Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:31 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:58 am

The possibility of communication came up in a discussion, via a quantum computer. I won't attempt to explain it. You would have to watch the video yourself.

It seems you do not understand the significance of the realism[p] vs anti-p_realism dichotomy.

Any communication [by humans] via a quantum computer or whatever is subsumed within anti-p_realism ultimately, which then cannot be within realism[p].

I recognize realism i.e. the independent external reality but not as a dogmatic ideology like those from realism[p].

VA believes in an Independent External Reality
viewtopic.php?t=42369&sid=f7d3b450f2525 ... 85a39bec07

Ultimately what prevails with reality is cannot be the dogmatic ideological p-realism, but rather it is anti-p_realism [Kantian] that prevails within reality.
This is because p-realism is grounded on an illusion.

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

You insist on an illusion to argue and justify your claim?

You are trying to make it sound as if you are very knowledgable about the subject but you make no sense--a sure sign that you know squat.
I listen to people who are great science communicators, not silly twats who don't have a clue about anything but think they do.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:36 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

VA doesn't care about truth, logic, critical thinking, Occam's razor etc. Ha is campaigning which imo is not philosophy.

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:36 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

VA doesn't care about truth, logic, critical thinking, Occam's razor etc. Ha is campaigning which imo is not philosophy.

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:47 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:36 am

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:14 am
VA doesn't care about truth, logic, critical thinking, Occam's razor etc. Ha is campaigning which imo is not philosophy.

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms

He's trying to stop Islam. He thinks that his version of a Kantian-Buddhist antirealism will stop Islam by making Muslims realize that Allah doesn't exist.

Well imo, he would just take away the only reality check that Muslims have left (once there is no real outside world, there is no way to tell anymore that our hallucinations of Allah aren't just hallucinations). Making Muslims even a lot more unhinged, insane, than they are today.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:01 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

Like I said in the thread where the following (slightly altered) rant is taken from, I never miss an opportunity to express my disdain of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (MWI).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:16 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:37 pm
And let's not forget that even if QM is 4-dimensional and even if reality is relative to the conscious observer, that reality can still be "objectively real". A world that is strangely dependent on our minds still isn't automatically anti-realist in the philosophical sense.

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA.

Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who clearly and unambiguously does not.

VA has a tendency to overplay his hand when it comes to expert support for his ideas. His particular interpretation of QM is anti-realist - good, good for him. That doesn't mean all of QM is anti-realist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... tion#Polls

• [1991 ]A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
  
  [2011]A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]

Rejection of the Many-worlds_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... #Rejection
"Some scientists consider some aspects of MWI to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them."

The above views are from science-cosmologist community which in general is based on scientific speculations, thus not reliable, credible and less objective to begin with.

Philosophy is definitely more rational than science itself [merely polishing conjectures], thus we have Philosophy of Science.
The dichotomy of realism[philosophical] vs anti-p_realism is on of the most fundamental dichotomy within philosophy.

Philosophical realism is from a very primal & primitive basis driven by an evolutionary default. It is only effective for common and conventional sense.
Meanwhile anti-p_realism [Kantian] is the more advanced and evolved realization of reality, so it is effective to deal with more complex and refined issues of reality.

As such, the anti-p_realism [Kantian] perspective of QM is more a advanced and more evolved realization of QM.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 5:44 am
I am not an expert re Science or QM.
But I mentioned we are doing Philosophy here not science per se.
With Philosophy of Science we can analyzed the approach and principles of science from a meta perspective. We don't need to be scientists in this case.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:40 am Moral facts deniers insist morality is NOT objective because moral elements cannot be physical and objective, thus not within realism [philosophical] [mind-independence].
This perspective is a farce and not realistic.
However, there is a perspective where antirealism can be physical and objective.
This is illustrated within Quantum Mechanics which is grounded on antirealism.
It is from this perspective that moral facts [FSERC] can be physical and objective, thus morality can be objective.

Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism.
Classical Newtonian Physics and Einsteinian Physics are grounded on philosophical realism, i.e. absolute mind-independent reality.

With the advent of the Wave Function Collapse Einstein various scientists were at a loss to explain the theory based on their realist grounds.
It was Bohr who made headway with QM based on an antirealism grounding.

I have given the analogy in physics contrasting between the realist classical and Einsteinian
physics and those of the antirealist Quantum Mechanics.

And I have explained many times that quantum mechanics gives no support to philosophical antirealism. QM is an (extremely successful) attempt to describe reality.

Where?

There had been various views on QM but what rules QM is antirealism.
I have explained and provided evidences why QM is grounded on antirealism i.e. anti-p_realism.

We discuss the influential role of Niels Bohr’s work in the anti-realist realist re-foundation of physics that took place during the 20th century. We will focus in how, developing the modern co-relational matrix of scientific understanding, his essentially anti-realist scheme was able to capture, subvert and defeat the realist program of science through the establishment of a weakened impotent form of “religious realism” grounded on faith instead of scientific conditions.

Finally, we will focus in how, still today, anti-realist realism continues to rule the contemporary post-modern research in both (quantum) physics and philosophy.
Link

The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize is related to QM is based on the antirealist grounding.
How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real
viewtopic.php?t=41902

Discuss??
Views??

