Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself

[Skepdick]

I suppose your question made some sense to you, even though it doesn't.

Well, I can go on explaining to you how a very fundamental FSK caused mini-repeats of The Big Bang to happen under Geneva, but I'd probably be wasting my time.

Which has fuck all to do with what I wrote.

I literally gave you a "good reason to think that human-based FSKs have a bearing on objective reality, fundamentally".

We are actively reproducing the fundamentals. Beneath Geneva.

[Atla]

Well, I can go on explaining to you how a very fundamental FSK caused mini-repeats of The Big Bang to happen under Geneva, but I'd probably be wasting my time.

Which has fuck all to do with what I wrote.

I literally gave you a "good reason to think that human-based FSKs have a bearing on objective reality, fundamentally".

We are actively reproducing the fundamentals. Beneath Geneva.

Word salad.

[Skepdick]

Which has fuck all to do with what I wrote.

I literally gave you a "good reason to think that human-based FSKs have a bearing on objective reality, fundamentally".

We are actively reproducing the fundamentals. Beneath Geneva.

Word salad.

My "word salad" is your cognitive dissonance.

[Age]

BECAUSE "veritas aequitas" is just TOO CLOSED to ANSWER my QUESTIONS, this question is ASKED for ANY one "else" TO ANSWER.

Does "veritas aequitas" think or believe that objects like the sun and the moon, for example, are NOT 'real' and/or do NOT 'exist' WITHOUT 'human beings' or WITHOUT a 'mind' existing prior?

I will WAIT to SEE if ANY ANSWERS follow first, before I ASK the next question or questions.

[Age]

Well, I can go on explaining to you how a very fundamental FSK caused mini-repeats of The Big Bang to happen under Geneva, but I'd probably be wasting my time.

Which has fuck all to do with what I wrote.

I literally gave you a "good reason to think that human-based FSKs have a bearing on objective reality, fundamentally".

We are actively reproducing the fundamentals. Beneath Geneva.

If absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that ANY human being is 'reproducing' 'the fundamentals of the 'big bang', under "Geneva" or AT ANY OTHER place, then I pretty sure that 'they' WILL BE somewhat VERY DISAPPOINTED when 'they' FIND OUT that 'this' is NOT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING.

[Skepdick]

If absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that ANY human being is 'reproducing' 'the fundamentals of the 'big bang', under "Geneva" or AT ANY OTHER place, then I pretty sure that 'they' WILL BE somewhat VERY DISAPPOINTED when 'they' FIND OUT that 'this' is NOT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING.

No, it's not.

[Atla]

Fun fact, I like to imagine the Big bang as a series of collisions between ginormous matter and anti-matter black holes.

[Age]

If absolutely ANY one thinks or BELIEVES that ANY human being is 'reproducing' 'the fundamentals of the 'big bang', under "Geneva" or AT ANY OTHER place, then I pretty sure that 'they' WILL BE somewhat VERY DISAPPOINTED when 'they' FIND OUT that 'this' is NOT what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING.

No, it's not.

What are the words, 'No, it's not', here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, "skepdick"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have explained, there are two sense and views of 'what is objectivity'.

Two Senses and Views of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The human-based FSK view.
2. The mind-independent view

The human-based FSK view is the realistic view as exemplified by the objectivity of the human-based scientific FSK.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

The mind-independent view of objectivity and Objective Reality is grounded on an illusion.
I have demonstrated this illusory claim via many threads, e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Hume: No Things-in-Themselves from Is
viewtopic.php?t=40991

Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012

and many other threads.

The idea of an absolute mind-independent Objective Reality as a fundamentalistic ideology is grounded on an illusion driven by an evolutionary default and desperate psychology. To keep insisting on this claim on an ideological basis is delusional.

[Atla]

I have explained, there are two sense and views of 'what is objectivity'.

Two Senses and Views of 'Objectivity', i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The human-based FSK view.
2. The mind-independent view

The human-based FSK view is the realistic view as exemplified by the objectivity of the human-based scientific FSK.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

The mind-independent view of objectivity and Objective Reality is grounded on an illusion.
I have demonstrated this illusory claim via many threads, e.g.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Hume: No Things-in-Themselves from Is
viewtopic.php?t=40991

Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself
viewtopic.php?t=41012

and many other threads.

The idea of an absolute mind-independent Objective Reality as a fundamentalistic ideology is grounded on an illusion driven by an evolutionary default and desperate psychology. To keep insisting on this claim on an ideological basis is delusional.

No, you haven't demonstrated that objective reality is an illusion, as you can't prove a negative. That's just your guess, and my guess is that it's real. I also think that my guess is 10 times better. The end.

[Advocate]

Science is rigor and rigorously testable results provide maximum certainty for all epistemic purposes. That all science is limited in scopesaays nothing about whether it accurately represents reality.