What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:14 pm Here are two sentences, from the end and the beginning of a paragraph, quoted elsewhere by VA to support his claim that what we call facts don't exist.

'There is reality, to be sure, and there are entities in reality that we are able to name, but...'

'...we have no good reason to accept facts in our catalog [sic] of the world, on the major metaphysical theories of facts known to us.'

This kind of postmodernist crap has been passing for serious philosophy since at least the 1950s or 1960s. And VA thinks it supports an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts. The contradiction and cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.
Don't insult yourself with the above strawman.

What I had always stated is, there is reality which mind-interdependent and conditioned within a FSK of subjective consciousness and consensus.

I don't accept your definition of 'what is fact' [complex entities, as state of affairs, that is the case and that-clauses] are mere abstractions which conditioned to your specific-Language-FSK is ultimately meaningless and illusory.

I have asked you to present your 'what is fact' with the appropriate references but you are a coward to do so.
PH: What is Your Definition of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39413
Meanwhile I have done further research to confirm your 'what is fact' is indeed never real, meaningless and illusory. I will present that later.

What I presented above has support from QM that what you termed as 'facts' are illusory and has no objective reality [in your sense].

In contrast, what I termed as facts [knowledge and truth] are like scientific facts as conditioned to the scientific FSK, thus being independent of the individual scientist or other individual's opinions and beliefs are objective.
It is in this sense that I claimed there are moral facts and that morality is objective.

You are the one who had dogmatically relied on 'what is fact' to leverage on what is objective; this is nonsense.
I am relying of what is reality, knowledge and truth as upon the scientific FSK to leverage on what is objective, thus morality is objective in that sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:32 pm There is no objective reality, in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things. If all is energy then obviously what we consider objective reality, the place of objects, is brought about in the same way that sound or color is brought about through a biological readout of the energies that surround us. Objective reality is what the energies present mean to a conscious biological subject.
Note this;
Matter is the stuff that everything is made of (see: Matter). Energy is a property that matter has.
The same amount matter can have different amounts of energy and so represent different states of matter.
Link
Your statement;
"in the sense that what is called ultimate reality is a place of no things."
don't make sense.
a 'place' is location and a thing.
Are your implying ultimate reality is a thing of no things? when in this case ultimate reality is a thing itself.

There is no such thing as 'ultimate reality'. If you think ultimate reality exists as real, that is actually a reified illusion.
Whatever reality as objective is always conditioned upon a 'collective consciousness of subjects', i.e. intersubjectivity.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Apparent reality is a place of objects, and science tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things; meaning there is only energy, the place being the cosmos, the physical world. I don't think you will grasp the concept, so I am withdrawing. You win by default.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:23 am Apparent reality is a place of objects, and science tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things; meaning there is only energy, the place being the cosmos, the physical world. I don't think you will grasp the concept, so I am withdrawing. You win by default.
I am not after winning or losing but rather the truth of reality.
Whatever you present, it must at least be rational and supported with evidences.
What you are banking on with Science and ultimate reality is merely based on ASSUMPTIONS not real things.

Science NEVER tell us [proven nor confirm] there is an ultimate reality of no things.

Science merely ASSUMEs there is something ultimate to be discovered out there.
Note the term "ASSUME" is critical in this case.
That something which is assumed is ultimately 'matter' which has energy as its capacity.
So, the energy i.e. the capacity is not the significant thing assumed but rather the matter is critical. This is why science is still chasing for the ultimate matter or the physical.
So far the concept of matter [materialism] had been debunked, thus what science assumed is the 'physical' [physicalism].

What science does is saying;
Based on the empirical evidences that are observed and processed via the scientific framework and system [sustained by subjects], here is the scientific conclusion which is objective scientific reality.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA's argument for moral objectivity fails at every stage. Stage 1 is as follows.

Premise: To assert what we call a fact is to express a (subjective consensus) opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are no facts, but only (subjective consensus) opinions.

That is a non sequitur fallacy. And anyway, a 'subjective consensus opinion' is both subjective and an opinion. The 'consensus' condition - even if it's expert consensus - makes no difference. So VA thinks facts and objectivity - are based on or grounded in subjectivity - matters of opinion.

But wait. At stage 2, VA forgets the 'subjective consensus opinion' nonsense, and tries to reinject actual facts and objectivity by insisting on empirical evidence to support the credibility of a 'framework and system of knowledge', such as physics. But - empirical evidence of what? It can't be facts, because they're just subjective consensus opinions.

