grounded on antirealism.
It is from this perspective that moral facts [FSERC] can be physical and objective, thus morality can be objective.

You say they can be physical and that QM is grounded on Antirealism. Could you link to research by an antirealist scientist [or a realist one] where they found the physical attitributes of a moral? Or they describe the physical nature of a moral or morals? Where did they aim their devices? What is a moral made of?

You say 'can', but has this actually been confirmed?

Or is this just speculation at this point?

Conclusions in QM are generally drawn from research, generally using devices and observations to create data and so on.

Has an empirical research process by physicists followed a similar process regarding morals? If not, why not?

[accelafine]

Carl Sagan intuitively knew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Gak-F2e4U

[Flannel Jesus]

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

accelefine is just doing the same thing VA does - making stuff up and declaring the evidence supports it.

[accelafine]

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

accelefine is just doing the same thing VA does - making stuff up and declaring the evidence supports it.

What am I 'making up'?

[Iwannaplato]

What am I 'making up'?

I think actually that's the question. I watched the videos. What is it you are asserting related to the videos that has to do with QM and Antirealism or what Atla or VA was saying?

[accelafine]

What am I 'making up'?

I think actually that's the question. I watched the videos. What is it you are asserting related to the videos that has to do with QM and Antirealism or what Atla or VA was saying?

What are you asking?

[Iwannaplato]

What am I 'making up'?

I think actually that's the question. I watched the videos. What is it you are asserting related to the videos that has to do with QM and Antirealism or what Atla or VA was saying?

What are you asking?

What do the videos have to do with the topic? I can see that Carl Sagan for example is talking about a kind of multiverse where particles are universes and universes are particles. So that does relate in some way to QM. But how does it relate to QM in relation to the realism/antirealism issue? How does it relate to your reactions to Atla and VA?

[accelafine]

I think actually that's the question. I watched the videos. What is it you are asserting related to the videos that has to do with QM and Antirealism or what Atla or VA was saying?

What are you asking?

What do the videos have to do with the topic? I can see that Carl Sagan for example is talking about a kind of multiverse where particles are universes and universes are particles. So that does relate in some way to QM. But how does it relate to QM in relation to the realism/antirealism issue? How does it relate to your reactions to Atla and VA?

What about the topic? What is the topic?

[Iwannaplato]

What about the topic? What is the topic?

Well, here's the OP, though I also asked if it related to other people's posts.
viewtopic.php?t=42373
You posted this.....

Carl Sagan intuitively knew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Gak-F2e4U

Does this relate to the OP or someone's post? If yes, how?
You post this...

In case you hadn't noticed, the line between science and philosophy and even religion (especially religions like Hinduism) is becoming increasingly blurred.

Have some shrooms and watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyC68CIEio

Does that relate to the topic of the thread or someone's post and if so how?

[accelafine]

What about the topic? What is the topic?

Well, here's the OP, though I also asked if it related to other people's posts.
viewtopic.php?t=42373
You posted this.....

Carl Sagan intuitively knew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Gak-F2e4U

Does this relate to the OP or someone's post? If yes, how?
You post this...

In case you hadn't noticed, the line between science and philosophy and even religion (especially religions like Hinduism) is becoming increasingly blurred.

Have some shrooms and watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyC68CIEio

Does that relate to the topic of the thread or someone's post and if so how?

I post what I feel like posting. Do I need your permission? Fuck off you ridiculous little man.

[Iwannaplato]

I post what I feel like posting. Do I need your permission? Fuck off you ridiculous little man.

Oh, my sincerest apologies. I missed part where I said you needed my permission to post in the thread.

But hey, if posting what you like somehow precludes having a discussion of it, I'll leave you in immaculate enjoyment.

[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

accelefine is just doing the same thing VA does - making stuff up and declaring the evidence supports it.

She quickly realized that she knows way less about the topic than even we do.

[accelafine]

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

accelefine is just doing the same thing VA does - making stuff up and declaring the evidence supports it.

She quickly realized that she knows way less about the topic than even we do.

What's the topic?