Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent

[Veritas Aequitas]

Generally by default 'exist' is implied to be exist-as-real as verifiable and justifiable like a scientific fact.

For Kant, the use of the term 'exist' need be predicated, i.e. exist as what [predicate]?
As such, in general things exist as real, and
things can also exist as unreal, illusions, intelligible thoughts, fictions, unempirically, and the like.

So, from Kant's perspective the noumenon can exists BUT only as an illusion [not real] both in either the negative or positive sense.
Thus in Kant's perspective, God can exists BUT only as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

If you accept the positive noumenon exists, it can only exists as an illusion and not anything real.
In your previous posts you keep insisting the positive noumenon is unknowable and you have never accepted the positive noumenon exists only as an illusion and merely an intelligible thought.
If you agree with this, I have no issue with it, since I have been claiming this is the case based on Kant's thesis.

In all cases, whether things exist as real [empirical-rational] [FSK-ed] or as illusions [in-thought-only], they CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [note OP], because the mind [human condition] is somehow involved.

Fine, but then you have to concede that your Kantian version of "empirical" is not science's version of "empirical". And you haven't been using "exist" generally this whole time.

There are two philosophical approach to Science, i.e.

• 1. The philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon.
  
  2. The human based FSK-ed, the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism.

Because 1. philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon is grounded on an illusion, its scientific facts are ultimately illusory, thus not realistic.
This is the version of Einstein's basis for QM, i.e. the moon is absolutely mind-independent.

The human-based FSK-ed is more realistic applicable to QM realistically, thus in this case the moon CANNOT be absolute mind-independent.

Note,
philosophical realism scientific realism versus ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism is a heavily debated topic within the philosophical community.

For example, since you trust ChatGPT more:

Yes, Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism are different in their approaches to understanding knowledge and the nature of reality.

Kantian Empiricism:
Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who sought to reconcile rationalism (the idea that knowledge can be obtained through reason) with empiricism (the idea that knowledge is derived from sensory experience). Kant's philosophy is often referred to as "transcendental idealism." He argued that while our knowledge is based on sensory experiences, the mind plays an active role in shaping and organizing these experiences.
Kant's view is that the mind imposes certain conceptual frameworks (such as space, time, causality) onto sensory data in order to make sense of the world. He believed that there are inherent limits to what we can know about the external world as it exists independently of our perception. According to Kant, we can't directly access things as they are in themselves, but only as they appear to us through our cognitive structures.

Scientific Empiricism:
Scientific empiricism, on the other hand, is a philosophical stance that underpins the scientific method. It emphasizes the importance of observation, experimentation, and evidence as the basis for forming theories and understanding the natural world. Scientific empiricists believe that knowledge is primarily gained through systematic observations and measurements of the external world.
In scientific empiricism, there is a focus on gathering empirical data that can be objectively verified and tested. The scientific method involves making hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. This approach has led to the development of various scientific theories and models that aim to explain the underlying mechanisms of natural phenomena.

While both Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism involve the role of sensory experience in acquiring knowledge, they differ in their fundamental goals and methodologies. Kantian empiricism is concerned with the limits of human knowledge and the relationship between the mind and reality, whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation.

When it comes to scientific indirect perception, there are two Moons: the mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

Both are empirical according to science, but the Moon 'out there' is unempirical in the Kantian perspective.

Your Kantian argument can only show that the appearance in the brain is entirely or mostly mind-dependent. But most realists know this too, maybe PH doesn't.

So it is reasonable to think that there is a Moon 'out there' and it is absolutely mind-independent, because that's what was shown by empirical science.

I don't trust ChatGPT 'more' but accept whatever from ChatGPT as qualified to its declared or known limitations.

It is insane to insist there are two empirical moons within science,
1. the empirical mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and
2. the empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

The term empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an oxymoron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Whatever is empirical is always associated with the mind, thus can never be absolute mind-independent.

ChatGPT: "whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation."

Whatever is concluded as 'empirical' by Science it is qualified to the above within its Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.

Whatever is "mind-independent Moon 'out there' " it is taken as an assumption within its FSK, not something empirical.
In Kant's case, this is the noumenon in the negative sense.
It is only a theoretical intelligible object and has no empirical elements at all.

[Atla]

Generally by default 'exist' is implied to be exist-as-real as verifiable and justifiable like a scientific fact.

For Kant, the use of the term 'exist' need be predicated, i.e. exist as what [predicate]?
As such, in general things exist as real, and
things can also exist as unreal, illusions, intelligible thoughts, fictions, unempirically, and the like.

So, from Kant's perspective the noumenon can exists BUT only as an illusion [not real] both in either the negative or positive sense.
Thus in Kant's perspective, God can exists BUT only as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.

If you accept the positive noumenon exists, it can only exists as an illusion and not anything real.
In your previous posts you keep insisting the positive noumenon is unknowable and you have never accepted the positive noumenon exists only as an illusion and merely an intelligible thought.
If you agree with this, I have no issue with it, since I have been claiming this is the case based on Kant's thesis.

In all cases, whether things exist as real [empirical-rational] [FSK-ed] or as illusions [in-thought-only], they CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent [note OP], because the mind [human condition] is somehow involved.

Fine, but then you have to concede that your Kantian version of "empirical" is not science's version of "empirical". And you haven't been using "exist" generally this whole time.

There are two philosophical approach to Science, i.e.

