Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
...........................

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Proxima Centauri is 4.264 light years away
  • Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own, is still 40,208,000,000,000 km away. (Or about 268,770 AU or 4.264 light years away).
4.264 light years x 9 trillion earth years = 38.4 trillion earth years away.

It is visible via a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm
  • It has apparent visual magnitude 11, so a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm (3.1 in) is needed to observe it, even under ideal viewing conditions—under clear, dark skies with Proxima Centauri well above the horizon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri#
Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Therefore what is real to the philosophical realists is merely a 4.264 light years of historical light waves.

Thus PH definition of "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affairs, cannot hold water.
Because in real time to, the Sun, Proxima Centauri, may not exist at all; if it exists it would be a totally different Sun from what it is perceived via a telescope.
I believe other than the Sun Proxima Centauri, there are Suns which we can see via telescope via Hubble or JamesWebb that actually had died at t1.

Note Betelgeuse Star Is Dying Before Our Eyes,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Na72eehQMQ
Betelgeuse is 120 million light years away,
thus the real Betelgeuse could at our real time t1 would have already died.

Thus what Philosophical Realists observing Betelgeuse as real dying Star deemed according to Philosophical Realism [mind independent] as real is actually in real time t1 is an illusion.
They are merely interacting with a 120 million light years old HISTORICAL light waves and not the real star at t1.

Philosophical realists may insist there was a star, 1080 trillion years ago, but the past cannot be really real. What is real is NOW, the present.

From the above, we can prove that philosophical realism based on the assumption of mind-independence is not realistic, i.e. do not reflect reality.
This is because there is a REALITY GAP between what is observed and what is really out there.
Because of this REALITY-GAP, there is no way philosophical realists can ever claim they know what is really real out there, thus the basis that it is likely to be illusory.

The example of a the Star, Proxima Centauri and Betelgeuse is very clear cut to prove philosophical realism can never be realistic due to the inevitable REALITY-GAP in terms of light years.

While it may not be obvious, there is still a REALITY-GAP with everyday experiences of seeing, touching a table independent of mind out there.
Whilst the REALITY_GAP in this case may not in terms of light years, there is a REALITY-GAP of nano-seconds.
The presence of a REALITY_GAP [regardless of distance and time] from Philosophical Realism implies that philosophical realism can never be realistic.

On the other hand, with anti-philosophical-realism [Kantian] what is real is always conditioned and qualified to a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable thus, the most objective and realistic.
There is no REALITY-GAP with anti-philosophical-realism because whatever is real is because the FSK said so, e.g. the science-cosmological FSK said so or science-biology said so of which are reliable and credible that is opened for criticisms.

My point;
the above illustrations prove philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Just in case, PH cannot resist bringing in,
what is known and described is not the-described,
note this;

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
This is applicable to the points I raised above.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.
That's right, it may not exist anymore. That's a very realist idea. The idea that we THINK it exists, but in reality, it does not.

The fact of its existence or non existence is true independent of what humans think about it
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.
How right, it may not exist anymore. That's a very realist idea. The idea that we THINK it exists, but in reality, it does not.

The fact of its existence or non existence is true independent of what humans think about it
Nope!

All the above facts [FSK-ed] must be conditioned upon the human-based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK.
Since the conclusions are conditioned upon the human-based Science-Physics-Cosmological FSK, it follows, ultimately they cannot be independent of the human conditions or mind-independence.
Meaning you just cannot ignore the related human conditions as part and parcel of whatever is concluded or realized.

Note I have extended the concept of REALITY_GAP to things of everyday experiences, i.e. the apple on the table, and the like.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I don't really care about "human conditions" when it comes to realism. As far as I'm concerned, that phrase itself is a strawman invented by you. It doesn't seem to appear in any literature I can find on philosophical realism, and not the literature I've seen you link so far (I've looked), and it doesn't intuitively stand for what philosophical realists generally think and talk about.

But, ignoring that out of place phrase, there's no reason why an FSK can't be WRONG. In fact you yourself place some FSKs above others in terms of correctness. You trust the astronomy fsk and not the astrology fsk. Presumably the astronomy fsk could think things right now that we find out, in 10 years time, the astronomy fsk has changed their mind on. Now I don't know how you would process that scenario, but I know how a realist might: a realist, in 10 years time, would think that most likely the astronomy fsk was simply incorrect in 2023 and they are now correct in 2033 (obviously that's not the only way a realist could process that scenario, but it's a common way a realist would - sometimes a realist might think the astronomy fsk was right 10 years ago and they're wrong now).
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
...........................

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Proxima Centauri is 4.264 light years away
  • Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own, is still 40,208,000,000,000 km away. (Or about 268,770 AU or 4.264 light years away).
4.264 light years x 9 trillion earth years = 38.4 trillion earth years away.

It is visible via a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm
  • It has apparent visual magnitude 11, so a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm (3.1 in) is needed to observe it, even under ideal viewing conditions—under clear, dark skies with Proxima Centauri well above the horizon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri#
Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Therefore what is real to the philosophical realists is merely a 4.264 light years of historical light waves.

Thus PH definition of "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affairs, cannot hold water.
Because in real time to, the Sun, Proxima Centauri, may not exist at all; if it exists it would be a totally different Sun from what it is perceived via a telescope.
I believe other than the Sun Proxima Centauri, there are Suns which we can see via telescope via Hubble or JamesWebb that actually had died at t1.

Note Betelgeuse Star Is Dying Before Our Eyes,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Na72eehQMQ
Betelgeuse is 120 million light years away,
thus the real Betelgeuse could at our real time t1 would have already died.

Thus what Philosophical Realists observing Betelgeuse as real dying Star deemed according to Philosophical Realism [mind independent] as real is actually in real time t1 is an illusion.
They are merely interacting with a 120 million light years old HISTORICAL light waves and not the real star at t1.

Philosophical realists may insist there was a star, 1080 trillion years ago, but the past cannot be really real. What is real is NOW, the present.

From the above, we can prove that philosophical realism based on the assumption of mind-independence is not realistic, i.e. do not reflect reality.
This is because there is a REALITY GAP between what is observed and what is really out there.
Because of this REALITY-GAP, there is no way philosophical realists can ever claim they know what is really real out there, thus the basis that it is likely to be illusory.

The example of a the Star, Proxima Centauri and Betelgeuse is very clear cut to prove philosophical realism can never be realistic due to the inevitable REALITY-GAP in terms of light years.

While it may not be obvious, there is still a REALITY-GAP with everyday experiences of seeing, touching a table independent of mind out there.
Whilst the REALITY_GAP in this case may not in terms of light years, there is a REALITY-GAP of nano-seconds.
The presence of a REALITY_GAP [regardless of distance and time] from Philosophical Realism implies that philosophical realism can never be realistic.

On the other hand, with anti-philosophical-realism [Kantian] what is real is always conditioned and qualified to a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable thus, the most objective and realistic.
There is no REALITY-GAP with anti-philosophical-realism because whatever is real is because the FSK said so, e.g. the science-cosmological FSK said so or science-biology said so of which are reliable and credible that is opened for criticisms.

My point;
the above illustrations prove philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
Basically what VA has done is present a kind of realist who cannot use scientific research - about the speed of light and astronomical distances - when making realist statements. No realist would be able to say, for example, that there was a star of that size in that position X number of years ago. No, every single realist will say that what we see through a telescope is an image of the current state/placement etc. of that star. So, as a general criticism of realism this is a strawman argument. It might apply to some realists, but not to realism per se.

Further he justifies the confusion with realism. He talks about the light waves arriving, finally here. And the light waves on the way. That's all realism
Thus what Philosophical Realists observing Betelgeuse as real dying Star deemed according to Philosophical Realism [mind independent] as real is actually in real time t1 is an illusion.
They are merely interacting with a 120 million light years old HISTORICAL light waves and not the real star at t1.
So, the combination of confusions is present in the above. No realist would realize this, even though the odds are the facts presented were suggested by realists and are believed by many realists. And then what is really happening that realists are supposed to be unaware of in the above is realist conclusions or facts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:35 am I don't really care about "human conditions" when it comes to realism. As far as I'm concerned, that phrase itself is a strawman invented by you. It doesn't seem to appear in any literature I can find on philosophical realism, and not the literature I've seen you link so far (I've looked), and it doesn't intuitively stand for what philosophical realists generally think and talk about.
I believe you don't have an in depth understand of the dichotomy between philosophical-realism and anti-philosophical-realism [of many kind].

