Relativistic Quantum Mechanics vs. Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Within Physics, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

The central move of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM] is to interpret all physical variables as relational, namely as referring to two systems, not a single one, and to view them as realised only in interactions. Relationality has been playing an ever dominant role as our knowledge of the natural world has increased. Examples are the relational nature of velocity in classical mechanics, of locality in general relativity, of the potential in electromagnetism, of the gauge invariant observables in non-abelian gauge theories, and many others. RQM is a step further in this direction.

Taken seriously, the philosophical implications of this overreaching relationally can be heavy.
The main one is a weakening of a strong version of realism.

Link

The strongest version of Realism is Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In the light of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], philosophical realists who insist there is an independent external world "out there" and leveraging on a false claim in the higher philosophical sense.

Views?

[commonsense]

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Within Physics, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

The central move of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM] is to interpret all physical variables as relational, namely as referring to two systems, not a single one, and to view them as realised only in interactions. Relationality has been playing an ever dominant role as our knowledge of the natural world has increased. Examples are the relational nature of velocity in classical mechanics, of locality in general relativity, of the potential in electromagnetism, of the gauge invariant observables in non-abelian gauge theories, and many others. RQM is a step further in this direction.

Taken seriously, the philosophical implications of this overreaching relationally can be heavy.
The main one is a weakening of a strong version of realism.

Link

The strongest version of Realism is Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In the light of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], philosophical realists who insist there is an independent external world "out there" and leveraging on a false claim in the higher philosophical sense.

Views?

So, what’s the big deal? What is wrong with believing that phenomena interact with other phenomena while remaining independent of the observer?

[Skepdick]

So, what’s the big deal? What is wrong with believing that phenomena interact with other phenomena while remaining independent of the observer?

The question is a weird case of special pleading.

Observers are themselves phenomena. Observations are interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[commonsense]

So, what’s the big deal? What is wrong with believing that phenomena interact with other phenomena while remaining independent of the observer?

The question is a weird case of special pleading.

Observers are themselves phenomena. Observations are interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Observations of reality are observations of real objects/phenomena. An observer is a phenomenon such as it is being observed. No?

[Skepdick]

Observations of reality are observations of real objects/phenomena. An observer is a phenomenon such as it is being observed. No?

I am not sure what the adjective "real" adds to the discussion.

Do you have an example of an observation of a"non-real" phenomenon?
Do you have an example of a "non-real" observer?

The human mind short-circuits in spectacular ways when it applies analytical methods to adjectives. This has been amusing philosophers for millennia.

[commonsense]

Observations of reality are observations of real objects/phenomena. An observer is a phenomenon such as it is being observed. No?

I am not sure what the adjective "real" adds to the discussion.

Do you have an example of an observation of a"non-real" phenomenon?
Do you have an example of a "non-real" observer?

The human mind short-circuits when it applies analytical methods to adjectives. This has been amusing philosophers for millennia.

Yes, ha-ha! It was added for emphasis, not for any additional meaning. There are many examples of this kind of figure of speech. My favorite is “conscious decision”.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Within Physics, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

The central move of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM] is to interpret all physical variables as relational, namely as referring to two systems, not a single one, and to view them as realised only in interactions. Relationality has been playing an ever dominant role as our knowledge of the natural world has increased. Examples are the relational nature of velocity in classical mechanics, of locality in general relativity, of the potential in electromagnetism, of the gauge invariant observables in non-abelian gauge theories, and many others. RQM is a step further in this direction.

Taken seriously, the philosophical implications of this overreaching relationally can be heavy.
The main one is a weakening of a strong version of realism.

Link

The strongest version of Realism is Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In the light of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], philosophical realists who insist there is an independent external world "out there" and leveraging on a false claim in the higher philosophical sense.

Views?

So, what’s the big deal? What is wrong with believing that phenomena interact with other phenomena while remaining independent of the observer?

Point is;
What is "out there" observed as independent is merely relative to the human conditions.
There is no ultimate absolute external world out there as insisted by realists.
In this case, there is no ultimate real referent [thing-in-itself] to speak of.

As Wittgenstein stated;
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

Thus humans should remain silent on an absolutely independent external world and just SHUT-UP about it.

But psychologically, all humans cannot keep quiet and shut-up but majority are compelled to insist there is an external world as per their common sense.
But with such a common sense view with its speculations, there is no possibility of a real referent to it.

As I had stated, the ultimate reason for the compulsion insist on an external world in the realists' sense is psychological [not realistic] because such a psychological compulsion has survival values.
Whilst such a a psychological compulsion has survival values, there are serious and heavy cons to it, i.e. it lead ultimately to theism who claim God exists as a real independent external entity in creating a Universe and humans.

The illusory belief in a God then leads to a wide range to terrible evils [genocides, murders, rapes, suppression, etc.] committed by believers upon non-believers as commanded and condone by God as fixed within eternal holy texts. This is so evident.

If theists were to quality their God as NOT absolutely independent in an external world, then whatever God as claimed is man-made. This will prevent believers from committing the terrible evil as stated above.

That is the deal.

[Skepdick]

If theists were to quality their God as NOT absolutely independent in an external world, then whatever God as claimed is man-made. This will prevent believers from committing the terrible evil as stated above.

If man made God, then man is more powerful than God. If believers are more powerful than God, then there's nothing to stop them from committing terrible evil.

It's a system of control. Exactly like the pursuit of truth.