Philosophy Now Forum

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??

Notes:
In the above I mentioned physical and objectivity from the perspective of antirealism which enable moral elements to be physical and objective.
However, from another perspective what is physical and objective is moral realism.

There is no contradiction in using antirealism and realism in the above; whilst at the same time, they are used in different senses, i.e. not in the same sense.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

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 which as stated above is a weakening claim within QM.

Therefore, what rules QM is antirealism, i.e. philosophical antirealism.

From AI [wR]:

Question:
Topic: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.
It is reasonable to state the The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics falls within either Philosophical Realism [mind independent reality] and Philosophical anti-realism?

From AI [wR]:
You're right, the philosophy of quantum mechanics delves into a fascinating debate that sits right between philosophical realism and anti-realism. Here's why:

Realism: This camp argues for a mind-independent reality. In our world, objects have definite properties, like a ball being either here or there. However, quantum mechanics challenges this with ideas like superposition, where a particle can be in multiple states at once.

Anti-realism: This side questions the existence of an objective reality independent of the mind. Quantum mechanics, with its emphasis on probabilities and the role of the observer, seems to suggest reality depends on the act of observation.

So, how does quantum mechanics fit? Many interpretations emerge:

Copenhagen Interpretation: A prominent view (developed by Bohr and Heisenberg). It accepts the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and suggests the wave function collapses (settles into a definite state) upon observation. This leans slightly towards anti-realism as the act of observation seems to define reality.

Many-Worlds Interpretation (Everett): This proposes that the wave function doesn't collapse. Instead, the universe splits into multiple branches for every possibility. This leans more towards realism, but with a rather mind-bending twist!

The beauty (and complexity) of quantum mechanics is that it forces us to re-evaluate our understanding of reality. It might not be a clear-cut case for either realism or anti-realism, but rather a new perspective that challenges our classical notions.

For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the observer actually is, or whether there is even something like an observer and not something of drastically different nature is going on).

Without these assumptions, QM is neither realist nor anti-realist, just inherently relative from our perspective, in a yet incomprehensible way. Bohr was a genius, but his Advaita-influenced philosophical take isn't gospel either.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:40 am Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism.
Discuss??
Views??

My view is that as usual you are scrapping the bottom of the bottomless pit that is your empty brain.

WTF is "Antirealism"? Your use of the term is childish reactionism. No one involved with QM is against realism. Not one.
QM is grounded in the science of observation and the project to save the appearances by offering hypotheses that solve observational problems and inconsistencies.

Relavence of this thread to ethical theory?

This guy is amazing. Such a brilliant educator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexPZ8bKRT0

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:40 am Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism.
Discuss??
Views??

My view is that as usual you are scrapping the bottom of the bottomless pit that is your empty brain.

WTF is "Antirealism"? Your use of the term is childish reactionism. No one involved with QM is against realism. Not one.
QM is grounded in the science of observation and the project to save the appearances by offering hypotheses that solve observational problems and inconsistencies.

You are right if this is a specific science-physics forum.
But this is not a specific science-physics forum, rather this is a philosophy forum, thus what is relevant is the Philosophy of Science.

Science by itself is very limited in terms of understanding the full spectrum of reality, as such, there is a need for the Philosophy of Science.

Within the Philosophy of Science, the most effective grounds for QM is antirealism, i.e. anti-philosophical_realism.
Note the supporting references I provided in the OP and there are loads of them out there in the internet.

Notes:
In the above I mentioned physical and objectivity from the perspective of antirealism which enable moral elements to be physical and objective.
However, from another perspective what is physical and objective is moral realism.

There is no contradiction in using antirealism and realism in the above; whilst at the same time, they are used in different senses, i.e. not in the same sense.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:48 am Any claim about the nature of reality is realist in nature. And this includes the claim that reality is fundamentally 'uncertain' or 'indeterminate' or 'observer-dependent'. So the claim that quantum mechanics is philosophically antirealist arises from a category error.

Note the supporting evidences I provided that argued QM is grounded on antirealism, i.e. anti-philosophical_realism.

I have argued,

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265

1. The primal, evolutionary default, illusory sense of the ideological philosophical realism
2. The realistic FSERC sense of reality.

When you insist "Any claim about the nature of reality is realist in nature" you are ignorant your sense of reality is as 1; the primal, evolutionary default, illusory sense of the ideological philosophical realism [p_realism].
This claim may have validity for the common and conventional sense.
It make no sense for QM which is in the more refined FSERC or antirealism [particularly anti-p_realism] sense of reality.

