Anti-Realism Proper

[bahman]

I cannot imagine any feasible situation that confirms that anti-realism is true. Even in the brain in a vat scenario, a brain, a mad scientist, a supercomputer... exist.

[phyllo]

I cannot imagine any feasible situation that confirms that anti-realism is true. Even in the brain in a vat scenario, a brain, a mad scientist, a supercomputer... exist.

One can imagine that anti-realism is always true.

It doesn't matter that the "vat, brain, mad scientist" exist because we don't have direct access to those objects. What we perceive and think about 'reality' is vastly different from the "vat, brain, mad scientist". That's the point of the anti-realist argument.

[bahman]

I cannot imagine any feasible situation that confirms that anti-realism is true. Even in the brain in a vat scenario, a brain, a mad scientist, a supercomputer... exist.

One can imagine that anti-realism is always true.

It doesn't matter that the "vat, brain, mad scientist" exist because we don't have direct access to those objects.

It matters since otherwise, anti-realists cannot come up with a situation in which the reality is different from what our common sense tells us.

What we perceive and think about 'reality' is vastly different from the "vat, brain, mad scientist". That's the point of the anti-realist argument.

Could you imagine a situation in which the perceiver does not exist? Could you imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist? If the answers to these questions are no, then we are sure that the perceiver and the object of experience exist. Then we are either a brain in the vat or we exist as separate entities as our common sense tells us. Either way, there is a reality that provides the object of experience to us.

[seeds]

Could you imagine a situation in which the perceiver does not exist?

I don't have to "imagine" it.

I am a "perceiver," and I literally did not exist in the year 1942 when this scene from the movie Casablanca was filmed...

Could you imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist?

My body is an object that I and others can experience.

Again, at the time of the filming of Bogie "Bogarting" that cigarette in the above clip, my body did not exist.

If the answers to these questions are no, then we are sure that the perceiver and the object of experience exist. Then we are either a brain in the vat or we exist as separate entities as our common sense tells us. Either way, there is a reality that provides the object of experience to us.

I agree with what you are asserting in that last sentence, bahman, however, when you have some of the founding fathers of modern physics saying such things as this...

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -- Max Planck

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -- Niels Bohr

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." -- Werner Heisenberg

...then it's not a question of whether the phenomenal features of the universe are founded upon something real or not.

No, the question is what does the term "real" actually mean?
_______

[bahman]

Could you imagine a situation in which the perceiver does not exist?

I don't have to "imagine" it.

I am a "perceiver," and I literally did not exist in the year 1942 when this scene from the movie Casablanca was filmed...

Ok, I got your point but what do you mean?

Could you imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist?

My body is an object that I and others can experience.

Again, at the time of the filming of Bogie "Bogarting" that cigarette in the above clip, my body did not exist.

By the object of experience, I mean the stuff you experience, namely Quidia.

If the answers to these questions are no, then we are sure that the perceiver and the object of experience exist. Then we are either a brain in the vat or we exist as separate entities as our common sense tells us. Either way, there is a reality that provides the object of experience to us.

I agree with what you are asserting in that last sentence, bahman, however, when you have some of the founding fathers of modern physics saying such things as this...

Glad to hear that.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -- Max Planck

I don't find what he says as a proof of concept of an intelligent mind.

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -- Niels Bohr
"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." -- Werner Heisenberg

I believe in Bohmian interpretation.

...then it's not a question of whether the phenomenal features of the universe are founded upon something real or not.

No, the question is what does the term "real" actually mean?
_______

Real means actually existing.

[nemos]

I think, therefore I am.

I don't understand what other evidence of reality or objectivity is needed. Well, at least this is enough for me, everything else is just a dispute about the form, which is of course interesting, but not decisive.
Even if I am only a creation of potentials or possibilities, I still am. And if our reality is a world of potentials and possibilities, then so it is, our reality and objectivity. You can accept it or not, it does not change the essence - Cogito, ergo sum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is Anti-Realism

In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

Do I understand correctly that in anti-realism theory prevails over facts. If the fact does not fit into the theory, then the fact should be revised, but not the theory?
In contrast to realism, where the theory is only an approximate model of reality, and which is tested for compliance with known facts and the ability to predict unknown ones.