• 1. The philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon.
  
  2. The human based FSK-ed, the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism.

Because 1. philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon is grounded on an illusion, its scientific facts are ultimately illusory, thus not realistic.
This is the version of Einstein's basis for QM, i.e. the moon is absolutely mind-independent.

The human-based FSK-ed is more realistic applicable to QM realistically, thus in this case the moon CANNOT be absolute mind-independent.

Note,
philosophical realism scientific realism versus ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism is a heavily debated topic within the philosophical community.

For example, since you trust ChatGPT more:

Yes, Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism are different in their approaches to understanding knowledge and the nature of reality.

Kantian Empiricism:
Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who sought to reconcile rationalism (the idea that knowledge can be obtained through reason) with empiricism (the idea that knowledge is derived from sensory experience). Kant's philosophy is often referred to as "transcendental idealism." He argued that while our knowledge is based on sensory experiences, the mind plays an active role in shaping and organizing these experiences.
Kant's view is that the mind imposes certain conceptual frameworks (such as space, time, causality) onto sensory data in order to make sense of the world. He believed that there are inherent limits to what we can know about the external world as it exists independently of our perception. According to Kant, we can't directly access things as they are in themselves, but only as they appear to us through our cognitive structures.

Scientific Empiricism:
Scientific empiricism, on the other hand, is a philosophical stance that underpins the scientific method. It emphasizes the importance of observation, experimentation, and evidence as the basis for forming theories and understanding the natural world. Scientific empiricists believe that knowledge is primarily gained through systematic observations and measurements of the external world.
In scientific empiricism, there is a focus on gathering empirical data that can be objectively verified and tested. The scientific method involves making hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. This approach has led to the development of various scientific theories and models that aim to explain the underlying mechanisms of natural phenomena.

While both Kantian empiricism and scientific empiricism involve the role of sensory experience in acquiring knowledge, they differ in their fundamental goals and methodologies. Kantian empiricism is concerned with the limits of human knowledge and the relationship between the mind and reality, whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation.

When it comes to scientific indirect perception, there are two Moons: the mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

Both are empirical according to science, but the Moon 'out there' is unempirical in the Kantian perspective.

Your Kantian argument can only show that the appearance in the brain is entirely or mostly mind-dependent. But most realists know this too, maybe PH doesn't.

So it is reasonable to think that there is a Moon 'out there' and it is absolutely mind-independent, because that's what was shown by empirical science.

I don't trust ChatGPT 'more' but accept whatever from ChatGPT as qualified to its declared or known limitations.

It is insane to insist there are two empirical moons within science,
1. the empirical mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and
2. the empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

The term empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an oxymoron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Whatever is empirical is always associated with the mind, thus can never be absolute mind-independent.

ChatGPT: "whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation."

Whatever is concluded as 'empirical' by Science it is qualified to the above within its Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.

Whatever is "mind-independent Moon 'out there' " it is taken as an assumption within its FSK, not something empirical.
In Kant's case, this is the noumenon in the negative sense.
It is only a theoretical intelligible object and has no empirical elements at all.

This is nonsense:

1. The philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon.

2. The human based FSK-ed, the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism.

as one arguably has to combine science with Kantianism differently. We do need to work with the positive noumenon, everything else is incompatible with science.

Yes there are two Moons when we combine Kantianism with indirect perception. Which view is 100% consistent with all of science.
And science has empirically proven the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

What is insane is to deny these facts. If you don't acknowledge these, then you don't agree with science and so you shouldn't try to rely on it.

If you think reality should be "based" on some unscientific FSK or meta-FSK, try to prove it.

The human-based FSK-ed is more realistic applicable to QM realistically, thus in this case the moon CANNOT be absolute mind-independent.

Even this is arguably wrong, NO interpretation of QM works without positive noumena. Not even the most mind-dependent interpretations. You can't mentally "collapse" parts or all of the noumenal world, when there is no noumenal world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't trust ChatGPT 'more' but accept whatever from ChatGPT as qualified to its declared or known limitations.

It is insane to insist there are two empirical moons within science,
1. the empirical mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and
2. the empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

The term empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an oxymoron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Whatever is empirical is always associated with the mind, thus can never be absolute mind-independent.

ChatGPT: "whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation."

Whatever is concluded as 'empirical' by Science it is qualified to the above within its Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.

Whatever is "mind-independent Moon 'out there' " it is taken as an assumption within its FSK, not something empirical.
In Kant's case, this is the noumenon in the negative sense.
It is only a theoretical intelligible object and has no empirical elements at all.

This is nonsense:

1. The philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon.

2. The human based FSK-ed, the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism.

as one arguably has to combine science with Kantianism differently. We do need to work with the positive noumenon, everything else is incompatible with science.

You think the above is nonsense because you are ignorant of,
the Philosophical realism scientific realism versus the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism debate.

Scientific Realism and Antirealism
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

Debates about scientific realism concern the extent to which we are entitled to hope or believe that science will tell us what the world is really like. Realists tend to be optimistic; antirealists do not.
To a first approximation, scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
Realists often add that, given the spectacular predictive, engineering, and theoretical successes of our best scientific theories, it would be miraculous were they not to be approximately correct.
This natural line of thought has an honorable pedigree yet has been subject to philosophical dispute since modern science began.