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:40 am Moral facts deniers insist morality is NOT objective because moral elements cannot be physical and objective, thus not within realism [philosophical] [mind-independence].
This perspective is a farce and not realistic.
However, there is a perspective where antirealism can be physical and objective.
This is illustrated within Quantum Mechanics which is grounded on antirealism.
It is from this perspective that moral facts [FSERC] can be physical and objective, thus morality can be objective.

Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism.
Classical Newtonian Physics and Einsteinian Physics are grounded on philosophical realism, i.e. absolute mind-independent reality.

With the advent of the Wave Function Collapse Einstein various scientists were at a loss to explain the theory based on their realist grounds.
It was Bohr who made headway with QM based on an antirealism grounding.

And I have explained many times that quantum mechanics gives no support to philosophical antirealism. QM is an (extremely successful) attempt to describe reality.

Where?

There had been various views on QM but what rules QM is antirealism.
I have explained and provided evidences why QM is grounded on antirealism i.e. anti-p_realism.

We discuss the influential role of Niels Bohr’s work in the anti-realist realist re-foundation of physics that took place during the 20th century. We will focus in how, developing the modern co-relational matrix of scientific understanding, his essentially anti-realist scheme was able to capture, subvert and defeat the realist program of science through the establishment of a weakened impotent form of “religious realism” grounded on faith instead of scientific conditions.

Finally, we will focus in how, still today, anti-realist realism continues to rule the contemporary post-modern research in both (quantum) physics and philosophy.
Link

The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize is related to QM is based on the antirealist grounding.
How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real
viewtopic.php?t=41902

Discuss??
Views??

If you take a strict view on Law of Excluded Middle then anything that is NOT realism could be interpreted as (non? anti? a?)realism.

Most everybody who gets the standard treatment of probability theory ends up backing up the Many (possible) worlds interpretation.

Great! So they don't believe in A reality. THE reality. They believe in many possible realities - whatever. They are NOT realists.
So you can call them non? anti? a?)realists.

These interpretative games of where to draw the line on definitions are silly. Stop iiiit.

AI wrote:]The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics leans more towards philosophical realism.

Here's why:

Realism argues for an objective reality existing independently of our observations. MWI posits a vast number of universes following their own realities based on quantum possibilities.
MWI takes the wavefunction, the mathematical description of a quantum system's probabilities, very literally. It suggests all the possibilities encoded in the wavefunction are actualized in separate universes.
This stands in contrast to interpretations like Copenhagen, where the wavefunction "collapses" upon observation.
While some aspects of MWI might seem intangible, it strives to offer a complete physical description of reality, encompassing all the potential outcomes of quantum events.

AI wrote:The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics leans more towards philosophical realism. Here's why:

MWI says the wavefunction is objective: Unlike interpretations that see the wavefunction as a probability tool, MWI considers it a physical description of reality. This aligns with realism, which suggests our scientific theories describe an objective external world.
MWI avoids subjective collapse: MWI doesn't require a wavefunction collapse during measurement. Every possibility persists in a separate "world," implying an underlying reality independent of our observations. This contrasts with antirealist views that emphasize the role of the observer in shaping reality.
However, there are nuances to consider:

The nature of the "worlds": MWI's "worlds" are not directly observable or falsifiable. This aspect can be seen as departing from the usual verification methods in science, which some philosophers might argue weakens its realist stance.

Overall, MWI falls under the realist umbrella by treating the wavefunction and the branching universes as objective features of reality, even if those realities are beyond our full experience.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:23 am Here from AI[wR]:

AI wrote:]The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics leans more towards philosophical realism.

Here's why:

Realism argues for an objective reality existing independently of our observations. MWI posits a vast number of universes following their own realities based on quantum possibilities.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 10:23 am MWI says the wavefunction is objective:

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:32 am This conversation between you (VA) and skep illustrates the problem that exists now in this thread and has always existed in every thread where you've brought up quantum mechanics: your understanding of what non-realism means in a QM context is not sufficient. You seem personally motivated to try your best to interpret QM articles that talk about non realism as talking about the same sort of anti realism you believe in - this equivocation is a misunderstanding by you, and it's exactly why you, as a so-called "philosopher", are not well equipped compared to actual physicists to do any of the interpreting of QM.

You can of course try to do that for yourself, for your own benefit, for fun, but your expertise is lacking more than you think it is, and your biases (in particular, this bias to interpret QM non realism as being the same sort of thing as your anti realism) are strong. You're caught up in words, and you pay very little attention to the actual science.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:07 pm
QM strictly undermines realism. Which is then (mis?)interpreted as strengthening the case for any given alternative.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 1:14 pm The point is, what is meant by "realism" in the arguably somewhat true statement "qm undermines realism" is not the same thing as VAs "realism" when he says "I'm anti realism".

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 1:14 pm He's taking physics concepts and reading whatever he wants into them, and then convincing himself he's better fit to interpret all the implications of those words than physicists. He's lost in an equivocation (with a dash of dunning kreuger effect).

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 1:28 pm Which is what every philosopher does. They look at the state of our best knowledge/understanding and compute the philosophical implications thereof.