I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 amDo you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
Noted in the article;
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
4-1 Why Nature Does not Appear Compatible with Realism.
For many years, there have been attempts to rationalize physics. But, since the first part of this century the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics has taught that [size]there is no reality [/size]* in physics.
It claims that what we perceive as real does not have its own independent existence.
It exists only in our imagination.
Descriptions in modern physics cannot be compatible with reality since some fundamental definitions are not compatible with realism.
The above does not reject reality-proper but merely reject realism, i.e. philosophical realism;
4-2 What Is Realism? [specifically Philosophical Realism]
The concept of realism was accepted and used in all fields of physics from the beginning of history until the beginning of this century.
However, since the development of modern physics, the interpretation of quantum mechanics has rejected realism.
....
Realism has been defined in various ways.
One of the definitions of realism is:
"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves."
But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'However, the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation denies the existence of realism.
According to modern physics, matter starts to exist only at the moment the observer learns about its existence.
This bizarre belief is illustrated by one of the great masters of the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg [4.1] states:
"But then one sees that not even the quality of being (if that may be called a "quality") belongs to what is described. It is a possibility for being or a tendency for being."
(Parentheses and quotation marks are from Heisenberg's book.)
Let us recall that Cramer[4.2]makes the same claim in different words:
"It is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse"
Heisenberg also insists on this lack of reality in the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. He [4.3]writes:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the objective reality has evaporated, and quantum mechanics does not represent particles, but rather, our knowledge, our observations, or our consciousness of particles."
The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant.If nature does not even have the quality of being, and if it is the observer's knowledge that precipitates that being, the universe did not exist before life began on earth, as suggested by Davies [4.4].
The universe will therefore cease to exist at the moment all life disappears on earth. If matter cannot have its own existence, independent of human mind, as dictated by the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation, cosmologists cannot study the birth of galaxies or the origin of the universe. There was no observer before humans started to observe. If the creation of the universe is the result of the observer's knowledge, then the universe could not exist before we did. Then the observer had to be there at the very first instant of creation in order to precipitate the creation. In other words, the universe is a creation of our mind and will disappear with it.
How can such an absurd theory be considered as the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?
This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism