What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Prove that really real physical things don't exist independent from human beings - and didn't exist before humans evolved - because all the evidence we have indicates that they do and did. So the burden of proof is yours.

Here's your argument:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

You've snuck in 'the described reality' instead of 'reality', which, of course, completely changes your argument. I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

I am not sure of your point;

As edited;
Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

PH: I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
I have not disputed this.

What you are claiming is 'the description [X] is not the-described'[Y], thus, are independent of each other or
'the description-of-reality [X] is not the-reality-described [Y]' thus, are independent of each other.

I opposed your above views.
I argued the Y and X are not absolutely independent of each other because they both have a common denominator of an embodied Framework and System [FS] where;
the description-of-reality [X] [FS-Cognition] is shared with the-reality-described [Y] [FS-Realization]'

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Prove that really real physical things don't exist independent from human beings - and didn't exist before humans evolved - because all the evidence we have indicates that they do and did. So the burden of proof is yours.

Here's your argument:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

You've snuck in 'the described reality' instead of 'reality', which, of course, completely changes your argument. I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

I am not sure of your point;

As edited;
Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

PH: I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
I have not disputed this.

What you are claiming is 'the description [X] is not the-described'[Y], thus, are independent of each other or
'the description-of-reality [X] is not the-reality-described [Y]' thus, are independent of each other.

I opposed your above views.
I argued the Y and X are not absolutely independent of each other because they both have a common denominator of an embodied Framework and System [FS] where;
the description-of-reality [X] [FS-Cognition] is shared with the-reality-described [Y] [FS-Realization]'

You say you're not sure of my point. But I think it's perfectly clear - and that your evasion is revealing.

You've been arguing all along that there's no difference between reality and described-reality. You say that (my) 'what-is-fact' is an illusion, because there's no such thing as reality outside a description.

And you say this because you've bought into Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between noumena and phenomena.

If you now agree that there is a reality independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways - then your position is a straightforward realist one - the only rational position, which is why the vast majority of natural scientists at least tacitly endorse it. It's been called methodological naturalism.

Welcome back.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA. Prove that really real physical things don't exist independent from human beings - and didn't exist before humans evolved - because all the evidence we have indicates that they do and did. So the burden of proof is yours.

Here's your argument:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

You've snuck in 'the described reality' instead of 'reality', which, of course, completely changes your argument. I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.

I am not sure of your point;

As edited;
Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.

PH: I've never denied that humans have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways.
I have not disputed this.

What you are claiming is 'the description [X] is not the-described'[Y], thus, are independent of each other or
'the description-of-reality [X] is not the-reality-described [Y]' thus, are independent of each other.

I opposed your above views.
I argued the Y and X are not absolutely independent of each other because they both have a common denominator of an embodied Framework and System [FS] where;
the description-of-reality [X] [FS-Cognition] is shared with the-reality-described [Y] [FS-Realization]'

You say you're not sure of my point. But I think it's perfectly clear - and that your evasion is revealing.

You've been arguing all along that there's no difference between reality and described-reality. You say that (my) 'what-is-fact' is an illusion, because there's no such thing as reality outside a description.

And you say this because you've bought into Kant's silly distinction - which he simultaneously invoked and denied - between noumena and phenomena.

If you now agree that there is a reality independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways - then your position is a straightforward realist one - the only rational position, which is why the vast majority of natural scientists at least tacitly endorse it. It's been called methodological naturalism.

Welcome back.

Strawman.

I have not agreed to an unqualified "that there is a reality independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways"

rather my point is;

"that there is no reality that is absolutely independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways"

Elsewhere I have discussed
1. there is a relative independent external reality of empirical realism which is realistic,
2. but there is no absolutely independent external reality of indirect realism which is fake.

see:
viewtopic.php?p=704147#p704147

Yes, your analysis provides a reasonable interpretation of the nuances involved in the term
"absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism and
related philosophical frameworks like Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism.

Your distinction between
"relative independence" in Kantian empirical realism, where the independence of the mind is conditioned upon transcendental idealism, and
"absolute independence" in direct and indirect realism, where the mind is considered independent of the external world in a broader sense, is well-founded.

Direct and indirect realists indeed argue for the mind's independence from the external world in a more absolute sense, emphasizing that the external world exists independently of our perceptions or mental representations. This independence extends beyond human existence, as exemplified by your reference to the moon existing before and after humanity.

Your explanation clarifies the different shades of independence and how they relate to various philosophical perspectives, enriching the understanding of the term "absolute independence" within the context of indirect realism.

