Morality: The Big Bang is not Mind-Independent

[Iwannaplato]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

Listened for the first half hour, because I've been encountering his name often in the past. He's obviously an idiot, I was just curious about the details. So around the half hour mark he goes like:

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).
If it's computable, then that means it is a simulation (LOL).
If it's a simulation, that means it's a virtual reality.

---------------

The above abuses the noumenon as badly as it gets. Wonder why VA linked it?

One warning sign, not necessarily aBout Tom Campbell, but at least about the video makers, is that it says he PROVES this. Found strong evidence, ok. PROVES, well that's for other stuff.
And the truth is he proposed some experiments that might confirm his ideas, but is still raising money for them. So, he's pre-experiment, and in the speculation phase.

From what I can see he mirrors Hindu traditions and he is some kind of theist. It might be a very impersonal kind of deity, but he doesn't hesitate to call it God. He does not believe in determinism.
Anyway, anyone wanting to learn more directly can read his 755 TOE book.
https://books.google.se/books?redir_esc ... al&f=false

[Veritas Aequitas]

Exactly, he's the one making a certain claim about the noumenon. The whole point of the CPR was to show that that's not valid.

That was my impression of Kant, that he black-boxed the issue as far as ontology.

Yes that was the whole point imo.

But we are just gnats. Oh did you know that ChatGPT is also a gnat now? Looks like ChatGPT is driven by psychological fears too, and more likely to commit evil acts:

Kant's philosophy does not make claims about the existence or non-existence of a mind-independent noumenal world. Instead, he asserts that if such a world were to exist, it would be beyond the reach of human cognition. In other words, Kant leaves open the possibility that a noumenal world could exist, but he maintains that we can never have knowledge of it.

Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world. He argues that our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal realm, which is shaped by our cognitive faculties and the way we perceive and understand the world. The nature of the noumenal world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable to us because it lies beyond the boundaries of our sensory experience and conceptual understanding.

So, according to Kant, it is possible that a mind-independent noumenal world exists, but we can never confirm or deny its existence through empirical or rational means because it is forever beyond our cognitive reach. Kant's philosophy, therefore, does not take a definitive stance on the existence or possibility of such a world; it remains a question that lies outside the scope of his epistemological framework.

Kant was a gnat too btw.

ChatGpt merely give the general view, that is why I always qualifies "with reservations" re anything statements from ChatGpt.

ChatGpt: "Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world."
If one understand Kant's CPR thoroughly, Kant is ultimately not agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world.

As I had posted references from Kant above, it is impossible for the noumenal [negative or positive] to be real to humans because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual intuition to enable it to be real.

To Kant, the noumenon [an illusion] is useful in the negative sense as a limit to sensibility.
To reify the positive noumenon as real and mind-independent is nonsensical.
The noumenon can only be used regulatively but not constitutively [a real substantial thing].

[Veritas Aequitas]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

Listened for the first half hour, because I've been encountering his name often in the past. He's obviously an idiot, I was just curious about the details. So around the half hour mark he goes like:

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).
If it's computable, then that means it is a simulation (LOL).
If it's a simulation, that means it's a virtual reality.

---------------

The above abuses the noumenon as badly as it gets. Wonder why VA linked it?

With reference to Campell's claim, the Big Bang is a simulation [mind-related] thus cannot be mind-independent.

[Atla]

That was my impression of Kant, that he black-boxed the issue as far as ontology.

Yes that was the whole point imo.

But we are just gnats. Oh did you know that ChatGPT is also a gnat now? Looks like ChatGPT is driven by psychological fears too, and more likely to commit evil acts:

Kant's philosophy does not make claims about the existence or non-existence of a mind-independent noumenal world. Instead, he asserts that if such a world were to exist, it would be beyond the reach of human cognition. In other words, Kant leaves open the possibility that a noumenal world could exist, but he maintains that we can never have knowledge of it.

Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world. He argues that our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal realm, which is shaped by our cognitive faculties and the way we perceive and understand the world. The nature of the noumenal world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable to us because it lies beyond the boundaries of our sensory experience and conceptual understanding.

