QM: Objective Reality May Not Exists At ALL

[accelafine]

every time you talk about it, you go out of your way to talk about how idiotic it is. unless i'm confusing you with someone else... Apologies if I am, there's like 3 on this forum who don't just think it's not true, they take time out of their day to say people are morons for taking it seriously.

Definitely not me.

well then let me say again, my apologies for the mistake.

I started reading a book for the first time in a few years (I used to be a prolific reader, now I'm too internet-addicted), because I'm in a lil book club to read Sean Carroll's Biggest Ideas in the Universe series. I love that guy.

I'm a fan of his too. He's very compelling.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm a fan of his too. He's very compelling.

Surprisingly, some of his most informative stuff is the AMAs he does for his podcast. If you haven't listened to one before, give it a go, he goes through so many reader questions on each of those episodes and I feel like there's a lot of good stuff to ingest there.

[accelafine]

Just had to google AMA I follow him on twitter/X so I'll look into it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I shouId, however, have been cIearer. He's not your kind of antirealist - one who has a metaphysicaI stance on mind independent reaIity. InstrumentaIists, to be intrumentaIists, need not say there is no externaI independent reality. They are focused on the effectiveness of the ideas and not on whether thay match reality. Functionally agnostic. Pragmatic focus. And if one disagrees with a specific realist that doesn't mean one has the opposite opinions. Just as an agnostic can disagree with an atheist, whiIe not being a theist.

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Antirealism [generally philosophical realism] literally mean, not agreeing with philosophical realism's idea of mind-independence as defined above.

As I had stated, philosophical realism is driven by an evolutionary default, thus primal and primitive.
Such an immature thinking is not acceptable by many who could think beyond it for many reasons.

Antirealism is just like atheism, i.e. anti-theism and atheist who do not agree with theism has their own personal beliefs.

[Iwannaplato]

I shouId, however, have been cIearer. He's not your kind of antirealist - one who has a metaphysicaI stance on mind independent reaIity. InstrumentaIists, to be intrumentaIists, need not say there is no externaI independent reality. They are focused on the effectiveness of the ideas and not on whether thay match reality. Functionally agnostic. Pragmatic focus. And if one disagrees with a specific realist that doesn't mean one has the opposite opinions. Just as an agnostic can disagree with an atheist, whiIe not being a theist.

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

The word 'absolutely' as far as I can tell is not one you will find in most definitions of realism, but otherwise, yes, this is realism. Adding words to paint opposing positions in extreme terms gives no additional information.

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

And you see there no use of the term absolute or absolutely.

Antirealism [generally philosophical realism] literally mean, not agreeing with philosophical realism's idea of mind-independence as defined above.

Sure, including moral anti-realism.

As I had stated, philosophical realism is driven by an evolutionary default, thus primal and primitive.
Such an immature thinking is not acceptable by many who could think beyond it for many reasons.

And this is unnecessary and essentially ad hom, unless that the topic is: where did the belief in realism come from. Empathy is an evolutionary default in mammals, but calling your position which favors empathy or you yourself immature for valuing it would be both rude and meaningless as substance in a debate. The urge to go ad hom is also primal and primitive. The form of the attack is somewhat modern - we need language to do it - but the urge to attack the other person is driven by neuronal patterns in the brain that go way back.

And for someone who values empathy, you have some odd habits in the ways you frame the beliefs of those you disagree with and also the way you frame the people you disagree with.

Antirealism is just like atheism, i.e. anti-theism and atheist who do not agree with theism has their own personal beliefs.

Peachy. But what I was writing about was intrumentalism which is a non-realist approach. There are all sorts of non-realisms

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

Non-realism can take many forms, depending on whether or not it is the existence or independence dimension of realism that is questioned or rejected. The forms of non-realism can vary dramatically from subject-matter to subject-matter, but error-theories, non-cognitivism, instrumentalism, nominalism,relativism, certain styles of reductionism, and eliminativism typically reject realism by rejecting the existence dimension, while idealism, subjectivism, and anti-realism typically concede the existence dimension but reject the independence dimension. Philosophers who subscribe to quietism deny that there can be such a thing as substantial metaphysical debate between realists and their non-realist opponents (because they either deny that there are substantial questions about existence or deny that there are substantial questions about independence).

