Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:55 pm The totality is independent as it has no comparison.
What??

Whatever the "totality," it cannot be independent of its parts.
Humans and every thing else are intricately part and parcel of totality1.
Totality1 is intricately part and parcel of totality2 and so on.

Image
1. The totality=parts thus one part referencing another part is the phenomenon of "part" self-referencing thus leaving no comparison. A part is a distinction, a distinction is an individual, thus with the repetition of parts is the repetition of individuality (or in other terms distinctness) thus necessitating a single umbrella, that of individuality, in which all of being is captured; in other terms all phenomena as distinct necessitates all phenomenon as one through sharing this quality of distinctness.

The totality not being independent of the part and the part not being independent of the totality results in equivocation of totality and parts thus leaving us with one phenomenon which stands alone. The totality is a thing in itself as all is parts equivocate in the respect they all share "as is-ness". This singular quality of being, which reflects across all of being, necessitates a universal equivocation which necessitates a stand alone single phenomenon which is a thing in itself.

All of being is without comparison as that is all there is.

2. A circle within a circle observes the circle referencing the circle thus leaving only the circular form as existing without comparison. Something referencing the same something leaves for no comparison.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:55 pm The totality is independent as it has no comparison.
What??

Whatever the "totality," it cannot be independent of its parts.
Humans and every thing else are intricately part and parcel of totality1.
Totality1 is intricately part and parcel of totality2 and so on.

Image
1. The totality=parts thus one part referencing another part is the phenomenon of "part" self-referencing thus leaving no comparison. A part is a distinction, a distinction is an individual, thus with the repetition of parts is the repetition of individuality (or in other terms distinctness) thus necessitating a single umbrella, that of individuality, in which all of being is captured; in other terms all phenomena as distinct necessitates all phenomenon as one through sharing this quality of distinctness.

The totality not being independent of the part and the part not being independent of the totality results in equivocation of totality and parts thus leaving us with one phenomenon which stands alone. The totality is a thing in itself as all is parts equivocate in the respect they all share "as is-ness". This singular quality of being, which reflects across all of being, necessitates a universal equivocation which necessitates a stand alone single phenomenon which is a thing in itself.

All of being is without comparison as that is all there is.

2. A circle within a circle observes the circle referencing the circle thus leaving only the circular form as existing without comparison. Something referencing the same something leaves for no comparison.
You are taking things too literally.

A part in not an absolute distinction nor absolute individual.

A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:35 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:25 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:50 pm
A and B aren't the same object in an at least 4-dimensional universe.
Of course, they are not the same object.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm So change could just be an illusion,
Now you are not making any sense.
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:40 pm and the rest with the mind doesn't follow either.
Which part does not follow.
Change and causation don't have to exist, they are probably everyday illusions. We are simply talking about two different 3-dimensional "slices" of a 4d block universe.
So the part with the mind doesn't follow.
Change as an illusion! Hah. I won't be able to understand what you said if there was no change in my mind.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 3:50 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:35 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:25 pm
Of course, they are not the same object.


Now you are not making any sense.


Which part does not follow.
Change and causation don't have to exist, they are probably everyday illusions. We are simply talking about two different 3-dimensional "slices" of a 4d block universe.
So the part with the mind doesn't follow.
Change as an illusion! Hah. I won't be able to understand what you said if there was no change in my mind.
Mind is also at least 4 dimensional. You aren't the same mind (the same you) that started reading this sentence. Come on this isn't rocket science.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by bahman »

Atla wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 4:25 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 3:50 pm
Atla wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 4:35 pm
Change and causation don't have to exist, they are probably everyday illusions. We are simply talking about two different 3-dimensional "slices" of a 4d block universe.
So the part with the mind doesn't follow.
Change as an illusion! Hah. I won't be able to understand what you said if there was no change in my mind.
Mind is also at least 4 dimensional. You aren't the same mind (the same you) that started reading this sentence. Come on this isn't rocket science.
So you agree that there is a change?
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Atla »

bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 4:30 pm
Atla wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 4:25 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 3:50 pm
Change as an illusion! Hah. I won't be able to understand what you said if there was no change in my mind.
Mind is also at least 4 dimensional. You aren't the same mind (the same you) that started reading this sentence. Come on this isn't rocket science.
So you agree that there is a change?
No. bah
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:47 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:04 am
What??