Nope.

There are many types of anti-realism which oppose realism [philosophical] claim of absolute mind-independence e.g. Moon exists regardless of humans.

In anti-realism [Kantian], whatever are theories or facts, both are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge [FSRK].
Thus whatever theory or fact is claimed, it must be qualified to a FSRK.
For example that 'water is H20' imply a qualification to the science-chemistry FSRK and all its conditions; it cannot be a political, economics or non-scientific theory or fact; it cannot be 'my father said so.'

As such, from the philosophical perspective, it is imperative that for any claim of theory or fact, the first thing to determine is 'what is the FSRK' they are grounded or based upon.
Often, most will be ignorant or miss this point so they talk pass each other 'till the cows come home.'
As such, the qualification of the necessary human-based FSRK is the essence of anti-realism.

The term 'human-based' is critical in opposing realism, because realism is mind-independent so not human-based or interrelated.

So for you, the first thing you need to establish for all your claims when in a philosophical forum is to ask, on what FSRK are your claims grounded on. Then you need to assess whether the FSRK you relied upon is credible, reliable and objective.
It is going no where if one were to jump into any arguments with merely bare, crude and naked facts [supposedly].

[Skepdick]

Do I understand correctly that in anti-realism theory prevails over facts.

No. What's with this philosophical predisposition/intuition to pit information sources against each other head on?

Facts are descriptions sufficient for particular purposes. Any description which fulfils the purpose at least partially is at least partially true.

Assuming you have a teleology ( a theory which answers the question "what is the purpose of the description?") any given description may; or may not be factual.

And you could have all sorts of reasons as to why the description is non-factual. Connotational mismatch. Denotational mismatch. Both. You could have mismatches and the descriptions can still be considered sufficiently factual based on the irrelevance of the errors.

In contrast to realism, where the theory is only an approximate model of reality, and which is tested for compliance with known facts and the ability to predict unknown ones.

The approximation is necessarily right in some aspects and wrong in other aspects.

That's precisely why it could be factual for some purposes and non-factual for others even though it's describing one and the same reality.

In so far that there are no privileged descriptions - that no description comes "closer" to reality than any other, realism is a stupid philosophy.

[nemos]

In so far that there are no privileged descriptions - that no description comes "closer" to reality than any other, realism is a stupid philosophy.

There was a time when reality was described, or modeled, with Newton's laws, later it was specified with Einstein's(including) laws according to accumulated experience and facts. I don't know about you, but to me it looks like a pretty noticeable advance, without which many technological toys would not be possible. "Black holes" were predicted theoretically from the beginning, as arising from the theory, and only later found actual confirmations.
To me, as a "stupid" realist, this all seems like confirmation of the validity of my "stupidity" over your "sanity". The only criterion for the truth of assumptions that I can see is the trial and error method, which is actually a test of assumptions for compliance with objective reality.

The existence of the moon is objective (independent of your "sanity" point of view) because:
- the moon is a light source that illuminates the earth
- many others see it, regardless of your "sanity" opinion
- it determines the tides of the oceans and the earth's crust
- observation and research stations have been sent there
- there should, as it were, be the footprints of the astronaut and the flag (and even if it is not so, it cannot affect the truth of other facts)
- accurate maps have been created, the relevance of which can be observed both in telescopes from the ground and in video footage taken in close proximity
- all these points are experimentally verifiable and do not contradict the theory

with all due respect to your "sanity"

[Skepdick]

In so far that there are no privileged descriptions - that no description comes "closer" to reality than any other, realism is a stupid philosophy.

There was a time when reality was described, or modeled, with Newton's laws, later it was specified with Einstein's(including) laws according to accumulated experience and facts. I don't know about you, but to me it looks like a pretty noticeable advance, without which many technological toys would not be possible. "Black holes" were predicted theoretically from the beginning, as arising from the theory, and only later found actual confirmations.
To me, as a "stupid" realist, this all seems like confirmation of the validity of my "stupidity" over your "sanity". The only criterion for the truth of assumptions that I can see is the trial and error method, which is actually a test of assumptions for compliance with objective reality.