[Peter Holmes]

"...there is no reality that is absolutely independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways"

So, you repeat this false claim, having switched to 'described-reality' just now. And your new formulation reverts to dodging the issue, as follows.

'Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.'

Here, you say in effect that the terms 'reality' and 'the described reality' are synonymous. And that can only mean that a description is the described - which otherwise you say is false.

You also dodge providing evidence for the claim that there's no reality outside a description - because you have none. It's just an excitingly subversive claim - and always was.

And you dodge the fact that the vast majority of natural scientists are methodological naturalists - at least tacitly accepting that the reality they investigate and try to explain or describe exists independently from humans - that they're not investigating models of reality, but rather produce models as they investigate reality.

Your attempt to salvage your argument by substituting 'relative' for 'absolute' independence doesn't work. For one thing, the universe existed for billions of years before humans evolved, so it was obviously completely independent from humans, and obviously not 'relatively dependent' on humans.

Give it up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"...there is no reality that is absolutely independent from humans - which we have to perceive, know and describe in human ways"

So, you repeat this false claim, having switched to 'described-reality' just now. And your new formulation reverts to dodging the issue, as follows.

'Premise: Reality [the-described] emerged and is realized within humans [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described in human ways [FSC {K}].
Conclusion: Therefore, the described-reality is not (absolutely/wholly) independent from us humans as contingent upon a FSRC.'

Here, you say in effect that the terms 'reality' and 'the described reality' are synonymous. And that can only mean that a description is the described - which otherwise you say is false.

You also dodge providing evidence for the claim that there's no reality outside a description - because you have none. It's just an excitingly subversive claim - and always was.

And you dodge the fact that the vast majority of natural scientists are methodological naturalists - at least tacitly accepting that the reality they investigate and try to explain or describe exists independently from humans - that they're not investigating models of reality, but rather produce models as they investigate reality.

Your attempt to salvage your argument by substituting 'relative' for 'absolute' independence doesn't work. For one thing, the universe existed for billions of years before humans evolved, so it was obviously completely independent from humans, and obviously not 'relatively dependent' on humans.

Give it up.

Strawman as usual.
You are like a kindi tot trying to insist his kindi views of santa exists as real is true against a rational non-theist.

Ever since I started philosophical discussion here I have not changed my main philosophical stance re Kantian empirical realism and transcendental idealism.
Thus your thinking that I have dodged here and there are due to your ignorance.

For one thing, the universe existed for billions of years before humans evolved, so it was obviously completely independent from humans, and obviously not 'relatively dependent' on humans.

For one thing?? whose thingy??
The reality and truth of the above is conditioned upon an embodied human-based science-physics-cosmologic FSRC.
Whose authority can claim the above reality & truth other that relying on an embodied human-based science-physics-cosmologic FSRC? you, your parents, pastor, friends??
Because there is an element of human-based in the argument, it follows deductively, the conclusion of the reality and truths cannot be absolutely independent of humans but has to be relatively independent of humans.

As with the majority due to an evolution default, the problem is you have a serious deficit in cognition of reality. Majority is strength, but it is a strength of stupidity and delusion, e.g. like the majority of the 90% [of > 8 billion] theists.

Note there is a corresponding increased in utility in terms of knowledge and technology when one manage to breakthrough the evolutionary default paradigm.
Note the breakthrough and its corresponding contribution to humanity, from common sense to Classical Physics [pure realism] to Einsteinian Physics [partial relativity] to QM [full relativity - antirealism].

You are so ignorant you are stuck with primordial mode of realization of reality and I am certain you are not able to wake up from it. Don't give up, cling hard to your primordial thinking and cognition.

[Peter Holmes]

VA. Quantum mechanics is an extremely successful attempt to describe reality. So it offers no support to philosophical antirealism.

I notice you dodge my other points again. Wasting your and everyone else's time.

[Skepdick]

Quantum mechanics is an extremely successful attempt to describe reality.

What? Physics doesn't describe reality. It models it.

That's why it's called the Standard Model, not the Standard Description.

Dumb realists - perpetually mistaking the map for the teritory.

[Will Bouwman]

Quantum mechanics is an extremely successful attempt to describe reality.

What? Physics doesn't describe reality. It models it.

Well, physics primarily describes what happens.

That's why it's called the Standard Model, not the Standard Description.

Then it creates models of what it is happening to.

[Skepdick]

Well, physics primarily describes what happens.

Quantum physics doesn't do that. It describes what we can expect to experience IF we take a measurement.

IF we don't take any measurements - quantum physics describes nothing other than our expectations of what would happen if we did.