Whatever the "totality," it cannot be independent of its parts.
Humans and every thing else are intricately part and parcel of totality1.
Totality1 is intricately part and parcel of totality2 and so on.

Image
1. The totality=parts thus one part referencing another part is the phenomenon of "part" self-referencing thus leaving no comparison. A part is a distinction, a distinction is an individual, thus with the repetition of parts is the repetition of individuality (or in other terms distinctness) thus necessitating a single umbrella, that of individuality, in which all of being is captured; in other terms all phenomena as distinct necessitates all phenomenon as one through sharing this quality of distinctness.

The totality not being independent of the part and the part not being independent of the totality results in equivocation of totality and parts thus leaving us with one phenomenon which stands alone. The totality is a thing in itself as all is parts equivocate in the respect they all share "as is-ness". This singular quality of being, which reflects across all of being, necessitates a universal equivocation which necessitates a stand alone single phenomenon which is a thing in itself.

All of being is without comparison as that is all there is.

2. A circle within a circle observes the circle referencing the circle thus leaving only the circular form as existing without comparison. Something referencing the same something leaves for no comparison.
You are taking things too literally.

A part in not an absolute distinction nor absolute individual.

A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported.
To say:

"A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported"

is to equate the whole to the parts and as such necessitates a definition which is not only unchanging, if meaning is to be maintained, but relative only to itself thus relative to nothing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:58 am You are taking things too literally.

A part in not an absolute distinction nor absolute individual.

A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported.
To say:

"A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported"

is to equate the whole to the parts and as such necessitates a definition which is not only unchanging, if meaning is to be maintained, but relative only to itself thus relative to nothing.
Note the critical parts of the whole in this discussion are the human selves.
The human selves are relative to the individuals, the whole of human and the whole reality.
As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions.

I understand your contra view but that is very common sense, i.e. kindergartenish.
That is where classical Newtonian Physics is.
But for Einsteinian Physics [high school] and QM [university level] reality is not independent of the human conditions via the specific FSKs or model used.
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Why you are stuck in the 'kindergarten' level in terms of reality is due to some desperate inherent psychology impulses that hold you back from progress.
Suggest you reflect more deeply and strive to grow out of your "kindergarten classes" to the higher levels of knowledge.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:58 am You are taking things too literally.

A part in not an absolute distinction nor absolute individual.

A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported.
To say:

"A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported"

is to equate the whole to the parts and as such necessitates a definition which is not only unchanging, if meaning is to be maintained, but relative only to itself thus relative to nothing.
Note the critical parts of the whole in this discussion are the human selves.
The human selves are relative to the individuals, the whole of human and the whole reality.
As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions.

I understand your contra view but that is very common sense, i.e. kindergartenish.
That is where classical Newtonian Physics is.
But for Einsteinian Physics [high school] and QM [university level] reality is not independent of the human conditions via the specific FSKs or model used.
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Why you are stuck in the 'kindergarten' level in terms of reality is due to some desperate inherent psychology impulses that hold you back from progress.
Suggest you reflect more deeply and strive to grow out of your "kindergarten classes" to the higher levels of knowledge.
"As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions."

This necessitates human conditions as underlying everything therefore resulting in the human condition as a thing in itself as only it exists through a self-referentiality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:11 am

To say:

"A part has to be a system that is interconnected and interdependent with the whole system and the whole system is a part of another whole system and so on as far as it is empirically supported"

is to equate the whole to the parts and as such necessitates a definition which is not only unchanging, if meaning is to be maintained, but relative only to itself thus relative to nothing.
Note the critical parts of the whole in this discussion are the human selves.
The human selves are relative to the individuals, the whole of human and the whole reality.
As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions.

