It's always so peculiar to me how individuals shift perspectives from me to we without so much as blinking an eye.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:30 amJust to throw in a thought: he often talks about the scientific FSK as if this is a unified FSK - though he does occasionally talk about Newtonian and Einsteinian FSKs. The problem here is that a number of sciences - geology, astronomy, physics, biology - talk about things like the moon, and prehuman species, and the Big Bang, and the formation of the tectonic plates, and so on as they existed before we looked at them. So, there are a number of FSKs going on in there with different conclusions (or assumptions) even within his now favorite physics.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:00 am You are, in fact, confusing distinct senses of realism. That's probably why you think that qm and bells theorem disprove all types of realism - you think your dichotomy is all there is.
You're incorrect
Einstein's realism and Carroll realism are very different. Bells theorem disproved the former
Now one could argue that we have 'looked at' the Big Bang through telescopes. But this would mean that the original expansion and later things like the formation of the solar system were set into existence when we looked at the Big Bang through telescopes. Further it would mean that future beings could be calling the moon into existence from other solar systems or galaxies. We really can't make any claims about what is when we aren't looking since we don't know what's looking, where and how and when. And that's assuming nothing exists until seen.
It becomes very interesting to think that when humans arose and looked at things, this looking created the postential for the very complicated evolution of species and so when we dug in the ground we found fossils. It all seems rather ornate and not very parsimonius, this creating of a fossil record and apparant residue of creatures that lives long before us and plants that lived before them and solar systems that existed before ours and.....
And then they never question how one comes to possess other people's memories; or question whether those memories were correctly transmitted; or what would even be considered sufficient evidence for rejecting what's already solidified in your mind as historical fact.
What makes you trust your own memory so much? What makes you reject the 5-minute universe for example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_ ... hypothesis
And why is it that we accept the past as having some sort of "factual" status, but we don't accept the future? Absolutely nothing in the laws of physics prevents the universe to having begun in the future and heading towards its end at The Big Bang.