In the 1970s, a particularly strong form of scientific realism was advocated by Putnam, Boyd, and others. When scientific realism is mentioned in the literature, usually some version of this is intended. It is often characterized in terms of these commitments:

Science aims to give a literally true account of the world.

• 1. To accept a theory is to believe it is (approximately) true.
  2. There is a determinate mind-independent and language-independent world.
  3. Theories are literally true (when they are) partly because their concepts “latch on to” or correspond to real properties (natural kinds, and the like) that causally underpin successful usage of the concepts.
  4. The progress of science asymptotically converges on a true account

.

The scientific realists believe there is an absolutely mind-independent positive noumenon but to the scientific anti-realists [FSK-ed] do not agree with this point.
Scientific anti-realists do not have to rely on [don't give a F... with] a positive or negative noumenon, all they need is to rely on the available empirical evidences on a rational basis and work within the scientific FSK and conclude as far as the empirical evidences can support it.

Yes there are two Moons when we combine Kantianism with indirect perception. Which view is 100% consistent with all of science.
And science has empirically proven the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

What is insane is to deny these facts. If you don't acknowledge these, then you don't agree with science and so you shouldn't try to rely on it.

I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

"Shouldn't try to rely on it" What???
If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all.

If you think reality should be "based" on some unscientific FSK or meta-FSK, try to prove it.

Whatever are scientific facts they must always be qualified to the specific human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will encompass all the conditions, rules, processes, etc. necessary for any conclusion or facts to be qualified as scientific.
I have gone through this a 'million' times.

When it is claim 'water is H20' [no isomers considered], it is implied, it is because the Science-Chemistry FSK said so, not because your father/mother or any person and other groups said so.
All scientific facts must be qualified to a specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, and the like.

The human-based FSK-ed is more realistic applicable to QM realistically, thus in this case the moon CANNOT be absolute mind-independent.

Even this is arguably wrong, NO interpretation of QM works without positive noumena. Not even the most mind-dependent interpretations. You can't mentally "collapse" parts or all of the noumenal world, when there is no noumenal world.

I have not come across any real scientist mentioning 'positive noumena' at all in their work.
Even within the Philosophy of Science, there is no mentioned of the 'positive noumena' other the mentioned by scientific realists of point 2 [mind-independent] above.

Btw, I have argued why you and your likes clung to a positive noumena is because of psychological desperation and has nothing to do with science-proper.

On the other hand, it is obvious, science like all fields of knowledge has to work within their specifically defined Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] which all scientists must comply with.
How can you deny this?

[Atla]

I don't trust ChatGPT 'more' but accept whatever from ChatGPT as qualified to its declared or known limitations.

It is insane to insist there are two empirical moons within science,
1. the empirical mind-dependent Moon as it is experienced in the human brain, and
2. the empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

The term empirical mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an oxymoron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Whatever is empirical is always associated with the mind, thus can never be absolute mind-independent.

ChatGPT: "whereas scientific empiricism is concerned with systematically exploring and explaining the natural world through empirical observation and experimentation."

Whatever is concluded as 'empirical' by Science it is qualified to the above within its Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.

Whatever is "mind-independent Moon 'out there' " it is taken as an assumption within its FSK, not something empirical.
In Kant's case, this is the noumenon in the negative sense.
It is only a theoretical intelligible object and has no empirical elements at all.

This is nonsense:

1. The philosophical realism scientific realism which claims absolute mind independence and on the illusory positive noumenon.

2. The human based FSK-ed, the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism.

as one arguably has to combine science with Kantianism differently. We do need to work with the positive noumenon, everything else is incompatible with science.

You think the above is nonsense because you are ignorant of,
the Philosophical realism scientific realism versus the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism debate.

Scientific Realism and Antirealism
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

Debates about scientific realism concern the extent to which we are entitled to hope or believe that science will tell us what the world is really like. Realists tend to be optimistic; antirealists do not.
To a first approximation, scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
Realists often add that, given the spectacular predictive, engineering, and theoretical successes of our best scientific theories, it would be miraculous were they not to be approximately correct.
This natural line of thought has an honorable pedigree yet has been subject to philosophical dispute since modern science began.

In the 1970s, a particularly strong form of scientific realism was advocated by Putnam, Boyd, and others. When scientific realism is mentioned in the literature, usually some version of this is intended. It is often characterized in terms of these commitments:

Science aims to give a literally true account of the world.

• 1. To accept a theory is to believe it is (approximately) true.
  2. There is a determinate mind-independent and language-independent world.
  3. Theories are literally true (when they are) partly because their concepts “latch on to” or correspond to real properties (natural kinds, and the like) that causally underpin successful usage of the concepts.
  4. The progress of science asymptotically converges on a true account

.

The scientific realists believe there is an absolutely mind-independent positive noumenon but to the scientific anti-realists [FSK-ed] do not agree with this point.
Scientific anti-realists do not have to rely on [don't give a F... with] a positive or negative noumenon, all they need is to rely on the available empirical evidences on a rational basis and work within the scientific FSK and conclude as far as the empirical evidences can support it.

Yes there are two Moons when we combine Kantianism with indirect perception. Which view is 100% consistent with all of science.
And science has empirically proven the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

What is insane is to deny these facts. If you don't acknowledge these, then you don't agree with science and so you shouldn't try to rely on it.

I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

"Shouldn't try to rely on it" What???
If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all.

