Indirect Realism is Not Realistic

[Atla]

The alternative views to Kant listed by ChatGpt?
Where are their detailed arguments to justify their claims?

Not mentioned by ChatGpt,
let's take Einstein's philosophical realists and indirect realists claim that the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is based on speculation because the majority think so on a common sense basis but there is no substantial argument to prove why it is so.

What a nonsensical argument. Then there is equally no substantial argument to prove that Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction isn't just some bullshit that Kant came up with while dropping acid.

So we go back to Al-Khalili who concede QM is correct objectively to the QM FSERC, "indeed there is no moon before there were humans' or "if no one is looking at it" but he declared he personally cannot accept it, which is subjective view and not objective.

You are a fucking liar, Al-Khalili never conceded that and never would. Stop insulting him. Delete your account from this philosophy forum now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The alternative views to Kant listed by ChatGpt?
Where are their detailed arguments to justify their claims?

Not mentioned by ChatGpt,
let's take Einstein's philosophical realists and indirect realists claim that the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is based on speculation because the majority think so on a common sense basis but there is no substantial argument to prove why it is so.

What a nonsensical argument. Then there is equally no substantial argument to prove that Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction isn't just some bullshit that Kant came up with while dropping acid.

So we go back to Al-Khalili who concede QM is correct objectively to the QM FSERC, "indeed there is no moon before there were humans' or "if no one is looking at it" but he declared he personally cannot accept it, which is subjective view and not objective.

You are a fucking liar, Al-Khalili never conceded that and never would. Stop insulting him. Delete your account from this philosophy forum now.

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."

[Atla]

The alternative views to Kant listed by ChatGpt?
Where are their detailed arguments to justify their claims?

Not mentioned by ChatGpt,
let's take Einstein's philosophical realists and indirect realists claim that the moon exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This is based on speculation because the majority think so on a common sense basis but there is no substantial argument to prove why it is so.

What a nonsensical argument. Then there is equally no substantial argument to prove that Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction isn't just some bullshit that Kant came up with while dropping acid.

So we go back to Al-Khalili who concede QM is correct objectively to the QM FSERC, "indeed there is no moon before there were humans' or "if no one is looking at it" but he declared he personally cannot accept it, which is subjective view and not objective.

You are a fucking liar, Al-Khalili never conceded that and never would. Stop insulting him. Delete your account from this philosophy forum now.

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."

Yes and he's not conceding anything, nor does QM actually say that. You were told this like 5 times by now. He's just disagreeing with the Copenhagen PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation, one of many. Why the fuck are you still here?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What a nonsensical argument. Then there is equally no substantial argument to prove that Kant's phenomena/noumena distinction isn't just some bullshit that Kant came up with while dropping acid.


You are a fucking liar, Al-Khalili never conceded that and never would. Stop insulting him. Delete your account from this philosophy forum now.

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."

Yes and he's not conceding anything, nor does QM actually say that. You were told this like 5 times by now. He's just disagreeing with the Copenhagen PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation, one of many. Why the fuck are you still here?

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

He did make the above statements, i.e.
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
In this case, he did concede objectively.

Show me where said otherwise objectively, other than his personal realist view.

[Atla]

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."

Yes and he's not conceding anything, nor does QM actually say that. You were told this like 5 times by now. He's just disagreeing with the Copenhagen PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation, one of many. Why the fuck are you still here?

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

He did make the above statements, i.e.
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
In this case, he did concede objectively.

Show me where said otherwise objectively, other than his personal realist view.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

You've really taken to calling people motherfuckers a lot recently. Why are you to weak to type it?

[seeds]

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

You've really taken to calling people motherfuckers a lot recently. Why are you to weak to type it?

You clowns are going to get the place shut down.

Try to remember what Rick said just a few weeks back...

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it,

Now we're all guilty of mounting some "vitriolic personal attacks" on some of the deserving characters around here,

However, the very least you muck-spouts can do is control your vulgar language. If not, then go somewhere else before you ruin things for the rest of us.

Show some respect for the wishes of the guy who graciously provides us with this great (lightly moderated/ad-free) philosophy discussion site.