You are just handwaving without argument; throughout the history of QM the debates over p_realism vs anti-p_realism has been going on, but the anti-p_realism perspective prevailed at the present.

There are scientists who cling to the p_realism version but they are the minority and they are like theists [based on faith] claiming an absolutely human independent God exists.

Any claim about the nature of reality is realist in nature.
And this includes the claim that reality is fundamentally 'uncertain' or 'indeterminate' or 'observer-dependent'.

You are contradicting yourself.

Realist, i.e. in your case, is philosophical realism which claim that reality and things are absolutely independent of the human mind and conditions. [A]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

then you claim at the same time,
this includes the claim that reality is fundamentally 'uncertain' or 'indeterminate' or 'observer-dependent'.
this meant reality is somehow related to the human conditions; reality in this case cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions, so it contradicts your [A] above.

So we are truly 'nothing'. Just a figment of a quark's imagination...

''Quantum Wierdness: The Evidence That Everything is Energy
The solar-system picture of electrons and protons as tiny, solid, planet-like structures whizzing
around a larger interior neutron in an atom was dead wrong. Electrons, muons, tauons, quarks,
and gluons have no internal structure and no physical size, meaning that they are entirely illusory
or put another way, made up of energy. They are zero-dimensional and more like events than
things. As if that weren’t bad enough, electrons (those negatively charged particles that aren’t
really particles) were discovered to be both a wave and a particle at the same time (wave-particle
duality.) Electrons showed up in one form or the other depending on the experiment involved.
They were also hard to pin down—after all, when everything is energy, it’s hard to keep it in one
place. Scientists can know a particle’s velocity or its position, but not both at the same time.
Which is like a cop clocking a car doing 150 mph on the Interstate, but not being able to locate it
to give chase. Another strange habit energetic particles have is they can be in more than one
place at the same time. Called “superposition,” electrons and other non-particle particles are
capable of being in hundreds of places simultaneously, which is only possible if everything is
energy at the most fundamental levels. It seems like the more physicists discover, the worse
things get for those of us hoping to hold onto any sort of sense of normal “reality.” In fact, towards
the end of his life, when Einstein was asked what was the biggest physics question he wished
could be answered before he died, he replied, “I’d be happy if I just knew what an electron really
was.” Now we know and we know it is energy at the most fundamental levels. Reality is stranger
than we think. It’s stranger than most people can think. And the reality is that everything is energy
and energy is everything...''

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:02 am So we are truly 'nothing'. Just a figment of a quark's imagination...

''Quantum Wierdness: The Evidence That Everything is Energy...

And what's your take on the implications of all of that on the topic of this thread?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:09 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:02 am So we are truly 'nothing'. Just a figment of a quark's imagination...

''Quantum Wierdness: The Evidence That Everything is Energy...

And what's your take on the implications of all of that on the topic of this thread?

I don't know what he means by 'anti-realism' and he doesn't seem to want to explain it.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 11:19 am I don't know what he means by 'anti-realism' and he doesn't seem to want to explain it.

He's always been a bit wishy washy about it, but the only time he got close to clear about it, it was some hypothesis like "this entire place we call 'reality' is being constructed by minds and thoughts".

So physics and matter is all a communal hallucation, or something, by a bunch of disembodied minds. I guess.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 5:45 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:40 am Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism.
Discuss??
Views??

My view is that as usual you are scrapping the bottom of the bottomless pit that is your empty brain.

WTF is "Antirealism"? Your use of the term is childish reactionism. No one involved with QM is against realism. Not one.
QM is grounded in the science of observation and the project to save the appearances by offering hypotheses that solve observational problems and inconsistencies.

You are right if this is a specific science-physics forum.
But this is not a specific science-physics forum, rather this is a philosophy forum, thus what is relevant is the Philosophy of Science.

Science by itself is very limited in terms of understanding the full spectrum of reality, as such, there is a need for the Philosophy of Science.

Within the Philosophy of Science, the most effective grounds for QM is antirealism, i.e. anti-philosophical_realism.
Note the supporting references I provided in the OP and there are loads of them out there in the internet.

As usual you are talking nonsense. Addressing phantoms in your head.
There is no "antirealism", just like there is no FSK