If you think reality should be "based" on some unscientific FSK or meta-FSK, try to prove it.

Whatever are scientific facts they must always be qualified to the specific human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will encompass all the conditions, rules, processes, etc. necessary for any conclusion or facts to be qualified as scientific.
I have gone through this a 'million' times.

When it is claim 'water is H20' [no isomers considered], it is implied, it is because the Science-Chemistry FSK said so, not because your father/mother or any person and other groups said so.
All scientific facts must be qualified to a specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, and the like.

The human-based FSK-ed is more realistic applicable to QM realistically, thus in this case the moon CANNOT be absolute mind-independent.

Even this is arguably wrong, NO interpretation of QM works without positive noumena. Not even the most mind-dependent interpretations. You can't mentally "collapse" parts or all of the noumenal world, when there is no noumenal world.

I have not come across any real scientist mentioning 'positive noumena' at all in their work.
Even within the Philosophy of Science, there is no mentioned of the 'positive noumena' other the mentioned by scientific realists of point 2 [mind-independent] above.

Btw, I have argued why you and your likes clung to a positive noumena is because of psychological desperation and has nothing to do with science-proper.

On the other hand, it is obvious, science like all fields of knowledge has to work within their specifically defined Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] which all scientists must comply with.
How can you deny this?

Of course they don't mention positive noumena, because they either automatically assume that it exists, or they don't even understand Kantianism so it doesn't even occur to them that it's possible to assume that it doesn't exist.

You are the one trying to remove positive noumena from science however, which breaks science in pretty much every way.

We have therefore shown that according to science, there are two Moons and the positive noumenal Moon is absolutely (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here) mind-independent. So:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without relying on science at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is nonsense:

as one arguably has to combine science with Kantianism differently. We do need to work with the positive noumenon, everything else is incompatible with science.

You think the above is nonsense because you are ignorant of,
the Philosophical realism scientific realism versus the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism debate.

Scientific Realism and Antirealism
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/

Debates about scientific realism concern the extent to which we are entitled to hope or believe that science will tell us what the world is really like. Realists tend to be optimistic; antirealists do not.
To a first approximation, scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
Realists often add that, given the spectacular predictive, engineering, and theoretical successes of our best scientific theories, it would be miraculous were they not to be approximately correct.
This natural line of thought has an honorable pedigree yet has been subject to philosophical dispute since modern science began.

In the 1970s, a particularly strong form of scientific realism was advocated by Putnam, Boyd, and others. When scientific realism is mentioned in the literature, usually some version of this is intended. It is often characterized in terms of these commitments:

Science aims to give a literally true account of the world.

• 1. To accept a theory is to believe it is (approximately) true.
  2. There is a determinate mind-independent and language-independent world.
  3. Theories are literally true (when they are) partly because their concepts “latch on to” or correspond to real properties (natural kinds, and the like) that causally underpin successful usage of the concepts.
  4. The progress of science asymptotically converges on a true account

.

The scientific realists believe there is an absolutely mind-independent positive noumenon but to the scientific anti-realists [FSK-ed] do not agree with this point.
Scientific anti-realists do not have to rely on [don't give a F... with] a positive or negative noumenon, all they need is to rely on the available empirical evidences on a rational basis and work within the scientific FSK and conclude as far as the empirical evidences can support it.

Yes there are two Moons when we combine Kantianism with indirect perception. Which view is 100% consistent with all of science.
And science has empirically proven the mind-independent Moon 'out there'.

What is insane is to deny these facts. If you don't acknowledge these, then you don't agree with science and so you shouldn't try to rely on it.

I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

"Shouldn't try to rely on it" What???
If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all.

If you think reality should be "based" on some unscientific FSK or meta-FSK, try to prove it.

Whatever are scientific facts they must always be qualified to the specific human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will encompass all the conditions, rules, processes, etc. necessary for any conclusion or facts to be qualified as scientific.
I have gone through this a 'million' times.

When it is claim 'water is H20' [no isomers considered], it is implied, it is because the Science-Chemistry FSK said so, not because your father/mother or any person and other groups said so.
All scientific facts must be qualified to a specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, and the like.

Even this is arguably wrong, NO interpretation of QM works without positive noumena. Not even the most mind-dependent interpretations. You can't mentally "collapse" parts or all of the noumenal world, when there is no noumenal world.

I have not come across any real scientist mentioning 'positive noumena' at all in their work.
Even within the Philosophy of Science, there is no mentioned of the 'positive noumena' other the mentioned by scientific realists of point 2 [mind-independent] above.

Btw, I have argued why you and your likes clung to a positive noumena is because of psychological desperation and has nothing to do with science-proper.

On the other hand, it is obvious, science like all fields of knowledge has to work within their specifically defined Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] which all scientists must comply with.
How can you deny this?

Of course they don't mention positive noumena, because they either automatically assume that it exists, or they don't even understand Kantianism so it doesn't even occur to them that it's possible to assume that it doesn't exist.

You are the one trying to remove positive noumena from science however, which breaks science in pretty much every way.

I repeat;
"If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon [working with technology] with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all."

We have therefore shown that according to science, there are two Moons and the positive noumenal Moon is absolutely (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here) mind-independent.

You claimed there are two empirical moons,
1. one empirical moon that is mind-related
2. the other emprical moon that is mind-independent

I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

So:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without relying on science at all.