The existence of the moon is objective (independent of your "sanity" point of view) because:
- the moon is a light source that illuminates the earth
- many others see it, regardless of your "sanity" opinion
- it determines the tides of the oceans and the earth's crust
- observation and research stations have been sent there
- there should, as it were, be the footprints of the astronaut and the flag (and even if it is not so, it cannot affect the truth of other facts)
- accurate maps have been created, the relevance of which can be observed both in telescopes from the ground and in video footage taken in close proximity
- all these points are experimentally verifiable and do not contradict the theory

with all due respect to your "sanity"

This is such a confused outlook.

What do you make of the fact that even a model that was "proven wrong" still has predictive value?
What do you make of the fundamental mantra of science: falsifiability. If science ever gets us any closer to "truth" what do you make of the notion of "falsifiable truth"?

Yes, models predict. Yes, models are useful. That gets you up to instrumentalism.
All models are wrong - some are useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong


How do you go from there to realism?

[seeds]

Could you imagine a situation in which the perceiver does not exist?

I don't have to "imagine" it.

I am a "perceiver," and I literally did not exist in the year 1942 when this scene from the movie Casablanca was filmed...

Ok, I got your point but what do you mean?

You asked us to "imagine a situation" in which the perceiver does not exist, and I provided you with one such situation.

Could you imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist?

My body is an object that I and others can experience.

Again, at the time of the filming of Bogie "Bogarting" that cigarette in the above clip, my body did not exist.

By the object of experience, I mean the stuff you experience, namely Quidia.

Once again, you asked us to imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist, and once again I provided one.

Furthermore, bahman, please do a Google search of the word "Quidia" and see if it means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure the word you are looking for is "Qualia.". We've been over this before, except last time you called it "Quadia."

I believe in Bohmian interpretation.

I too like Bohm's ideas.

However, I see a problem with his promotion of the "pilot wave" theory, because even though the proponents of the theory think they are being sensible by suggesting that the subatomic particles themselves are real objects, and that a so-called "pilot wave" allegedly guides the particles into their varying positions on, for example, the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment,...

...the theory nevertheless doesn't seem to explain what the "pilot wave" itself is made of.

On the other hand, I really like his musings on what he calls the "Implicate Order"...

(meaning the superpositioned/entangled, "non-local" reality of the quantum realm)

...and the "Explicate Order"...

(meaning the "local reality" of the phenomenal [3-D] features of the universe)

...and how it all seems to be "holographic-like" in nature.

He even goes so far as to call the entangled "Implicate Order" the "Holomovement."

I also appreciate Bohm because he wasn't afraid to risk his credibility by exploring metaphysical ideas with men like Jiddu Krishnamurti...

...then it's not a question of whether the phenomenal features of the universe are founded upon something real or not.

No, the question is what does the term "real" actually mean?

Real means actually existing.

You stated,...

"...there is a reality that provides the object of experience to us..."

In which case, I am simply trying to pin down what that foundational "reality" actually consists of, when, in fact, some of the prominent fathers of quantum physics have insisted that it's not actually what we normally call "real."

For example, if you say you believe in the Bohmian interpretation, then do you think the "pilot wave" is real and actually exists?

And if the answer is no, and that it is simply a mathematical abstraction, then how in the world does it guide (push) the so-called "real particles" through the double slits and toward their specific positions on the measuring screen?
_______

[bahman]

I don't have to "imagine" it.

I am a "perceiver," and I literally did not exist in the year 1942 when this scene from the movie Casablanca was filmed...

Ok, I got your point but what do you mean?

You asked us to "imagine a situation" in which the perceiver does not exist, and I provided you with one such situation.

Well, actually the perceiver exists as far as there is a change. I call the perceiver the mind. The story is long, but I have an argument for the mind. I can share it with you if you are interested.

My body is an object that I and others can experience.