But wait. At stage 3, VA wants to show that there are moral facts - for which there's empirical evidence - which have nothing to do with mere opinions about moral rightness and wrongness. Oh no. 'Morality-proper' is about the avoidance of evil - and it's just a fact that evil is to be avoided. But. There are no facts, but only subjective consensus opinions. So if the subjective consensus opinion is that X is morally wrong (evil), then (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong (evil). Q E D.

And this is supposed to be a rational, coherent argument for moral objectivity.

Face palm.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is no such thing as 'ultimate reality'. If you think ultimate reality exists as real, that is actually a reified illusion.
Whatever reality as objective is always conditioned upon a 'collective consciousness of subjects', i.e. intersubjectivity.
"consciousness of subjects" is experiential : reification is not experiential but only cognitive .
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:46 pm VA's argument for moral objectivity fails at every stage. Stage 1 is as follows.

Premise: To assert what we call a fact is to express a (subjective consensus) opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are no facts, but only (subjective consensus) opinions.

That is a non sequitur fallacy. And anyway, a 'subjective consensus opinion' is both subjective and an opinion. The 'consensus' condition - even if it's expert consensus - makes no difference. So VA thinks facts and objectivity - are based on or grounded in subjectivity - matters of opinion.

But wait. At stage 2, VA forgets the 'subjective consensus opinion' nonsense, and tries to reinject actual facts and objectivity by insisting on empirical evidence to support the credibility of a 'framework and system of knowledge', such as physics. But - empirical evidence of what? It can't be facts, because they're just subjective consensus opinions.

But wait. At stage 3, VA wants to show that there are moral facts - for which there's empirical evidence - which have nothing to do with mere opinions about moral rightness and wrongness. Oh no. 'Morality-proper' is about the avoidance of evil - and it's just a fact that evil is to be avoided. But. There are no facts, but only subjective consensus opinions. So if the subjective consensus opinion is that X is morally wrong (evil), then (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong (evil). Q E D.

And this is supposed to be a rational, coherent argument for moral objectivity.

Face palm.
Strawman again, the "1000th" times.

I have never asserted the following;
Premise: To assert what we call a fact is to express a (subjective consensus) opinion.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are no facts, but only (subjective consensus) opinions.


I asserted the following [also a "1000" times];
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. What is fact is a realized-reality in entanglement with the specific FSK.
Note I raised a thread;
3. Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
4. What emerged therefrom is a FSK-Conditioned Fact.
5. Such a FSK conditioned fact is objective is supported by intersubjective consensus.

Of course, such realizable emerged facts can be expressed and described.
The credibility of the truth, descriptions and claims are subject to the credibility and reliability of the FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK being the most reliable at present.

Your strawman merely focus on the expression of the fact but you are ignorant of points 1-5 above.

My points 1-5 refute your dogmatic view;
A. that reality exists mind-independently from the human conditions [Philosophical Realism], -this is unrealistic and nonsensical as QM has proven that.
B. Based on this unreal view, you assume this "reality" is composed of mind-independent entities, i.e. fact which are states of affairs, that-is-the-case, that-clauses as truth-makers for prepositions.

To you, "it is a fact that the moon exists."
That is more like your subjective personal opinion.
If not, whose authority are you relying on to insist you are talking about is objectively real and independent of mind?
It is Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Austin, Strawson, Armstrong, who else?
At most you are relying on a FSK that is specific to whoever or group you are trusting.

You cannot claim your authority is science, because to you science is merely making linguistic statements based on intersubjectivity about the fact that the moon exists.

Note QM [thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics] has refuted your 'the fact that the moon exist' as an objective mind-independent thing in reality.

What QM asserts is, it is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific-Physics-QM FSK that the moon exists mind-interdependently.

My thesis re morality is this;
1. All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
(the most reliable FSK is the scientific FSK)
2. Moral facts are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK.
3. The majority of inputs into the moral FSK are from the scientific FSK.
4. Thus, the reliability of the moral FSK is supported by the reliability of the scientific FSK.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:15 pm Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is no such thing as 'ultimate reality'. If you think ultimate reality exists as real, that is actually a reified illusion.
Whatever reality as objective is always conditioned upon a 'collective consciousness of subjects', i.e. intersubjectivity.
"consciousness of subjects" is experiential : reification is not experiential but only cognitive .
When a ghost is reified as real, the subject experienced terrible fears.