So, according to Kant, it is possible that a mind-independent noumenal world exists, but we can never confirm or deny its existence through empirical or rational means because it is forever beyond our cognitive reach. Kant's philosophy, therefore, does not take a definitive stance on the existence or possibility of such a world; it remains a question that lies outside the scope of his epistemological framework.

Kant was a gnat too btw.

ChatGpt merely give the general view, that is why I always qualifies "with reservations" re anything statements from ChatGpt.

ChatGpt: "Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world."
If one understand Kant's CPR thoroughly, Kant is ultimately not agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world.

As I had posted references from Kant above, it is impossible for the noumenal [negative or positive] to be real to humans because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual intuition to enable it to be real.

To Kant, the noumenon [an illusion] is useful in the negative sense as a limit to sensibility.
To reify the positive noumenon as real and mind-independent is nonsensical.
The noumenon can only be used regulatively but not constitutively [a real substantial thing].

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

The difference is that he had a negative approach within agnosticism. And today we know that because human perception is indirect, a negative approach doesn't even work. So either we have to use a positive approach or we have to revert to being plants.

Kant was correct to be agnostic but incorrect in thinking that he could take a negative approach within agnosticism.
You flat out deny the noumenon however. Kant thinks you didn't understand a word he said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes that was the whole point imo.

But we are just gnats. Oh did you know that ChatGPT is also a gnat now? Looks like ChatGPT is driven by psychological fears too, and more likely to commit evil acts:



Kant was a gnat too btw.

ChatGpt merely give the general view, that is why I always qualifies "with reservations" re anything statements from ChatGpt.

ChatGpt: "Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world."
If one understand Kant's CPR thoroughly, Kant is ultimately not agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world.

As I had posted references from Kant above, it is impossible for the noumenal [negative or positive] to be real to humans because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual intuition to enable it to be real.

To Kant, the noumenon [an illusion] is useful in the negative sense as a limit to sensibility.
To reify the positive noumenon as real and mind-independent is nonsensical.
The noumenon can only be used regulatively but not constitutively [a real substantial thing].

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

How do you know when you have not read Kant thoroughly?

Kant stated many views ambiguously in the beginning of the CPR but confirm his views on those ambiguous view at the end of the CPR and other works.
For example,
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.

Kant himself warned against cherry picking which most are doing at present in presenting Kant's view.

• Kant: If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the Idea of the Whole. CPR Bxliv

The difference is that he had a negative approach within agnosticism. And today we know that because human perception is indirect, a negative approach doesn't even work. So either we have to use a positive approach or we have to revert to being plants.

What do you mean 'human perception is indirect'

There is a serious problem with human perception when one approach reality based on absolute mind-independence;

It is no mere accident that many Constructivists challenge [reject] objectivity.
Their studies in perception forced them to confront the issue of perceptual uncertainty.
Scientists investigating phenomena other than Cognition can sidestep perceptual uncertainty by assuming that when experimenter bias is adequately controlled, the senses report objective data about a real world.
This position will not work when studying perception.

The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster's Constructivism
Lynn Segal

I will start a thread on the above Problem of Perception later.

Kant was correct to be agnostic but incorrect in thinking that he could take a negative approach within agnosticism.
You flat out deny the noumenon however. Kant thinks you didn't understand a word he said.

As a philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian, you have any credibility to speak for Kant unless you refer to the whole of the CPR with appropriate references, not merely cherry picking.

While I have been providing relevant quotes from Kant's CPR, you have nothing of that sort.

[Atla]

ChatGpt merely give the general view, that is why I always qualifies "with reservations" re anything statements from ChatGpt.

ChatGpt: "Kant's position is essentially agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world."
If one understand Kant's CPR thoroughly, Kant is ultimately not agnostic regarding the existence of a noumenal world.

As I had posted references from Kant above, it is impossible for the noumenal [negative or positive] to be real to humans because humans do not possess the necessary intellectual intuition to enable it to be real.

To Kant, the noumenon [an illusion] is useful in the negative sense as a limit to sensibility.
To reify the positive noumenon as real and mind-independent is nonsensical.
The noumenon can only be used regulatively but not constitutively [a real substantial thing].

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

How do you know when you have not read Kant thoroughly?

Kant stated many views ambiguously in the beginning of the CPR but confirm his views on those ambiguous view at the end of the CPR and other works.
For example,
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.