There may be some intrumentalist who say there are no noumena, no things in themselves, but in general, they focus away from metaphysical positions like this in either direction.

According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.[1]

From Wikipedia

I note: that my point, which you quoted, was focused on whether instrumentalists in general are assuming/concluding as you do that objects do not exist independently of humans.

You do not address the issue above, even though it's in the quote, and make assertions about other things.

And my pointing this out does not mean you HAVE TO respond to my point, even if you quote it. Obviously you are free to not respond to the points and arguments I make. I think it would be clearer to readers, including me, and perhaps even you, if you did quote me as if your response is to the point I am making. But of course you're free to continue to do such things.

And I am free to point them out.

Given that this kind of thing happens regularly, I one could get frustrated. Since, if one takes the dialogue seriously, it means one must repeat oneself again and again in the hope that the point will actually get noticed and responded to. And it seems the pattern is not a pattern of error, but one of convenience.

So, given I am, in addition to you, free, my responses may seem to ignore your points. I can, in addition to you, use another person's posts and jumping off points to just repeat my positions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I shouId, however, have been cIearer. He's not your kind of antirealist - one who has a metaphysicaI stance on mind independent reaIity. InstrumentaIists, to be intrumentaIists, need not say there is no externaI independent reality. They are focused on the effectiveness of the ideas and not on whether thay match reality. Functionally agnostic. Pragmatic focus. And if one disagrees with a specific realist that doesn't mean one has the opposite opinions. Just as an agnostic can disagree with an atheist, whiIe not being a theist.

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

The word 'absolutely' as far as I can tell is not one you will find in most definitions of realism, but otherwise, yes, this is realism. Adding words to paint opposing positions in extreme terms gives no additional information.

There are complexity and nuances to each philosophical or other topics/issues.

There is this popular Youtube Channel where an expert would explain a complex issue to people with different levels of understanding, i.e.

1. a 5 year-old grade school
2. a 10 year old
3. a 15-15 year old
4. a 22 year old graduate
5. a 24 year old with masters degree
6. a 27 year old with a PhD.

The expert in this case will have to vary his usage of terms, approach and explanation to get the message across.

It is the same with explaining the philosophical realist versus anti-philosophical realist issue to different people with different levels and coverage of philosophical knowledge.

It is rarely one will state a realist is also a antirealist, but at the more complex level, Kant made this claim and provided rational explanation for it.

In the case of realism vs antirealism,
I as an antirealist [Kantian] also believe in a mind-independent reality as with the realist [philosophical], i.e. the tree exists in the external world independent of my mind.

Obviously, there is an oncoming train on the track I am standing on and that is external to me, it is not in my head. So I will jump of the track to avoid being smashed.
Many a times, realists will ask to jump off a cliff if I do not believe the external world is mind-independent.

To avoid confusion, it is critical for me to use the terms 'absolutely' and 'relatively' when I discussed about philosophical realism.

But my above belief is contingent upon my mind and the human conditions within a human-based FSERC in the ultimate sense.
There is no way one can extricate the human elements in the emergence and realization of reality plus the perception, knowing and description of that reality.
As such, this belief is in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.
This relative approach is necessary to avoid the charge of solipsism.

On the other hand, the philosophical realist make an absolute claim and as an ideology there is a mind-independent reality, e.g. the tree exists in the external world independent of my mind regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why the philosophical realists claim the moon pre-existed humans in the absolute sense without any ifs.

To cater for the above nuances, the terms absolute and relative are necessary to difference my sense of relative mind-independence versus the philosophical realists' sense of absolute mind-independence.

I have explained why the term 'absolutely' is critical for me here.
Morality: Relative vs Absolute Mind-Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40600

[Iwannaplato]

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

The word 'absolutely' as far as I can tell is not one you will find in most definitions of realism, but otherwise, yes, this is realism. Adding words to paint opposing positions in extreme terms gives no additional information.

