No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealism [relative]

Philosophical Realism [cover indirect/direct realism, scientific realism ] claims there is a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] beyond empirical observations.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

On the other hand, Philosophical antirealism oppose and reject such a claim, i.e. it is impossible for a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] to exists beyond empirical observations.

Rather, Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim there is only a relatively mind-independent object within the empirical world. As such, while humans do observe an apple on a tree out there which is independent from humans physically, somehow [require detailed explanations] they are still related to the human conditions.

Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

So, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon if there are no humans.

While Al-Khalili [as a Quantum Physicist] admit the above, as a dogmatic philosophical realist he is unable to accept the above fact from QM. This reflect a psychological issue dealing with the pains of cognitive dissonances which he had to avoid.

I had argued, philosophical realism is a dogmatic ideology that is adopted from an evolutionary default to deal with an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonance that generate terrible and terrific existential pains and terror at a subliminal level.

While philosophical realists are at the mercy of the above terror, philosophical antirealists has evolved and matured further to be able to manage the terror of the evolutionary default to some degrees.

As such the contentions between Philosophical Realists [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealists [relative] has to be revealed by Critical Philosophy and resolved at the psychological level and not the epistemological level.

Discuss??
Views??
Note this is merely philosophical discussion not a "whack-a-mole" game.

There is no such thing as a thing in itself. how could there be! If no dog, bird, insect, plant, or human saw the moon or detected the moon with scientific instruments , then the moon would not exist except as an item of faith.

First, there are mind-independent things out there.
If one is standing on a track, there is the oncoming train that is independent of one's mind existing out there.
As such, it would be wise to jump off the track to avoid being squashed to pieces.
But all this reality is only of relative mind independence not of absolute mind-independence.

The problem starts when philosophical realists insist on an ideological basis there is an absolute mind-independent train-in-itself [thing-in-itself] existing even if there are no humans.
If the above ideology is acceptable then it can be stretched to an absolute mind-independent soul-in-itself, God-in-itself, total-Universe-in-itself which is the basis for all sort of metaphysical issues which has negative impact on humanity in practice.
The root cause for such a stretch is driven by psychology from an existential basis and has no epistemological reality to it.

The reality is a thing [the Moon] is represented by primary and secondary qualities existing in time and space.
Locke had proven there are no absolutely mind independent secondary qualities.
Berkeley had proven there are no absolutely mind-independent primary qualities.
Physics has demonstrated there are no absolutely mind-independent time and space.
So there is no real absolutely mind-independent thing-in-itself except for a relative mind-independent thing, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Physical objects like “moon”or any other physical object…First must exist before the object can be Known to exist.

Knowing a physical object requires an observer to first look at the object, to know it is there. The human observer sees the object in space and calls the object a moon.

If the human observer never looked at the object, then the moon would never have been (known) as a moon, even though the object is there.

Without the human observer conceptualising the object a (moon) then no moon would have existed as known, even though the object is there. So without the concept of the object, there would just be an object there, and observer would not know what was being looked at, it would be there, but not known what it is, had the human observer not conceptualised it.

I think that’s what VA is pointing to in this thread…but I could be wrong. I think the whole idea is about “knowing” an object as a concept known…rather than the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it. The object MUST exist first for it to be known to exist as a concept.

Clarification needed.

Yes, I don't mean "the object doesn’t actually exist at all until an observer looks at it."

My point is this;

As I wrote above;
The reality is a thing [the Moon] is supposedly represented by primary and secondary qualities existing in time and space.
Locke had proven there are no absolutely mind independent secondary qualities.
Berkeley had proven there are no absolutely mind-independent primary qualities.
Physics has demonstrated there are no absolutely mind-independent time and space.
So there is no real absolutely mind-independent thing-in-itself except for a relative mind-independent thing, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

To be known and described, say by the Science FSK, the moon [thing] must first emerged to be realized as real, then can it be perceived known and described.
Since as above, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon, the moon must have emerged relative to the human conditions [not absolutely mind-independent] to be realized, [FSER] then perceived, known and subsequently described [FSK].