I understand your contra view but that is very common sense, i.e. kindergartenish.
That is where classical Newtonian Physics is.
But for Einsteinian Physics [high school] and QM [university level] reality is not independent of the human conditions via the specific FSKs or model used.
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Why you are stuck in the 'kindergarten' level in terms of reality is due to some desperate inherent psychology impulses that hold you back from progress.
Suggest you reflect more deeply and strive to grow out of your "kindergarten classes" to the higher levels of knowledge.
"As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions."

This necessitates human conditions as underlying everything therefore resulting in the human condition as a thing in itself as only it exists through a self-referentiality.
You do not seem to understand the idea of 'thing-in-itself' which meant absolutely unconditional and absolutely independent of the human conditions.

You seem to confuse self-referential with computer programming or other ideas of self-reference that has nothing to do with the human conditions. You are veering of from the philosophical contexts.

Note,
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
    Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
The thing in this 'thing-in-itself' is exclusively non-human that is independent of the human mind.

If it is a human self-reference it is still dependent on human conditions, thus cannot be a thing-in-itself, e.g. a table-in-itself and whatever things in themselves other than the human self or selves.
kovacs
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:09 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by kovacs »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:42 am Here is a discussion that represent the OP.
popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:18 pm .......
Do 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
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.

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."
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."
But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'
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?
The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant.

This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
This is amateur hour.
One he presents modern physics as unified around the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't
Two, one of his appeals to authority it to the physicist Paul Marmet, but he couldn't even bother to read the whole essay which includes, in its conclusion....
Let us conclude with a practical description of physical reality. Physical reality exists only in the case of matter, since it is the only thing that has its own autonomous existence, independently of any observer's mind, location or time.
This is fine as speculation, but VA's various appeals to authority in this OP make it seems like someone disagreeing with him about realism - which he seems to have a very simple monolithic understanding of - is going against modern physics. LOL.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

kovacs wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:42 am Here is a discussion that represent the OP.
popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 am
Do 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
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.

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."
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."
But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'
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?
The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant.

This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
This is amateur hour.
One he presents modern physics as unified around the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't
Two, one of his appeals to authority it to the physicist Paul Marmet, but he couldn't even bother to read the whole essay which includes, in its conclusion....
Let us conclude with a practical description of physical reality. Physical reality exists only in the case of matter, since it is the only thing that has its own autonomous existence, independently of any observer's mind, location or time.
This is fine as speculation, but VA's various appeals to authority in this OP make it seems like someone disagreeing with him about realism - which he seems to have a very simple monolithic understanding of - is going against modern physics. LOL.
You are too hasty without understanding the whole contexts of my stance from all the posts I had posted but rather judge merely from this post, thus amateurish;

I am not familiar with the author nor I am bothered in this case.
I did not introduce the article and I admit I did not read the whole article.
It was not my intention to justify my view based totally on the article as authority but merely to point out the article present the issue of the OP, i.e.
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 there is no reality 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. One example will be given in section 4-5.
The Copenhagen interpretation has its limitations but its basic fundamentals are still applicable to Quantum Mechanics.

For authority I had always reference this; Relational quantum mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationa ... _mechanics
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:35 am
Note the critical parts of the whole in this discussion are the human selves.
The human selves are relative to the individuals, the whole of human and the whole reality.
As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions.

I understand your contra view but that is very common sense, i.e. kindergartenish.
That is where classical Newtonian Physics is.
But for Einsteinian Physics [high school] and QM [university level] reality is not independent of the human conditions via the specific FSKs or model used.



Why you are stuck in the 'kindergarten' level in terms of reality is due to some desperate inherent psychology impulses that hold you back from progress.
Suggest you reflect more deeply and strive to grow out of your "kindergarten classes" to the higher levels of knowledge.
"As such there is no reality that is independent of the human selves, i.e. human conditions."

This necessitates human conditions as underlying everything therefore resulting in the human condition as a thing in itself as only it exists through a self-referentiality.
You do not seem to understand the idea of 'thing-in-itself' which meant absolutely unconditional and absolutely independent of the human conditions.

You seem to confuse self-referential with computer programming or other ideas of self-reference that has nothing to do with the human conditions. You are veering of from the philosophical contexts.

Note,
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
    Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
The thing in this 'thing-in-itself' is exclusively non-human that is independent of the human mind.

