What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Yes it does. Stop lying.

Objective realities (plural) contradicts objective reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

[Atla]

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Yes it does. Stop lying.

Objective realities (plural) contradicts objective reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Too bad you're the liar. "objective realities" doesn't appear anywhere on that Wiki page.

[Skepdick]

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Yes it does. Stop lying.

Objective realities (plural) contradicts objective reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Too bad you're the liar. "objective realities" doesn't appear anywhere on that Wiki page.

Then take out the word "objective", idiot.

Realities (plural) contradicts reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Objectively speaking, how many realities are there?

[Atla]

Yes it does. Stop lying.

Objective realities (plural) contradicts objective reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Too bad you're the liar. "objective realities" doesn't appear anywhere on that Wiki page.

Then take out the word "objective", idiot.

Realities (plural) contradicts reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Objectively speaking, how many realities are there?

Yeah take out the word which was the whole point. Woosh

[Skepdick]

Too bad you're the liar. "objective realities" doesn't appear anywhere on that Wiki page.

Then take out the word "objective", idiot.

Realities (plural) contradicts reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Objectively speaking, how many realities are there?

Yeah take out the word which was the whole point. Woosh

Which is why I didn't take it out. I just moved it elsewhere. Into the question.

Objectively speaking, how many realities are there?

0?; 1?; 2?; 3?; more?

[Skepdick]

Yeah take out the word which was the whole point. Woosh

You said you are a non-dualist, right? Fine. lets take "2" out of the list of possible answers.

Objectively speaking, how many realities are there? 0?; 1?; 3?; more?

Woosh.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes I'm aware of the CLAIMS, and unaware of any part of science where they really work. All of science is consistent with an objective reality.

You are making personal claims.
Where is your argument and supporting references.

What about the opposing view from say Hawking;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
How do you counter above against yours?

Note there are many other opposing claims in opposition to what you are claiming.

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Note the term "meaningless" so, we can forget about it but focus on the usefulness of the model.

In addition to the above I argued, there is a prior emergence and realization of reality as conditioned upon the model before whatever is perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As I had stated, there are many other alternatives to your claim.

Btw, I have challenged you to prove what you claimed as "real" is really real as absolutely mind-independent. You have failed to do so.

Btw, I had mentioned your 'what is mind-independent' can only be speculated and inferred with mind-dependence reasonings; as such, ultimately cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Yes it does. Stop lying.

Objective realities (plural) contradicts objective reality (singular).

1 is not 2; or 3; or 4; or 5....

Too bad you're the liar. "objective realities" doesn't appear anywhere on that Wiki page.

Note the title is Model Dependent Realism [reality]
and that is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which is the most credible, realistic and objective.
Whatever objective reality, it is implied in that article and of course you have to read the full book to understand it.

[Atla]

You are making personal claims.
Where is your argument and supporting references.

What about the opposing view from say Hawking;


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
How do you counter above against yours?

Note there are many other opposing claims in opposition to what you are claiming.

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Note the term "meaningless" so, we can forget about it but focus on the usefulness of the model.

In addition to the above I argued, there is a prior emergence and realization of reality as conditioned upon the model before whatever is perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As I had stated, there are many other alternatives to your claim.

Btw, I have challenged you to prove what you claimed as "real" is really real as absolutely mind-independent. You have failed to do so.

Again, model-dependent realism neither refutes nor proves objective reality.

Btw, I had mentioned your 'what is mind-independent' can only be speculated and inferred with mind-dependence reasonings; as such, ultimately cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Yes which shows your basic inability to differentiate between reference and referent. So maybe I was wrong by assuming that you had 110-115 IQ, now I think it may be closer to 90-95.

[Veritas Aequitas]

See this is what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about. Model-dependent realism doesn't contradict or support objective reality. So it's not "opposing".

Note the term "meaningless" so, we can forget about it but focus on the usefulness of the model.

In addition to the above I argued, there is a prior emergence and realization of reality as conditioned upon the model before whatever is perceived, known and described.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

As I had stated, there are many other alternatives to your claim.

Btw, I have challenged you to prove what you claimed as "real" is really real as absolutely mind-independent. You have failed to do so.

Again, model-dependent realism neither refutes nor proves objective reality.

Btw, I had mentioned your 'what is mind-independent' can only be speculated and inferred with mind-dependence reasonings; as such, ultimately cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Yes which shows your basic inability to differentiate between reference and referent. So maybe I was wrong by assuming that you had 110-115 IQ, now I think it may be closer to 90-95.

But it stated that supposed 'true reality' is meaningless and useless, thus a refutation and can be ignored.

[Atla]

Note the title is Model Dependent Realism [reality]
and that is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which is the most credible, realistic and objective.
Whatever objective reality, it is implied in that article and of course you have to read the full book to understand it.

No, objective reality is by definition not implied in models. Idiot.

Here's the part dealing with the issue of objective reality:

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

[Atla]

But it stated that supposed 'true reality' is meaningless and useless, thus a refutation and can be ignored.

Maybe someone with 90-95 IQ thinks that "I can't have absolute certainty about X" is the same as "there can be no X".

[Skepdick]

Maybe someone with 90-95 IQ thinks that "I can't have absolute certainty about X" is the same as "there can be no X".

Maybe somebody with an IQ so low that it can't be measured doesn't understand that X is a free variable. It's undefined.

It can represent absolutely anything.

Let X = "The correct number of realities".

There can be a correct number of realities, but I can't have ANY certainty about what that number is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But it stated that supposed 'true reality' is meaningless and useless, thus a refutation and can be ignored.

Maybe someone with 90-95 IQ thinks that "I can't have absolute certainty about X" is the same as "there can be no X".

The Wiki reference was a quickie and not specific.
You have not read his book, I have.

Here are some notes therein which imply there is no absolutely mind-independent objective reality;

-the universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence. C1
-There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Chap 3
-Quantum physics is a new model of reality that gives us a picture of the universe.
-We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
-There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8
-As in our universe, in the Game of Life your reality depends on the model you employ. 8

From the above, it is clearly stated, there is no mind-independent objective reality.

There are more points from the book to support that there is no mind-independent objective reality.

If you don't agree, read the book to counter the above.

[Atla]

But it stated that supposed 'true reality' is meaningless and useless, thus a refutation and can be ignored.

Maybe someone with 90-95 IQ thinks that "I can't have absolute certainty about X" is the same as "there can be no X".

The Wiki reference was a quickie and not specific.
You have not read his book, I have.

Here are some notes therein which imply there is no absolutely mind-independent objective reality;

-the universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence. C1
-There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Chap 3
-Quantum physics is a new model of reality that gives us a picture of the universe.
-We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. pg 8
-There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own. 8
-As in our universe, in the Game of Life your reality depends on the model you employ. 8

From the above, it is clearly stated, there is no mind-independent objective reality.

There are more points from the book to support that there is no mind-independent objective reality.

If you don't agree, read the book to counter the above.

Bulllshit. The above is a model-dependent / instrumentalist approach to indirect realism.

In no way does it claim that there is no mind-independent objective reality. You really like the experience of shooting yourself in the leg, dont you? You do it every day..