The main purpose of the above argument is to oppose and reject the philosophical realists' ideological claim that there is an absolute mind-independent thing-in-itself [moon-in-itself] which is the basis for direct/indirect realism, scientific realism and therefrom support the claim Morality cannot be objective. It is also a basis for theism for an absolutely mind-independent God and Soul.

The belief of philosophical antirealism [Kantian] of a relative mind-independent reality is realistic and pragmatic in contributing to the vision and mission of perpetual peace and progress for humanity.

Note the evident havoc caused by philosophical realists in here which is translatable to the hindrance of perpetual peace out there in the future.

[Belinda]

Philosophical Realism [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealism [relative]

Philosophical Realism [cover indirect/direct realism, scientific realism ] claims there is a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] beyond empirical observations.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

On the other hand, Philosophical antirealism oppose and reject such a claim, i.e. it is impossible for a real absolutely mind-independent object [noumenon] to exists beyond empirical observations.

Rather, Philosophical antirealists [Kantian] claim there is only a relatively mind-independent object within the empirical world. As such, while humans do observe an apple on a tree out there which is independent from humans physically, somehow [require detailed explanations] they are still related to the human conditions.

Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

So, there is no absolutely mind-independent moon if there are no humans.

While Al-Khalili [as a Quantum Physicist] admit the above, as a dogmatic philosophical realist he is unable to accept the above fact from QM. This reflect a psychological issue dealing with the pains of cognitive dissonances which he had to avoid.

I had argued, philosophical realism is a dogmatic ideology that is adopted from an evolutionary default to deal with an existential crisis that generate cognitive dissonance that generate terrible and terrific existential pains and terror at a subliminal level.

While philosophical realists are at the mercy of the above terror, philosophical antirealists has evolved and matured further to be able to manage the terror of the evolutionary default to some degrees.

As such the contentions between Philosophical Realists [absolute] versus Philosophical AntiRealists [relative] has to be revealed by Critical Philosophy and resolved at the psychological level and not the epistemological level.

Discuss??
Views??
Note this is merely philosophical discussion not a "whack-a-mole" game.

There is no such thing as a thing in itself. how could there be! If no dog, bird, insect, plant, or human saw the moon or detected the moon with scientific instruments , then the moon would not exist except as an item of faith.

First, there are mind-independent things out there.
If one is standing on a track, there is the oncoming train that is independent of one's mind existing out there.
As such, it would be wise to jump off the track to avoid being squashed to pieces.
But all this reality is only of relative mind independence not of absolute mind-independence.

The problem starts when philosophical realists insist on an ideological basis there is an absolute mind-independent train-in-itself [thing-in-itself] existing even if there are no humans.
If the above ideology is acceptable then it can be stretched to an absolute mind-independent soul-in-itself, God-in-itself, total-Universe-in-itself which is the basis for all sort of metaphysical issues which has negative impact on humanity in practice.
The root cause for such a stretch is driven by psychology from an existential basis and has no epistemological reality to it.

The reality is a thing [the Moon] is represented by primary and secondary qualities existing in time and space.
Locke had proven there are no absolutely mind independent secondary qualities.
Berkeley had proven there are no absolutely mind-independent primary qualities.
Physics has demonstrated there are no absolutely mind-independent time and space.
So there is no real absolutely mind-independent thing-in-itself except for a relative mind-independent thing, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

But time and space, and the Sun and the Moon are ideas too.The Sun and the Moon and so forth mean nothing to a bit of rock.
True, if there be God who made everything, then he made Sun and Moon etc etc. and for Him Sun and Moon exist . However from God's point of view whether Sun and Moon exist in themselves or as ideas in His mind is less certain. Genesis 1 , 'Creation', implies the latter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First, there are mind-independent things out there.
If one is standing on a track, there is the oncoming train that is independent of one's mind existing out there.
As such, it would be wise to jump off the track to avoid being squashed to pieces.
But all this reality is only of relative mind independence not of absolute mind-independence.