Again, at the time of the filming of Bogie "Bogarting" that cigarette in the above clip, my body did not exist.

By the object of experience, I mean the stuff you experience, namely Quidia.

Once again, you asked us to imagine a situation in which the object of experience does not exist, and once again I provided one.

Well, if the mind exists then it simply means that the object of experience also exists.

Furthermore, bahman, please do a Google search of the word "Quidia" and see if it means what you think it means. I'm pretty sure the word you are looking for is "Qualia.". We've been over this before, except last time you called it "Quadia."

Yes, we have been through this. I however distinguish between Quidia and Qualia, the first one is the object of experience and the second one is the property of the first.

I believe in Bohmian interpretation.

I too like Bohm's ideas.

However, I see a problem with his promotion of the "pilot wave" theory, because even though the proponents of the theory think they are being sensible by suggesting that the subatomic particles themselves are real objects, and that a so-called "pilot wave" allegedly guides the particles into their varying positions on, for example, the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment,...

...the theory nevertheless doesn't seem to explain what the "pilot wave" itself is made of.

On the other hand, I really like his musings on what he calls the "Implicate Order"...

(meaning the superpositioned/entangled, "non-local" reality of the quantum realm)

...and the "Explicate Order"...

(meaning the "local reality" of the phenomenal [3-D] features of the universe)

...and how it all seems to be "holographic-like" in nature.

He even goes so far as to call the entangled "Implicate Order" the "Holomovement."

I also appreciate Bohm because he wasn't afraid to risk his credibility by exploring metaphysical ideas with men like Jiddu Krishnamurti...

I didn't study his thoughts to that extent. Good to know about them, some food to eat! To me, his idea is attractive because it removes all the absurdity of other interpretations, such as Schrodinger cat,...

...then it's not a question of whether the phenomenal features of the universe are founded upon something real or not.

No, the question is what does the term "real" actually mean?

Real means actually existing.

You stated,...

"...there is a reality that provides the object of experience to us..."

In which case, I am simply trying to pin down what that foundational "reality" actually consists of, when, in fact, some of the prominent fathers of quantum physics have insisted that it's not actually what we normally call "real."

For example, if you say you believe in the Bohmian interpretation, then do you think the "pilot wave" is real and actually exists?

And if the answer is no, and that it is simply a mathematical abstraction, then how in the world does it guide (push) the so-called "real particles" through the double slits and toward their specific positions on the measuring screen?
_______

To me, pilot waves are real and actually exist.

[nemos]

Yes, models predict. Yes, models are useful. That gets you up to instrumentalism.
All models are wrong - some are useful.

I really like useful things, and useless things do not.
I can't see anything useful for me in your "theory", so let it be up to you.
Everyone lives in the delusions they create for themselves, you like yours, I like mine.
In your opinion, which theories contributed more to technical progress, including the creation of computers, and how does it relate to the ideas of anti-realism?

[Skepdick]

-
I really like useful things, and useless things do not.
I can't see anything useful for me in your "theory", so let it be up to you.
Everyone lives in the delusions they create for themselves, you like yours, I like mine.
In your opinion, which theories contributed more to technical progress, including the creation of computers, and how does it relate to the ideas of anti-realism?

Not sure what your question has to do with anything.

If you believe in scientific progress, and you accept the fact that new theories falsify old theories, then what or where is the "realism" in a falsified/false theory?

The irony that you should bring computation to the discussion is epic, actually. Computation is an abstract game. It's all just symbol wrangling and re-writing - a game of rule-creation and rule-following. Turing machines can compute, even though they don't exist except in your head.

[nemos]

If you believe in scientific progress, and you accept the fact that new theories falsify old theories, then what or where is the "realism" in a falsified/false theory?

First of all, a new theory (Einstein's in particular) does not negate the old one (Newton's in particular), but complements it, because Einstein's equations naturally transform into Newton's at low speeds. Newton's theory is still valid at speeds small compared to the speed of light.
And secondly, you don't seem to deny at all that anti-realism is also practically anti-useful at the same time.