Why is Physics 'More Objective' than Astrology?

[Skepdick]

You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that it matters in some way whether some ideal of true or perfect objectivity is attainable

No worse than the mistaken assumption that your objection matters.

[Atla]

One notable point is the significant exponential contribution of Quantum Mechanics [mainly anti-realist] over those of the p-realists' Einsteinian and Newtonian Physics.

"Over" Einsteinian and Newtonian physics? Not to detract from the importance of QM (a third or so of the world economy is based on it). But "OVER" Einsteinian and Newtonian physics? With which most of the modern world was built?

Maybe you should go looking for a practical argument with more umm.. punch..

[Flannel Jesus]

"Quantum Mechanics [mainly anti-realist]"

He's still saying this? Yuck.

Ask most experts in QM if they believe reality is dependent on human minds, a small percent might say 'yes'. Not "mainly". The main threads of non-realism in QM are decidedly NOT what VA means when he says he's an anti-realist.

Anybody who isn't an actual physicist trying to push what they think of QM is selling something.

[Atla]

"Quantum Mechanics [mainly anti-realist]"

He's still saying this? Yuck.

Ask most experts in QM if they believe reality is dependent on human minds, a small percent might say 'yes'. Not "mainly".

ChatGPT [with reservations] is VA's God now, so we even copied ChatGPT's reply about this. Listing that some popular interpretations are on the anti-realist side, some on the realist side and some in between. But this didn't help either.

[Flannel Jesus]

What popular interpretation do you think is on the anti-realist side?

[Atla]

What popular interpretation do you think is on the anti-realist side?

God says Copenhagen and Quantum Bayesianism though I'm unfamiliar with the latter.

[Flannel Jesus]

What popular interpretation do you think is on the anti-realist side?

God says Copenhagen and Quantum Bayesianism though I'm unfamiliar with the latter.

The second paragraph of the Copenhagen interpretation article on Wikipedia:

Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.[5]: 85–90 

Quantum Bayesian is non-realist about qm itself, not reality - which is to say, they think qm isn't ontologically true in any sense, which is distinct from thinking anti realist thoughts about reality itself.

[Skepdick]

Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.[5]: 85–90 

If it says so it must be true, right?

The descriptions of all these mathematical functions, numbers and abstract objects in my head are objective too. At the very least I strongly insist that you should interpret them as objective. Platonism's true, don't you know?

[Atla]

What popular interpretation do you think is on the anti-realist side?

God says Copenhagen and Quantum Bayesianism though I'm unfamiliar with the latter.

The second paragraph of the Copenhagen interpretation article on Wikipedia:

Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.[5]: 85–90 

Quantum Bayesian is non-realist about qm itself, not reality - which is to say, they think qm isn't ontologically true in any sense, which is distinct from thinking anti realist thoughts about reality itself.

But God was speaking generally, there are many kinds of anti-realisms, which is something VA doesn't understand (he can't process nuance, not even really big nuance). If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?

Which currently popular Quantum Mechanics interpretations are grounded on philosophical realism and which are grounded on philosophical anti-realism?

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of particles at the quantum level. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and these interpretations often have different philosophical implications, ranging from realism to anti-realism. It's important to note that the distinction between realism and anti-realism can sometimes be subtle, and interpretations may not fit neatly into one category or the other.

Here are a few interpretations of quantum mechanics and their general philosophical inclinations:

Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.

Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI, proposed by Hugh Everett III, is often associated with a realist perspective. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs, with the universe splitting into multiple branches, each representing a different outcome. In this interpretation, all possibilities are considered equally real.

De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory: This theory, also known as the Bohmian mechanics, is a deterministic interpretation. It posits the existence of hidden variables that determine the behavior of particles, making it realist in nature. The particles have definite positions, and the wave function guides their motion.

Objective Collapse Theories: Some theories propose that the wave function collapses spontaneously, without the need for an observer. Examples include the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. Depending on how these theories are formulated, they can lean towards realism or anti-realism.

QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): QBism is an interpretation that focuses on the subjective nature of quantum probabilities. It's often associated with anti-realism, emphasizing that quantum theory provides a way for an observer to make predictions about their experiences but doesn't necessarily describe an objective reality independent of observation.

It's essential to recognize that the philosophical stance of an interpretation can be debated and may depend on how the interpretation is formulated. Additionally, some physicists may not strictly align with either realism or anti-realism, preferring a more agnostic or instrumentalist view that emphasizes the predictive power of the theory without making strong claims about the underlying reality.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?

Yes, exactly. That's certainly what HE means when he says it, so that's what I'm meaning too.

