Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Veritas Aequitas]

No he didn't, that's a philosophical interpretation you moron. You know nothing about QM. And just a few seconds later he lists some other interpretations 55:14-55:55.

Since the past, the point is realists just condemned and reject the antirealist interpretation outright as completely wrong and perhaps stupid due to their realists' cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

My point:
When Al-Khalili as self-declared realist [as implied] state;
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

is a sign that he as a hardcore realist is conceding the antirealists claims are true as justified from the Bell experiment.

Al-Khalili may mentioned other interpretations and his own personal view, but that does not obviate his concession the Copenhagen Interpretation is true as they claimed and proven via the Bell experiment.

It is just like, if science has proven convincingly there is no God, a theist may say, "yeah OK if they said so", but personally I do not agree with them and there are many other beliefs that support God exists.
In this case, the theist has given some concession, otherwise the theist would insist 'NO WAY, over my dead body, etc."

No idiot, for the 10th time: all interpretations are consistent with the Bell experiment. It doesn't make the Copenhagen true.

Don't be so arrogant when you are so ignorant.

Here's a comment from AI:

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

[Atla]

Since the past, the point is realists just condemned and reject the antirealist interpretation outright as completely wrong and perhaps stupid due to their realists' cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

My point:
When Al-Khalili as self-declared realist [as implied] state;
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

is a sign that he as a hardcore realist is conceding the antirealists claims are true as justified from the Bell experiment.

Al-Khalili may mentioned other interpretations and his own personal view, but that does not obviate his concession the Copenhagen Interpretation is true as they claimed and proven via the Bell experiment.

It is just like, if science has proven convincingly there is no God, a theist may say, "yeah OK if they said so", but personally I do not agree with them and there are many other beliefs that support God exists.
In this case, the theist has given some concession, otherwise the theist would insist 'NO WAY, over my dead body, etc."

No idiot, for the 10th time: all interpretations are consistent with the Bell experiment. It doesn't make the Copenhagen true.

Don't be so arrogant when you are so ignorant.

Here's a comment from AI:

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Again, everyone knows except you that followers of all interpretations use the same calculations. Bell experiments are part of QM so all interpretations have to accomodate that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No idiot, for the 10th time: all interpretations are consistent with the Bell experiment. It doesn't make the Copenhagen true.

Don't be so arrogant when you are so ignorant.

Here's a comment from AI:

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Again, everyone knows except you that followers of all interpretations use the same calculations. Bell experiments are part of QM so all interpretations have to accomodate that.

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The above counter is with reference to the realists' interpretation based on local realism.

[Atla]

Don't be so arrogant when you are so ignorant.

Here's a comment from AI:

Again, everyone knows except you that followers of all interpretations use the same calculations. Bell experiments are part of QM so all interpretations have to accomodate that.

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The above counter is with reference to the realists' interpretation based on local realism.

There is no purely local realism interpretation of QM.

Also, most Copenhagens don't think that things literally don't exist when not measured.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, everyone knows except you that followers of all interpretations use the same calculations. Bell experiments are part of QM so all interpretations have to accomodate that.

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The above counter is with reference to the realists' interpretation based on local realism.

There is no purely local realism interpretation of QM.

Also, most Copenhagens don't think that things literally don't exist when not measured.

That could be their personal realist view just like Al-Khalili has his own personal view.

Again:

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The above implied philosophical realism [transcendental realism, indirect realism, and the likes ...] are not effective with QM, because the philosophical realists are chasing an illusion.

[Atla]

The above counter is with reference to the realists' interpretation based on local realism.

There is no purely local realism interpretation of QM.

Also, most Copenhagens don't think that things literally don't exist when not measured.

That could be their personal realist view just like Al-Khalili has his own personal view.

Again:

The Bell experiment weakens a key argument [local realism - subset of philosophical realism] against the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The experiment's results are more compatible with the predictions of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The above implied philosophical realism [transcendental realism, indirect realism, and the likes ...] are not effective with QM, because the philosophical realists are chasing an illusion.

Local realism has nothing to do with philosophical realism.

[Atla]

Local realism has nothing to do with philosophical realism.

If this didn't cause a BSOD for VA, I don't know what will.



Local realism kinda means "no supersimultaneity" and nonlocal realism kinda means "supersimultaneity" in the instrumentalist language of QM.

[Atla]

Local realism kinda means "no supersimultaneity" and nonlocal realism kinda means "supersimultaneity" in the instrumentalist language of QM.

So Al-Khalili listed some philosophical ideas that try to explain either actual supersimultaneity or apparent supersimultaneity:

- physical spooky connections
- parallel universes
- bringing reality into existence by looking

There are more. Anything is on the table, including philosophical realist and philosophical antirealist takes, no one knows. Point is that Einstein was wrong on this issue and Bohr was right.

[Atla]

Point is that Einstein was wrong on this issue and Bohr was right.

From Einstein's perspective, it's not so surprising that he became outraged. He just recently came up with the Theory of relativity, a completely revolutionary theory with universal implications, and he used crystal clear logical thinking to come up with it. And he became one of the, if not the most famous scientists of his time.

And then this Danish kid comes along and starts spouting some Eastern, Advaitan mystical rubbish, and embedded in his drivel is the idea that Einstein's spacetime can be - sort of - skipped. Like it was nothing.

[bahman]

Indirect Realism is Not Realistic
Atla had been claiming Indirect Realism is realistic in contrast to say Kant's Empirical Realism - Transcendental Idealism.

The so-called realists has hijacked and bastardized the term 'real' with their ideology of realism.
In serious philosophical consideration Indirect Realism is not realistic as defined below;

What is realistic [of varying degrees] is conditioned upon an embodied human-based FSRC, e.g. Kant's Empirical Realism, i.e. the focus on empirical evidences.

Here are the notes that support Indirect Realism is not realistic taken from
https://philosophyalevel.com/aqa-philos ... erception/
...........................

Indirect Realism is the view that:
The external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism)
But we perceive the external world indirectly, via sense data (hence, indirect)

Indirect realism says the immediate object of perception is sense data. This sense data is caused by, and represents, the mind-independent external world.



Sense data can be described as the content of perceptual experience.
It’s not a physical thing, it exists in the mind. However, sense data is said to be caused by and represent mind-independent physical objects (see diagram above).
Sense data is private. No one else can experience your sense data.
This avoids the problems with direct realism described above. For example, differences in perceptual variation can be explained by differences in sense data. The object itself stays the same throughout even if the sense data changes.

PROBLEMS FOR INDIRECT REALISM

1. BERKELEY: MIND-INDEPENDENT OBJECTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO SENSE DATA
Again, indirect realism says what we perceive is sense data that resembles the mind-independent external world. But George Berkeley (the idealism philosopher) questions how it’s possible for mind-dependent sense data to resemble so-called mind-independent objects in any way.
For example, sense data constantly changes, but mind-independent objects do not. The perceptual variation argument demonstrates this: One moment my sense data may be of a square table, the next it’s diamond-shaped. The sense data changes, but the mind-independent object doesn’t – so how can the two things resemble each other?
Further, how can the properties of sense data be like the properties of mind-independent objects? We say that a table is square, but how can my sense data be square? How can the squareness of a (mind-independent) table be like the squareness of sense data? They are two completely different kinds of things!
These major differences between sense data and mind-independent objects undermine the indirect realist claim that sense data is caused by and resembles mind-independent objects.

2. SCEPTICISM AND THE VEIL OF PERCEPTION
A problem for indirect realism is that it leads to scepticism about the nature and existence of the external world.



Look at the two diagrams above. What would be the difference from the perceiver’s perspective between the two?
What difference would it make to the perceiver if there was no physical world at all?
[In other words, what if we deny Indirect Realism?]
The answer, surely, is nothing.
If we only perceive sense data, and not the object itself, how can we know anything about the external world?

There is no way of telling if the sense data is an accurate representation of the external world – or even that there is an external world at all!
We can’t get beyond the veil of perception (sense data) to access the external world behind it.
So, how can indirect realism justify its claim that there is a mind-independent external world that causes sense data if we never actually perceive the mind-independent external world itself?

The Veil Problem:
How can we be sure our sense data accurately represent the external world? Is it like a veil that might distort reality?

Indirect realist replies to scepticism
Russell’s reply: External world is the best hypothesis
Bertrand Russell, an indirect realist, concedes that there is no way we can conclusively defeat this sceptical argument and prove the existence of the external world. So, instead, we must treat the external world as a hypothesis.

Note Russell admitted
"there is no way we can conclusively defeat this sceptical argument and prove the existence of the external world" of offer merely the best hypothesis.

