Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Withdraw my arrogance. Hilarious.

You're the one here telling everyone that your understanding is the only right one, people who aren't anti realists are stupid or immature or whatever.

And I'm here saying, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, not just one.

And I'm arrogant?

No. You're so fucking lost dude. No, I'm not arrogant. I'm not telling anybody that if they don't accept my view, they're immature morons. Only you're doing that. Look in the mirror some time.

Your response to what I posted was an entire evasion, you're so scared of taking it seriously. Read it seriously. Think about what it says. Don't be scared of it.

I am very aggressive in absorbing knowledge and will jump on any thing that is new and rational which I am not aware of.

You posted a narrow view from ChatGpt in an attempt to put me down and condemned my views without a balanced view from your, then I rely on ChatGpt will counter you with a wider view.
Do you have any further counter to it, if none, you must considered your philosophical knowledge 'bankrupt' given you are so aggressively in trying to put down my views.

You need to consider why ChatGpt is responding with an additional wider perspective than its earlier to your narrow context.

Btw, so far when anyone use ChatGpt to counter my views from a narrow context and I rely on ChatGpt to respond in a wider context, no one has come back with any further counter after that.
Sometimes they would just curse ChatGpt instead.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Make up your mind then. Is realism a belief in A reality; or a belief in MANY realities?

Problem of one and the many...


Oh yeah? So how does it collapse?

Philosophical Realism central grounding is a belief in a mind-independent reality which can be many realities or many worlds.

Seems you failed to understand the first time.

A belief in A mind-independent reality (singular!) is not the same thing as a belief in mind-independent realitieS (plural!)

This indeterminacy around plurality - this inability to identify which reality you are in (from the set of All Possible Realities) is sufficient to manufacture all the usual philosophical nonsense. It gives you the absolute freedom to say whatever you want. About ANYTHING.

Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which the sky is blue; or the one in which the sky is red? How can you tell?
Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which murder is morally wrong; or the one in which murder is morally right? How can you tell?

I am fully aware of the issues.

As defined, the central criteria of what is philosophical realism is mind-independence from the human conditions regardless of how many realities that is speculated.

I don't agree with MWI.
Regardless it is still model dependent realism which ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

1. Ultimately, MWI is merely a speculation using human minds to speculate about realities that are independent of human minds- how else?? thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
2.Philosophical realism is claimed a reality or realities that is/are absolutely independent of human minds.
3. 1 and 2 just don't jive; there is a begging the question in 1.

Anti-philosophical realism [Kantian not others] don't give any credence to any speculation but firmly rely on empirical evidences as justified by science and reinforced with philosophical critical and rational thinking with the scientific and philosophical framework and system.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you're rejecting what it said to me as narrow because it displeases you. I don't think you're doing it out of rationality or reason. There's nothing narrow about it, it's just correct.

You decide what's narrow or what's wide based on if it agrees with you or not. Nobody counters it because it's a game you made up, a game whose rules you decide. It's a stupid game.

You want to present Copenhagen as anti realist, but you want to ignore the fact that most copenhagenists do not believe consciousness causes collapse. You ignore it because you don't like it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you're rejecting what it said to me as narrow because it displeases you. I don't think you're doing it out of rationality or reason. There's nothing narrow about it, it's just correct.

You decide what's narrow or what's wide based on if it agrees with you or not. Nobody counters it because it's a game you made up, a game whose rules you decide. It's a stupid game

You tried to put me down with ChatGpt's answered to your narrow context.

I used the same ChatGpt to counter your narrowed view of the issue in a wider context here;
viewtopic.php?p=713752&sid=54593b206145 ... da#p713752

Do you have a more-wider view to counter my wider view above?

[Iwannaplato]

You're the one here telling everyone that your understanding is the only right one, people who aren't anti realists are stupid or immature or whatever.

And I'm here saying, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, not just one.

Which he didn't respond to. Your key point, but he did not respond to that. He quotes, but doesn't really respond to what he quotes. He can be useful as someone who introduces something he's found on the internet, but not a someone to have a dialogue with.

And, according to him, realists are also more likely to be violent, just to make your list more complete.

Of course, if one is happy to interact with someone who will quote what you say and then not really respond to that - iow use you as a kind of excuse to assert a bunch of stuff - if that's a game someone finds fun to play, they may well play on.

[Flannel Jesus]

You tried to put me down with ChatGpt's answered to your narrow context.

I used the same ChatGpt to counter the your narrowed view of the issue in a wider context here;
viewtopic.php?p=713752&sid=54593b206145 ... da#p713752

Do you have a more-wider view to counter my wider view above?

I didn't try to put you down, I tried to inform you. I don't care about this "wide/narrow" game. The fact is that observation doesn't mean minds or consciousness in QM and most Copenhagenists do not believe consciousness causes collapse. That's the fact, and it doesn't matter how wide or narrow that fact is. If you don't want to look at the facts, then the audience can see that your views are not based on the facts and don't represent the science.