The difference is that he had a negative approach within agnosticism. And today we know that because human perception is indirect, a negative approach doesn't even work. So either we have to use a positive approach or we have to revert to being plants.

What do you mean 'human perception is indirect'

There is a serious problem with human perception when one approach reality based on absolute mind-independence;

It is no mere accident that many Constructivists challenge [reject] objectivity.
Their studies in perception forced them to confront the issue of perceptual uncertainty.
Scientists investigating phenomena other than Cognition can sidestep perceptual uncertainty by assuming that when experimenter bias is adequately controlled, the senses report objective data about a real world.
This position will not work when studying perception.

The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster's Constructivism
Lynn Segal

I will start a thread on the above Problem of Perception later.

Kant was correct to be agnostic but incorrect in thinking that he could take a negative approach within agnosticism.
You flat out deny the noumenon however. Kant thinks you didn't understand a word he said.

As a philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian, you have any credibility to speak for Kant unless you refer to the whole of the CPR with appropriate references, not merely cherry picking.

Is there anyone other than you who claims that Kant wasn't agnostic? Looks like it's you against the world. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

How do you know when you have not read Kant thoroughly?

Kant stated many views ambiguously in the beginning of the CPR but confirm his views on those ambiguous view at the end of the CPR and other works.
For example,
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.

The difference is that he had a negative approach within agnosticism. And today we know that because human perception is indirect, a negative approach doesn't even work. So either we have to use a positive approach or we have to revert to being plants.

What do you mean 'human perception is indirect'

There is a serious problem with human perception when one approach reality based on absolute mind-independence;

It is no mere accident that many Constructivists challenge [reject] objectivity.
Their studies in perception forced them to confront the issue of perceptual uncertainty.
Scientists investigating phenomena other than Cognition can sidestep perceptual uncertainty by assuming that when experimenter bias is adequately controlled, the senses report objective data about a real world.
This position will not work when studying perception.

The Dream of Reality: Heinz von Foerster's Constructivism
Lynn Segal

I will start a thread on the above Problem of Perception later.

Kant was correct to be agnostic but incorrect in thinking that he could take a negative approach within agnosticism.
You flat out deny the noumenon however. Kant thinks you didn't understand a word he said.

As a philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian, you have any credibility to speak for Kant unless you refer to the whole of the CPR with appropriate references, not merely cherry picking.

Is there anyone other than you who claims that Kant wasn't agnostic? Looks like it's you against the world. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

[Iwannaplato]

Don't lie VA, the whole point of the CPR is to be fundamentally agnostic towards the noumenal world. Kant WAS ultimately agnostic. That IS Kantian philosophy.

In context Kant is even less friendly to VA's position because he considered positing noumena as existing as key to morality.

VA's anti-realist arose in response to realist challenges to the existence of objective morals (by PH and others). Somewhere in that interaction, VA saw an opportunity to undermine the entire realist critique of the idea of objective morals by becoming an antirealist. Great, interesting.

But Kant saw positing a noumenal freedom as necessary, or we have no morals at all.

[Atla]

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

[Iwannaplato]

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

Further the above Kant quote is not atheistic, it is part of an agnostic position. He's not asserting there is no God, he's concluding that God is beyond the scope of knowledge (if there is a God). He is not ruling out God, one example of a noumenon.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... %20aspects.

His critical analysis of pure reason leads Kant to limit the scope of theoretical, demonstrative knowledge to the phenomenal world, i.e., to the world of sense perception, thereby denying the possibility of metaphysics, and consequently the validity of the traditional proofs for the existence of God – the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments (ibid., b811–25). But while Kant maintains that God, as a supersensuous being, cannot be an object of demonstrative knowledge, he does not claim that God does not exist, or that He is beyond the reach of reason as such.

Of course perhaps Kant is wrong about this. He's one philosopher. But once you put him out there as an authority and use the CPR as the demonstration of truths, you have to eat, also, the things this philosopher baked that you don't like, or you undermine that authority.

And given that Kant is not a gnat, certain insults must be modified.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

Yes, both Allison and Guyer [each with >50 years full time on Kant] are giants of Kant scholarship, but they both disagree on the fundamental issues. I agree with Allison's view within the whole context of Kant's CPR.

