Failure of Relativism

[Noax]

Please tell me you're not another idealist that doesn't know the difference.

Another of which idealist?
Mine is transcendental idealism and is an empirical realist.

You are then. We cannot help but talk past each other because you can't tell the difference.

But the point here is evolutionary science and biology are relative to human beings.

Case in point.

Generally if Kant an philosophical anti-realist is a transcendental idealist, then the philosophical realist is a transcendental realist. That is very logical.

There are many different philosophies than just idealism and not-idealism. For this logic to hold, all view that are not idealist would have to be the same (the opposite of whatever idealism is). It is like saying that all objects are blue, or the opposite of blue. Well there happen to be more than two colors, so that logic is wrong. If this is how Kant argues it (which I doubt), then he is wrong.

I don't mean to pick on this point, but there is little remaining otherwise.

[Noax]

Yes, there regardless of any conceptualization, but not 'there' regardless of interaction. If X does not affect Y, then X does not exist to Y. The moon is not in fact there (in relation to nothing). That's what I mean when I say the relational view denies objective existence: existence independent of any relation.

This makes no sense to me at all. Interactions, "X affecting Y" don't exist, these are delusions from the Newtonian worldview.

Newton's view did describe cause and effect, but not defined state being dependent on it.

Since QM we know that there are only correlations and non-separability, not interactions (I used the word "correlate" in a different sense here than a few sentences earlier). The way I see it you use at least 3 different magical concepts here: interaction, relation, exist/doesn't exist.

Where does QM say there are only these two things? QM would say Y measures system X, or X exhibits decoherence in relation to Y. That's still cause and effect, in QM terms. Measurement is interaction.

'Relation' is a mathematical concept. 'Exist' is a metaphysical concept which goes unmentioned in QM science, but which I take literally as 'to stand out', since 'being' or 'is real' seems to require further clarification.

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word exsistere meaning "to appear", "to arise", "to become", or "to be", but literally, it means "to stand out" (ex- being the Latin prefix for "out" added to the causative of the verb stare, meaning "to stand")

A QM system (X), unmeasured, cannot be in a state that stands out from a different possible state. For instance, the Bohmian mechanics model says that X, even unmeasured, is still in some actual state (and is the only mainstream model that claims this). But to an entity Y outside of the system, that state still doesn't stand out from a different possible but non-actual state. State of X still doesn't exist in relation to Y.

Maybe you need to tell me what you mean when you designate something as 'magic'. Usually that means 'unnatural', but you seem to have a different usage. God creating the humans and the various animals and plants is an appeal to magic, as is the immaterial mind denied by both of us. Aliens coming down and recently populating earth with humans and the various animals and plants is not an appeal to magic, but the evidence against that is the same evidence against the magic story.

[Noax]

To a blind mole (a mammal living mainly under the atmosphere in the dirt) the moon does not exist. The moon does not affect the mole, and the mole has no knowledge of the moon.

No knowledge sure, but to say the moon has no effect on the blind mole is nonsense. There would be no moles at all were it not for the moon. It is a big thing that has a huge effect on Earth like the weather, which plays a significant role in determining which creatures live and die.

Everybody seems to assume that the only possible way A can affect B is that B 'sees' A.

[Eodnhoj7]

Veritas:

You claim that everything is relative, then answer this question:

"Relativism?"

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please tell me you're not another idealist that doesn't know the difference.

Another of which idealist?
Mine is transcendental idealism and is an empirical realist.

You are then. We cannot help but talk past each other because you can't tell the difference.

But the point here is evolutionary science and biology are relative to human beings.

Case in point.

Generally if Kant an philosophical anti-realist is a transcendental idealist, then the philosophical realist is a transcendental realist. That is very logical.

There are many different philosophies than just idealism and not-idealism. For this logic to hold, all view that are not idealist would have to be the same (the opposite of whatever idealism is). It is like saying that all objects are blue, or the opposite of blue. Well there happen to be more than two colors, so that logic is wrong. If this is how Kant argues it (which I doubt), then he is wrong.