There are complexity and nuances to each philosophical or other topics/issues.

There is this popular Youtube Channel where an expert would explain a complex issue to people with different levels of understanding, i.e.

1. a 5 year-old grade school
2. a 10 year old
3. a 15-15 year old
4. a 22 year old graduate
5. a 24 year old with masters degree
6. a 27 year old with a PhD.

The expert in this case will have to vary his usage of terms, approach and explanation to get the message across.

It is the same with explaining the philosophical realist versus anti-philosophical realist issue to different people with different levels and coverage of philosophical knowledge.

It is rarely one will state a realist is also a antirealist, but at the more complex level, Kant made this claim and provided rational explanation for it.

In the case of realism vs antirealism,
I as an antirealist [Kantian] also believe in a mind-independent reality as with the realist [philosophical], i.e. the tree exists in the external world independent of my mind.

Obviously, there is an oncoming train on the track I am standing on and that is external to me, it is not in my head. So I will jump of the track to avoid being smashed.
Many a times, realists will ask to jump off a cliff if I do not believe the external world is mind-independent.

To avoid confusion, it is critical for me to use the terms 'absolutely' and 'relatively' when I discussed about philosophical realism.

But my above belief is contingent upon my mind and the human conditions within a human-based FSERC in the ultimate sense.
There is no way one can extricate the human elements in the emergence and realization of reality plus the perception, knowing and description of that reality.
As such, this belief is in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.
This relative approach is necessary to avoid the charge of solipsism.

On the other hand, the philosophical realist make an absolute claim and as an ideology there is a mind-independent reality, e.g. the tree exists in the external world independent of my mind regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is why the philosophical realists claim the moon pre-existed humans in the absolute sense without any ifs.

To cater for the above nuances, the terms absolute and relative are necessary to difference my sense of relative mind-independence versus the philosophical realists' sense of absolute mind-independence.

I have explained why the term 'absolutely' is critical for me here.
Morality: Relative vs Absolute Mind-Independence
viewtopic.php?t=40600

1) I don't think I've ever thrown the train track challenge to you. I don't think that challenge works against metaphysical antirealism. I think it has assumptions that are incorrect and unstated.
2) Here's what you wrote...

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

'The definition'

What you presented as 'the definition' is not the general one in philosophical contexts.

As far as the rest, instrumentalists do not generally take a metaphysical stand, as you do, on the existence or not of things-in-themselves. In fact, that is a core shift in the instrumentalist position. They move away from that issue which they think causes problems or is unnecessary, the whole realist/antirealist spat on that issue. They think that is pointless. That's part of what makes them instrumentalist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;

'The definition'

What you presented as 'the definition' is not the general one in philosophical contexts.

I have been in this business for very long time.
The definition of what is philosophical realism [mind independent] cover every angle of the philosophical realist's claim and counter.

At some point, the philosophical realist's but the moon existed before there were humans, when there were dinosaurs, there were no humans, fact is independent of human opinions, beliefs and judgments which implies 'things existed regardless of whether there are humans or not".
Because I need to refer to emergence, I need the absolute vs relative difference.

As far as the rest, instrumentalists do not generally take a metaphysical stand, as you do, on the existence or not of things-in-themselves. In fact, that is a core shift in the instrumentalist position. They move away from that issue which they think causes problems or is unnecessary, the whole realist/antirealist spat on that issue. They think that is pointless. That's part of what makes them instrumentalist.

The only point relevant to me re instrumentalism is you claimed Bohr was not antirealist, so I countered;

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Not interested in the other points for this discussion.

[Flannel Jesus]

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Not interested in the other points for this discussion.

But... that IS more along iwannaplato's point than yours. That quote is saying, rejecting the AMBITION to uncover metaphysical truth is instrumentalisms' anti-realism. YOUR anti-realism goes a step further - rather than just rejecting the mission to uncover those truths, you make an extra, stronger, more explicit claim: that there is no objective metaphysical truth down there.