Note
Philosophical realism is 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Mind-independence implied independent of the human-conditions. Generally I have not come across philosophical realists who question the term 'mind-independence'.
I only used 'human conditions' with [philosophical immature] people like Peter Holmes who do not believe a human mind exists at all.

But, ignoring that out of place phrase, there's no reason why an FSK can't be WRONG. In fact you yourself place some FSKs above others in terms of correctness. You trust the astronomy fsk and not the astrology fsk. Presumably the astronomy fsk could think things right now that we find out, in 10 years time, the astronomy fsk has changed their mind on. Now I don't know how you would process that scenario, but I know how a realist might: a realist, in 10 years time, would think that most likely the astronomy fsk was simply incorrect in 2023 and they are now correct in 2033 (obviously that's not the only way a realist could process that scenario, but it's a common way a realist would - sometimes a realist might think the astronomy fsk was right 10 years ago and they're wrong now).
I have not insisted FSKs cannot be wrong.
Even the scientific FSK which I regarded as the most credible and reliable at present has been wrong in the past.

My principle is;
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge, and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most reliable and credible.
If the astronomy FSK changed their mind about any thing, say X, then they are no more astronomy FSK facts of X.
Note
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
So it is astronomy FSK fact that Pluto is a dwarf planet.
This astronomy FSK mode is the best sense of reality since the other alternative, i.e. philosophical realism is fundamentally illusory.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?

And wrong with respect to what?

A realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to reality. I have no idea what an anti realist thinks an FSK can be wrong with respect to. There has to be some arena, some context, something to compare it against, which makes it wrong. For realists, that arena, that context, that thing it's being compared against is reality itself.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:43 am I only used 'human conditions' with [philosophical immature] people like Peter Holmes who do not believe a human mind exists at all.
And has Peter Holmes reacted positively to this change of wording? Does he accept it?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?
Wait, what? He has totally commited to the position that FSKs cannot be wrong. He has explicitly argued that there is a continuum running from delusion or something like that through belief to fact and that all that sets the position of any belief along that line is "credibility". He assigns 1% credibility to Astrology and 0.000001 or something to Religion. Breaking this by suggesting a fictional FSK is fully mistaken breaks his entire epistemology.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:11 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?
Wait, what? He has totally commited to the position that FSKs cannot be wrong. He has explicitly argued that there is a continuum running from delusion or something like that through belief to fact and that all that sets the position of any belief along that line is "credibility". He assigns 1% credibility to Astrology and 0.000001 or something to Religion. Breaking this by suggesting a fictional FSK is fully mistaken breaks his entire epistemology.
Whehen people thought the world was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relat ... wrong.html
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:54 am If fsks can be wrong, then what in the world do you mean when you say truth is conditioned upon an FSK?

And wrong with respect to what?
Wrong with respect to being least wrong possible. As opposed to being "right" in some absolutely nonsensican sort of way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Evidently philosophers are so fucking stupid they can't even tell the difference between being wrong in the wrong direction and being wrong in the right direction.

I guess higher order reasoning is a luxury for some.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Sculptor »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.
That's right, it may not exist anymore. That's a very realist idea. The idea that we THINK it exists, but in reality, it does not.

The fact of its existence or non existence is true independent of what humans think about it
Yep!
And it looks as if Betelgeuse is just about to give us a massive surprise that no one was expecting.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:28 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.
How right, it may not exist anymore. That's a very realist idea. The idea that we THINK it exists, but in reality, it does not.

The fact of its existence or non existence is true independent of what humans think about it
Nope!

All the above facts [FSK-ed] .
But your FSK is wrong. One of many possible subjective, culturally specific and historically contexted FSKs.
IN fact history seems to have got along without the term.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
...........................

Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Proxima Centauri is 4.264 light years away
  • Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own, is still 40,208,000,000,000 km away. (Or about 268,770 AU or 4.264 light years away).
4.264 light years x 9 trillion earth years = 38.4 trillion earth years away.