I have done the above proofs a 'million' times, so I am not going to waste my time on this.

Here is another point to it;

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
  posting.php?mode=edit&p=624050

The above [bolded] implied the moon does not exist in an absolutely mind-independent state.

The serious obligation is on you;
You still have not proven your positive claim, i.e.
the Moon exists absolutely mind-independent.

[Atla]

You think the above is nonsense because you are ignorant of,
the Philosophical realism scientific realism versus the ANTI-scientific-philosophical_realism debate.



The scientific realists believe there is an absolutely mind-independent positive noumenon but to the scientific anti-realists [FSK-ed] do not agree with this point.
Scientific anti-realists do not have to rely on [don't give a F... with] a positive or negative noumenon, all they need is to rely on the available empirical evidences on a rational basis and work within the scientific FSK and conclude as far as the empirical evidences can support it.


I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

"Shouldn't try to rely on it" What???
If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all.


Whatever are scientific facts they must always be qualified to the specific human-based scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK will encompass all the conditions, rules, processes, etc. necessary for any conclusion or facts to be qualified as scientific.
I have gone through this a 'million' times.

When it is claim 'water is H20' [no isomers considered], it is implied, it is because the Science-Chemistry FSK said so, not because your father/mother or any person and other groups said so.
All scientific facts must be qualified to a specific scientific FSK, i.e. Physics, Chemistry, biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, and the like.


I have not come across any real scientist mentioning 'positive noumena' at all in their work.
Even within the Philosophy of Science, there is no mentioned of the 'positive noumena' other the mentioned by scientific realists of point 2 [mind-independent] above.

Btw, I have argued why you and your likes clung to a positive noumena is because of psychological desperation and has nothing to do with science-proper.

On the other hand, it is obvious, science like all fields of knowledge has to work within their specifically defined Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] which all scientists must comply with.
How can you deny this?

Of course they don't mention positive noumena, because they either automatically assume that it exists, or they don't even understand Kantianism so it doesn't even occur to them that it's possible to assume that it doesn't exist.

You are the one trying to remove positive noumena from science however, which breaks science in pretty much every way.

I repeat;
"If I am a scientist, without give a F.. with any positive noumenon, and I can still go the moon [working with technology] with whatever the scientific knowledge from the scientific FSK that available to all."

We have therefore shown that according to science, there are two Moons and the positive noumenal Moon is absolutely (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here) mind-independent.

You claimed there are two empirical moons,
1. one empirical moon that is mind-related
2. the other emprical moon that is mind-independent

I have already stated an empirically [mind-dependent] proven mind-independent Moon 'out there' is an OXYMORON.
Prove it if you think otherwise.

So:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of absolute here), without relying on science at all.

I have done the above proofs a 'million' times, so I am not going to waste my time on this.

Here is another point to it;

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
  posting.php?mode=edit&p=624050

The above [bolded] implied the moon does not exist in an absolutely mind-independent state.

The serious obligation is on you;
You still have not proven your positive claim, i.e.
the Moon exists absolutely mind-independent.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what you're talking about, by demanding proof for the positive noumenon, when that's not possible. The question is and has always been, which assumption makes more sense: assuming or not assuming the positive noumenon.

According to you the Moon-out-there doesn't exist even when we are looking, so the interpretation of QM that Al-Khalili is referring to is arguably not even relevant here. Unless you resort to direct perception, which breaks another huge part of science which consistently refuted direct perception. And it would still be an interpretation where "nothing" acts like a probability wave, which is arguably an oxymoron because nothing is nothing.

Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here), without trying to rely on science. Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have done the above proofs a 'million' times, so I am not going to waste my time on this.

Here is another point to it;

• Here at 54:30
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
  Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
  "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
  posting.php?mode=edit&p=624050

The above [bolded] implied the moon does not exist in an absolutely mind-independent state.

The serious obligation is on you;
You still have not proven your positive claim, i.e.
the Moon exists absolutely mind-independent.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what you're talking about, by demanding proof for the positive noumenon, when that's not possible. The question is and has always been, which assumption makes more sense: assuming or not assuming the positive noumenon.

This is something new.
You have never admitted the positive noumenon is taken as an assumption even when I have pointed that to you a '1000' times.

So we agree the positive noumenon [absolutely mind-independent] is only taken as an assumption.

The point is an assumption is always mind-related [conditioned upon the mind] because we can only assume with the mind, if not how else?
Thus when you assumed the positive noumenon, it has to be related [qualified] to the mind and CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is in the ultimate sense there is no need to make the noumenon [negative or positive] as an assumption.
It need be, the most we can do is to assume the negative noumenon as an empirical limit and we cannot assume the positive noumenon [non-empirical] in science.

However in QM we cannot assume the noumenon; to do so would be delusional.

To make an assumption is merely to cater for logic but not reality in this case; this logic is primal and proto-logic based on Pure-Reason [which Kant critiqued].

1. According to you the Moon-out-there doesn't exist even when we are looking, so the interpretation of QM that Al-Khalili is referring to is arguably not even relevant here.

2. Unless you resort to direct perception, which breaks another huge part of science which consistently refuted direct perception. And it would still be an interpretation where "nothing" acts like a probability wave, which is arguably an oxymoron because nothing is nothing.

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

The above means the moon only exists when we are looking at it.
Looking involved the mind, therefore the existence of the moon CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
It truly defies common sense, but that is the reality.

