Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

[Flannel Jesus]

That is what p-realist claim to believe, I don't have to prove what they believe.

The title of your thread is a claim about the beliefs of philosophical realists.

Philosophical realists don't claim to be solipsistic, so that's obviously a non starter, and if they did claim that, you wouldn't need an argument like the one in op to show it.

Instead, you provide an argument that you think proves that philosophical realists are solipsistic. Your argument is fallacious, because you cannot prove that realists believe in solipsism by using premises they don't agree with. It's really very simple.

If you don't have to prove it, then good, we can throw away your op. It doesn't prove anything and you don't have to say any of it. Right? Let's agree to just throw it out.

Thanks and noted but I still don't agree.
I think there is some misinterpretation somewhere.

FJ: Philosophical realists don't claim to be solipsistic, so that's obviously a non starter, and if they did claim that, you wouldn't need an argument like the one in op to show it.

The title of the OP "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" is not that Philosophical Realist claims to be solipsistic.
To be clear, I know Philosophical Realism do not claim to be Solipsistic; rather p-realists insist anti-p-realists are solipsistic.

My point is p-realist are accusing p-realists as solipsistic; but they are ignorant they are the one who is actually solipsistic.
I justify how that is the case, thus the OP "Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic" in ignorance.

On that basis, my OP still stand.
I am still interested to know why you think my argument is fallacious, perhaps, if so, to improve my communication skills in making my points more clearer.

It's very clear why your argument is fallacious. I couldn't possibly make it clearer. You cannot prove that a group of people believe some statement by using premises they don't agree with.

[Wizard22]

It is fairly obvious that any 'Reality' which cannot be experienced, but only inferred, is not Reality per se but is Unreal.

And what people call "Reality" is only what they can experience in relation to what is hypothetically impossible to experience.

In other words, applying logic to Un-reality, doesn't make it any Realer.

[Wizard22]

I am explicitly arguing against logical consistency and against your blind worship of logic.

No you're not.

There are ways to make rational arguments beyond Contradictions. I can say that something is true, in one context, but false in another context. Contradictions are a limit on generalizations. That's all they are. That is their logical operation. It is not "true in and of itself", as you implied, and based your strawman argument against me upon.

[Skepdick]

It is fairly obvious that any 'Reality' which cannot be experienced, but only inferred, is not Reality per se but is Unreal.

And yet it's somehow not obvious to you how logic isn't a priori in such a setting.

[Wizard22]

And yet it's somehow not obvious to you how logic isn't a priori in such a setting.

The only point Kant was making is that logical operations are genetically heritable and formed-malleable in the brain. They are functions of biological/human intelligence. Animals have some of these same circuits too. Which is why humans, and mammals, have base forms of belief in the unknown (like expecting a ball to land in one spot and not another), along with moral rules (golden rule, treat others as you'd be treated).

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't believe the 2022 Nobel Prize committee is that stupid without consulting many reputable scientists from the Physics community.

As I had stated there are two senses of reality with two camps of believers;
i.e.

1. FSR-FSK-ed reality
2. Philosophical Realism of mind-independence

I have already came across scientists who are in the philosophical realism insisting Einstein is right with his hidden variable and that reality is absolutely mind-independent.
As such, we have people like Tim Maudlin, Sean Carroll, and others sticking to the mind-independent reality camp.
They will express their opinions and views.

However, I have argued philosophical realism is not realistic and is illusory and is driven by a primal, proto- evolutionary default to soothe cognitive dissonances.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The issue of locality has nothing to do with the issue of philosophical realism/anti-realism. (Other then refuting absolute mind-indepenence once more, which was already refuted 10 times over.)

Note the link of local realism to the philosophical realism versus anti-p-realism;

• One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half a century is that the universe is not locally real.
  In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking.
  “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true.
  Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

What is Philosophical Realism;

• 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

Realism as understood with local realism as above, i.e.
"In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation"

which obviously is the same as in philosophical realism,

"this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder [observation]."

The insistence
"The issue of locality has nothing to do with the issue of philosophical realism/anti-realism."
is based on ignorance of the core issue which is contributing to the wasting of other's time.

[Skepdick]

I am explicitly arguing against logical consistency and against your blind worship of logic.

No you're not.

Does gaslighting normally work for you?

I am the one doing what I am doing. You don't get to decide that I am not doing what I am explicitly and intentionally busy doing it.

There are ways to make rational arguments beyond Contradictions.I can say that something is true, in one context, but false in another context.

And if context A is more prevalent than context B I will generalize to A being generally true and B being generally false

Contradictions are a limit on generalizations.

That's pretty stupid. What if myexplicit goal is generalization itself? Why would I limit myself?

That's all they are. That is their logical operation.

Oh really! An operation. Tell me more? What operands do you apply it to?

It is not "true in and of itself", as you implied, and based your strawman argument against me upon.

The negation of a contradiction is literally defined as a tautology! Do you even know what a contradiction is; or are you busy committing the persuasive definition fallacy?

[Skepdick]

And yet it's somehow not obvious to you how logic isn't a priori in such a setting.

