Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[Iwannaplato]

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

and now is responding like a Cro-Magnon Age. I suppose it is scary to go beyond blunt assertions and discuss what one has assserted.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

The information that's most accessible for public consumption around QM seems to be all about the woowoo bullshit side of it.

It's much easier to read an article goofing around saying "maybe qm proves <some spiritual thing>" than to actually dive into the scientific concepts and predictive equations. The real science is very dry and not all that woowoo. But philosophers don't want the dry shit, they seem to want all the woo.

[Atla]

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?

QM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.

[accelafine]

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

What's the topic?

QM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.

Take it up with VA. He seems to have his own personal 'meaning' for it.

[Iwannaplato]

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

What's the topic?

QM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.

He's just going to avoid having an actual interaction of substance with you. His 'Age* is showing.

[Atla]

Guess she speaks for VA now. Well that's weird..

[accelafine]

Guess she speaks for VA now. Well that's weird..

How about mansplaining it to me then little man. I'm just a dumb woman. I don't understand these big, manly conepts. My brain might explode.
Awww. Pweeze.

[accelafine]

Interesting that all these big, manly 'philosophers' understand quantum theory (even though the best physicists in the world don't) yet have no problem with fish pi asserting that they are all paedophiles. Not one objection. Hmmm.

[Atla]

Guess she speaks for VA now. Well that's weird..

How about mansplaining it to me then little man. I'm just a dumb woman. I don't understand these big, manly conepts. My brain might explode.
Awww. Pweeze.

Sorry can't help you there. The anecdote goes like this: after every debate, Bohr and Einstein went to the pub, and they said the following. "Yes we may disagree on all these issues, but we are in a total agreement on one thing, we must formulate the laws of QM in a way that will forever escape the puny female brain, especially that of accelafine. Luckily, this is no difficult matter."

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry can't help you there. The anecdote goes like this: after every debate, Bohr and Einstein went to the pub, and they said the following. "Yes we may disagree on all these issues, but we are in a total agreement on one thing, we must formulate the laws of QM in a way that will forever escape the puny female brain, especially that of accelafine. Luckily, this is no difficult matter."

Hey, let's not insult women. It doesn't matter what sex or gender accelefine is. Who knows if it's vegetariantaxidermy or not, or cares. Or if VT was actually a woman. We have Wizard, male, with a similar to accelefine, if more blabbly, posting style. We have VA, male, Iambiguous, male. Idiocy is not restricted to the other X chromosome. Nor is biliousness.

[Flannel Jesus]

Felt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.

[Iwannaplato]

Felt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.

Oh, dear. Then mine was very harsh. But anyway...
I got curious about the link in the OP that VA throws in to support his and Bohr's antirealism. But I, perhaps unlike VA, actually started reading that article and I'm not sure he's actually supporting Bohr and his antirealism.

As far as I can tell the writer is a realist, the article contains criticism of anti-realism, while presenting it with great respect - though sometimes also mocking it - and includes suggestions for how a new realism, integrating the criticism of antirealism can be found/formulated.

I don't think he reads what he posts. He just makes assumptions based on a quick skim and the title at best.

[Atla]

Felt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.

Oh, dear. Then mine was very harsh. But anyway...
I got curious about the link in the OP that VA throws in to support his and Bohr's antirealism. But I, perhaps unlike VA, actually started reading that article and I'm not sure he's actually supporting Bohr and his antirealism.

As far as I can tell the writer is a realist, the article contains criticism of anti-realism, while presenting it with great respect - though sometimes also mocking it - and includes suggestions for how a new realism, integrating the criticism of antirealism can be found/formulated.

I don't think he reads what he posts. He just makes assumptions based on a quick skim and the title at best.

The article lost me on page one where it seems to equate antirealism with instrumentalism, and also calls instrumentalism a dogma.

???

Instrumentalism is a lack of any philosophy. Antirealism is a philosophy.
You can't ground something on nothing.
You can't be dogmatic about nothing.

And again: a Copenhagen interpretation that identifies the observer as the human mind, is just an unproven interpretation. It's like the first thing people consider when they think about QM.

[Iwannaplato]

The article lost me on page one where it seems to equate antirealism with instrumentalism, and also calls instrumentalism a dogma.

It was a very challenging read, yes, and clearly a philosopher writing not a scientist.

???

Instrumentalism is a lack of any philosophy. Antirealism is a philosophy.

I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.

You can't ground something on nothing.
You can't be dogmatic about nothing.

Well, you can be dogmatic about not claiming anything about ontology and dogmatically criticizing others for such claiming.

And again: a Copenhagen interpretation that identifies the observer as the human mind, is just an unproven interpretation. It's like the first thing people consider when they think about QM.

It's a minority, though a significant one. And antirealism is still a minority position in physics, also.

[Atla]

I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.

No it's not anti-ontological either. Instrumentalism is simply the lack of any philosophy.