The problem starts when philosophical realists insist on an ideological basis there is an absolute mind-independent train-in-itself [thing-in-itself] existing even if there are no humans.
If the above ideology is acceptable then it can be stretched to an absolute mind-independent soul-in-itself, God-in-itself, total-Universe-in-itself which is the basis for all sort of metaphysical issues which has negative impact on humanity in practice.
The root cause for such a stretch is driven by psychology from an existential basis and has no epistemological reality to it.

The reality is a thing [the Moon] is represented by primary and secondary qualities existing in time and space.
Locke had proven there are no absolutely mind independent secondary qualities.
Berkeley had proven there are no absolutely mind-independent primary qualities.
Physics has demonstrated there are no absolutely mind-independent time and space.
So there is no real absolutely mind-independent thing-in-itself except for a relative mind-independent thing, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

But time and space, and the Sun and the Moon are ideas too.The Sun and the Moon and so forth mean nothing to a bit of rock.
True, if there be God who made everything, then he made Sun and Moon etc etc. and for Him Sun and Moon exist . However from God's point of view whether Sun and Moon exist in themselves or as ideas in His mind is less certain. Genesis 1 , 'Creation', implies the latter.

The primary consideration is the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

To optimize the above within the constraints of the individual[s] and environment, the Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism is very effective.

For Nāgārjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths.[2]
The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence.[2] The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable.[2]
Ultimately, all phenomena are empty (śūnyatā) of an inherent self or essence due to the non-existence of the self (anattā), but temporarily exist depending on other phenomena (pratītyasamutpāda).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

As the Buddha stated, we must use the 'right' raft and set it aside after it has served its purpose, not cling to it which would hinder progress.

Thus we should reference the following dual-truths in relevance to their context to optimize well being and flourishing:
1. No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon [sunyata]
2. There is a relative mind-independent moon [pratītyasamutpāda]

Thus to be optimal, we cannot adopt the beliefs of philosophical realists and theists which cling to absolute existence of mind-independent things and God.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

[Iwannaplato]

The primary consideration is the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

Ultimately, all phenomena are empty (śūnyatā) of an inherent self or essence due to the non-existence of the self (anattā),

Why is the well-being of these non-existent selves the primary consideration and of whom is it the primary consideration.

Do you believe in anatta? that you have no self?

[Belinda]

First, there are mind-independent things out there.
If one is standing on a track, there is the oncoming train that is independent of one's mind existing out there.
As such, it would be wise to jump off the track to avoid being squashed to pieces.
But all this reality is only of relative mind independence not of absolute mind-independence.

The problem starts when philosophical realists insist on an ideological basis there is an absolute mind-independent train-in-itself [thing-in-itself] existing even if there are no humans.
If the above ideology is acceptable then it can be stretched to an absolute mind-independent soul-in-itself, God-in-itself, total-Universe-in-itself which is the basis for all sort of metaphysical issues which has negative impact on humanity in practice.
The root cause for such a stretch is driven by psychology from an existential basis and has no epistemological reality to it.

The reality is a thing [the Moon] is represented by primary and secondary qualities existing in time and space.
Locke had proven there are no absolutely mind independent secondary qualities.
Berkeley had proven there are no absolutely mind-independent primary qualities.
Physics has demonstrated there are no absolutely mind-independent time and space.
So there is no real absolutely mind-independent thing-in-itself except for a relative mind-independent thing, i.e. relative to the human conditions.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

But time and space, and the Sun and the Moon are ideas too.The Sun and the Moon and so forth mean nothing to a bit of rock.
True, if there be God who made everything, then he made Sun and Moon etc etc. and for Him Sun and Moon exist . However from God's point of view whether Sun and Moon exist in themselves or as ideas in His mind is less certain. Genesis 1 , 'Creation', implies the latter.

The primary consideration is the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity.

To optimize the above within the constraints of the individual[s] and environment, the Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism is very effective.

For Nāgārjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths.[2]
The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence.[2] The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable.[2]
Ultimately, all phenomena are empty (śūnyatā) of an inherent self or essence due to the non-existence of the self (anattā), but temporarily exist depending on other phenomena (pratītyasamutpāda).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

As the Buddha stated, we must use the 'right' raft and set it aside after it has served its purpose, not cling to it which would hinder progress.