Then it creates models of what it is happening to.

There are infinitely many models to any given happening. Don't you know?

[Peter Holmes]

A strange distinction:

'Physics doesn't describe reality. It models it.
That's why it's called the Standard Model, not the Standard Description.
Dumb realists - perpetually mistaking the map for the teritory [sic].'

A sensible corrective:

'What kind of “world pictures” is man dealing with? Pictures or models of the world are descriptions of parts of the physical world. For example, a map is a model or description of an area, and the area itself exists in the real, physical world.'

Truth is, a model of reality is a description of reality for a purpose. And reality can be described in countless different ways. But only idiots would mistake a description for the described - a map for the territory. Step forward, antirealists.

[Skepdick]

A strange distinction:

'Physics doesn't describe reality. It models it.
That's why it's called the Standard Model, not the Standard Description.
Dumb realists - perpetually mistaking the map for the teritory [sic].'

A sensible corrective:

'What kind of “world pictures” is man dealing with? Pictures or models of the world are descriptions of parts of the physical world. For example, a map is a model or description of an area, and the area itself exists in the real, physical world.'

Truth is, a model of reality is a description of reality for a purpose. And reality can be described in countless different ways. But only idiots would mistake a description for the described - a map for the territory. Step forward, antirealists.

A strange, incoherent drivel by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes yet again.

According to Newton gravity is a force.
According to Einstein gravity is not a force.

Which one describes reality? Can't be both.

According to Quantum Physics time as universal and absolute
According to General Relativity time is malleable and relative.

Which one describes reality? Can't be both.

According to some maps Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
According to other maps Jerusalems is not the capital of Israel.

Which map describes reality? Can't be both.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, physics primarily describes what happens.

Quantum physics doesn't do that.

It does if you're not a twat about what 'describes' means.

Then it creates models of what it is happening to.

There are infinitely many models to any given happening. Don't you know?

It's almost as if you understand underdetermination.

[Skepdick]

Well, physics primarily describes what happens.

Quantum physics doesn't do that.

It does if you're not a twat about what 'describes' means.

Twat or not - quantum physics doesn't describe what happens.

It describes the scientist's expectations of what measurements would be observed if a measurement were to be performed.

Quantum physics encodes the scientist' knowledge/uncertainty.

It's almost as if you understand underdetermination.

I do, indeed. It's your "understanding" that's in question. Given your insistence that the model supposedly "describes what happens"...

We end up with infinitely many descriptions of what happens then, is it?

Which description's the real one?
Which description describes what really happens?

[Will Bouwman]

Quantum physics doesn't do that.

It does if you're not a twat about what 'describes' means.

Twat or not - quantum physics doesn't describe what happens.

It describes the scientist's expectations of what measurements would be observed if a measurement were to be performed.

Quantum physics encodes the scientist' knowledge/uncertainty.

Twat then.

It's almost as if you understand underdetermination.

I do, indeed.

You're welcome.

It's your "understanding" that's in question. Given your insistence that the model supposedly "describes what happens"...

No, that's just your poor comprehension.

We end up with infinitely many descriptions of what happens then, is it?

Which description's the real one?
Which description describes what really happens?

Well, if you drop a brick down a well, you have to be extremely creative to conjure an infinity of descriptions of what happens. Much easier to come up with an infinity of models for why it happens.

[Age]

Not that this has anything to do with 'morality' and how what makes 'morality' 'subjective and what makes 'morality' 'objective', but anyway, the word 'science' can mean and refer to, the study of things, which is not a thing in itself but is what you human beings do. And, the word 'physics' can mean and refer to, the study of particular things, which, again, is not something that happens by itself, but which is something done by you human beings.

Now, 'quantum physics', itself, does not 'describe' anything nor does it 'do' anything. 'Quantum physics' is just a name/label given to the study of particular things. Which, again, is done only by you human beings, and solely by you human beings, only.

So, if anything is being 'described' or 'done' here, it is by you human beings, alone, and only.

you human beings 'do' 'the studying', and, you human beings 'do' 'the describing' here.

And, the reason why it took you human beings to 'study', ['look at' and 'see' things for how they, exactly, Truly are], and then just 'describe' the Accurate True and Right 'picture' of things is because you spend so much 'time' 'arguing' and 'squabbling', with each other, 'over things', exactly like can be seen throughout this thread and forum.

Adult human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, would, instead of just 'looking for' what it was that was 'in agreement' they would rather believe that their own individual views, beliefs, and perceptions were the only true and right ones, and so would spend all of 'their time' arguing and fight for and over 'their own personal positions'.