I do not understand the relevance of your point 2 above.

Again:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here), without trying to rely on science. Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

I have deliberately open this thread to prove the above, see,

OP
viewtopic.php?p=660235#p660235
Post #2
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

[Atla]

This is something new.
You have never admitted the positive noumenon is taken as an assumption even when I have pointed that to you a '1000' times.

I have implicitly and explicitly said dozens of times since years that the positive noumenon is arguably always an assumption, at least that's the starting point of every Kantian discussion. This is extremely basic stuff. Either you missed it every time or you're a pathological liar, either way you are too incompetent for philosophy.

So we agree the positive noumenon [absolutely mind-independent] is only taken as an assumption.

The point is an assumption is always mind-related [conditioned upon the mind] because we can only assume with the mind, if not how else?
Thus when you assumed the positive noumenon, it has to be related [qualified] to the mind and CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is in the ultimate sense there is no need to make the noumenon [negative or positive] as an assumption.
It need be, the most we can do is to assume the negative noumenon as an empirical limit and we cannot assume the positive noumenon [non-empirical] in science.

There is no science without the positive noumenon. You are stuck in the 18th century when indirect perception wasn't common knowledge yet, so people could maybe still think that there could be science without the positive noumenon.
You are as blinded by direct perception as the naive realists you are waging a war against are.

However in QM we cannot assume the noumenon; to do so would be delusional.

To make an assumption is merely to cater for logic but not reality in this case; this logic is primal and proto-logic based on Pure-Reason [which Kant critiqued].
1. According to you the Moon-out-there doesn't exist even when we are looking, so the interpretation of QM that Al-Khalili is referring to is arguably not even relevant here.

2. Unless you resort to direct perception, which breaks another huge part of science which consistently refuted direct perception. And it would still be an interpretation where "nothing" acts like a probability wave, which is arguably an oxymoron because nothing is nothing.
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

The above means the moon only exists when we are looking at it.
Looking involved the mind, therefore the existence of the moon CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
It truly defies common sense, but that is the reality.

I do not understand the relevance of your point 2 above.
Again:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here), without trying to rely on science. Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.
I have deliberately open this thread to prove the above, see,

OP
viewtopic.php?p=660235#p660235
Post #2
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

Again, without positive noumena, no interpretation of QM works, there is no QM at all.

You can't rely on science and you can't rely on Kant. At least not like this. Looks like you'll have to come up with some Buddhist insight that Western philosophy missed.

Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here). Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is something new.
You have never admitted the positive noumenon is taken as an assumption even when I have pointed that to you a '1000' times.

I have implicitly and explicitly said dozens of times since years that the positive noumenon is arguably always an assumption, at least that's the starting point of every Kantian discussion. This is extremely basic stuff. Either you missed it every time or you're a pathological liar, either way you are too incompetent for philosophy.

Don't resort to your childish retorts which actually reflect your incompetence for philosophy.
Where?
Give a few references [since years] where you assert the positive noumenon as an assumption.

Logically, it does not follow to assume [mind-dependent] the positive noumenon as absolutely mind-independent.
As such, when you claim the mind-independent positive noumenon exists, it must only be a claim that it is really real out there and is not merely an assumption.

So we agree the positive noumenon [absolutely mind-independent] is only taken as an assumption.

The point is an assumption is always mind-related [conditioned upon the mind] because we can only assume with the mind, if not how else?
Thus when you assumed the positive noumenon, it has to be related [qualified] to the mind and CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.

The point is in the ultimate sense there is no need to make the noumenon [negative or positive] as an assumption.
It need be, the most we can do is to assume the negative noumenon as an empirical limit and we cannot assume the positive noumenon [non-empirical] in science.

There is no science without the positive noumenon. You are stuck in the 18th century when indirect perception wasn't common knowledge yet, so people could maybe still think that there could be science without the positive noumenon.
You are as blinded by direct perception as the naive realists you are waging a war against are.

Strawman.
I do not agree with indirect realism.
Note this response;
viewtopic.php?p=661241#p661241

• Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
  • 1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism with positive noumenon
    2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].

see the detailed argument therein.

However in QM we cannot assume the noumenon; to do so would be delusional.

To make an assumption is merely to cater for logic but not reality in this case; this logic is primal and proto-logic based on Pure-Reason [which Kant critiqued].
1. According to you the Moon-out-there doesn't exist even when we are looking, so the interpretation of QM that Al-Khalili is referring to is arguably not even relevant here.

2. Unless you resort to direct perception, which breaks another huge part of science which consistently refuted direct perception. And it would still be an interpretation where "nothing" acts like a probability wave, which is arguably an oxymoron because nothing is nothing.
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

The above means the moon only exists when we are looking at it.
Looking involved the mind, therefore the existence of the moon CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
It truly defies common sense, but that is the reality.

I do not understand the relevance of your point 2 above.
Again:
Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here), without trying to rely on science. Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.
I have deliberately open this thread to prove the above, see,

OP
viewtopic.php?p=660235#p660235
Post #2
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

Again, without positive noumena, no interpretation of QM works, there is no QM at all.

You can't rely on science and you can't rely on Kant. At least not like this. Looks like you'll have to come up with some Buddhist insight that Western philosophy missed.

That was what Einstein [philosophical realist] claimed, i.e. with the question,
Does the moon [positive noumenon] exists when no one is looking at it?
Einstein [philosophical realist] DID NOT assume but insisted the absolute mind-independent positive noumenon is existing as real out there.
(you think you are smarter than Einstein in insisting the positive noumenon is assumed??)