Atla: "Show that he wasn't agnostic, ..."

You the problem here who had not studied Kant thoroughly yet speak as if like a Kantian expert.
It is so obvious, at the end of the CPR, the noumenon -> thing-in-itself is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion. How can it then be a real mind-independent reality?

Note Kant's warning again:

• Kant: If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the Idea of the Whole. CPR Bxliv

Note the case of the Category Imperative related to 'No lying, Period' where the majority interpret it literally which make Kant look very stupid as insisting 'one cannot lie regardless of the condition even to save someone's life'.
But that is not the case in the context of the whole of Kant's philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

Listened for the first half hour, because I've been encountering his name often in the past. He's obviously an idiot, I was just curious about the details. So around the half hour mark he goes like:

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).
If it's computable, then that means it is a simulation (LOL).
If it's a simulation, that means it's a virtual reality.

---------------

The above abuses the noumenon as badly as it gets. Wonder why VA linked it?

Why it is a lie and why it is not computable [as defined]?

[Skepdick]

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).

You don't know that there's different kinds of information?
You don't know that the particular kind of information QM deals with is quantum information in which the "random" part is implicit?
You don't know that quantum information is a conserved quantity in physics?

You are obviously an idiot, but the details are curious indeed

[Atla]

The common view is that Kant was 'agnostic' with noumenon [thus picked up by ChatGpt], but that is the shortsighted views based on narrow views and hearsays.

Re this as stated above;
Kant's stated in the Preface of Critique of Pure Reason, "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx).
It would be shortsighted to take the above literally as of 'faith' [religion] is superior than knowledge.
Many still take it that Kant was very favorable with religion but that is not what the above actually refer to ultimately.

"narrow views and hearsays"... including people who spent careers studying Kant huh

"Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" is also someone has to do who goes from being a certain realist on the noumenon to being an agnostic. Doesn't look like this quote helped your cause. Again:

Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility.

Yes, both Allison and Guyer [each with >50 years full time on Kant] are giants of Kant scholarship, but they both disagree on the fundamental issues. I agree with Allison's view within the whole context of Kant's CPR.

Atla: "Show that he wasn't agnostic, ..."

You the problem here who had not studied Kant thoroughly yet speak as if like a Kantian expert.
It is so obvious, at the end of the CPR, the noumenon -> thing-in-itself is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion. How can it then be a real mind-independent reality?

Note Kant's warning again:

• Kant: If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.
  In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the Idea of the Whole. CPR Bxliv

Note the case of the Category Imperative related to 'No lying, Period' where the majority interpret it literally which make Kant look very stupid as insisting 'one cannot lie regardless of the condition even to save someone's life'.
But that is not the case in the context of the whole of Kant's philosophy.

That's just handwaving. Noumenon can mean both the reference and the referent. Is it illusion? Illusory? In what sense? Is nothing there, or something else there? Which noumenon? Why is it useful? etc.

No handwaving please. Show that he wasn't agnostic, until then you're the philosophy-gnat and ultracrepidarian with no credibility. It may be so obvious to you that Kant was an imbecile who denied the possibility of the noumenon, but you'll have to show it to us first.


Here's a little help from ChatGPT to get you started:

In summary, Kant did not deny the existence of the noumenal world but instead argued that it was unknowable to us because of the inherent limitations of our cognitive faculties.

[Atla]

NASA Quantum Physicist PROVES We LIVE in a CONSCIOUS SIMULATION - NEW EVIDENCE! | Tom Campbell Ph.D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zycOBl9Ghvo

Listened for the first half hour, because I've been encountering his name often in the past. He's obviously an idiot, I was just curious about the details. So around the half hour mark he goes like:

For 100 years, we had no idea what QM means, but physicists have established now that it is information based (major lie).
If it's information-based, then it's computable (maybe, what if it's random information?).
If it's computable, then that means it is a simulation (LOL).
If it's a simulation, that means it's a virtual reality.

---------------

The above abuses the noumenon as badly as it gets. Wonder why VA linked it?

Why it is a lie and why it is not computable [as defined]?

More like, why wouldn't it be a lie? Has anyone ever shown that QM is "information-based"?