Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Darkneos]

I'd also note that you don't bring anything into existence, quantum physics doesn't work that way and neither does locality. This is a misunderstanding of what is mean by observation.

Like I posted before, the universe exists when you're not looking at it, you just only experience parts of it at a time.

You don't actually know what is meant by "observation". Nobody does.

If anybody knew what observation was we wouldn't have a measurement problem to solve.

They do, observation is any interaction with the system, it doesn’t involve consciousness.

Measurement problem is the issue of how a collapse occurs or if it even does since we can’t really measure it.

It also depends on which interpretation you’re using too.

Man you’re dumb.

[Skepdick]

They do, observation is any interaction with the system, it doesn’t involve consciousness.

Measurement problem is the issue that attempting to measure a system alters it in the process.

Man you’re dumb.

You are dumb. That's why you are making shit up.

Because you don't understand the measurement problem.

[Darkneos]

They do, observation is any interaction with the system, it doesn’t involve consciousness.

Measurement problem is the issue that attempting to measure a system alters it in the process.

Man you’re dumb.

You are dumb. That's why you are making shit up.

Because you don't understand the measurement problem.

I do, that’s why I corrected it. I was thinking of the other measurement problem not the quantum physics one.

But again your objections, as usual, are just noise

[Iwannaplato]

First, it wasn’t clear that you were responding to VA.

I said that myself in what you've quoted above, twice.
1)

I understand this might not be clear to fourth parties, but I think FJ will understand that I am assuming VA's various positions and exploring. Including exploring some of the problems that VA would need to deal with, at least possibly.

2)

Sigh. You're assuming a lot to get insulting. I understand, you don't understand the context of my post to FJ, iow directed at someone who is not you.

So, I don't know why you are telling me.

Nothing in science is certain by far but I can assure you no one takes anti realism seriously in science.

Assure me away, you're incorrect. And VA has in fact earlier in his threads linked to research where the results are supporting antirealism or one of the many antirealisms. And I've seen it myself in my own interest in science. Further you're incorrect in general and there has been a debate inside mainstream science around realism and antirealism. Further, I don't think you understand antirealism given your arguments against it. None of that means antirealism is correct.

Third I can’t argue with them because they blocked me because I decided to just call them stupid rather than show them how.

Oh poor you. So, you jumped into a post to someone else and insulted me. It's ironic that you and VA have similarities in style if not position. And you're still, utterly unconvincingly, taking the stand that you know science better, which is supposed to somehow, I guess explain your rudeness and continued inability to actually engage/interact with anything I said. But great. I'd prefer you don't interact with what I say. That's obviously up to you.

But from here on out I won't engage with what you say.

[Skepdick]

I do, that’s why I corrected it. I was thinking of the other measurement problem not the quantum physics one.

Your "correction" was just more nonsense. You don't actually understand the measurement problem. No interpretation makes it go away.

But again your objections, as usual, are just noise

You wouldn't even know the difference between signal and noise if it hit you on the forehead like a pornstar gettling blapped.

[Atla]

I'm not sure how accurate that is. The light might be reaching us from far away because in the vacuum of space light travels faster, but the light from our sun isn't emitted 10 billion years ago and everything didn't already happen ten billion years ago because the universe as we know it wasn't formed at that point in time. I don't think that's what nonlocality is saying. It also depends on which interpretation you are using too.

Also without the math behind it just dropping "nonlocality" doesn't mean much. It also has nothing to do with time.

Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

Light isn't something magical like that, and neither is Quantum mechanics.



Though I don't think we are at the stage of teleportation just yet, they have been able to rearrange particles at distances however.

TLDR: If you don't have a degree in the stuff just dropping Quantum Physics terms means nothing.

What I said was accurate I think. I used "correlation" instead of "action" for the very reason that nonlocality does not allow for faster-than-light communication or action-at-a-distance. There is a world of difference between the two. Nonlocal correlations can also be thought of as absolute determinism across the universal wavefunction.

This is starting to sound eerily close to string theory. But from what I can tell nonlocality has nothing to do with time but distance, though even then it's weird since well:

Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/to ... e%20events.

So while it might make sense when it comes to the light of stars from across the universe I think it's a stretch to apply that to all events and say everything that will happen happened already billions of years ago. I'm sure no one is saying that.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

Since Einstein space can't be seen as distinct from time, nonlocality applies across spacetime.

Though if that's true then what's the point in living?