I don't mean to pick on this point, but there is little remaining otherwise.

Kant argued very extensively and deeply why the philosophical realist is also a transcendental realist.
You have to read Kant to understand [not necessary to agree with] his point re a thing-in-itself is an illusion.

Note Russell's point 'perhaps there is no table at all' for the philosophical realist who insist there is an independent table out there due to the emergence of a Reality Gap.

[Noax]

Kant argued very extensively and deeply why the philosophical realist is also a transcendental realist.
You have to read Kant to understand [not necessary to agree with] his point re a thing-in-itself is an illusion.

Note - one need 3 years full time [.. I have done this] or 5 years part time to grasp fully and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy within the CPR.

It seems that you hide behind Kant often when you don't want to answer a question.
"You draw that philosopher like a gun".

There was this exchange where I had apparently interpreted your Kant quote incorrectly:

According to Kant,
A philosophical realist is actually an empirical idealist and at the same time a transcendental realist. [heavy stuff here].
A philosophical idealist [anti-realist] is an empirical realist and yet a transcendental idealist.

I cannot follow this. A transcendental realist is somebody who believes the transcendental (spirit realm?) is real, and yet I've never associated that stance with the term 'philosophical realist'. Kant is using different definitions of some things? Did you get the quote right?

As I had mentioned I have spent a lot of time on Kant.
I don't insist you take my words but you will have to read up Kant if you disagree with me.

Generally if Kant an philosophical anti-realist is a transcendental idealist, then the philosophical realist is a transcendental realist. That is very logical. Question is how to justify it. You will have to read Kant to understand it.

The answer seemed again to be a be a brush-off, so I looked it up myself. Kant is talking about transcending the empirical, not transcending nature as I had mistakenly took it. Kant's quote is actually quite logical in this light, and it makes more sense to me that way.
It would seem quite easy for you to have corrected me on this mistake, especially with all those years of studying Kant to aid you, but instead you deflect the question, suggesting that I read up on Kant to understand it (which I did). It took about 10 minutes to identify my misunderstanding on his usage of transcendental, but I find it amusing that you, who claims to follow Kant so much, seemed not to be able to give this simple correction.

Anyway, Kant's view is all revered and such in the philosophical community, but he doesn't have the modern empirical findings to work into his view since he predates them by about a century and a half. I wonder how his views might be updated if he were to take into account the findings of the last century. In many ways, I think those findings actually support his assertions.

[-1-]

To a blind mole (a mammal living mainly under the atmosphere in the dirt) the moon does not exist. The moon does not affect the mole, and the mole has no knowledge of the moon.

No knowledge sure, but to say the moon has no effect on the blind mole is nonsense. There would be no moles at all were it not for the moon. It is a big thing that has a huge effect on Earth like the weather, which plays a significant role in determining which creatures live and die.

Everybody seems to assume that the only possible way A can affect B is that B 'sees' A.

"There would be no moles at all were it not for the moon." Prove this.
"(the Moon) It is a big thing that has a huge effect on Earth like the weather," please prove this also.

To my knowledge the Moon's presence by its gravitational force affects tidal waves, nothing more.

It minimally (should I say infinitesimally) affects the weather inasmuch as it blocks the sunlight and its energy from reaching Earth x percent of the time (a few minutes every decade or so.)

Other than these two influences, I see nothing how the Moon would affect subterranean life. Or their evolution. Rain and sunshine affect plant life, sunshine, chemical composition of atmosphere and plant life affect temperature, plant life and animal life affect chemical composition of atmosphere, and the Moon's presence or absence has no part in either.