It is visible via a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm
  • It has apparent visual magnitude 11, so a telescope with an aperture of at least 8 cm (3.1 in) is needed to observe it, even under ideal viewing conditions—under clear, dark skies with Proxima Centauri well above the horizon.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri#
Now Philosophical Realists would claim there is a mind-independent Sun, Proxima Centauri, existing as an objective reality out there as real in real time t1.

But the fact [FSK] is Proxima Centauri in real time t1, may not exists anymore, i.e. could have died long ago in real time.

Therefore what is real to the philosophical realists is merely a 4.264 light years of historical light waves.

Thus PH definition of "what is fact" i.e. a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, state of affairs, cannot hold water.
Because in real time to, the Sun, Proxima Centauri, may not exist at all; if it exists it would be a totally different Sun from what it is perceived via a telescope.
I believe other than the Sun Proxima Centauri, there are Suns which we can see via telescope via Hubble or JamesWebb that actually had died at t1.

Note Betelgeuse Star Is Dying Before Our Eyes,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Na72eehQMQ
Betelgeuse is 120 million light years away,
thus the real Betelgeuse could at our real time t1 would have already died.

Thus what Philosophical Realists observing Betelgeuse as real dying Star deemed according to Philosophical Realism [mind independent] as real is actually in real time t1 is an illusion.
They are merely interacting with a 120 million light years old HISTORICAL light waves and not the real star at t1.

Philosophical realists may insist there was a star, 1080 trillion years ago, but the past cannot be really real. What is real is NOW, the present.

From the above, we can prove that philosophical realism based on the assumption of mind-independence is not realistic, i.e. do not reflect reality.
This is because there is a REALITY GAP between what is observed and what is really out there.
Because of this REALITY-GAP, there is no way philosophical realists can ever claim they know what is really real out there, thus the basis that it is likely to be illusory.

The example of a the Star, Proxima Centauri and Betelgeuse is very clear cut to prove philosophical realism can never be realistic due to the inevitable REALITY-GAP in terms of light years.

While it may not be obvious, there is still a REALITY-GAP with everyday experiences of seeing, touching a table independent of mind out there.
Whilst the REALITY_GAP in this case may not in terms of light years, there is a REALITY-GAP of nano-seconds.
The presence of a REALITY_GAP [regardless of distance and time] from Philosophical Realism implies that philosophical realism can never be realistic.

On the other hand, with anti-philosophical-realism [Kantian] what is real is always conditioned and qualified to a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable thus, the most objective and realistic.
There is no REALITY-GAP with anti-philosophical-realism because whatever is real is because the FSK said so, e.g. the science-cosmological FSK said so or science-biology said so of which are reliable and credible that is opened for criticisms.

My point;
the above illustrations prove philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic but rather is clinging to illusions.
Betelgeuse is 642 light years away. If we see it go supernova now then the actual event occured 642 years ago.

Can't find your quantum thread but you might find this interesting. A theory that black holes could act as 'observers', causing particles to collapse into matter and the reality that we know. He's good, once you get past the extremely annoying accent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hi48l ... ntonPetrov
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:09 am My point; philosophical realism [mind-independence] is never realistic
*absolute mind-independence is never realistic, that's why no one is talking about that anymore
4.264 light years x 9 trillion earth years = 38.4 trillion earth years away.
*9 trillion kilometers, 38.4 trillion kilometers away
Betelgeuse is 120 million light years away
*650 light years away
Philosophical realists may insist there was a star, 1080 trillion years ago
*650 years ago
Because of this REALITY-GAP
*time gap
Because of this REALITY-GAP there is no way philosophical realists can ever claim they know what is really real out there, thus the basis that it is likely to be illusory.
*but that's no basis to claim that it is likely to be illusory
The presence of a REALITY_GAP [regardless of distance and time] from Philosophical Realism implies that philosophical realism can never be realistic.
*does not imply that philosophical realism can never be realistic
There is no REALITY-GAP with anti-philosophical-realism because whatever is real is because the FSK said so
*because there is no reality at all
Post Reply