Somehow the idea of infinite regress generate cognitive dissonances, e.g. something cannot come from nothing.
Thus a reified illusory ultimate reality generate whatever the corresponding experience to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:12 am
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:12 am
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.
According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;
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
It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:12 am
1. What is fact is always conditioned upon a specific FSK.
This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.
According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;
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
It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.
A model is not the thing being modelled. A description is not the thing being described. The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions. It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:16 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:15 pm Veritas Aequitas wrote:
There is no such thing as 'ultimate reality'. If you think ultimate reality exists as real, that is actually a reified illusion.
Whatever reality as objective is always conditioned upon a 'collective consciousness of subjects', i.e. intersubjectivity.
"consciousness of subjects" is experiential : reification is not experiential but only cognitive .
When a ghost is reified as real, the subject experienced terrible fears.

Somehow the idea of infinite regress generate cognitive dissonances, e.g. something cannot come from nothing.
Thus a reified illusory ultimate reality generate whatever the corresponding experience to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
Ghosts are not reifications of abstract ideas. A ghost may symbolise an abstract idea (e.g. Banquo's ghost) but a ghost is not a reification of the idea of shame or remorse; shame and remorse are real in the world feelings not abstractions.

Fear of a ghost is real in the world and is not a reification of an abstract idea. An example of an abstract idea is the theorem of Pythagoras. When someone reifies that abstract idea they believe there is such a thing in the world as a real square and a real hypoteneuse.

As regards an objective moral idea, moral ideas are real as ideas but are abstractions from the real world. Nobody has ever nor ever can find an enduring real in the world example of ideas like good, justice, freedom, evil, knowledge, etc.

Ultimate reality is not a reified idea of an abstract quality but is an imaginative creation of a possible reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:16 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:15 pm Veritas Aequitas wrote:


"consciousness of subjects" is experiential : reification is not experiential but only cognitive .
When a ghost is reified as real, the subject experienced terrible fears.

Somehow the idea of infinite regress generate cognitive dissonances, e.g. something cannot come from nothing.
Thus a reified illusory ultimate reality generate whatever the corresponding experience to soothe the cognitive dissonances.
Ghosts are not reifications of abstract ideas. A ghost may symbolise an abstract idea (e.g. Banquo's ghost) but a ghost is not a reification of the idea of shame or remorse; shame and remorse are real in the world feelings not abstractions.

Fear of a ghost is real in the world and is not a reification of an abstract idea. An example of an abstract idea is the theorem of Pythagoras. When someone reifies that abstract idea they believe there is such a thing in the world as a real square and a real hypoteneuse.

As regards an objective moral idea, moral ideas are real as ideas but are abstractions from the real world. Nobody has ever nor ever can find an enduring real in the world example of ideas like good, justice, freedom, evil, knowledge, etc.

Ultimate reality is not a reified idea of an abstract quality but is an imaginative creation of a possible reality.
My take on 'reify' in this case is;

reify: to make something more real or consider it as real:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/reify

to convert into or regard as a concrete thing:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reify

abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

A ghost [illusory] is not a real thing but merely exist in thought and reification is making this unreal ghost believed as real and generating real fears.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:23 am

This is false. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with what we believe or know or say is the case.

For example, the expression 'we may not know all the facts' demonstrates that 'being known' is not a necessary condition for 'being a fact'. And if we have to 'find out' or 'discover' the facts, that means those facts don't exist within a framework and system of knowledge.

VA muddles things that are separate: features of reality that are or were the case; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (in classical logic) may be true or false, given the way we use the signs in context. (This is a methodological taxonomy, not a metaphysical one.)

It's not a fact that exists within (is 'conditioned upon') a framework and system of knowledge - it's a description - a true factual assertion, such as 'water is H2O'. The chemical constitution of water - the fact, the feature of reality - has nothing to do with knowledge or descriptions.
According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;
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
It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.
A model is not the thing being modelled. A description is not the thing being described. The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions. It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.
Yes it is kindergarten, that a model is never the thing-being-modelled.

But you were just very blind with the term 'realism' in Model-dependent Realism where the focus is not on the 'model' per se but rather the 'realism', i.e. the reality.

You need to read Hawking's book, The Grand Design to understand what he was referring to re 'Model Dependent Realism'.
In his book, Hawking argued against the classical mind-independent objective reality of Philosophical Realism which is impossible, not tenable nor realistic.
As such Hawking proposed what is most realistic is 'Model Dependent Realism'.
The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions.
It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.
It just exists?? and we have empirical evidence for its existence??
How can you be so ignorant on this issue of reality? re philosophical perspective. That is because you are stuck in the kindergarten class.

Humanity can only claim [not described] whatever exists as real upon the verification and justification of the related empirical evidences its existence.

