Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd

[Darkneos]

And this why I reject the idea that nothing can act like something. In some anti-realist interpretations of QM, nothing acts as if it would follow the Schrödinger equation. And in VA's negative noumenon, the appearances of matter act as if they were part of an entire material universe, which universe would be mostly noumenal however to us, so we simply don't posit the noumenal parts. It's like solipsism for solipsism's sake.

According to QM there is no such thing as "nothing".

In fact we made up "nothing".

[Veritas Aequitas]

The idea of the noumenon is an illusion.
The negative noumenon is using this illusion as a limiting factor or an assumption.

The problem with p-realists is they insist the noumenon is a positive noumenon which is really real and exist independent of the mind.

Science in general recognize the noumenon cannot be proven within science itself, thus use the noumenon negatively as an assumption.

To keep insisting the unprovable, unreal illusion used as an assumption is really real is contradictory and delusional.

[Atla]

Science in general recognize the noumenon cannot be proven within science itself, thus use the noumenon negatively as an assumption.

Science is using noumenon in the positive sense. That's what science IS ffs.

[Darkneos]

The idea of the noumenon is an illusion.
The negative noumenon is using this illusion as a limiting factor or an assumption.

The problem with p-realists is they insist the noumenon is a positive noumenon which is really real and exist independent of the mind.

Science in general recognize the noumenon cannot be proven within science itself, thus use the noumenon negatively as an assumption.

To keep insisting the unprovable, unreal illusion used as an assumption is really real is contradictory and delusional.

You keep saying that but that really isn't the case. There's nothing illusory about the idea nor is the idea of it being really real contradictory or delusional. Also to call something an illusion you'd have to know what is real otherwise the word means nothing, and based on your words you don't know what that is.

Like...what are you talking about?

[Veritas Aequitas]

ffs Science in general recognize the noumenon cannot be proven within science itself, thus use the noumenon negatively as an assumption.

To keep insisting the unprovable, unreal illusion used as an assumption is really real is contradictory and delusional.

The Ten Assumptions of Science: Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D.

THE FIRST ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE:
MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, Matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt.

[Atla]

ffs Science in general recognize the noumenon cannot be proven within science itself, thus use the noumenon negatively as an assumption.

To keep insisting the unprovable, unreal illusion used as an assumption is really real is contradictory and delusional.

The Ten Assumptions of Science: Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D.

THE FIRST ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE:
MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, Matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt.

VA, do you have the ability to comprehend that neither the negative nor the positive noumenon can be proven? Yes or no?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The noumenon cannot be proven to be true.
Thus neither the negative nor positive noumenon can be proven to be true.

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Therefore the p-realists' view of science grounded on philosophical realism mind-independence is absurd.
To insist the assumption used in an absurd p-realist basis of science is really real is doubly absurd and delusional.

[Atla]

The noumenon cannot be proven to be true.
Thus neither the negative nor positive noumenon can be proven to be true.

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Therefore the p-realists' view of science grounded on philosophical realism mind-independence is absurd.
To insist the assumption used in an absurd p-realist basis of science is really real is doubly absurd and delusional.

It's not possible to prove or disprove the empirical noumenon, but everything in our appearances is consistent with the idea that there is an empirical noumenon. Yet you say it's absurd to assume it anyway.

Why is it absurd?

[Darkneos]

The noumenon cannot be proven to be true.
Thus neither the negative nor positive noumenon can be proven to be true.

Philosophical Realism's Mind-Independence is Absurd
Therefore the p-realists' view of science grounded on philosophical realism mind-independence is absurd.
To insist the assumption used in an absurd p-realist basis of science is really real is doubly absurd and delusional.

It's not possible to prove or disprove the empirical noumenon, but everything in our appearances is consistent with the idea that there is an empirical noumenon. Yet you say it's absurd to assume it anyway.

Why is it absurd?

Because they said so evidently.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wonder how many times must I repeat this before it get to be understood;

The Ten Assumptions of Science: Glenn Borchardt, Ph.D.

THE FIRST ASSUMPTION OF SCIENCE:
MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not.
At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, Matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt.

The external world that is assumed by science CANNOT be proven by Science itself, thus it has to be an assumption.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not possible to prove or disprove the empirical noumenon, but everything in our appearances is consistent with the idea that there is an empirical noumenon. Yet you say it's absurd to assume it anyway.
Why is it absurd?

One point is an idea is merely an intelligible thought which cannot be empirical;

• idea = a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

• Intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.
  google dict.

Thus an empirical noumenon is an oxymoron.

[Atla]

It's not possible to prove or disprove the empirical noumenon, but everything in our appearances is consistent with the idea that there is an empirical noumenon. Yet you say it's absurd to assume it anyway.
Why is it absurd?

One point is an idea is merely an intelligible thought which cannot be empirical;

• idea = a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

• Intelligible [philosophy] = able to be understood only by the intellect, not by the senses.
  google dict.

Thus an empirical noumenon is an oxymoron.

And again you are conflating noumenon as the reference and noumenon as the referent. You are a petty liar nothing more. I tried to be charitable but there's no other explanation left.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is as proven in the OP,
viewtopic.php?t=40272
Philosophical Realism that claim reality and things as mind-independent is illusory and absurd.
As such whatever claims that are grounded on philosophical realism as an ideology is illusory and absurd.
The claim of a positive noumenon based on philosophical realism is illusory and absurd.

To claim an illusory assumption of an absurd philosophical-realism-science is really real is 2x absurd.

It is common logic, what is assumed within a model of reality, cannot itself be proven as real within that model.
If it is possible to be really real, why make it an assumption?

The absurdity here is a psychological issue not an epistemological issue.

[Iwannaplato]

Because human nature is universal, e.g. similar brain structures and set up, there will be similarities but not 100% similarities in the realization of object-X.

viewtopic.php?p=654327#p654327[/quote]
That makes no sense. Some might expect a bedroom, others a kitchen. Different things on the walls.
This answer makes no sense.

That their human nature is universal, same brain structures, same pattern recognition faculty, same cognitive set up, same realization processes, same linguistic faculties are critical to why they will produce a list with the same name to those things in the room.

No, that makes no sense.
Why would they expect the same things in the room, given all the possible things that can be in rooms.

EVen the type of room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom would be different in the expectations of differnet people. And in my example there is an odd mix of things in the room.

It could also be a box, say one meter on each side. So, they don't even think of it as a room. And we put some random objects in it. And yet, modern Westerners will find the same objects, out of all the possible objects, in that box.

The fact that they have similar brain structures does not explain finding the same items.

And again, if you think they will come up with the same list, there's a Nobel Prize in this.

Here's the list for the box: a yoyo, the monopoly character with the top cat, a comb, a tennis ball, a gun, an the 6 of clubs playing card.

Give that box to 100 people. Why will they come up with the same list and not some random different lists?

Out of all the human artifacts.

The do the same test the next day, now with another set of random objects placing in the box.

If they all have the same brain set up, why would there be different lists on different days.

You are making no sense at all.

And I suspect you know it at this point.

Or here's another way to run it:

Two boxes with very different contents. Send 50 to one, 50 to the other.
Why will each list fit the objects placed in each box and not the list given for the other box?

There's no reason that commonness of human nature/brain would lead them to decide box 1 that is an exact copy of box 2 would have different contents and exactly the ones each group of 50 finds.

In fact if they are all going to find the same things in the room because of the same brains, then they should all guess that the same things will be in the room or box. IOW take 100 people. Show them a box. Have them make a list of the 10 items in the box before looking. 1) according to you the lists will be the same 2) their same guess will also be correct.

Again, there's a Nobel Prize in this for you.

[Atla]

Point is as proven in the OP,
viewtopic.php?t=40272
Philosophical Realism that claim reality and things as mind-independent is illusory and absurd.
As such whatever claims that are grounded on philosophical realism as an ideology is illusory and absurd.
The claim of a positive noumenon based on philosophical realism is illusory and absurd.

To claim an illusory assumption of an absurd philosophical-realism-science is really real is 2x absurd.

It is common logic, what is assumed within a model of reality, cannot itself be proven as real within that model.
If it is possible to be really real, why make it an assumption?

The absurdity here is a psychological issue not an epistemological issue.

Well you can "prove" whatever illogical, irrational lie you want to prove to yourself, but as you can see others aren't buying it. We aren't real anyway to you, you've abandoned your humanity when you became a solipsist. Or were you always one?