If it is a human self-reference it is still dependent on human conditions, thus cannot be a thing-in-itself, e.g. a table-in-itself and whatever things in themselves other than the human self or selves.
If the human condition is dependent upon only itself, as it must be considering there is nothing separate from the human condition (according to you), it is dependent upon nothing as only the human condition existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.

Your words have no foundations.
kovacs
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:09 pm

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by kovacs »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:47 am
This is amateur hour.
One he presents modern physics as unified around the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't
Two, one of his appeals to authority it to the physicist Paul Marmet, but he couldn't even bother to read the whole essay which includes, in its conclusion....
You are too hasty without understanding the whole contexts of my stance from all the posts I had posted but rather judge merely from this post, thus amateurish;
It's the OP in a philosophy forum. Of course I am going to respond to what is written there. If it was part of a larger thread, then this response might make some sense, but even then the statements in this OP are problematic and misleading at best.
I am not familiar with the author nor I am bothered in this case.
It's not positive that your not bothered by being caught out appealing to authority and you don't understand that authority and further that authority actually contradicts your position. You're misrepresenting the physicist you quoted, you don't understand or care to understand the article. You're throwing it at people as if you've read and understood the article and as part of a condescending post. That it doesn't bother you when this is pointed out is easy to pretend online or even worse, if true, says something almost pathological about your relationship with being honest.
I did not introduce the article and I admit I did not read the whole article.
It was not my intention to justify my view based totally on the article as authority but merely to point out the article present the issue of the OP, i.e.
That's great, but note your use of the adverb totally. The article contradicts your use of it and your position. Perhaps he is not right, but you got caught throwing out quotes, out of context, in an appeal to authority, where you have not done basic work - it's a short articicle - nor have you understood the article or even what the portion you quoted entaisl.
The Copenhagen interpretation has its limitations but its basic fundamentals are still applicable to Quantum Mechanics.
this sounds like political speech. Vague, not really asserting anything and further not a response to what I said or the status of the Copenhagen Interpretation. You condescended to people who disagreed with you and wrote AS IF the Copenhagen interpretation or really interpretations are the consensus opinion of current physics. This is not correct.
And your reasserting that is it in an even vaguer way in this post is not even close to an argument.
For authority I had always reference this;
Yes, that's an article in Wikipedia on one philosophical position. Wikipedia has other articles with differeing opinions. What you referenced was not an authority but a description of a philosophical position that you agree with, presumably. Though actually you seem NOT to understand model dependent realism, because 1) it is a realism and elswhere you condescend to realists and 2) it is an epistemological and pragmatist position NOT an ontological position. YOu have taken repeatedly here an ontological anti-realist position. Again and again. YOu can even see in the shallow Wikipedia article that it does not reject reality in itself, which you have. So, if that's your authority you either don't understand it or only appeal to authority as far as it says what you want, but ignore it when it disagrees. Which means you don't hold the authority as an authority.
Relational quantum mechanics
this is a better appeal to authority since this position is closer in one way to the one you have taken in other threads, one irony being that in the Wikipedia article and more clearly in the writings of the actually people who hold this position, one can see how poorly you understand the Copenhagen Interpretation. But it is also further away from your position because
Observers
don't
have
to
be
human

Any physical system can collapse the wave, for ex

It's also not really an anti-realism and is associated with a variety of realisms, even if these realisms are different from the most common ones.

And of course there is no consensus in the physics community regarding the truth of this position, so a lot of the posturing in relation to realists is absurd.

It still smacks of amateur hour. Links and quotes of things not read or understood to bolster what are mainly assertions not arguments.