It not just, but the verification and justification must be conditioned and in compliance with a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality[FSR].
This is what I have been drumming into you for 'eons' but your skull is so thick.

You cannot claim 'it just exists' without qualify its existence to the specific FSK or FSR of your claim or reality.

At present the most credible FSK in justifying what is real is the scientific FSK which has its sub-FSK in terms of degrees of reality;

1. Newtonian FSK -classical reality and objectivity but limited
2. Einsteinian FSK - more realistic and objective than 1
3. QM FSK - more realistic and objective than 2 and 1.

Btw, the science FSK merely ASSUMEs the ASSUMPTION that is an objective reality out there awaiting discovery.
Note ASSUMPTION!

As such, WHO ARE YOU to think your FSK is more credible than the science FSK, where you are claiming there is really a mind-independent objective reality out there.
What you have been claiming as a reality that is 'just is' is merely a reified illusion.

You keep babbling about 'description' with blinkers on within a silo.

What we have re reality is this;

1. Scientific-FSK-conditioned-reality [SFCR],
2. Description of that SFCR.

There is no objective reality that is 'just it' without its specific qualification or predicate.

Whatever is objective reality must be qualified to a specific FSK.
The morality FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK.
Since science is objective, morality is also objective.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 3:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:45 am
According to QM, there is no objective fact 'the chemical composition of water' as a feature of reality.

Note Model Dependent Realism;



It is meaningless to claim there is a "true reality", i.e. 'that chemical composition of water', I would add it is nonsensical, i.e. it does not click with the senses, thus whatever 'that chemical composition of water' you claimed as a 'fact' is an illusion.

Model-dependent Realism is not about mere knowledge nor description but entail a realization of reality in entanglement with the human conditions via the scientific FSK.

You don't get it when I have stated many times,
re QM scientific realism, "there is no moon if no humans are realizing the emergence of the moon"
This is very counter-intuitive and difficult to accept by the majority, but that is the really real reality.

Of course within common sense [also Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics] there is a moon that is external to the senses and human being, but this is not really-real in contrast to QM realism.
A model is not the thing being modelled. A description is not the thing being described. The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions. It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.
Yes it is kindergarten, that a model is never the thing-being-modelled.

But you were just very blind with the term 'realism' in Model-dependent Realism where the focus is not on the 'model' per se but rather the 'realism', i.e. the reality.

You need to read Hawking's book, The Grand Design to understand what he was referring to re 'Model Dependent Realism'.
In his book, Hawking argued against the classical mind-independent objective reality of Philosophical Realism which is impossible, not tenable nor realistic.
As such Hawking proposed what is most realistic is 'Model Dependent Realism'.
The reality described by quantum mechanics doesn't exist because of quantum mechanical descriptions.
It just exists, and we have empirical evidence for its existence, which is why we can begin to describe it correctly.
It just exists?? and we have empirical evidence for its existence??
How can you be so ignorant on this issue of reality? re philosophical perspective. That is because you are stuck in the kindergarten class.

Humanity can only claim [not described] whatever exists as real upon the verification and justification of the related empirical evidences its existence.

It not just, but the verification and justification must be conditioned and in compliance with a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality[FSR].
This is what I have been drumming into you for 'eons' but your skull is so thick.

You cannot claim 'it just exists' without qualify its existence to the specific FSK or FSR of your claim or reality.

At present the most credible FSK in justifying what is real is the scientific FSK which has its sub-FSK in terms of degrees of reality;

1. Newtonian FSK -classical reality and objectivity but limited
2. Einsteinian FSK - more realistic and objective than 1
3. QM FSK - more realistic and objective than 2 and 1.

Btw, the science FSK merely ASSUMEs the ASSUMPTION that is an objective reality out there awaiting discovery.
Note ASSUMPTION!

As such, WHO ARE YOU to think your FSK is more credible than the science FSK, where you are claiming there is really a mind-independent objective reality out there.
What you have been claiming as a reality that is 'just is' is merely a reified illusion.

You keep babbling about 'description' with blinkers on within a silo.

What we have re reality is this;

1. Scientific-FSK-conditioned-reality [SFCR],
2. Description of that SFCR.

There is no objective reality that is 'just it' without its specific qualification or predicate.

Whatever is objective reality must be qualified to a specific FSK.
The morality FSK has near credibility to the scientific FSK.
Since science is objective, morality is also objective.
Rubbish. We can describe things in many different ways. But the existence and nature of things have nothing to do with knowledge or description. You're just rehearsing a recently fashionable philosophical mistake.

And meanwhile, this has nothing to do with morality.
Post Reply