Major Premise: Reality Interdependent with Humans

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Major Premise of Reality is,

All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition and this is unavoidable.
Thus all argument regarding reality has to be grounded to the above major premises.

Major Premise: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor Premise: X [whatever] is reality
Conclusion: X [whatever of reality] is interdependent with the human condition.

Examples:

• Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
  Minor: The moon exists is reality
  Conclusion: The existence of the moon is interdependent with the human condition.
  
  Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
  Minor: The moon pre-existed in reality
  Conclusion: The pre-existence of the moon is interdependent with the human condition.

Can anyone argue otherwise?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your major premise is specious.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your major premise is specious.

Details of counter arguments?

[Atla]

What do you really mean by interdependent?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do you really mean by interdependent?

If X is interdependent with Y, it means X and Y are not absolutely independent.

The above OP will lead eventually to the issue of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism; i.e.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it [Philosophical Realism] is more usually contrasted with [Philosophical] anti-Realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

[Atla]

I'll delete this, I wrote a better comment

[-1-]

So what you're trying to say is: the human mind is part of, continuous with reality?

And what if I say this:

Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is reality
Conclusion: The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is interdependent with the human condition.

The logic, Atla, in your argument, is solid. But for an argument to have a bite, that is, to be convincing and to be irrefutable, the logic must be free of errors (yours is), and the premises it takes as starting points must be true, which yours are not.

There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

[-1-]

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

You seem to forget, VA, that there are two observers, and you identify the two as one, by one whopper of an equivocation fallacy.

[TimeSeeker]

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

You seem to forget, VA, that there are two observers, and you identify the two as one, by one whopper of an equivocation fallacy.

There aren't 2 observers there are 7.5 billion observers (and growing).

Any moment now! You will connect the dots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Consensus_theory

Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.

Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas.[26] Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.[27] Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.[28]

In the Islamic tradition, this principle is exemplified by the hadith in which Muhammad states, "My community will never agree upon an error"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

A fundamental problem in distributed computing and multi-agent systems is to achieve overall system reliability in the presence of a number of faulty processes. This often requires processes to agree on some data value that is needed during computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)

Paxos is a family of protocols for solving consensus in a network of unreliable processors (that is, processors that may fail). Consensus is the process of agreeing on one result among a group of participants. This problem becomes difficult when the participants or their communication medium may experience failures.

Paxos is democracy.

[Atla]

So what you're trying to say is: the human mind is part of, continuous with reality?

And what if I say this:

Major: All of Reality is Interdependent with the Human condition.
Minor: The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is reality
Conclusion: The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is interdependent with the human condition.

The logic, Atla, in your argument, is solid. But for an argument to have a bite, that is, to be convincing and to be irrefutable, the logic must be free of errors (yours is), and the premises it takes as starting points must be true, which yours are not.

There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

Yes that's my point, the argument is invalid. To be honest I still don't understand what VA means by reality, interdependent, human condition.

[TimeSeeker]

There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

Non-sequitur.

[Atla]

If X is interdependent with Y, it means X and Y are not absolutely independent.

I don't think even realists claim that some things are absolutely independent. In that case they couldn't even talk about them / couldn't even have a way of knowing that they even exist.

I think what they usually mean is: there is the mind and there is the outer reality, and these two don't interact, don't disturb each other. And yet, thanks to Magic, they are still somehow in the presence of each other.

This assumption was one of the fundamental assumptions of science. That we can remain perfectly objective, we can experiment with the universe without disturbing it. This view was thoroughly destroyed in the last 100 years, science refuted one of its fundamental assumptions (which I find kinda amusing I have to admit). Why this position is called realist is beyond me btw.

The issue is controversial; many scientists claim Science [classical] is Philosophical Realism not Philosophical anti-realism. However note the observer's effect, theory of relativity, and Wave Function Collapse where the observers is an integral part of the theory.

Yes and no. These observers aren't the human mind, however the human mind as such an observer is interdependent with the outer reality.

[henry quirk]

That moon hangin' in the sky, it's gonna do that whether I see it or not. No mind, no observer, is neccessary for it to hang there. It, the moon, exists independent of me, you, him, her.

So: no, reality is not interdependent with humans. We humans have the (perhaps unique) luxury of ascribing meaning to reality (or parts of reality); we get to 'name' things, hang labels on things, but those things (the swirl of the electron cloud, the light reaching across the void from Sol, the heat vent worm blindly rootin' for a meal, etc,) don't rely on humans to 'be'.

[TimeSeeker]

That moon hangin' in the sky, it's gonna do that whether I see it or not. No mind, no observer, is neccessary for it to hang there. It, the moon, exists independent of me, you, him, her.

Oh, how mistaken you are! You only get to utter this phrase BECAUSE the Moon is hanging there.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ife-tides/

It's a rather mild form of the Antoropic principle at play. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[henry quirk]

"You only get to utter this phrase BECAUSE the Moon is hanging there (independent of you, me, him, her, etc)."

Yes, exactly.