The only point Kant was making is that logical operations are genetically heritable and formed-malleable in the brain. They are functions of biological/human intelligence. Animals have some of these same circuits too. Which is why humans, and mammals, have base forms of belief in the unknown (like expecting a ball to land in one spot and not another), along with moral rules (golden rule, treat others as you'd be treated).

Then how is it that every singe logical system or circuit can be implemented as a non-deterministic algorithm in terms of a single logical operator?

Choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... rogramming

"Choose" is, in fact, a typical name for the nondeterministic operator

[Atla]

I don't believe the 2022 Nobel Prize committee is that stupid without consulting many reputable scientists from the Physics community.

As I had stated there are two senses of reality with two camps of believers;
i.e.

1. FSR-FSK-ed reality
2. Philosophical Realism of mind-independence

I have already came across scientists who are in the philosophical realism insisting Einstein is right with his hidden variable and that reality is absolutely mind-independent.
As such, we have people like Tim Maudlin, Sean Carroll, and others sticking to the mind-independent reality camp.
They will express their opinions and views.

However, I have argued philosophical realism is not realistic and is illusory and is driven by a primal, proto- evolutionary default to soothe cognitive dissonances.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The issue of locality has nothing to do with the issue of philosophical realism/anti-realism. (Other then refuting absolute mind-indepenence once more, which was already refuted 10 times over.)

Note the link of local realism to the philosophical realism versus anti-p-realism;

• One of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half a century is that the universe is not locally real.
  In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking.
  “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true.
  Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

What is Philosophical Realism;

• 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

Realism as understood with local realism as above, i.e.
"In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation"

which obviously is the same as in philosophical realism,

"this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder [observation]."

The insistence
"The issue of locality has nothing to do with the issue of philosophical realism/anti-realism."
is based on ignorance of the core issue which is contributing to the wasting of other's time.

Right, so by Occam's razor, the universe is non-locally real.

If the first hit of the razor fails here, then we are forced to conclude that the universe is observer-dependently real (including observer-dependent real noumenon), where no one knows what observer means here. But it probably doesn't mean human mind.

So we are still not at your negative noumenon and at your mind-dependence. That's at least two more steps. Okay, so the issue of locality has probably nothing to with philosophical realism/anti-realism.

[Wizard22]

Does gaslighting normally work for you?

I am the one doing what I am doing. You don't get to decide that I am not doing what I am explicitly and intentionally busy doing it.

It does when you're not telling the truth.

There are ways to make rational arguments beyond Contradictions.I can say that something is true, in one context, but false in another context.

And if context A is more prevalent than context B I will generalize to A being generally true and B being generally false

Contradictions are a limit on generalizations.

That's pretty stupid. What if myexplicit goal is generalization itself? Why would I limit myself?

Because a generalization without a limit is a universal axiom, which isn't necessarily Real.

That's all they are. That is their logical operation.

Oh really! An operation. Tell me more? What operands do you apply it to?

Any argument, any context.

The negation of a contradiction is literally defined as a tautology! Do you even know what a contradiction is; or are you busy committing the persuasive definition fallacy?

And sometimes Tautologies are necessary and useful.

People need to act with limited information. Here you're implying that logic is disconnected from Reality. It's not. It never is.

[Wizard22]

Then how is it that every singe logical system or circuit can be implemented as a non-deterministic algorithm in terms of a single logical operator?

Choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... rogramming

"Choose" is, in fact, a typical name for the nondeterministic operator

And...what's your point? Are you implying I don't know this?

[Skepdick]

It does when you're not telling the truth.

Are you telling the truth or are you lying about telling the truth? If you are truthful about lying are you a liar or a truth-teller?

The entire paradigm of (un)decidability is my domain of expertise, dumbo.

Because a generalization without a limit is a universal axiom, which isn't necessarily Real.

So you don't even understand the difference between something being generally true and universally true?

That's not very logical.

Any argument, any context.

So apply it to itself. then. self-application (a.k.a recursion) is how generalization works.

Pass the context as a parameter if you want.

This is Programming Languages 101 stuff.

And sometimes Tautologies are necessary and useful.

Sometimes ?!?!? Tautologies is ALL you have in Logic.

People need to act with limited information. Here you're implying that logic is disconnected from Reality. It's not. It never is.

I am implying nothing of this sort. Information is precisely that which allows you to make choices.

Such as the choice on whether anything is true; or false.

This is the normal form of the decision problem!

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

[Skepdick]

Then how is it that every singe logical system or circuit can be implemented as a non-deterministic algorithm in terms of a single logical operator?

Choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... rogramming

"Choose" is, in fact, a typical name for the nondeterministic operator

And...what's your point? Are you implying I don't know this?

It's very probable that you didn't know this before I told you.

Given that you were talking about logical operators (plural!)

You only need one.

[Wizard22]

It's very probable that you didn't know this before I told you.

Given that you were talking about logical operators (plural!)

You only need one.

When you start educating me in anything, I'll let you know, short stuff.

[Skepdick]

When you start educating me in anything, I'll let you know, short stuff.

I doubt you have the intellectual integrity to admit that you've learned something.

You seem like a grifter who would hapilly continue exploiting Cunningham's law thinking you are very smart for doing so.

Your pride and insecurity far exceeds your intellect.