QM: Objective Reality May Not Exists At ALL

[Atla]

I would call it a non-realism and I've made the point you're making earlier in the thread a couple of times. Further, it is clearly not his VA's version of antirealism where a very clear metaphysical stand is being taken.

I certainly wouldn't call it a non-realism either as it's completely unrelated to the question of realism.

By the way: I don't think I've ever seen VA adequately respond to the parsimony argument in favor of realism. We have maps, they keep working, seems more parsimonious to think things stay there, rather than winking in and out of existence. Makes me tired just thinking of the latter model.

He never grasped such issues, he doesn't know what we're talking about.

[Age]

But, very contradictory, 'Objective Morality' exists though, right "veritas aequitas"?

[Atla]

I would call it a non-realism and I've made the point you're making earlier in the thread a couple of times. Further, it is clearly not his VA's version of antirealism where a very clear metaphysical stand is being taken.

I certainly wouldn't call it a non-realism either as it's completely unrelated to the question of realism.

To me it's like the question: is 2+2=4 theist or atheist or rather non-theist? Agnostic?

I just don't understand why we have to put it into either of those categories, and why even the wiki puts it into one of them.

[Trajk Logik]

If objective reality doesn't exist what does that say about other observers? Do other observers exist? If so, where do they exist relative to me, and what is the medium that separates us for us to say that they are "other" (separate) observers? Do other observers need me to exist to validate their existence? Is the nature of other observers objective in that they exist even when I'm not looking or asleep, or that they have some permanent, intrinsic properties to label them as "observers"? How is it that we can say that other observers are real but everything else isn't when the only evidence we have of other observers is the same evidence we have for everything else - our sense data? It seems to me that solipsism is the necessary conclusion of anti-realism.

[Atla]

If objective reality doesn't exist what does that say about other observers? Do other observers exist? If so, where do they exist relative to me, and what is the medium that separates us for us to say that they are "other" (separate) observers? Do other observers need me to exist to validate their existence? Is the nature of other observers objective in that they exist even when I'm not looking or asleep, or that they have some permanent, intrinsic properties to label them as "observers"? How is it that we can say that other observers are real but everything else isn't when the only evidence we have of other observers is the same evidence we have for everything else - our sense data? It seems to me that solipsism is the necessary conclusion of anti-realism.

To be honest, all debates between realists and antirealists are fairly pointless as long as they stick to 4 dimensions. At least 99% of people on philosophy forums never make it to the real topic, which is the possible extradimensional hierarchy of (relative, circular) observational layers where different observers may terminate at different layers.

[Iwannaplato]

If objective reality doesn't exist what does that say about other observers? Do other observers exist? If so, where do they exist relative to me, and what is the medium that separates us for us to say that they are "other" (separate) observers? Do other observers need me to exist to validate their existence? Is the nature of other observers objective in that they exist even when I'm not looking or asleep, or that they have some permanent, intrinsic properties to label them as "observers"? How is it that we can say that other observers are real but everything else isn't when the only evidence we have of other observers is the same evidence we have for everything else - our sense data? It seems to me that solipsism is the necessary conclusion of anti-realism.

The first part, including the where issue, has been raised by others with VA. I like the extension: how do we know they are separate and what does separate even mean? The latter part of you post heads into, I think, the problem of other minds, which has also been pointed out to VA. He should be a solipsist. I haven't said he is one, but he has repeatedly stated that noumena do not exist. And other minds are not phenomena in the sensory sense, the Kantian sense - Kant has been his base. I think you are spot on that he is reluctant to apply his analysis to certain things. It's a quick local fix in an argument being presented as a global rule.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Not interested in the other points for this discussion.

But... that IS more along iwannaplato's point than yours. That quote is saying, rejecting the AMBITION to uncover metaphysical truth is instrumentalisms' anti-realism. YOUR anti-realism goes a step further - rather than just rejecting the mission to uncover those truths, you make an extra, stronger, more explicit claim: that there is no objective metaphysical truth down there.

YOUR anti-realism is different from instrumentalisms anti-realism.

Iwannaplato is right on that point. And your continued insistence on talking about it as if it's the same as yours is ... tired.

You missed the whole scenario;

IWP stated Bohr was not an antirealist but rather an instrumentalist.
The quote above fit with Bohr's position as implied on contrast to Einstein's [Bohr chief interlocutor] claim.
Einstein was into philosophical realism and scientific realism, i.e. the claim the moon still exist if there are no humans.

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

From the above, it is implied Bohr rejected scientific realism i.e. not going along with chasing an Einstein's realist independent moon, so Bohr is an antirealist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is it possible that he is trying to live his life according to his philosophical convictions? Perhaps we are/were trying too hard to get him to veer off his convictions?