You may say that the Moons presence affect geological forces. Such as volcano eruption and earthquakes. Granted, but I believe both have a minimal effect on the environment as far as the biosphere is concerned, that's A., and B. volcanoes and earthquakes would happen anyway without the Moon's presence. How much the Moon affects volcano eruption and earthquakes, I don't know. Do you, Noax?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant argued very extensively and deeply why the philosophical realist is also a transcendental realist.
You have to read Kant to understand [not necessary to agree with] his point re a thing-in-itself is an illusion.

Note - one need 3 years full time [.. I have done this] or 5 years part time to grasp fully and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy within the CPR.

It seems that you hide behind Kant often when you don't want to answer a question.
"You draw that philosopher like a gun".

I make reference to whichever philosopher where relevant. In this case Kant was very relevant.

There was this exchange where I had apparently interpreted your Kant quote incorrectly:

I cannot follow this. A transcendental realist is somebody who believes the transcendental (spirit realm?) is real, and yet I've never associated that stance with the term 'philosophical realist'. Kant is using different definitions of some things? Did you get the quote right?

As I had mentioned I have spent a lot of time on Kant.
I don't insist you take my words but you will have to read up Kant if you disagree with me.

Generally if Kant an philosophical anti-realist is a transcendental idealist, then the philosophical realist is a transcendental realist. That is very logical. Question is how to justify it. You will have to read Kant to understand it.

The answer seemed again to be a be a brush-off, so I looked it up myself. Kant is talking about transcending the empirical, not transcending nature as I had mistakenly took it. Kant's quote is actually quite logical in this light, and it makes more sense to me that way.
It would seem quite easy for you to have corrected me on this mistake, especially with all those years of studying Kant to aid you, but instead you deflect the question, suggesting that I read up on Kant to understand it (which I did). It took about 10 minutes to identify my misunderstanding on his usage of transcendental, but I find it amusing that you, who claims to follow Kant so much, seemed not to be able to give this simple correction.

Note nature is within the empirical set, so transcending the empirical includes transcending nature.

I am very familiar with Kant's overall theme and principles but there is no way I am in a tip-top state to know every detail since 4 years ago and kept up to date with refreshers on main principles. I can get to the details easily if necessary.
Generally to explain Kant one need to bring the whole theme of the Critique of Pure Reason to one's awareness. This is why I suggest you need to read up Kant in this particular case.

You stated you read up Kant on this issue re Philosophical Realist as Empirical Idealist.
Which part did you read?

Did you read;
THE FOURTH PARALOGISM: OF IDEALITY (IN REGARD TO OUTER RELATION) A366-7
It require some mental agility to grasp the points.

Anyway, Kant's view is all revered and such in the philosophical community, but he doesn't have the modern empirical findings to work into his view since he predates them by about a century and a half. I wonder how his views might be updated if he were to take into account the findings of the last century. In many ways, I think those findings actually support his assertions.

Kant philosophy and theories are based on very sound reasoned principles.
Note Einstein's theories were proven long after his death.
Within the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant did not introduce theories that are controversial scientifically. So modern empirical findings will have little negative impact on his theories.

But modern empirical findings from the neurosciences will soon [..I am optimistic] be able to explain Kant's theory that the idea [within the brain of humans] is illusory and demonstrate the mechanics and processes that produce such a transcendental illusion of an illusory God.

[Noax]

"There would be no moles at all were it not for the moon." Prove this.
"(the Moon) It is a big thing that has a huge effect on Earth like the weather," please prove this also.

To my knowledge the Moon's presence by its gravitational force affects tidal waves, nothing more.

The moon has both micro (quantum and chaotic) effects on earth, and also massive macro effects.

On the micro scale, the moon has quantum effects (decoherence) which causes effects on earth within seconds. The entire planet is in a complete different quantum state because of the moon, all within a few seconds of any given moment. Chaos theory is how this occurs, which is more popularly known as the butterfly effect. In essence, these atomic differences amplify to macroscopic differences (like completely different weather) within a month. That means that any trivial change (the existence or not of a grain of sand, let alone the moon) would result in a completely different weather pattern within a month. The weather is a major cause of life and death of a lot of creatures.