Thus we should reference the following dual-truths in relevance to their context to optimize well being and flourishing:
1. No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon [sunyata]
2. There is a relative mind-independent moon [pratītyasamutpāda]

Thus to be optimal, we cannot adopt the beliefs of philosophical realists and theists which cling to absolute existence of mind-independent things and God.
So, No Humans = No Absolutely Mind-Independent Moon.

Nagarjuna has that as you copied, above, in common with idealism(immaterialism)

[amihart]

I don't see reality as the "noumenon," which implies it is independent of its realization in some context. Yes, for the moon to meaningfully exist, it has to possess its reality from some context, some "frame of reference," which is akin to an "observer-observed" relationship, but this does not have to be the context of a conscious human observer. The moon is not "mind-dependent" but it is dependent upon the context in which it is situated. If there was nothing else in existence at all, it would be difficult to meaningfully consider the moon to be "real," but I see no reason to tie its reality to humans in particular. It can be tied to any other system(s), but of course if those systems were not conscious beings they could not be here to talk about it.

Quantum mechanics does not call into question realism. At best, you might say it calls into question metaphysical realism, but that is one kind of realism that does have a structure that parallels the noumenon/phenomenon, but even then, it does not completely defeat this idea. You can make QM compatible with metaphysical realism if you're willing to accept bizarre things like the universe is an evolving wave function that effectively encodes a multiverse.

But as I said, there are many kinds of realism. Quantum mechanics does not call into question, for example, contextual realism (Jocelyn Benoist), which treats properties of systems as contingent upon their context. Nor does it call into question weak realism (Carlo Rovelli), which treats properties of systems as contingent upon their interactions with other objects. It does not call into question perspectival realism (Michel Bitbol) which treats reality as fundamentally perspective-dependent. None of these philosophies have a structure comparable to the noumenon/phenomenon structure.

It really only calls into metaphysical realism, but even then as I said you can technically salvage it with some strange assumptions. Most defenders of metaphysical realism I have seen in the literature or in the media either take the position of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (David Deutsch, Sean Carroll) or take the position that QFT is wrong (Tim Maudlin, David Albert).

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see reality as the "noumenon," which implies it is independent of its realization in some context. Yes, for the moon to meaningfully exist, it has to possess its reality from some context, some "frame of reference," which is akin to an "observer-observed" relationship, but this does not have to be the context of a conscious human observer. The moon is not "mind-dependent" but it is dependent upon the context in which it is situated. If there was nothing else in existence at all, it would be difficult to meaningfully consider the moon to be "real," but I see no reason to tie its reality to humans in particular. It can be tied to any other system(s), but of course if those systems were not conscious beings they could not be here to talk about it.

Quantum mechanics does not call into question realism. At best, you might say it calls into question metaphysical realism, but that is one kind of realism that does have a structure that parallels the noumenon/phenomenon, but even then, it does not completely defeat this idea. You can make QM compatible with metaphysical realism if you're willing to accept bizarre things like the universe is an evolving wave function that effectively encodes a multiverse.

But as I said, there are many kinds of realism. Quantum mechanics does not call into question, for example, contextual realism (Jocelyn Benoist), which treats properties of systems as contingent upon their context. Nor does it call into question weak realism (Carlo Rovelli), which treats properties of systems as contingent upon their interactions with other objects. It does not call into question perspectival realism (Michel Bitbol) which treats reality as fundamentally perspective-dependent. None of these philosophies have a structure comparable to the noumenon/phenomenon structure.

It really only calls into metaphysical realism, but even then as I said you can technically salvage it with some strange assumptions. Most defenders of metaphysical realism I have seen in the literature or in the media either take the position of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (David Deutsch, Sean Carroll) or take the position that QFT is wrong (Tim Maudlin, David Albert).

Yes, Quantum mechanics does not call into question realism because 'realism' or mind-independence reality is a very generic term.
It only question philosophical realism which claims reality is ABSOLUTELY mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans not not, in contrast to RELATIVELY mind-independent reality where the human conditions or mind is 'somehow' involved and related.

