The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, you argue that. You're certainly allowed to argue that, I don't have any feelings of disrespect towards arguments of that position.

My point is and has always been, qm doesn't necessitate it. Qm as a science does not necessitate an acceptance of your philosophy about "reality". YOU are imposing your philosophy into qm when you say it does. YOU are being dogmatic when you say it does. I am being the opposite of those things when I say it doesn't.

Carroll, smolin, Feynman, John Bell, all these people apparently don't understand quantum physics as well as you do, if you believe that their interpretations are incompatible with the science while yours is. You are making a much stronger claim than they make, and than I make, when you impose your philosophy onto qm.

[Skepdick]

My point is and has always been, qm doesn't necessitate it. Qm as a science does not necessitate an acceptance of your philosophy about "reality". YOU are imposing your philosophy into qm when you say it does. YOU are being dogmatic when you say it does. I am being the opposite of those things when I say it doesn't.

No you aren't. You are literally undermining QM by insisting on having THE state of affairs.

The defining quality of QM is non-determinism - there's a range of possible realities which collapse to an actuality at the time of measurement, but it's meaningless to ask or even speak about "THE state of affairs" when nobody is looking/measuring.

So if you wanted to pat yourself on the back for being consistent with QM you could've said "The Moon both exists and doesn't while nobody is looking - it's in superposition".

But I assume that goes against the stupid logic you've chosen. Which has this dogmatic principle built-in...

[Flannel Jesus]

Which of these two positions is dogmatic and imposing:

my philosophy is compatible with qm, here are all the quantum physicists who share this philosophy, there's no problem with having my philosophy and believing qm simultaneously, but other interpretations of qm may also be valid

Vs

my philosophy is proven by qm, you cannot accept qm without also accepting my philosophy, all those other experts you named who actually studied qm at universities and know the math, they're just flat out wrong

There's no reasonable way to say that the first person's position is the more dogmatic and imposing one. Even if we're somehow in a world where the first position is literally incorrect, it's STILL clearly not more dogmatic and imposing than the second one.

"My philosophy is compatible with x" is not imposing my philosophy on x, like you say of Sean Carroll. "My philosophy is required by x" is.

[Skepdick]

Which of these two positions is dogmatic and imposing:

my philosophy is compatible with qm, here are all the quantum physicists who share this philosophy, there's no problem with having my philosophy and believing qm simultaneously, but other interpretations of qm may also be valid

Vs

my philosophy is proven by qm, you cannot accept qm without also accepting my philosophy, all those other experts you named who actually studied qm at universities and know the math, they're just flat out wrong

There's no reasonable way to say that the first person's position is the more dogmatic and imposing one. Even if we're somehow in a world where the first position is literally incorrect, it's STILL clearly not more dogmatic and imposing than the second one.

"My philosophy is compatible with x" is not imposing my philosophy on x, like you say of Sean Carroll. "My philosophy is required by x" is.

Correct or incorrect, right or wrong is nonsense in context. This is a game of following the rules.

If you say you are "following the rules" of QM and then you break the rules of QM - nothing you say matters.

Because you lied about following the rules of QM.
So if you aren't accountable to the rules of QM then what are you accountable to?

[Flannel Jesus]

Which of these two positions is dogmatic and imposing:

my philosophy is compatible with qm, here are all the quantum physicists who share this philosophy, there's no problem with having my philosophy and believing qm simultaneously, but other interpretations of qm may also be valid

Vs

my philosophy is proven by qm, you cannot accept qm without also accepting my philosophy, all those other experts you named who actually studied qm at universities and know the math, they're just flat out wrong

There's no reasonable way to say that the first person's position is the more dogmatic and imposing one. Even if we're somehow in a world where the first position is literally incorrect, it's STILL clearly not more dogmatic and imposing than the second one.

"My philosophy is compatible with x" is not imposing my philosophy on x, like you say of Sean Carroll. "My philosophy is required by x" is.

Keep in mind, VA, that the alternative you're insisting on to my position which I laid out in the first quote is, "the experts in this field that I am not an expert in cannot possibly have valid scientific and philosophical reasons for disagreeing with me."

The pure hubris in that should surely give you pause.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Which of these two positions is dogmatic and imposing:

my philosophy is compatible with qm, here are all the quantum physicists who share this philosophy, there's no problem with having my philosophy and believing qm simultaneously, but other interpretations of qm may also be valid

Vs

my philosophy is proven by qm, you cannot accept qm without also accepting my philosophy, all those other experts you named who actually studied qm at universities and know the math, they're just flat out wrong

There's no reasonable way to say that the first person's position is the more dogmatic and imposing one. Even if we're somehow in a world where the first position is literally incorrect, it's STILL clearly not more dogmatic and imposing than the second one.