It means past present and future are one. But that doesn't mean that we know the future, doesn't mean that we have to resign ourselves to not trying to "change" things. That's just a deterministic misunderstanding.

[Atla]

Realism vs anti-realism in QM: anti-realists have to pretend that stuff in superposition doesn't exist. Realists have to pretend that there is at least one extra dimension (or some even weirder extension to the universe, like a non-existing existing thing that calculates probabilities and arranges the universe accordingly for us etc.).

So either way, we have to pretend. I think the realist stance is far better, as I think wave-behaviour is actually a name for infinitely many forms of behaviour, particle behaviour is just an infinitesimal special case of that, which suggests an extra dimension. And I reject the idea that nothing can act as if it was something, that nothing can follow the Schrödinger equation.

It's almost like you can't read.

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.

Fortunately I think I can, that's how I noticed that the topic was antirealistic vs realistic interpretations of QM, not anti-realism in the most general sense.

[Skepdick]

Fortunately I think I can, that's how I noticed that the topic was antirealistic vs realistic interpretations of QM, not anti-realism in the most general sense.

Seems you want to keep pretending there's a difference between anti-realism and interpretation.

[Atla]

Fortunately I think I can, that's how I noticed that the topic was antirealistic vs realistic interpretations of QM, not anti-realism in the most general sense.

Seems you want to keep pretending there's a difference between anti-realism and interpretation.

Yes, and I also like to pretend there's a difference between yellow and elephants

[Skepdick]

Yes, and I also like to pretend there's a difference between yellow and elephants

That's a silly non-sequitur. Let me re-explain it to you.

Realism; and realists have no need or use for interpretationl They just decribe reality. Exactly as it is. In all of its realness.

[Atla]

Yes, and I also like to pretend there's a difference between yellow and elephants

That's a silly non-sequitur. Let me re-explain it to you.

Realism; and realists have no need or use for interpretationl They just decribe reality. Exactly as it is. In all of its realness.

But can yellow elephants fly when they hold their beath?

[Skepdick]

But can yellow elephants fly when they hold their beath?

Why do you always seem to hide behind tomfoolery when the questions get too tough?

[Darkneos]

First, it wasn’t clear that you were responding to VA.

I said that myself in what you've quoted above, twice.
1)

I understand this might not be clear to fourth parties, but I think FJ will understand that I am assuming VA's various positions and exploring. Including exploring some of the problems that VA would need to deal with, at least possibly.

2)

Sigh. You're assuming a lot to get insulting. I understand, you don't understand the context of my post to FJ, iow directed at someone who is not you.

So, I don't know why you are telling me.

Nothing in science is certain by far but I can assure you no one takes anti realism seriously in science.

Assure me away, you're incorrect. And VA has in fact earlier in his threads linked to research where the results are supporting antirealism or one of the many antirealisms. And I've seen it myself in my own interest in science. Further you're incorrect in general and there has been a debate inside mainstream science around realism and antirealism. Further, I don't think you understand antirealism given your arguments against it. None of that means antirealism is correct.

Third I can’t argue with them because they blocked me because I decided to just call them stupid rather than show them how.

Oh poor you. So, you jumped into a post to someone else and insulted me. It's ironic that you and VA have similarities in style if not position. And you're still, utterly unconvincingly, taking the stand that you know science better, which is supposed to somehow, I guess explain your rudeness and continued inability to actually engage/interact with anything I said. But great. I'd prefer you don't interact with what I say. That's obviously up to you.

But from here on out I won't engage with what you say.

Somehow I highly doubt that since the the research they link is usually often shown to be poorly understood like everything else they do.

You’re kinda showing me you don’t really understand and that this is just your attempt to have so one up rather than give anything or substance.

Unless you can demonstrate that to be the case I don’t believe you, especially since VA just seems to link to other threads they have made throughout the forum.

Sorry but reassertion without evidence and (pathetic) condescension is just revealing your ignorance.

[Darkneos]

I do, that’s why I corrected it. I was thinking of the other measurement problem not the quantum physics one.

Your "correction" was just more nonsense. You don't actually understand the measurement problem. No interpretation makes it go away.

But again your objections, as usual, are just noise

You wouldn't even know the difference between signal and noise if it hit you on the forehead like a pornstar gettling blapped.

All talk, that’s all you are.

Just like your nihilism stunt in my other thread.

[Atla]

observation is any interaction with the system

heh-heh-heh