Einstein was proven to be wrong as confirmed with the award of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

• The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
  Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality
  Link

And Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,

• "In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here). Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

Repeat: [a '1000' times]
I have deliberately open this thread to prove the above, see,

OP
viewtopic.php?p=660235#p660235
Post #2
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

Why are you running away from my above response to your question?

[Atla]

Don't resort to your childish retorts which actually reflect your incompetence for philosophy.
Where?
Give a few references [since years] where you assert the positive noumenon as an assumption.

Logically, it does not follow to assume [mind-dependent] the positive noumenon as absolutely mind-independent.
As such, when you claim the mind-independent positive noumenon exists, it must only be a claim that it is really real out there and is not merely an assumption.

In all my comments about Kant, implicitly and sometimes explicitly. So you're either completely incompetent or a pathological liar or both.

Nor did I say anywhere that the noumenon is necessarily mind-independent, because it's not. Last time I acknowledged this was a few comments back.

You are so incompetent that for like 5 years you failed to recognize every single counterargument from every single person on this forum, who was also actually talking about Kantianism.

Strawman.
I do not agree with indirect realism.
Note this response;
viewtopic.php?p=661241#p661241
Currently there are two philosophical views to Modern science within the Philosophy of Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism - grounded on philosophical realism with positive noumenon
2. Scientific anti-realism - grounded on ANTI-philosophical realism [FSK-based].
see the detailed argument therein.

I said indirect perception, which you either must agree with, or you must disagree with science in general. As I told you, since you insist on being anti-science, maybe you should try to make some non-scientific argument, like a Buddhistic one.

That was what Einstein [philosophical realist] claimed, i.e. with the question,
Does the moon [positive noumenon] exists when no one is looking at it?
Einstein [philosophical realist] DID NOT assume but insisted the absolute mind-independent positive noumenon is existing as real out there.
(you think you are smarter than Einstein in insisting the positive noumenon is assumed??)

Einstein was proven to be wrong as confirmed with the award of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality
Link
And Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."
Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here). Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.
Repeat: [a '1000' times]
I have deliberately open this thread to prove the above, see,

OP
viewtopic.php?p=660235#p660235
Post #2
viewtopic.php?p=660236#p660236

Why are you running away from my above response to your question?

So you are smarter than Einstein, but no one else can be?

Again: no, Einstein can't have been talking about the positive noumenon, when indirect perception is the case. All of science breaks without the positive noumenon, including all of QM. You are an ignorant gnat.

What Einstein would have been talking about would more like be positive noumenon type A within the always necessary positive noumenon type B.
And that's still just an interpretation of QM, not fact. Al-Khalili knows this, but do you?

And it's an interpretation where nothing acts like something which is dumb. Not that it matters, but it's probably not even Al-Khalili's choice:

For what it's worth, my favourite interpretation of quantum mechanics is one due to the physicist David Bohm

so he's probably into the Pilot-wave which interpretation has realism.

And nonlocality is ANOTHER issue, not this one.

You are the one running away from the facts, every single time.

Again:

Prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here). Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

[Age]

The VERY ABSURDITY, ITSELF, of ANY one 'trying to' SAY or CLAIM that because it can NOT be PROVED that the moon existed/exists outside of human beings, being here on earth, then this MEANS that the moon IS 'absolutely mind-dependent', speaks for ITSELF.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For what it's worth, my favourite interpretation of quantum mechanics is one due to the physicist David Bohm

so he's probably into the Pilot-wave which interpretation has realism.

Like Einstein, Bohm would have claimed [not assumed] the positive noumenon [hidden variables] is really real and absolutely mind-independent within their Philosophical Realism.

The thesis [the standard for QM] of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics has already reinforced that Einstein [hidden variables] and Bohm [Pilot Waves] were wrong.

From ChatGpt [with reservations];

• David Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory, also known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that introduces a hidden variable in the form of a pilot wave to explain the probabilistic behavior of quantum particles. While this theory has its proponents, it has also faced criticism from various physicists and philosophers. Some of the critiques include:
  
  John Bell: John Bell, famous for Bell's theorem, which provided a way to test the concept of local hidden variables, was critical of Bohm's theory. Bell's theorem suggests that no physical theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In the context of Pilot Wave Theory, Bell was concerned about non-locality and the difficulty of reconciling it with the principles of relativity.
  
  Reference: Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics Physique Физика, 1(3), 195-200.
  
  Asher Peres: Peres expressed concerns about the non-local nature of Bohmian mechanics and its ability to account for phenomena such as entanglement without invoking spooky action at a distance. He argued that the theory didn't offer a significant advantage over other interpretations in explaining quantum behavior.
  
  Reference: Peres, A. (1984). "Incompatible results of quantum measurements, and the role of the observer". International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 25(S18), 543-549.
  
  Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle: They raised questions about the feasibility of interpreting the pilot wave theory as a deterministic theory with hidden variables. They argued that the Bohmian theory doesn't escape the measurement problem and still relies on certain arbitrary initial conditions.
  
  Reference: Gell-Mann, M., & Hartle, J. B. (1990). "Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology". In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (pp. 425-458). Addison-Wesley.
  
  Max Jammer: Max Jammer, a historian and philosopher of physics, discussed some of the criticisms of Bohm's theory, including issues related to non-locality and the need for a preferred reference frame.
  