[Atla]

If you mean a literal mind-dependence then I guess that's the Neumann-Wigner with <1% popularity?

Yes, exactly. That's certainly what HE means when he says it, so that's what I'm meaning too.

No I don't think that's what he means.. VA's philosophy (or rather jumble of words) is a philosophy of the 100% unknowable and non-existent noumenon, where he puts the noumenon right beyond any appearance and cogniton. And there is no interpretation of QM, not even the Neumann-Wigner, where this 100% unknowable noumenon philosophy would make any fucking sense. Like, a world that doesn't exist, can't even literally depend on your mind because, well, it doesn't exist.

Likewise, VA misunderstands every single interpretation of QM, even the more "anti-realistic" ones. And also misunderstands physics in general. And all science. And all human existence. And the world and absolutely everything.

Maybe one could say that it's a different kind of literal mind-dependence. It's a literal mind-dependence, just without mind, without anything literal and without dependence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can't tell the difference
between there being a fact of the world and
a statement of a fact about the world.

Pete drew your attention to this deficit in your reasoning years ago.
What makes a claim in chemistry actually true or false is a matter of the chemical composition and behaviour of real world molecules etc.
What makes a claim within the field of chemistry as a science credible is the manner and degree to which we can demonstrate correspondence between the chemist's claim and the behaviour of real world things. What Astrology lacks is any of that latter stuff.

I countered Pete's in the following threads but Pete did not give any satisfactory responses but mostly handwaving-off responses.
The threads are still open for him to counter what I have presented therein:

My general principle is this;
whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

That was just a list of threads where you have asserted something for the umpteenth time for which you have consistently failed to address criticism. You aren't impressing anyone with them. The general principle you are referencing is exactly the one I am criticising in this thread, you aren't answering the problems by just saying the same problematic things over and over again.

The general principle is that of philosophical_realism [mind-indepent] vs ANTI_philosophical-realism [not mind-independent].
However, for any complex issue it is best to deal with it from as many angles as possible.

The point was, you stated Pete explained to me, but I did not agree with his illusory claims without valid arguments and justifications.

The general point is this,
What is fact, reality and objectivity is claimed in two major senses?
1. The human-based FSRK sense which is realistic
2. The mind-independent sense [p-realism] which is illusory.

Your claim is based on 2 in direct opposite to my FSRK sense, but you have not provided any argument nor justifications to support your claim.

On scientific claims and credibility:
I have asked Pete this and receive no response:

• 1. The human-based scientific FSRK is not absolutely independent of human influence [conditions].
  2. The human-based scientific FSRK generate scientific facts.
  3. The inference "Water is H20" is a scientific fact.
  4. Therefore the claim "water is H20" cannot be absolutely independent of human influence [conditions] [1].

You talk about chemistry facts of science but you did not take into account the above.

I already did take account of the above when I wrote: "You can't tell the difference
between there being a fact of the world and
a statement of a fact about the world."
Nothing more is really needed for that point.

What??
Where is your justification for "there being a fact of the world"
on what authority are you claiming that?
on your personal opinion, beliefs and judgment?

I believe your claim re 'what if fact' is grounded within Analytic Philosophy.
But the traditional analytic philosophy with ordinary language philosophy is dead!
Rise & Fall of Analytic Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=41868

Can you explain in simple terms
It is a fact, 'water is H20' based on your claims?
On what authority can you confirm the truths of your claim?
First define 'what is fact'.

Note my position in counter to your claims is not plucked from the air but rather on the giant shoulder of Kant - one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times.

There is a well known difficulty in bridging the gap between what we say about the world and the world itself. You however wildly overinterpret the outcomes of this issue, which are actually not very important at all. You take the unattainablilty of perfect knowledge of a notional world that lies beyond sensory perception and turn it into a fantasy that justifies an explosion of FSK imagininings repackaged as proto-factoids on the say so of anyone who cares to make up an FSK.

"the world-in-itself" is a very contentious issue because it is clung upon by philosophical realists due to an evolutionary default [instinct].
This had led to all sort of dilemma, paradoxes, antinomies and even the acts of evils in order to defend this dogmatic idea which is illusory.

My use of a FSRK is merely to confine reality and knowledge to what is experienced and possible to be experienced to the extend as far as empirical evidence can support my claim reinforced with rationality and critical thinking.
Like the pyrrhonian skeptics I stop speculating beyond what is evident or possible to be evidenced.
What is wrong with this?

You and p-realists are driven by an inherent primal drive [subliminally] to speculate about something objective and mind independent beyond what is experienced and possible-to-be-experienced [where the most credible and objective justification is by the human-based science FSRK.]
You are no different from the theists who speculate on a god that is beyond the empirical.
You are unaware you are entangled within a psychological net as Hume had alluded to re his problem of causation.