[Skepdick]

Philosophical Realism central grounding is a belief in a mind-independent reality which can be many realities or many worlds.

Seems you failed to understand the first time.

A belief in A mind-independent reality (singular!) is not the same thing as a belief in mind-independent realitieS (plural!)

This indeterminacy around plurality - this inability to identify which reality you are in (from the set of All Possible Realities) is sufficient to manufacture all the usual philosophical nonsense. It gives you the absolute freedom to say whatever you want. About ANYTHING.

Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which the sky is blue; or the one in which the sky is red? How can you tell?
Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which murder is morally wrong; or the one in which murder is morally right? How can you tell?

I am fully aware of the issues.

As defined, the central criteria of what is philosophical realism is mind-independence from the human conditions regardless of how many realities that is speculated.

I don't agree with MWI.
Regardless it is still model dependent realism which ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

1. Ultimately, MWI is merely a speculation using human minds to speculate about realities that are independent of human minds- how else?? thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
2.Philosophical realism is claimed a reality or realities that is/are absolutely independent of human minds.
3. 1 and 2 just don't jive; there is a begging the question in 1.

Anti-philosophical realism [Kantian not others] don't give any credence to any speculation but firmly rely on empirical evidences as justified by science and reinforced with philosophical critical and rational thinking with the scientific and philosophical framework and system.

The absolute; or partial dependence or independence is a philosophical red herring.

The identification procedure is the missing piece.

There may exist Universes which are absolutely dependent on minds.
There may exists Universes which are partially dependent on minds.
There may exist Universes which are partially independent of minds.
There may exist Universes which are absolutely independent of minds.

Which universe are we in?

There may exist a universe in which you understand why the philosophical nonsense is irrelevant.

But it's not this universe.

[Skepdick]

I didn't try to put you down, I tried to inform you. I don't care about this "wide/narrow" game. The fact is that observation doesn't mean minds or consciousness in QM and most Copenhagenists do not believe consciousness causes collapse.

OK, but they do believe in collapse, right? Irrespective of what causes it. Anything which causes collapse is defined as a Quantum Observer.

At this moment in time does any scientist anywhere have an example of a Quantum Observer that is not a conscious human? Nope...

So what's the alternative hypothesis then?

That's the fact, and it doesn't matter how wide or narrow that fact is. If you don't want to look at the facts, then the audience can see that your views are not based on the facts and don't represent the science.

The facts is that the above is not true. The science is self-defeating.

[Flannel Jesus]

I didn't try to put you down, I tried to inform you. I don't care about this "wide/narrow" game. The fact is that observation doesn't mean minds or consciousness in QM and most Copenhagenists do not believe consciousness causes collapse.

OK, but they do believe in collapse, right? Irrespective of what causes it. Anything which causes collapse is defined as a Quantum Observer.

At this moment in time does any scientist anywhere have an example of a Quantum Observer that is not a conscious human? Nope...

So what's the alternative hypothesis then?

Every instance of collapse in quantum mechanics is, to the best of our knowledge, caused by the measuring instruments. That is, if there is such a thing as collapse - I'm speaking as if I were a Copenhagenist here.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... vefunction

So the alternative, which chat gpt said as well, idk if you read that, is that collapse and measurement are physical processes. Mind and consciousness have no special role.

And this alternative seems to be the normal view among actual physicists who call themselves Copenhagenists, it's the norm rather than the exception.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Seems you failed to understand the first time.

A belief in A mind-independent reality (singular!) is not the same thing as a belief in mind-independent realitieS (plural!)

This indeterminacy around plurality - this inability to identify which reality you are in (from the set of All Possible Realities) is sufficient to manufacture all the usual philosophical nonsense. It gives you the absolute freedom to say whatever you want. About ANYTHING.

Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which the sky is blue; or the one in which the sky is red? How can you tell?
Which Reality are we in right now? The one in which murder is morally wrong; or the one in which murder is morally right? How can you tell?

I am fully aware of the issues.

As defined, the central criteria of what is philosophical realism is mind-independence from the human conditions regardless of how many realities that is speculated.

I don't agree with MWI.
Regardless it is still model dependent realism which ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind.

1. Ultimately, MWI is merely a speculation using human minds to speculate about realities that are independent of human minds- how else?? thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.
2.Philosophical realism is claimed a reality or realities that is/are absolutely independent of human minds.
3. 1 and 2 just don't jive; there is a begging the question in 1.

Anti-philosophical realism [Kantian not others] don't give any credence to any speculation but firmly rely on empirical evidences as justified by science and reinforced with philosophical critical and rational thinking with the scientific and philosophical framework and system.

The absolute; or partial dependence or independence is a philosophical red herring.

The identification procedure is the missing piece.

There may exist Universes which are absolutely dependent on minds.
There may exists Universes which are partially dependent on minds.
There may exist Universes which are partially independent of minds.
There may exist Universes which are absolutely independent of minds.

Which universe are we in?

There may exist a universe in which you understand why the philosophical nonsense is irrelevant.

But it's not this universe.