The noumenon is a subset of philosophical realism, i.e. it is postulated as existing absolutely independent of the mind beyond the empirical world.

Note:
Classes of Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42601

[amihart]

Yes, Quantum mechanics does not call into question realism because 'realism' or mind-independence reality is a very generic term. It only question philosophical realism which claims reality is ABSOLUTELY mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans not not, in contrast to RELATIVELY mind-independent reality where the human conditions or mind is 'somehow' involved and related.

The way you use "absolute" vs "relative" is a bit strange as typically "absolute" refers to reference frame independence whereas relative refers to reference frame dependence. But setting that aside for now, no, quantum mechanics does not come even close to having the hint of an air of calling into question belief that there exists a reality that is independent of "the mind," as if it could not exist without minds.

The properties of systems depend upon the context of your observation, sure, but the key word here is "context" not "observation." In Galilean relativity, two observers can look at the same object and measure it to have different velocities. Someone poor with language might say therefore velocity is "observer-dependent" then someone who wishes to obfuscate things even further would therefore say velocity "depends upon mind" and "only exists when you observe it."

No, it just does not meaningfully exist outside of the context in which those properties are realized. This is also why I point out your confusing use of "absolute" and "relativity" since I suspect this is part of your confusion. You may be confusing something that is relative, or much more broadly, context-dependent, with something that is "observer-dependent" as if it depends upon the conscious observer. But this is just false and is not how these physical theories work at all.

Quantum mechanics is a context-dependent theory. Systems do not meaningfully have properties independently of the context in which those properties are realized. None of this has to do with conscious observers, only tangentially as conscious observers also are physical systems that operate and make predictions according to these same laws, so if you want to predict what you will observe you have to specify the context of your observation.

That is at least, if you take a contextual realist approach. There are other approaches as well which I do not subscribe to, but the literature is filled with interpretations of quantum mechanics which do not posit "minds." The idea that minds are anywhere at all in the mathematics of the theory is not justified by anything. The mathematics of the theory never posits the existence of "minds" at any point in any of its postulates, so to say it is "mind-dependent" even partially is just factually wrong. Any contingency on minds would have to be argued tangentially to the theory itself, based on different arguments and postulates outside of the mathematics of the theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, Quantum mechanics does not call into question realism because 'realism' or mind-independence reality is a very generic term. It only question philosophical realism which claims reality is ABSOLUTELY mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans not not, in contrast to RELATIVELY mind-independent reality where the human conditions or mind is 'somehow' involved and related.

The way you use "absolute" vs "relative" is a bit strange as typically "absolute" refers to reference frame independence whereas relative refers to reference frame dependence. But setting that aside for now, no, quantum mechanics does not come even close to having the hint of an air of calling into question belief that there exists a reality that is independent of "the mind," as if it could not exist without minds.

The properties of systems depend upon the context of your observation, sure, but the key word here is "context" not "observation." In Galilean relativity, two observers can look at the same object and measure it to have different velocities. Someone poor with language might say therefore velocity is "observer-dependent" then someone who wishes to obfuscate things even further would therefore say velocity "depends upon mind" and "only exists when you observe it."

No, it just does not meaningfully exist outside of the context in which those properties are realized. This is also why I point out your confusing use of "absolute" and "relativity" since I suspect this is part of your confusion. You may be confusing something that is relative, or much more broadly, context-dependent, with something that is "observer-dependent" as if it depends upon the conscious observer. But this is just false and is not how these physical theories work at all.

Quantum mechanics is a context-dependent theory. Systems do not meaningfully have properties independently of the context in which those properties are realized. None of this has to do with conscious observers, only tangentially as conscious observers also are physical systems that operate and make predictions according to these same laws, so if you want to predict what you will observe you have to specify the context of your observation.

That is at least, if you take a contextual realist approach. There are other approaches as well which I do not subscribe to, but the literature is filled with interpretations of quantum mechanics which do not posit "minds." The idea that minds are anywhere at all in the mathematics of the theory is not justified by anything. The mathematics of the theory never posits the existence of "minds" at any point in any of its postulates, so to say it is "mind-dependent" even partially is just factually wrong. Any contingency on minds would have to be argued tangentially to the theory itself, based on different arguments and postulates outside of the mathematics of the theory.