  Reference: Jammer, M. (1974). "The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective." John Wiley & Sons.
  
  Travis Norsen: While Norsen has written in defense of pilot wave theory, he has also engaged with its critics. He acknowledges the challenge of reconciling the theory with relativistic principles and addresses concerns about non-locality.
  
  Reference: Norsen, T. (2017). "Foundations of quantum mechanics: An exploration of the physical meaning of quantum theory". Springer.

John Bell's proof was the basis for those three physicists who won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.


As I had claimed your pursuit of an absolutely mind-independent reality [real, assumed or whatever] is driven by primal psychology - thus fundamentalistic.
"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

[Atla]

Like Einstein, Bohm would have claimed [not assumed] the positive noumenon [hidden variables] is really real and absolutely mind-independent within their Philosophical Realism.

Again, irrelevant babble. In the context of this discussion, what they would have claimed is that positive noumenon type A is embedded within the always necessary positive noumenon type B, and they are both really-real and mind-independent. You also deny the type B even as an assumption, so you pretty much break all QM and all science.

The thesis [the standard for QM] of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics has already reinforced that Einstein [hidden variables] and Bohm [Pilot Waves] were wrong.

From ChatGpt [with reservations];
David Bohm's Pilot Wave Theory, also known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that introduces a hidden variable in the form of a pilot wave to explain the probabilistic behavior of quantum particles. While this theory has its proponents, it has also faced criticism from various physicists and philosophers. Some of the critiques include:

John Bell: John Bell, famous for Bell's theorem, which provided a way to test the concept of local hidden variables, was critical of Bohm's theory. Bell's theorem suggests that no physical theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. In the context of Pilot Wave Theory, Bell was concerned about non-locality and the difficulty of reconciling it with the principles of relativity.

Reference: Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics Physique Физика, 1(3), 195-200.

Asher Peres: Peres expressed concerns about the non-local nature of Bohmian mechanics and its ability to account for phenomena such as entanglement without invoking spooky action at a distance. He argued that the theory didn't offer a significant advantage over other interpretations in explaining quantum behavior.

Reference: Peres, A. (1984). "Incompatible results of quantum measurements, and the role of the observer". International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 25(S18), 543-549.

Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle: They raised questions about the feasibility of interpreting the pilot wave theory as a deterministic theory with hidden variables. They argued that the Bohmian theory doesn't escape the measurement problem and still relies on certain arbitrary initial conditions.

Reference: Gell-Mann, M., & Hartle, J. B. (1990). "Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology". In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (pp. 425-458). Addison-Wesley.

Max Jammer: Max Jammer, a historian and philosopher of physics, discussed some of the criticisms of Bohm's theory, including issues related to non-locality and the need for a preferred reference frame.

Reference: Jammer, M. (1974). "The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective." John Wiley & Sons.

Travis Norsen: While Norsen has written in defense of pilot wave theory, he has also engaged with its critics. He acknowledges the challenge of reconciling the theory with relativistic principles and addresses concerns about non-locality.

Reference: Norsen, T. (2017). "Foundations of quantum mechanics: An exploration of the physical meaning of quantum theory". Springer.
John Bell's proof was the basis for those three physicists who won the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Ignorant backwards nonsensical babble. The 2022 Nobel was for refuting local hidden variables, because it was for refuting locality in general.
It's adorable that you tried to collect some quotes which highlight the indeed problematic nature of nonlocality, when according to the 2022 Nobel, we are from now on forced to accept that problematic nonlocality somehow. Nonlocal hidden variables are still on the table.
It's also adorable that you think this has something to do with realism/antirealism, when there's like zero reason to think that.

As I had claimed your pursuit of an absolutely mind-independent reality [real, assumed or whatever] is driven by primal psychology - thus fundamentalistic.
"Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

Well you claimed wrong, I have no pursuit of mind-independence, I merely pursue the "truth". And the evidence points to a mostly mind-independent reality. You haven't shown any valid proof to the contrary yet.

Looks like your pursuit of mind-dependence is somehow driven by some primal psychology though. Maybe you tremble and shiver and are sweating at the very thought of mind-independent reality. Not only are you then not the center of the world in some sense, but maybe your God would come
back too.

"Oh look, there's the Moon, and there are the birds, and.. OH IT'S GOD OVER THERE!"

Stop fighting your primal desires. You know you want your God back more than anything.



Again: prove that the Moon can't be absolutely mind-independent (I'm using your wrong definition of "absolute" here). Science is incompatible with your negative noumenon philosophy, so that's a non-starter.

[Age]

If absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'mind-dependant', as some like to SAY and CLAIM, then the 'mind' 'here' does NOT 'see' NOR 'hear' 'those' who SAY and CLAIM the above. Therefore, 'they' are 'their' CLAIMS do NOT exist, and thus bearing NO truth AT ALL.

And, OBVIOUSLY, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a NONEXISTENT 'thing' could do about 'this'.

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah
Nonlocal hidden variables are still on the table.
blah blah blah

Why do you use this convoluted theoretical language? Why can't you just speak in empirical terms and relate this jargon to the average person on the street?

"Nonlocal hidden variables being still on the table" amounts to faster than light causality a.k.a time travel.

It amounts to a hidden, secret entity having a causal effect on the world from beyond The Big Bang.