(Yeah, yeah, I can hear the collective "F-U" you're all thinking at the moment, but that's the point, you're free to think it, just don't write it in a post and force Rick to follow-thru on his threat.)
_______

[Atla]

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

You've really taken to calling people motherfuckers a lot recently. Why are you to weak to type it?

You clowns are going to get the place shut down.

Try to remember what Rick said just a few weeks back...

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it,

Now we're all guilty of mounting some "vitriolic personal attacks" on some of the deserving characters around here,

However, the very least you muck-spouts can do is control your vulgar language. If not, then go somewhere else before you ruin things for the rest of us.

Show some respect for the wishes of the guy who graciously provides us with this great (lightly moderated/ad-free) philosophy discussion site.

(Yeah, yeah, I can hear the collective "F-U" you're all thinking at the moment, but that's the point, you're free to think it, just don't write it in a post and force Rick to follow-thru on his threat.)
_______

This forum should have been shut down a long time ago because it's a disgrace to humanity. And not even because of the cursing. I can't respect Rick much, sorry.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

You've really taken to calling people motherfuckers a lot recently. Why are you to weak to type it?

You clowns are going to get the place shut down.

Try to remember what Rick said just a few weeks back...

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it,

Now we're all guilty of mounting some "vitriolic personal attacks" on some of the deserving characters around here,

However, the very least you muck-spouts can do is control your vulgar language. If not, then go somewhere else before you ruin things for the rest of us.

Show some respect for the wishes of the guy who graciously provides us with this great (lightly moderated/ad-free) philosophy discussion site.

(Yeah, yeah, I can hear the collective "F-U" you're all thinking at the moment, but that's the point, you're free to think it, just don't write it in a post and force Rick to follow-thru on his threat.)
_______

Posters must avoid vulgar words in a Philosophy Forum and focus on the arguments intellectually.
The vulgar 'F' and others usually trigger the 'fight' response is most [me included] and that trigger a tit-for-tat the compounded to off tangent issues and hindered rational arguments.

I don't initiate those vulgar words except to show the initiator, e.g. Atla in this case, that if he use vulgar words, he will be starting a tit-for-tat.
It is warning for him to stop it, since there is no moderation at present.
Those who initiate vulgar words in most cases are desperate, i.e. subliminally triggered that they are losing their arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This forum should have been shut down a long time ago because it's a disgrace to humanity. And not even because of the cursing. I can't respect Rick much, sorry.

What a hypocrite!

You are one of those who use the f word regularly and
then complain about Rick [ I believe is too busy to bother.] not moderating it.

[Atla]

This forum should have been shut down a long time ago because it's a disgrace to humanity. And not even because of the cursing. I can't respect Rick much, sorry.

What a hypocrite!

You are one of those who use the f word regularly and
then complain about Rick [ I believe is too busy to bother.] not moderating it.

See it's because of morons like you that this forum should be shut down. Read again what I wrote.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes and he's not conceding anything, nor does QM actually say that. You were told this like 5 times by now. He's just disagreeing with the Copenhagen PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation, one of many. Why the fuck are you still here?

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

He did make the above statements, i.e.
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
In this case, he did concede objectively.

Show me where said otherwise objectively, other than his personal realist view.

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."

[Veritas Aequitas]

This forum should have been shut down a long time ago because it's a disgrace to humanity. And not even because of the cursing. I can't respect Rick much, sorry.

What a hypocrite!

You are one of those who use the f word regularly and
then complain about Rick [ I believe is too busy to bother.] not moderating it.

See it's because of morons like you that this forum should be shut down. Read again what I wrote.

That would be being the worst kind of hypocrite, i.e. condemning the forum and yet still posting here.

[Atla]

Hey, mf, your emotions are showing.

He did make the above statements, i.e.
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
In this case, he did concede objectively.

Show me where said otherwise objectively, other than his personal realist view.

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.

[Atla]

What a hypocrite!

You are one of those who use the f word regularly and
then complain about Rick [ I believe is too busy to bother.] not moderating it.

See it's because of morons like you that this forum should be shut down. Read again what I wrote.

That would be being the worst kind of hypocrite, i.e. condemning the forum and yet still posting here.

Jesus you're dense. I think I even told you that I just comment here for a fun distraction, often at your expense. Not much for philosophy as you guys can't teach me anything fundamentally new.