Are you familiar with the end of that Hume book, specifically the bit about the game of billiards? I am making much the same poitnm as that when I say things like.... "You however wildly overinterpret the outcomes of this issue, which are actually not very important at all.". Again, you missed the actual point I was making. Which was that.

I have researched into Hume extensively, but it is impossible for me [average person] to have knowledge of Hume on one's finger tip.
However, I am certain Hume's "constant conjunction, custom and habits" re causation allude to a psychological basis.
I am very interested, give me some details about the game of billards and preferably reference.

All the pretentious nonsense about primal drives and inherent fears is the result of you trying to massively inflate the impact of the nothing question about the reality of an external world.

There is nothing pretentious about primal drives and inherent fears within nature.
It is undeniable there is the human factor and human nature in all the above.
I have researched enough to understand how human nature is infused and embedded into the human realization of reality.
We just cannot ignored this fact just because of ignorance.

But in your imagininngs, you are in charge of the FSK game and you are the one who says what is credible. And that's the only reason you play the game at all. To have your own little sandpit where all the rules are made by you and anyone who questions them is a kindergartner, as if the kid playing in the sandpit isn't a kindi too.

What don't you ask ChatGpt [with reservations] whether the claim of FSK is reasonable or not re my claim;
"whatever is fact, real, truth, knowledge, exists, objective is conditioned upon a human-based embodied FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective."

That can give you ideas for sources other than your sort of analytic philosophy re ordinary language.
Note;
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

By now, there is nothing within analytic philosophy for you to bridge the reality gap between the human factor and what is supposedly the mind-independent external objective world out there.

If you resort to post-analytic philosophy in the world of Rorty et al, you are veering into pragmatism and no mind-independent world.
Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality
viewtopic.php?t=32188

As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.

There is no need to bridge any imagined gap between humans and a supposed mind-independent world, the whole question is junk. That's what Rorty is telling you in Ch1 of the mirror, it's what Wittgenstein is telling you in On Certainty.

You claimed there is a difference between 'what is fact' and 'statement of fact'.
What is fact as PH is claiming [presumably same with you] is independent of the subject's opinion, beliefs and judgement, thus independent of subject's mind, so that is mind-independent.

If you agree with Rorty [mirror] and the very-latter-Wittgenstein [on-Certainty], there there is no ultimate difference between what is fact and statement of fact since both are grounded on the subject and his mind.

So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked. So I don't see any need for me to abandon ordinary language reasoning for any of this discussion.

Not on my finger tips at present. Will get back to this point later.

As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.

Be real. I saw you write "Don't fuck around when you are wrong and infected with Aids." the other day, I don't fall for your pearl clutching antics. You will make up an excuse to be terribly offended at me when you next need to. The last time was when you had no other way out after blatantly bullshitting about your Kantian know how versus that of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn, and you were getting completely toasted because of your own clumsy overconfidence. That's all going to happen again.

The above is not my default but that was a response [tit for tat] to an attack by the other side.
My position is, when heavily reflecting and focusing deeply on philosophical issues there is no room and no time in those parts of the brain/mind for personal attacks.

The only critiques I initiated is to point out to my interlocutors their shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking so they can hopefully change at their discretion.

I still maintain my stance re the Simon Blackburn claim. Did you toast it with your justifications? No, rather it is just you are not happy with my explanation, in addition this is small issue, if I am not mistaken, I claimed Simon Blackburn misunderstood Kant re Ethics??

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far as I know, nothing I've written is in conflict with Grice on any subject I know him for such as implicature, but feel free to update my "database" with the proceeds of your learning if there's something I've overlooked. So I don't see any need for me to abandon ordinary language reasoning for any of this discussion.

Here's AI [with reservations] on Grice's Implicature:

In philosophy and science, where precision is paramount, the use of implicature is generally discouraged for several reasons:

Misinterpretation: Implicatures rely on the listener's interpretation, which can be subjective and prone to miscommunication. In philosophy and science, where clarity and accuracy are crucial, avoiding ambiguity is essential.
Hidden assumptions: Implicatures often carry hidden assumptions that may not be explicitly stated. This can lead to misunderstandings and hinder the evaluation of arguments based on their own merit rather than implied meanings.
Unnecessary complexity: Implicatures can introduce unnecessary complexity into an argument or explanation. In philosophy and science, clarity and simplicity are often valued, and explicit statements are preferred to avoid confusion.