Hey, I read some of this and it seems to support me, maybe, kinda and this, which contradicts the other authority I just threw at you also supports me, well, at least in the part I want to quote, etc.
does not a demonstration or even an argument make.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Physics: There is no Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

kovacs wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:47 am
This is amateur hour.
One he presents modern physics as unified around the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't
Two, one of his appeals to authority it to the physicist Paul Marmet, but he couldn't even bother to read the whole essay which includes, in its conclusion....
You are too hasty without understanding the whole contexts of my stance from all the posts I had posted but rather judge merely from this post, thus amateurish;
It's the OP in a philosophy forum. Of course I am going to respond to what is written there. If it was part of a larger thread, then this response might make some sense, but even then the statements in this OP are problematic and misleading at best.
I am not familiar with the author nor I am bothered in this case.
It's not positive that your not bothered by being caught out appealing to authority and you don't understand that authority and further that authority actually contradicts your position. You're misrepresenting the physicist you quoted, you don't understand or care to understand the article. You're throwing it at people as if you've read and understood the article and as part of a condescending post. That it doesn't bother you when this is pointed out is easy to pretend online or even worse, if true, says something almost pathological about your relationship with being honest.
I did not introduce the article and I admit I did not read the whole article.
It was not my intention to justify my view based totally on the article as authority but merely to point out the article present the issue of the OP, i.e.
That's great, but note your use of the adverb totally. The article contradicts your use of it and your position. Perhaps he is not right, but you got caught throwing out quotes, out of context, in an appeal to authority, where you have not done basic work - it's a short articicle - nor have you understood the article or even what the portion you quoted entaisl.
The Copenhagen interpretation has its limitations but its basic fundamentals are still applicable to Quantum Mechanics.
this sounds like political speech. Vague, not really asserting anything and further not a response to what I said or the status of the Copenhagen Interpretation. You condescended to people who disagreed with you and wrote AS IF the Copenhagen interpretation or really interpretations are the consensus opinion of current physics. This is not correct.
And your reasserting that is it in an even vaguer way in this post is not even close to an argument.
For authority I had always reference this;
Yes, that's an article in Wikipedia on one philosophical position. Wikipedia has other articles with differeing opinions. What you referenced was not an authority but a description of a philosophical position that you agree with, presumably. Though actually you seem NOT to understand model dependent realism, because 1) it is a realism and elswhere you condescend to realists and 2) it is an epistemological and pragmatist position NOT an ontological position. YOu have taken repeatedly here an ontological anti-realist position. Again and again. YOu can even see in the shallow Wikipedia article that it does not reject reality in itself, which you have. So, if that's your authority you either don't understand it or only appeal to authority as far as it says what you want, but ignore it when it disagrees. Which means you don't hold the authority as an authority.
Relational quantum mechanics
this is a better appeal to authority since this position is closer in one way to the one you have taken in other threads, one irony being that in the Wikipedia article and more clearly in the writings of the actually people who hold this position, one can see how poorly you understand the Copenhagen Interpretation. But it is also further away from your position because
Observers
don't
have
to
be
human

Any physical system can collapse the wave, for ex

It's also not really an anti-realism and is associated with a variety of realisms, even if these realisms are different from the most common ones.

And of course there is no consensus in the physics community regarding the truth of this position, so a lot of the posturing in relation to realists is absurd.

It still smacks of amateur hour. Links and quotes of things not read or understood to bolster what are mainly assertions not arguments.

Hey, I read some of this and it seems to support me, maybe, kinda and this, which contradicts the other authority I just threw at you also supports me, well, at least in the part I want to quote, etc.
does not a demonstration or even an argument make.
You are right that my argument is related to ontology and where my focus is against ontological metaphysical realism.

Whilst model dependent realism [MDR] is not about ontological reality, it does not indicate that what is reality at some point is entangled with the human conditions and leaving what is ultimate reality hanging.
"It [MDR] claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything."

The article [which I did not state I agreed with its conclusion] refer to the Copenhagen Interpretation, where the point I am interested for discussion is to refute the "ontological" basis of reality as claim by say Einstein who believed a thing-in-itself exists independent of the human conditions.
In metaphysical terms, the Copenhagen interpretation views quantum mechanics as providing knowledge of phenomena, but not as pointing to 'really existing objects', which it regards as residues of ordinary intuition. This makes it an epistemic theory.
This may be contrasted with Einstein's view, that physics should look for 'really existing objects', making itself an ontic theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhage ... _variables?
Btw, where is your 'professional' argument to support whatever is your stance?
Your arrogance may actually turn out what you think is real could be an illusion.
Post Reply