3. The Homunculus Problem:
Who or what interprets the sense data? This can lead to an infinite regress if there's a little "person" in our heads interpreting the data.

From the above, Indirect Realism cannot be realistic.

The brain in the vat is a scenario one cannot deny, likewise indirect realism!

[Atla]

Earlier I claimed that

Indirect realism > Transcendental idealism

But the AIs and VA have opened my eyes to truth. I was ignorant, naive, short-sighted. So I retract my earlier claim, and propose a better one. Fact is:

Indirect realism >>> Transcendental idealism

Thanks for the debate.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Earlier I claimed that

Indirect realism > Transcendental idealism

But the AIs and VA have opened my eyes to truth. I was ignorant, naive, short-sighted. So I retract my earlier claim, and propose a better one. Fact is:

Indirect realism >>> Transcendental idealism

Thanks for the debate.

Indirect realism > [greater than] Transcendental idealism [?]

Indirect realism >>> [3x greater than] Transcendental idealism [???]

The above point to philosophical nonsense.

Indirect realism as a subset of philosophical realism is not realistic and is chasing an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Indirect realism as a subset of philosophical realism is not realistic and is chasing an illusion.

Indirect realism can't chase anything. Indirect realism is a noumenon, which you seem confident to attribute qualities to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indirect realism as a subset of philosophical realism is not realistic and is chasing an illusion.

Indirect realism can't chase anything. Indirect realism is a noumenon, which you seem confident to attribute qualities to.

??? where have you been? la la land?

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific [scientific-realism] view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. wiki

Indirect realists are "chasing" the noumenon aka the external world as it really is and insisting it is real and absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.
This chase is equivalent to chasing after an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Indirect realism as a subset of philosophical realism is not realistic and is chasing an illusion.

Indirect realism can't chase anything. Indirect realism is a noumenon, which you seem confident to attribute qualities to.

??? where have you been? la la land?

Oh, you mean you disagree, based on a poor read of what you yourself asserted. But sure, just note you went ad hom.

Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the scientific [scientific-realism] view of perception that subjects do not experience the external world as it really is, but perceive it through the lens of a conceptual framework. wiki

Oh, now you are saying indirect realists are chasing. Indirect realists are organisms, unlike indirect realism (which is what you said was chasing) and can chase.

Indirect realists are "chasing" the noumenon aka the external world[/b

]Whatyou calll noumena/noumenon.

as it really is and insisting it is real and absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.
This chase is equivalent to chasing after an illusion.

It's a poor summation of what they are doing. They have a coherent system of beliefs that is so productive and has many moments of not simply chasing but finding useful information, models and descpritons. Every single one of your FSERCs is based on knowledge primarily found by indirect and direct realists and you clearly value much of that. So, they are not merely chasing, they are finding and finding things that you value. Yes, the antirealist critique of their ontology has value, but your summation of what they are doing is fantasy. They are not merely chasing.

Using language like 'insisting' is polemic and poor generalization. Sure, they assert their ontology, at least on occasion, and it's certainly part of their set of beliefs. But any particular indirect realist may not care what you and others believe. It's how they conceive of the world and it is part of the framework of the work - let's say if they are scientists. And this work has been incredibly effective.

You frame them in a limited perjorative way, allt he while depending on their work, for example, for your whole project of enhancing certain attitudes due to the existence of mirror neurons - which are also noumena to many antirealists, given they cannot be seen by the naked eye. And yeah, if you wanna blather on about how the mirror neurons are conditioned on the neuroscience FSERC, I understand your position. My point is that you are framing an unbelievably sucessful highly coherent belief system as if it was some unicorn hunt, despite your dependance on the work of these people for nearly everything you believe.

People may well react to antirealism childishly. But you start threads presenting people with other belief systems in derogatory, insulting and radically oversimplified ways. But you manage to conceive of any interaction that gets insulting as 'they started it and you have the right to respond in kind', which the truth is you start things, at the very least also, in many OPs, and this framing of indirect realist is ad hom and oversimplified to the degree that it is false. Any indirect realist has already been insulted before participating in the thread.

You certain have valid groung to criticize and disagree with their ontology. Do that and skip the polemics and silly framings of the work of people who built the computer you post your condescending shit on and made every FSERC you are so proud to have classified.