Thoughts?

I think what you are saying fits something I have experienced. I think he treats disagreement with his arguments as if they mean he would have to change his life or core beliefs about morality. I mean, he's told us that realists are primitive people more likely to kill. That moral relativists and moral antirealists are condoning new Hitlers. In fact he opens threads with preemptive insults and ad hom, aimed not at one person, but at people in general who disagree with him.

I have specifically told him that, for example, argument X he makes in relation to some point is where he might be wrong, and I think he is, but that this doesn't mean his core position is wrong.

It seems often, however, that criticisms are being taken as meaning, you are wrong about everything. You can't try to make the world a better place. We can never become more empathetic.

From this thread...

What I am against the philosophical realists [PH & gang] being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.
Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default, naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

We are a gang,

being emotional and simply brush off the antirealists' counter without solid justifications.

No, one has gone beyond 'brushing off' his ideas. No one has spent time carefully making arguments where they quote him or quote from his links.

Because the philosophical realists dogmatic belief adopted from an evolutionary default,

People disagreeing have a dogmantic belief - he's not dogmatic - from an evolutionary default.

naturally the majority of people are inclined to a mind-independence reality at least relatively, but the philosophical realists take up further one-notch to make it absolute as a dogmatic ideology.

Not one bit of that adds anything to the substance of the debate. It's in the OP of a new thread, one of the hundreds he creates over a few months on the same topics. If you look at the op he didn't actually write much all himself, beyond what is basically an ad hom/insult. He quotes an AI and insults people.

Perhaps he can't allow people in a philosophy forum to criticize his ideas, people who are trying to live their lives according to their convictions.

But the truth is none of us can stop the others from living their convictions.

I have already stated many times where I adopted as adapted from Kant's Mission and Vision for humanity, i.e.

1. Who am I? -epistemology, Know Thyself
2. What can we know? - epistemology
3. What can we do? - Morality & Ethics as main
4. What can we hope for? perpetual peace

Ideological and dogmatic philosophical realists clinging on the moral relativism, moral skepticism and moral nihilism cannot strive for perpetual peace for humanity.

The majority of posters here who are dogmatic philosophical realists are rudderless with reference to the well-beings of all individual[s] and humanity.

[Trajk Logik]

I have already stated many times where I adopted as adapted from Kant's Mission and Vision for humanity, i.e.

1. Who am I? -epistemology, Know Thyself
2. What can we know? - epistemology
3. What can we do? - Morality & Ethics as main
4. What can we hope for? perpetual peace

Ideological and dogmatic philosophical realists clinging on the moral relativism, moral skepticism and moral nihilism cannot strive for perpetual peace for humanity.

The majority of posters here who are dogmatic philosophical realists are rudderless with reference to the well-beings of all individual[s] and humanity.

It seems to me to be the opposite - that anti-realists are rudderless as there is nothing grounding their experiences. Experiences are all there is, and your experience of other minds is just that - an experience without any external reality apart from your experience, so what reason would you have to be moral if other minds are really just a figment of your imagination that do not exist when you are not experiencing them? Your experiences would be rudderless with no reason or explanation for their existence which means that experiences just occur with no reason or cause originating outside of the experience itself.

[promethean75]

If the thread title is correct, then the findings in QM that support this notion may be false since they could only ever produce a subjective interpretation... in which case we can disregard it.

In shorter words, u can't make an objectively true statement about a world in which there is no objectivity. You'd be sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

[Trajk Logik]

If the thread title is correct, then the findings in QM that support this notion may be false since they could only ever produce a subjective interpretation... in which case we can disregard it.

In shorter words, u can't make an objectively true statement about a world in which there is no objectivity. You'd be sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

Did you not just make an objectively true statement about a world with no objectivity? Seems to me that any time you make a statement about some aspect of our shared reality, implying that is the way it is for everyone sharing your reality, you are making an objectively true statement. So statements like, "Reality is not objective" is an objective statement.

[Flannel Jesus]

If the thread title is correct, then the findings in QM that support this notion may be false since they could only ever produce a subjective interpretation... in which case we can disregard it.

In shorter words, u can't make an objectively true statement about a world in which there is no objectivity. You'd be sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

Did you not just make an objectively true statement about a world with no objectivity? Seems to me that any time you make a statement about some aspect of our shared reality, implying that is the way it is for everyone sharing your reality, you are making an objectively true statement. So statements like, "Reality is not objective" is an objective statement.

I don't know if you can tell or not, but he's agreeing with what you're saying.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already stated many times where I adopted as adapted from Kant's Mission and Vision for humanity, i.e.