"no, quantum mechanics does not come even close to having the hint of an air of calling into question belief that there exists a reality that is independent of "the mind," as if it could not exist without minds."

The current dominant view of Quantum Mechanics is Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation which is a philosophical antirealist view.
There had been and there are many views on Quantum Mechanics.

It was Einstein in relation to QM and as a philosophical realist who argued there is still a moon if no one is looking at it or regardless of whether there are humans or not.
It is absolutely mind-independent in this sense.

Albert Einstein is famous for saying, “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it”. This statement reflects the idea of [philosophical] realism, which suggests that a system has well-defined properties even when not measured.
Google-Search AI

The philosophical antirealist [Kantian] rejects philosophical realism and claim whatever is real is relative mind-independent but ultimately it is somehow related to the human conditions.

[amihart]

The current dominant view of Quantum Mechanics is Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation which is a philosophical antirealist view. There had been and there are many views on Quantum Mechanics.

Go ask any physicist their opinion on this, you will be hard pressed to find any who interprets Copenhagen as "reality depends upon the mind." The Copenhagen interpretation is the idea that the principle of complementary prevents you from knowing all aspects of a system simulateously, so quantum mechanics represents the end of what we can possibly know about nature. It is not "anti-realist" in the sense of idealism, it is anti-realist in the sense that it does not think getting down to fundamental reality is even possible. It doesn't deny one exists, it just denies that we could actually describe it if it does.

In practice these days, it tends to be a more utilitarian approach, sometimes conflated with "shut up and calculate" because if we cannot say anything about nature, then there is no point in talking about it. Bohr did not quite see it this way, but when the Copenhagen interpretation came to the States it was reinterpreted in a more utilitarian sense.

It was Einstein in relation to QM and as a philosophical realist who argued there is still a moon if no one is looking at it or regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Yes, you do not need to quote Google-AI to me. I know that quote comes from the book Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais who was recounting something Einstein said to him. The early Einstein-Bohr days was a lot of conversation digesting the meaning of quantum theory, but it has been a century since the theory was founded and the literature is much more well-established on this issue. You do not need not posit anything about the mind in quantum mechanics. The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is not even a majority view but only a plurality) is more for historical reasons.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The current dominant view of Quantum Mechanics is Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation which is a philosophical antirealist view. There had been and there are many views on Quantum Mechanics.

Go ask any physicist their opinion on this, you will be hard pressed to find any who interprets Copenhagen as "reality depends upon the mind." The Copenhagen interpretation is the idea that the principle of complementary prevents you from knowing all aspects of a system simulateously, so quantum mechanics represents the end of what we can possibly know about nature. It is not "anti-realist" in the sense of idealism, it is anti-realist in the sense that it does not think getting down to fundamental reality is even possible. It doesn't deny one exists, it just denies that we could actually describe it if it does.

In practice these days, it tends to be a more utilitarian approach, sometimes conflated with "shut up and calculate" because if we cannot say anything about nature, then there is no point in talking about it. Bohr did not quite see it this way, but when the Copenhagen interpretation came to the States it was reinterpreted in a more utilitarian sense.

It was Einstein in relation to QM and as a philosophical realist who argued there is still a moon if no one is looking at it or regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Yes, you do not need to quote Google-AI to me. I know that quote comes from the book Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais who was recounting something Einstein said to him. The early Einstein-Bohr days was a lot of conversation digesting the meaning of quantum theory, but it has been a century since the theory was founded and the literature is much more well-established on this issue. You do not need not posit anything about the mind in quantum mechanics. The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation (which is not even a majority view but only a plurality) is more for historical reasons.

Other than going into the details, the general view of the philosophical antirealist [Kantian] is the philosophical realists' view that there is an absolute mind-independent reality [or thing(s)] out there, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not is not tenable.

