Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 5:56 am
Note this is merely philosophical discussion not a "whack-a-mole" game.
As usual confusion a such a basic level it's sad or hilarious or both.
You make an hom OP, then say this is intended for philosophical discussion not whack-a-mole games.
Now one could begin a thread asserting something about the psychology of people with a philosophical position. But to not be whack-a-mole, you'd need to actually mount an argument.
The self-congratulatory self-evaulation in the OP was purely hilarious.
Nor does Al-Khalili think that, that's why he said "in some strange sense" first. To many people that strange sense is best conceptualized as the Moon being in superposition when no one is looking. It's infinitely spread out everywhere and nowhere at once, like a probability wave. And when you are looking at it, it is in a certain location and state.
I don't know how that could possibly work in a macro situation. The moon can't just move or spread out when someone stops looking at it.
Challenge to VA: Ask your AI who does your thinking for you what % scientists would say the Moon is not there when no one is looking at it and how many think it persists when not perceived. You'll find that a majority and not a small one would vote for persistence. This means ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN USE OF FSERCS that the more objective position is the realist one.
Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 4:07 pm
observations of brains are noumena
the trick is that when humans aren't looking at it- god is looking at it...
-Imp
I was hoping God was looking at my soul
most believers do...
-Imp
Oh, goodness, there are so many types of believers. And amongst the theist I actually think many hope God isn't looking at their souls, just as most people don't want anyone prying in all the gnarly stuff by whatever method. Just look how much effort we put into hiding stuff, even from ourselves, let alone entities with a lot of power like tax authorities, police, neighbors, partners and, well, God.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 3:51 pm
Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?
No looker has ever seen a moon.
Think about that? What’s looking is the looked upon. The object known. The moon is a concept known. Not an object that’s ever been seen to exist separately or independently from the concept known. I think that’s what VA is pointing to, I’m not sure. Clarification is needed.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 3:51 pm
Here's a questions for those who believe the Moon does not persist when not looked at:
The Moon's core and far side are never and nearly never observed: do they not exist.
If no one is percieving someone's brain, does it exist? Or does it come into being during brain surgery and assassinations?
Does the oughtness not to kill not persist when no one is looking at it and when they are looking at it, what do they see?
No 3 D object is ever seen.. Seeing is only evident within the known looked upon object..and is why conscious human beings know not to bump into each other while moving around as the known objects they are.
Objects are known to be 3D but never seen as 3D….because known objects have no access to what is absolutely whole. Every object is relative to the observer as the object is known conceptually.
Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:24 pm
Thanks.
I totally resonate with this knowledge as a truth.
I’d also like to add my own principle: which is another truth: maybe an overlooked truth: and which is a non-truth.
What is a non- truth? It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of. If you can say it. IT is not the truth.
I think that correlates with this subject topic you have started. Maybe !
In "It’s a truth that cannot be spoken of."
Not sure if is your intention or not, but in the above there is still an object-predicate scenario, "its[object] and "truth that cannot be spoken of" [predicate] as such, dualism.
Note Kant's noumenon.
The noumenon [object] in one perspective is unknowable [predicate].
But ultimately the unknowable noumenon is an illusion if hypostatized or reified as real.
Thus the moment the mind aimed for something ultimate, it is an illusion, albeit could be a useful illusion for various mental purposes.
Btw, dualism is critically necessary for basic survival at the relative level, i.e. where there are humans.
However, there is no metaphysical absolute ultimate thing in such dualism, to insist so is delusional.
This is why,
"In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
This is skepticism with reference to an ultimate thing that exists regardless of humans.
I agree with your viewpoint on this.
Also this is still Reification at play.
To take an abstract concept (or any concept) as having material or “real” existence. Good posting VA
Thanks.
You're welcome.
Rare to find anyone agreeing with me.
Whichever or whatever, the ultimate for humanity is "perpetual peace" which is merely an impossible to achieve or be real but as illusory is to be used as a guide for continual progress.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2024 7:25 am
You got the wrong answer from the AI or deceived it (you asked whether it's related, well it can be), Einstein's comment is about the Copenhagen interpretation, not entanglement itself.
And the above realism vs anti-realism issue isn't your philosophical realism vs anti-realism issue, but I doubt you can read.
I am not an expert in QM [but quite familiar with it] but you an ultracrepidarian is trying to be an expert in QM.
Here's AI [wR]:
VA to AI
I believe Einstein's comment about 'spookiness' directly related to the concept of entanglement?
AI Wrote
Yes, Einstein's comment about "spooky action at a distance" is directly related to the concept of entanglement. In fact, it was his criticism of the implications of entanglement that led him to coin this phrase.
While your interlocutor is correct that Einstein's critique was primarily aimed at the Copenhagen interpretation, it was specifically the entanglement aspect of the interpretation that he found most troubling. He believed that the idea of two particles being instantaneously connected, regardless of distance, violated the principle of locality, which states that physical influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, while Einstein's comment was a broader critique of the Copenhagen interpretation, it was the phenomenon of entanglement that he specifically identified as "spooky action at a distance."
This "spooky action at a distance" remark by Einstein is the same as "strange" by Khalili which by Khalili's time, this strangeness or spookiness is demonstrated to be true and winning the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
!
Good posting VA