The term "dependent" is very misleading.

Philosophical realism claim there is an absolute mind-independent reality [antirealist claim this is illusory] and MWI made it worse by speculating there are other mind-independent illusory realities.
Philosophical realist cannot even prove an existing mind-independent reality and MWI is trying to prove there are more illusory realities out there.
The only recourse to prove a mind-independent reality is via mirroring or corresponding what is observed with what is really real out there beyond the empirical world.

Philosophical anti-realists [Kantian] do not claim reality is 'dependent' on humans but rather they oppose and reject the ideological claims of philosophical realists.
Philosophical anti-realists [Kantian] claims, somehow and inevitably whatever the reality, it is related to the human conditions and CANNOT be absolutely independent of the human conditions especially as an ideology.

"There may exist Universes which are absolutely independent of minds."
This is an impossibility based on the views of philosophical anti-realists [Kantian].

[Veritas Aequitas]

You tried to put me down with ChatGpt's answered to your narrow context.

I used the same ChatGpt to counter the your narrowed view of the issue in a wider context here;
viewtopic.php?p=713752&sid=54593b206145 ... da#p713752

Do you have a more-wider view to counter my wider view above?

I didn't try to put you down, I tried to inform you. I don't care about this "wide/narrow" game. The fact is that observation doesn't mean minds or consciousness in QM and most Copenhagenists do not believe consciousness causes collapse. That's the fact, and it doesn't matter how wide or narrow that fact is. If you don't want to look at the facts, then the audience can see that your views are not based on the facts and don't represent the science.

If human consciousness is removed from QM absolutely, this is leading to Berkeley's sort of subjective idealism, i.e. if not humans, so absolutely independent, then it can only be an independent God, how else??

I have argued the ideology of philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence] is driven by an evolutionary default thus very primitive.
I am also subjected to the above mind-independence since the evolutionary default is embedded deep in my brain as a human being, BUT I don't insist upon it as a dogmatic ideology like the philosophical realists do.

[Flannel Jesus]

If human consciousness is removed from QM absolutely, this is leading to Berkeley's sort of subjective idealism, i.e. if not humans, so absolutely independent, then it can only be an independent God, how else??

Study the science and figure it out. You're so focused on the "philosophy of science" that you completely neglect the science.

BUT I don't insist upon it as a dogmatic ideology like the philosophical realists do.

And yet you say all sorts of character and intellectual insults about realists and you are the only one insisting your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics must be the only correct one. You're fighting against dogmatic ideology, while literally clearly being more dogmatic than the people you think you're fighting against. Wild situation.

Why don't you just calmly say, "I realise that the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is a hotly debated topic with no settled answer, and while I prefer my interpretation, I don't think other people are immature idiots for not interpreting it the way I do"?

You could say that. You would benefit from saying something like that.

[Skepdick]

The term "dependent" is very misleading.

It's misleading enough to make you think using the word "dependent" or "independent" changes anything in practice.

"There may exist Universes which are absolutely independent of minds."
This is an impossibility based on the views of philosophical anti-realists [Kantian].

You are confusing epistemic impossibilities with ontological ones.

Why can't there be a universe without any minds/consciousnesses in it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term "dependent" is very misleading.

It's misleading enough to make you think using the word "dependent" or "independent" changes anything in practice.

"There may exist Universes which are absolutely independent of minds."
This is an impossibility based on the views of philosophical anti-realists [Kantian].

You are confusing epistemic impossibilities with ontological ones.

Why can't there be a universe without any minds/consciousnesses in it?

For example, it is obvious within the universe of the Sun there is no minds/consciousness in it; the same possibilities for a galaxy or universe where planets orbit very near its Sun.

There are loads of problem with ontology re independent substance theory.

Philosophical antirealism [Kantianism] is somewhat like pyrrhonian skepticism, it just refuse to accept any independent ontology existence because it cannot pass critical and rational thinking, so the pyrrhonian skepticism suspend judgment to conform their psychic from the pain cognitive dissonance.

Philosophical antirealism [Kantianism] also suspend judgment like the p-skeptics but came out with something to avoid the pains of cognitive dissonances.

[Flannel Jesus]

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-consciou ... e-function

Why does consciousness collapse the wave function?

Tom McFarlane
B.S. in Physics, Stanford University (Graduated 1988)

let’s be perfectly clear: collapse of the wave function is not part of quantum mechanics per se, but part of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. Some interpretations, such as many worlds, do not involve collapse at all. And among the interpretations that do involve collapse (such as the Copenhagen interpretation), most don't involve consciousness in any way whatsoever. So, both consciousness and collapse are not necessary features of quantum mechanics itself.

So the title of this thread shouldn't be "QM is grounded on antirealism",

It should be something more like "My personally preferred interpretation of QM is grounded on antirealism".

You're allowed your interpretation VA, have fun! But when you present it like it's "the science", like it's QM itself... well, you call everyone else dogmatic and arrogant, and yet you don't see me telling people that they all have to accept my view of QM or else they're immature morons...