YOUR anti-realism is different from instrumentalisms anti-realism.

Iwannaplato is right on that point. And your continued insistence on talking about it as if it's the same as yours is ... tired.

[Gary Childress]

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Not interested in the other points for this discussion.

But... that IS more along iwannaplato's point than yours. That quote is saying, rejecting the AMBITION to uncover metaphysical truth is instrumentalisms' anti-realism. YOUR anti-realism goes a step further - rather than just rejecting the mission to uncover those truths, you make an extra, stronger, more explicit claim: that there is no objective metaphysical truth down there.

YOUR anti-realism is different from instrumentalisms anti-realism.

Iwannaplato is right on that point. And your continued insistence on talking about it as if it's the same as yours is ... tired.

Is it possible that he is trying to live his life according to his philosophical convictions? Perhaps we are/were trying too hard to get him to veer off his convictions?

Thoughts?

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it possible that he is trying to live his life according to his philosophical convictions? Perhaps we are/were trying too hard to get him to veer off his convictions?

Thoughts?

Nobody is trying to stop him doing any of those things.

Well at least I'm not, I don't think iwannaplato is.

[Iwannaplato]

Is it possible that he is trying to live his life according to his philosophical convictions? Perhaps we are/were trying too hard to get him to veer off his convictions?

Thoughts?

I think what you are saying fits something I have experienced. I think he treats disagreement with his arguments as if they mean he would have to change his life or core beliefs about morality. I mean, he's told us that realists are primitive people more likely to kill. That moral relativists and moral antirealists are condoning new Hitlers. In fact he opens threads with preemptive insults and ad hom, aimed not at one person, but at people in general who disagree with him.

I have specifically told him that, for example, argument X he makes in relation to some point is where he might be wrong, and I think he is, but that this doesn't mean his core position is wrong.

It seems often, however, that criticisms are being taken as meaning, you are wrong about everything. You can't try to make the world a better place. We can never become more empathetic.

From this thread...

What I am against the philosophical realists [PH & gang] being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.
Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default, naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

We are a gang,

being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.

No, one has gone beyond 'brushing off' his ideas. No one has spent time carefully making arguments where they quote him or quote from his links.

Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default,

People disagreeing have a dogmantic belief - he's not dogmatic - from an evolutionary default.

naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

Not one bit of that adds anything to the substance of the debate. It's in the OP of a new thread, one of the hundreds he creates over a few months on the same topics. If you look at the op he didn't actually write much all himself, beyond what is basically an ad hom/insult. He quotes an AI and insults people.

Perhaps he can't allow people in a philosophy forum to criticize his ideas, people who are trying to live their lives according to their convictions.

But the truth is none of us can stop the others from living their convictions.

[Atla]

But my above belief is contingent upon my mind and the human conditions within a human-based FSERC in the ultimate sense.
There is no way one can extricate the human elements in the emergence and realization of reality plus the perception, knowing and description of that reality.
As such, this belief is in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense.
This relative approach is necessary to avoid the charge of solipsism.

If you had a three-digit-IQ, you might have realized by now that the charge of solipsism is because of this relative approach.

[Atla]

Instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism

This pisses me off so much. The whole point of instrumentalism is that it steers clear of both philosophical realism and anti-realism and other metaphysical claims.

Whose bright idea was it to categorize it as an anti-realism?

[Iwannaplato]

Instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism

This pisses me off so much. The whole point of instrumentalism is that it steers clear of both philosophical realism and anti-realism and other metaphysical claims.

Whose bright idea was it to categorize it as an anti-realism?

I would call it a non-realism and I've made the point you're making earlier in the thread a couple of times. Further, it is clearly not his VA's version of antirealism where a very clear metaphysical stand is being taken.

By the way: I don't think I've ever seen VA adequately respond to the parsimony argument in favor of realism. We have maps, they keep working, seems more parsimonious to think things stay there, rather than winking in and out of existence. Makes me tired just thinking of the latter model.