With any trivial change, Earth would have been in a different state at the time of our abiogenesis. That means that life would not have started in the same way. It probably (like incalculably small odds) would have started at all. The moon (not the moon in particular) is part of the cause of life. No moon, no moles.

Macroscopic differences:
Without the moon, the Earth would have mostly retained its orginal spin rate and orbital radius (both unknown) rather that the current radius and variable spin rate of about 12 hours billions of years ago, slowing to 24 hours today. The planet would have been significantly hotter or cooler with the radius difference. Even if by phenomenal chance life had started on that world as well, it would have necessarily found different forms to be fit in that vastly different environment. Moles could not have possibly evolved. They are fit for a different world.

[Noax]

I am very familiar with Kant's overall theme and principles but there is no way I am in a tip-top state to know every detail since 4 years ago and kept up to date with refreshers on main principles.

It seemed to be a very basic point, not an obscure detail. I had to look it up because I'm no expert on Kant.

You stated you read up Kant on this issue re Philosophical Realist as Empirical Idealist.
Which part did you read?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
and only enough to identify my mistake in interpreting the quote.

Note Einstein's theories were proven long after his death.

Most were verified (they're never 'proven') before, and some not yet. I think Bohr would have more influence on Kant possibly adjusting his position accordingly, but there was an interesting focus on the reality of space and time in that Stanford entry I linked, and yes, Einstein's findings would definitely have been found interesting.

But modern empirical findings from the neurosciences will soon [..I am optimistic] be able to explain Kant's theory that the idea [within the brain of humans] is illusory and demonstrate the mechanics and processes that produce such a transcendental illusion of an illusory God.

Kant's theory that the idea of what is illusory? Sorry, the sentence seems to be a fragment. Trying to figure out what science is going to soon explain.

[-1-]

Macroscopic differences:
Without the moon, the Earth would have mostly retained its orginal spin rate and orbital radius (both unknown) rather that the current radius and variable spin rate of about 12 hours billions of years ago, slowing to 24 hours today. The planet would have been significantly hotter or cooler with the radius difference. Even if by phenomenal chance life had started on that world as well, it would have necessarily found different forms to be fit in that vastly different environment. Moles could not have possibly evolved. They are fit for a different world.

Remarkable. An unknown radius of orbiting distance and unknown spin rate are inferior to the present.

You are making an invalid inference, by saying that the UNKNOWN would have prevented the evolution and life itself to develop on Earth. I say that is possible, but it is also possible that the UNKNOWN conditions would have been equally favourable, which is also equally possible, as well as the conditions being hugely more favourable.

Since we deal with an UNKNOWN, you can't categorically declare its qualities for certain.

[-1-]

On the micro scale, the moon has quantum effects (decoherence) which causes effects on earth within seconds. The entire planet is in a complete different quantum state because of the moon, all within a few seconds of any given moment. Chaos theory is how this occurs, which is more popularly known as the butterfly effect. In essence, these atomic differences amplify to macroscopic differences (like completely different weather) within a month. That means that any trivial change (the existence or not of a grain of sand, let alone the moon) would result in a completely different weather pattern within a month. The weather is a major cause of life and death of a lot of creatures.

With any trivial change, Earth would have been in a different state at the time of our abiogenesis. That means that life would not have started in the same way. It probably (like incalculably small odds) would have started at all. The moon (not the moon in particular) is part of the cause of life. No moon, no moles.

Respectfully I don't agree with you.

The microscopic effects do not interfere with chemistry, they interfere with sub-atomic, particularly electron-spin and other quark effects. Those do not come into consideration when 10**30 or so atoms and molecules in the primordial soup have 10**4 different types of interaction with each other. Depending on many factors, some catalytic, some energy-exchanging environmental factors.