However, implicature can still play a subtle role in these fields in specific situations:

Figurative language: Figurative language, like metaphors and similes, can be used to convey complex ideas in a more engaging way, even though they rely on implicature to some extent. However, their use should be carefully considered to avoid misinterpretations.
Irony and humor: While not always appropriate, well-placed irony or humor can be used to highlight certain points or engage the audience without compromising clarity.
Informal contexts: In informal discussions or presentations, some level of implicature might be unavoidable, but it's important to strive for clarity and avoid relying on unspoken assumptions.

Regarding your specific situation:
It's unlikely that the topic of implicature directly applies to your attempt to convince philosophical realists with Kantian anti-realism. This is because:

The arguments in these discussions are likely to be explicitly stated and rigorously analyzed, leaving little room for implicit meaning.
Both sides likely rely on well-defined terminology and established principles, minimizing the risk of misinterpretations due to implicature.
However, it's possible that implicit assumptions might be present in the arguments, leading to misunderstandings.
To address this, you can:

Explicitly state your assumptions: Clearly articulate your underlying beliefs and premises to avoid any ambiguity.
Clarify your opponent's assumptions: Engage in dialogue to understand your opponent's perspective and identify any implicit assumptions they might be making.
Focus on clear and concise arguments: Present your arguments in a well-structured and logical manner, using unambiguous language and avoiding unnecessary complexity.

As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
This is why I have to ask so many questions on your claim.

To avoid implicatures in philosophy and science, one need to comply with the 4 Maxims of Conversations [AI's];

• Maxims of Conversation: The cooperative principle is further broken down into four maxims of conversation:
  Maxim of Quantity: Provide the amount of information necessary.
  Maxim of Quality: Be truthful and avoid saying things you believe to be false or lack evidence for.
  Maxim of Relation: Be relevant to the topic at hand.
  Maxim of Manner: Be clear and unambiguous in your expression.

But you did not present your claim in compliance with the 4 maxims of Conversations, thus so much hidden implicatures.

I don't think Grice is recommending you use implicatures in philosophy and science.
Seem you are condoning implicatures in philosophy to deceive your interlocutors??

[Veritas Aequitas]

The last time was when you had no other way out after blatantly bullshitting about your Kantian know how versus that of Oxford philosopher Simon Blackburn, and you were getting completely toasted because of your own clumsy overconfidence. That's all going to happen again.

I have just downloaded "ETHICS: A Very Short Introduction" by Simon Blackburn and read the relevant parts mainly related to Kant in Part III and elsewhere.

Here are some relevant passages:

It seems to distort the very idea of a standard of conduct. As the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1824) put it, it encourages us to act in accordance with a rule, but only because of fear of punishment or some other incentive; whereas what we really want is for people to act out of respect for a rule. This is what true virtue requires. (I discuss these ideas of Kant’s more fully in Part Three.) [Preface]

Here he meant Kant condemned religious ethics compliance to God's rule out of fear; but Kant still recommend to to act out of respect for a rule.
In essence, Kant's morality-proper is not rule-based.

On the question of 'lies' and white lies:

Some philosophers, most notoriously Kant, have grasped the nettle and forbidden even such lies. It was central to Kant’s moral scheme that the prohibition remained simple and absolute: no exceptions.
........
Here is a second example where the stringency of ethics can lead to its rejection.

This is clearly a misunderstanding of Kant's morality-proper. Kant never condoned such a stupid idea of absolute stringency.
Kant is one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times, how could he ever condone such an stupid idea? In the overall context of Kant's morality, even Kant had seemingly made those statements re 'no lying, period!', it was NOT meant to be literal.
99% of those who mentioned Kant's morality take it that Kant insist no one should lie without exceptions. [This is likely due to their oversight of Kant's full morality, or merely based on hearsays]
So this may imply Grice's "implicatures" is relevant within the understanding of Kant's morality-proper.

I had a discussion with AI [with reservations];
"The passages you've provided from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" indeed support your argument that Kant's moral philosophy extends beyond a purely deontological framework ..."

Now, who is toasted?? it is you!

[Atla]

...
As a default, for philosophical and science, implicature should be avoided.
But your claims re 'what is fact' is full of implicatures.
...

YOUR 'what is fact' is the one full of implicatures. Your 100% non-existent noumenon beyond appearances and cognition, creates a duality with one side of the duality blank, that's what you base everything on.

Like it or not, but your view is the one that adds something extra and probably unnecessary/nonsensical, it's not the default view. Full of implicatures. Yet never once could you just explicitly state this.

Probably because this isn't quite what Kant meant and you don't know how to phrase your position yourself.