I did not state the Copenhagenists interpret "reality depends upon the mind" rather I stated they are philosophical antirealists who oppose the claims of the philosophical realists. I always avoid using the term 'depend'.

Philosophical realists claim reality [or thing(s)] out there exists regardless of whether there are humans or not; that is in the absolute sense in contrast to the relative sense where it is somehow related to the human conditions.

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

Thus my claim in the OP:
if no minds [humans] then there is no absolute mind-independent reality [thing(s)].

If anyone within QM accepts philosophical realism they are adopting an ideology that is fake and illusory.

[amihart]

I did not state the Copenhagenists interpret "reality depends upon the mind" rather I stated they are philosophical antirealists who oppose the claims of the philosophical realists.

First, I do not see your distinction you're making here. One of the meanings of "X depends on Y" is compatible that X requires Y to exist, which is explicitly what you said, so I do not see how "depends" is not a valid word to use here. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation only opposes realism in insofar as they have no opinion on it, it does not posit the opposite that reality depends upon the mind.

Thus my claim in the OP:
if no minds [humans] then there is no absolute mind-independent reality [thing(s)].

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

If anyone within QM accepts philosophical realism they are adopting an ideology that is fake and illusory.

What about the mathematics of the theory forces you to say this? Be specific, as this is a pretty extraordinary claim. As I stated, there is simply nothing in the mathematical structure of the theory at all that posits "minds" at any point, so in order to claim somehow the theory posits that reality depends upon mind (sorry, I mean "requires mind to exist"), it seems to me you have to bring that claim in from the outside.

Where do I find it in the structure of the theory this requirement for minds or humans?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not state the Copenhagenists interpret "reality depends upon the mind" rather I stated they are philosophical antirealists who oppose the claims of the philosophical realists.

First, I do not see your distinction you're making here. One of the meanings of "X depends on Y" is compatible that X requires Y to exist, which is explicitly what you said, so I do not see how "depends" is not a valid word to use here. Second, the Copenhagen interpretation only opposes realism in insofar as they have no opinion on it, it does not posit the opposite that reality depends upon the mind.

Thus my claim in the OP:
if no minds [humans] then there is no absolute mind-independent reality [thing(s)].

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

If anyone within QM accepts philosophical realism they are adopting an ideology that is fake and illusory.

What about the mathematics of the theory forces you to say this? Be specific, as this is a pretty extraordinary claim. As I stated, there is simply nothing in the mathematical structure of the theory at all that posits "minds" at any point, so in order to claim somehow the theory posits that reality depends upon mind (sorry, I mean "requires mind to exist"), it seems to me you have to bring that claim in from the outside.

Where do I find it in the structure of the theory this requirement for minds or humans?

I am not very familiar with QM but understand there are philosophical realists' view versus the philosophical antirealist view within QM.

Here is AI:

VA to ChatGpt
Philosophical Realism vs AntiRealism within QM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism .."reality ..it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it"
I understand Einstein is the most famous philosophical realists who believe the moon exists even if there are no humans observing it.
Bohr opposed Einstein view, as such supposedly a philosophical antirealist in relation to his Copenhagen Interpretation.
Please explain how the philosophical antirealists' view [Bohr, Copenhagen, etc. entanglement] oppose the philosophical realists' views as defined above [WIKI]?

ChatGPT said:

The philosophical divide between realism and anti-realism in quantum mechanics (QM) revolves around differing interpretations of what constitutes reality and whether it exists independently of observation. Here’s how the two perspectives clash:

Philosophical Realism in QM (Einstein's View)
Philosophical realists, like Einstein, believe that reality exists independently of any observation. This aligns with the classical intuition that physical objects have definite properties—such as position and momentum—regardless of whether they are being observed. Einstein famously quipped, “I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.”

In QM, philosophical realism suggests that the wavefunction represents a real, objective physical state (ontic interpretation) that exists "out there" and that quantum probabilities reflect our ignorance of hidden variables determining the outcomes of measurements. For example:

Hidden Variable Theories: Einstein supported the idea that QM is incomplete and that underlying "hidden variables" (not accounted for in the Copenhagen interpretation) would restore determinism and reality.
Philosophical Anti-Realism in QM (Bohr and Copenhagen Interpretation)
Philosophical anti-realists, exemplified by Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation, argue that QM does not describe a mind-independent reality. Instead, QM provides a tool to predict observations or measurement outcomes without making claims about the existence of objective reality independent of observation.