Your micro-effect theory at best is conjecture, at worst it is irrelevant, as the abiogenesis' development is a chemical process, not a sub-atomically determined process.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You stated you read up Kant on this issue re Philosophical Realist as Empirical Idealist.
Which part did you read?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
and only enough to identify my mistake in interpreting the quote.

Secondary sources will give you an idea of what Kant is talking about but not exactly what's Kant's view was.

But modern empirical findings from the neurosciences will soon [..I am optimistic] be able to explain Kant's theory that the idea [within the brain of humans] is illusory and demonstrate the mechanics and processes that produce such a transcendental illusion of an illusory God.

Kant's theory that the idea of what is illusory? Sorry, the sentence seems to be a fragment. Trying to figure out what science is going to soon explain.

There are various meaning of 'idea'.
In the Kantian sense, 'idea' refer to philosophical ideas [in contrast to concepts] which are very specific.
The claim 'God exists as real' is a philosophical idea.
In the most real sense this resulting claim is illusory, i.e. God is a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion [contrast empirical illusion].

I have been posting this empirical illusion and the related cognitive dissonance;



The idea of God and the resulting illusion is a transcendental illusion which is much more difficult to explain and for the other person to grasp.

[Noax]

Remarkable. An unknown radius of orbiting distance and unknown spin rate are inferior to the present.

I said different, not inferior. Our environment would be inferior to whatever evolved in that different environment.

You are making an invalid inference, by saying that the UNKNOWN would have prevented the evolution and life itself to develop on Earth.

No, I said the different environment (which is unknown) would have evolved different things, had life somehow started anyway. The prevention was because the super-low probability event would have to also happen in this different scenario. Most likely it wouldn't, just like it wouldn't in the scenario with the moon, but anything at all different. That's all under the micro-differences section, not the macro section you quoted.

I have not found an article that renders a guess as to the orientation of Theia event that made the moon. Without that knowledge, the length of Earth day and year before that event is unknown. They have suggestions for offset, speed and mass, but not orientation, which leaves no evidence. Another difference: Theia undoubtedly brought different chemicals to Earth. Without it, the chemical makeup would have been different, and thus any life that might have started would probably be poisoned in our environment just as the moles would be poisoned in that moonless environment.

I say that is possible, but it is also possible that the UNKNOWN conditions would have been equally favourable, which is also equally possible, as well as the conditions being hugely more favourable.

Fair chance that the no-moon Earth would have no water. Yes, it might be more favorable, but even our Earth is not at all favorable. Life is already a really low probability thing, and we just happened to hit it here, and not other trillions of places that are just as favorable.

We actually don't know how likely life is given ideal conditions. Yes, the event is far less likely than one in a trillion, but we got a lot more than a trillion attempts at it.

Since we deal with an UNKNOWN, you can't categorically declare its qualities for certain.

Parts of it are definitely different, such as the day length. A constant day length is different than a significantly lengthening one. But yes, the year length might possibly have been unchanged, although in that case there would have been some severe seasonal changes: Super hot and cold summers and winters due to a highly elliptical orbit. So again, unknown, but definitely very different. The only way to avoid these big seasonal changes is to have a big change to the length of the year.

[Noax]

There are various meaning of 'idea'.
In the Kantian sense, 'idea' refer to philosophical ideas [in contrast to concepts] which are very specific.
The claim 'God exists as real' is a philosophical idea.
In the most real sense this resulting claim is illusory, i.e. God is a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion [contrast empirical illusion].

In the Kantian sense, which I'm probably not getting correct, it would seem that the cup that I am holding is also a transcendental idea and a transcendental illusion, and thus in the same category as God. If I'm wrong about this, perhaps a description of what sort of thing (idea or otherwise) the cup is would help me parse what you are stating here. Even those that believe in the reality of a god typically put the god in a category distinct from the cup, and those that disbelieve in the reality of a god typically believe in the reality of the cup.