"My philosophy is compatible with x" is not imposing my philosophy on x, like you say of Sean Carroll. "My philosophy is required by x" is.

Keep in mind, VA, that the alternative you're insisting on to my position which I laid out in the first quote is, "the experts in this field that I am not an expert in cannot possibly have valid scientific and philosophical reasons for disagreeing with me."

The pure hubris in that should surely give you pause.

I am not too sure of your point above.

Leaving Pragmatism aside, I believe all philosophical issues are reducible to Philosophical Realism vs Idealism [various types].
Note this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

I claim Philosophical Realism is not realistic not tenable, i.e. it leaves a Reality-Gap between the empirical and an independent objective reality out there which is beyond humans to get in touch with.

Since you are a Philosophical Realist like that of Carroll and Einstein, your foundation is groundless.
Thus, that Einstein claimed [as implied] "The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" is also groundless, so it will be same for Carroll and yours.

The solution here is, if you prove that Philosophical Realism is true, realistic and tenable, then all else will follow truly for you; I will then agree with you.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's not my intention to prove that, nothing I've said relies on me proving that, my position in here doesn't need that

[Flannel Jesus]

However, it does make sense that your position here relies on your position that realism is untenable in general - your position here has always seemed to have not much to do with actual quantum mechanics and more about your other philosophies, which you use as a lens through which to interpret quantum mechanics. I completely accept that your position entirely relies on those other philosophical positions, and not merely quantum mechanics itself. If you were up front about that, rather than saying your position is the one required by quantum mechanics itself, the conversation would have gone very differently.

[Flannel Jesus]

I also think you're confusing multiple distinct forms of realism.

Einstein has disagreements with quantum mechanics, you categorize these disagreements as disagreements about realism, and that his position on realism in his disagreement with qm was proven wrong by bells theorem - WHICH IS CORRECT! But, not in the way I think you mean.

Because I think that you think that Einstein's sense of realism, which was his basis for disagreeing with qm, is synonymous with the sense of realism Sean Carroll has.

Do you think those two senses of realism are the same?

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, it does make sense that your position here relies on your position that realism is untenable in general - your position here has always seemed to have not much to do with actual quantum mechanics and more about your other philosophies, which you use as a lens through which to interpret quantum mechanics. I completely accept that your position entirely relies on those other philosophical positions, and not merely quantum mechanics itself. If you were up front about that, rather than saying your position is the one required by quantum mechanics itself, the conversation would have gone very differently.

I am not an expert on QM but dare say I am reasonable an expert with the dichotomy between realism vs idealism.

But that the QM principles of 2022 Nobel Prize of Physics also involved the consideration of realism vs anti-realism.
It is reported that Einstein [realism] was wrong thus the anti-realism based QM is true, given that it was awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am relying on what is reported unless you insist the reports were wrong or the Nobel Prize committed made a mistake.

[Flannel Jesus]

You are, I believe, confusing multiple senses of realism.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have read a great deal about bells theorem, since before I even joined this forum, and I can explain exactly what it proves (or disproves rather) and why. I understand the statistical reasoning behind it.

I could explain it, but not easily, because it's a little tricky. But if you put me in a room with an expert and challenged me to convince him that I understand the conceptual basis of bells theorem, what it proves and why it proves it, I think absolutely could.

Bells theorem, and the experiments around it, disprove not realism in the sense you're using it, but realism in the more specific sense that Einstein discussed in his EPR paper. It's far more specific than you seem to be acknowledging, because you seem to be confusing it with any general form of realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

I also think you're confusing multiple distinct forms of realism.

Einstein has disagreements with quantum mechanics, you categorize these disagreements as disagreements about realism, and that his position on realism in his disagreement with qm was proven wrong by bells theorem - WHICH IS CORRECT! But, not in the way I think you mean.

Because I think that you think that Einstein's sense of realism, which was his basis for disagreeing with qm, is synonymous with the sense of realism Sean Carroll has.

Do you l think those two senses of realism are the same?

There is only two distinct types of realism, i.e. Philosophical Realism and Empirical Realism.

Philosophical Realism is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. 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.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4] This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself. However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality entirely.[5][6]

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality

I don't think Einstein's and Carroll [and yours] are any different from the above in terms of its main principle of independent objective reality? Yes/No.

Btw, I had pointed out philosophical realism is an evolutionary default.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

[Iwannaplato]

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

Just 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.

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.....

[Flannel Jesus]

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.....

Yeah this train of thought naturally occurs, I've thought similar in response as well.