Key aspects of anti-realism in QM:

Measurement Problem: The wavefunction, according to the Copenhagen view, is not a physical entity but a mathematical tool representing knowledge (or probabilities) about potential outcomes. Upon measurement, the wavefunction "collapses," and only then does the system take on definite properties. Reality, in this view, is tied to observation.
Complementarity: Bohr emphasized that properties like position and momentum are mutually exclusive and context-dependent, becoming well-defined only during specific measurement setups.
Rejection of Hidden Variables: Anti-realists reject the realist assumption of hidden variables, as shown by Bohr’s critique of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s (EPR) argument for determinism and locality.

Entanglement and the Realism-Anti-Realism Clash
Entanglement illustrates the tension between these two views:

For realists: Entanglement challenges their commitment to locality (the idea that information cannot travel faster than light). Bell's Theorem and experimental violations of Bell inequalities showed that no local hidden variable theory can fully account for quantum correlations, suggesting that reality might be "non-local" in ways that defy classical intuitions.
For anti-realists: Entanglement supports their view that reality is not an independent entity but arises from relationships and interactions. Measurements on entangled particles don’t reveal pre-existing properties but rather create correlated outcomes through the act of measurement, reinforcing the dependence of "reality" on observation.

How Anti-Realists Oppose Realists
Independence of Reality: Anti-realists deny that reality exists independently of observation, asserting that QM only predicts measurement outcomes rather than describing underlying reality.
Ontological Commitments: While realists assume the wavefunction represents a real, ontic state, anti-realists treat it as an epistemic tool (knowledge representation) or deny it represents reality altogether.
Non-Determinism: Anti-realists embrace the probabilistic nature of QM, seeing it as fundamental, whereas realists seek deterministic explanations, such as hidden variables.
Role of Observation: Anti-realists emphasize the inseparability of the observer and the observed, arguing that reality is co-constructed through measurement, in direct opposition to the realist claim of a pre-existing, mind-independent world.

Summary of the Clash
Aspect ........Realists (Einstein)...........Anti-Realists (Bohr, Copenhagen)
Reality Exists independently of observation Reality is dependent on observation
Wavefunction Represents objective physical reality Represents knowledge/probabilities
Determinism Supports determinism, hidden variables Embraces fundamental probabilism
Entanglement Challenges locality but still assumes realism Reinforces reality as relational and observer-dependent
Measurement Reveals pre-existing properties Creates properties through observation

Bohr’s anti-realism undermines the realist notion that reality exists independently of observers, emphasizing that QM describes phenomena (appearances) rather than noumenal (mind-independent) reality. This reflects a profound philosophical divergence on the nature of reality itself.

My main contention is anything grounded on philosophical realism [QM in this case] is unrealistic, fake and illusory:

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

[amihart]

Here is AI:

Again, do not send me AI. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

My main contention is anything grounded on philosophical realism [QM in this case] is unrealistic, fake and illusory

When you perceive the candle you are perceiving it as it is from your context. Someone farther away would perceive the candle differently, the light would've had more time to spread out and so it would be dimmer for example. They would see different things from different contexts. But both perspectives are equally real because that's how reality works. There is no candle independent of some context under which its properties are realized.

What you are perceiving directly is the reality of the candle, as it actually exists in the real world. In the real world, objects only realize their properties contextually. There are an infinite number of ways you can look at a candle and see it differently, and all are equally real. There is no "true" perspective, as if someone closer to the candle is seeing it closer to how it really is than someone further away (with a smaller "time delay" as you say). They are both seeing the real candle as it actually exists in reality directly, but under different contexts, and there is no candle independent of context, as systems only realize their properties in context.

Even if you could somehow perceive the candle with zero time delay, that would not make such a perspective on the candle any "truer" or "more real" than any others.