1. Who am I? -epistemology, Know Thyself
2. What can we know? - epistemology
3. What can we do? - Morality & Ethics as main
4. What can we hope for? perpetual peace

Ideological and dogmatic philosophical realists clinging on the moral relativism, moral skepticism and moral nihilism cannot strive for perpetual peace for humanity.

The majority of posters here who are dogmatic philosophical realists are rudderless with reference to the well-beings of all individual[s] and humanity.

It seems to me to be the opposite - that anti-realists are rudderless as there is nothing grounding their experiences. Experiences are all there is, and your experience of other minds is just that - an experience without any external reality apart from your experience, so what reason would you have to be moral if other minds are really just a figment of your imagination that do not exist when you are not experiencing them? Your experiences would be rudderless with no reason or explanation for their existence which means that experiences just occur with no reason or cause originating outside of the experience itself.

The anti-realists* are 'grounding' their experience based on coherence, note coherentism vs foundationalism. * I am an empirical realist which oppose transcendent realism.
Of course, the coherence must be credible and objective.
The coherence is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.
This is placing confidence on experience and the empirical only, but it is a rationalized and justified confidence, not blind faith.

My moral FS will be as near as possible to the gold standard, thus having reasonable credibility and objectivity.

The philosophical realist [mind-independence] on the other hand is grounding on something that is beyond experience and the empirical, thus unreal and illusory.
This is believing based on blind faith.
The philosophical realist is also an empirical idealist.

[Iwannaplato]

The anti-realists* are 'grounding' their experience based on coherence, note coherentism vs foundationalism. * I am an empirical realist which oppose transcendent realism.

Antirealists tend to be coherentist, but Kant (re: empirical realism) was both foundationalist and coherentist.

Of course, the coherence must be credible and objective.

Coherentism is inevitable realtivist. Since coherence is in relation to ther beliefs. So, as long as the set of your beliefs works together, you're fine. So, you can have opposing belief systems that cohere each to their own set of other beliefs.

The coherence is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the gold standard.

For you, but the moment you argue that it's methodology is most accurately finding/explaining/describing reality, you are on foundationalist ground, and leaving coherentism. As long as someone has a set of beliefs that work well together, it is coherent.

This is placing confidence on experience and the empirical only,

And Bang, there it is foundationalism. Those are the foundations which fits with Kant but not the pure coherentism of many antirealists.

The philosophical realist is also an empirical idealist.

Pretty much impossible.
In fact empirical idealists are much closer to your position than realism. Empirical idealists believe that the objects of our experience are dependent on the mind. In other words, what we perceive and know empirically is shaped by our mental faculties and cannot be separated from our perception and cognition. They are skeptical about the possibility of having direct knowledge of an external reality independent of our minds. This means that while we can study and understand the empirical world, we cannot claim to have knowledge of an objective reality beyond our perceptions. They also tend to be monists against materialism. That instead of a world of objects out there, there is one substrace which is mind. This is not the same as anterrealism, but it's hardly what realism tends to be. And certainly most non-theist realists (which would, it seems include Atla, PH, FDP, Flannel Jesus and others) are not idealists of any type.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All beliefs even coherentism rest on some degrees of foundation.
There is strong and weak foundationalism and its continuum.
As such, explaining the context is critical.

The philosophical realist is also an empirical idealist.
Don't simply counter when you are have not understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.

[A369]To this [Transcendental] Idealism there is opposed a Transcendental Realism which regards Time and Space as something Given in-themselves, independently of our Sensibility.

The Transcendental Realist thus interprets Outer Appearances (their Reality being taken as granted) as Things-in-Themselves,
which exist independently of us and of our Sensibility, and
which are therefore Outside us
the phrase 'outside us' being interpreted in conformity with Pure Concepts of Understanding [Categories].

It is, in fact, this Transcendental Realist who afterwards plays the part of Empirical Idealist.
After wrongly supposing that Objects of the Senses, if they are to be External, must have an Existence-by-themselves, and independently of the Senses,
he [the Transcendental Realist] finds that, judged from this point of view [Transcendental Realism], all our sensuous Representations are inadequate to establish their Reality.

The transcendent realist aka philosophical realist believe a thing [noumenon aka thing-in-itself] exists absolutely mind-independently as real, i.e. it exists regardless whether there are humans or not.
To the transcendental/philosophical realist, this noumenon exists as real beyond the empirical.

Idealism in philosophy,....... that reality is entirely a mental .. ; ........."
What is idealism is confined to the mind.

Thus as far as the transcendent realist aka philosophical realist, whatever is empirically is within his mind.
As such, the transcendent realist aka philosophical realist is also an empirical idealist; empirical wise, he is an empirical idealist.