Philosophical Realism is Solipsistic.

[Atla]

Note this perspective of reality which Einstein the hardcore p-realist rejected;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Since the ideas that Einstein rejected has won the 2023 Nobel Prize.

Ugh this again. The 2022 Nobel has shown that Einstein was wrong about locality, but this has nothing to do with the Moon not existing. Regrettably, QM is so difficult that even the Nobel prize committee got a few things wrong. Here is a good explanation:

https://iai.tv/articles/einstein-god-an ... -auid-2255

[Skepdick]

Go listen to the Christian Scholastics and Thomas Aquinas.

Reality is mostly based on Belief/Blind Faith. You don't know what is down the street, to the left. You believe what is real and true. The difference between knowledge and belief is the rationality, logic, and verification required between the two. Different people have different (Higher) standards for belief and trust. Most of "Reality" is implied, inductive, presumed, second or third-hand. People do not generally question their Authorities, their "trusted news sources". People have Confirmation-Bias.

Only Philosophers can square the logical inconsistencies of Normies. Normies don't care, and don't care when they make rational mistakes.

This is why Skepdick cannot understand Descartes.

I believe that I have no beliefs. And the recursion/contradiction doesn't bother me.

For starters logic's non-contradiction law is incoherent. If contradictions don't exist then how is it that I can contradict myself intentionally - surely it should be impossible to bring a contradiction into existence?

This is why Wizard22 can't understand anything. Logic is invented/designed by humans. It's just one instrument - that's all.

Your belief in a priori Logic is no different to the belief in an a priori God.

It makes you stupid, not special.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your justification that it's solipsistic is clearly and obviously fallacious, to the point that the argument is an extremely silly joke. If you want to argue that realism is incorrect, good, fine, do that, but the joke of the op in this thread has come and gone. We've all had our laugh about your fallacious argument, let's move on.

I believe you are mistaken or perhaps my argument was not clear.

Seriously,
I have justified why p-realism is illusory.

I have also justified why p-realism is solipsistic [as defined] and p-realists are ignorant of it.

Put it another way,

1. P-realism claims reality is independent of mind.
2. As such, reality is independent of the p-realists' mind.
3. P-realists has failed to prove what is independent of their mind is really real.
4. P-realists have not deny their minds are real.
5. As such, the only real mind to the p-realists are their minds.
6. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
7. Therefore p-realists are solipsistic [5,6].

The above argument do not mix in my anti-philosophical-realist position where I have justified why the p-realists claim is illusory to reinforce 3 above.

Thus my OP conclusion stand.
For intellectual sake, welcome your critique if you really think it is fallacious, I won't give up until I am convinced it is really fallacious.

If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..

Let me show you. I'll pretend to be a flat earther for a moment, and I'll use an argument that's formulated like your argument.

Round Earthers believe round things are flat.

1. Round Earthers believe the earth is round
2. The earth is flat
3. Therefore, round Earthers believe round and flat are the same thing

It's nonsense, right? And yet it's just like your argument

Thanks and noted but I don't agree.

If you say you can prove realists believe something, and then prove that they believe that thing using premises they don't agree with, then you haven't proven anything at all..

I did not state

"I can prove realists believe something"
I stated what the p-realists believe on what they claim to believe, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
i.e.

• Philosophical realism is ... about a certain kind of thing 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.

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

Then I argued and justified why the p-realist claim is illusory.

P-realist claim anti-p-realist are solipsistic.
I countered they have no grounds to insist anti-p-realists' as solipsistic when they are relying on groundless illusory basis.

Then, I proceed to justify how the philosophical realism is itself solipsistic.

Round Earthers believe round things are flat.

1. Round Earthers believe the earth is round
2. The earth is flat
3. Therefore, round Earthers believe round and flat are the same thing

It's nonsense, right? And yet it's just like your argument

As further explained above, I cannot see how my argument is the same as the above;

Rather my argument is this;

1. Theists claim all things are created, God is the only Uncreated.
2. FSK-ed reality claim all things are co-created by humans.
3. Therefore, God is co-created by humans.

I am still interested in view of the above, how you view my argument is fallacious; curious, perhaps I am missing something?

[Wizard22]

I believe that I have no beliefs. And the recursion/contradiction doesn't bother me.

You can believe whatever you want. It doesn't make it true. And it especially doesn't convince nor persuade others.

Beliefs matter when people trust each-other, and your beliefs are Respected.

For starters logic's non-contradiction law is incoherent. If contradictions don't exist then how is it that I can contradict myself intentionally - surely it should be impossible to bring a contradiction into existence?

This is why Wizard22 can't understand anything. Logic is invented/designed by humans. It's just one instrument - that's all.

Whenever you contradict yourself, you are demonstrating irrationality and illogic. You will lose trust among peers when it comes to Philosophy. Philosophers and Philosophy is highly logically consistent, hence why logic and rationality are most closely related to Philosophy, not Science, and not Religion.

[Skepdick]

Only Philosophers can square the logical inconsistencies of Normies. Normies don't care, and don't care when they make rational mistakes.

Yeah, go and square the logical inconsistencies of my Normie computer!

Here is a Ruby program which insists that P ∧ ¬P ↔ ⊤

ruby-non-contradiction.png (28.94 KiB) Viewed 520 times

[Skepdick]

Whenever you contradict yourself, you are demonstrating irrationality and illogic.

Bullshit.

1. A proof is a computer program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence )
2. The "law" of non-contradiction is defined as ¬(p ∧ ¬p) ↔ ⊤
3. Here is a computer program (a logical proof!) of ¬(p ∧ ¬p) ↔ ⊥

Thus I have empirically demonstrated the negation of non-contradiction.

Q.E.D

lnc.png (34.9 KiB) Viewed 516 times

[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.

[Skepdick]

Philosophers and Philosophy is highly logically consistent, hence why logic and rationality are most closely related to Philosophy, not Science, and not Religion.

Long, long time ago (about 100 years). In a galaxy far away (Königsberg, Germany) there was a guy (Kurt Gödel).

Who thus proved that no formal system of logic which is powerful enough to do certain things can be both consistent AND complete.

That's called a choice.

Choosing one or the other doesn't make one illogical. It simply makes one logically consistent OR logically complete.

I value completeness.
You value consistency.
We both value logic.

I invent and use logics. You worship the logics people like me invent.

You've mistaken yourself for non-Religious when your religious is pretty damn obvious. Logicism.

The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this perspective of reality which Einstein the hardcore p-realist rejected;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
Since the ideas that Einstein rejected has won the 2023 Nobel Prize.

Ugh this again. The 2022 Nobel has shown that Einstein was wrong about locality, but this has nothing to do with the Moon not existing. Regrettably, QM is so difficult that even the Nobel prize committee got a few things wrong. Here is a good explanation:

https://iai.tv/articles/einstein-god-an ... -auid-2255

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

[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.)

[Skepdick]

The issue of locality has nothing to do with the issue of philosophical realism/anti-realism.

It's exactly the same issue.

It's about (direct?) access to all the information. Or lack thereof.

Local == accessible.
Non-local == inaccessible.

The Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians called it omniscience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Wizard22]

Long, long time ago (about 100 years). In a galaxy far away (Königsberg, Germany) there was a guy (Kurt Gödel).

Who thus proved that no formal system of logic which is powerful enough to do certain things can be both consistent AND complete.

That's called a choice.

Choosing one or the other doesn't make one illogical. It simply makes one logically consistent OR logically complete.

I value completeness.
You value consistency.
We both value logic.

I invent and use logics. You worship the logics people like me invent.

You've mistaken yourself for non-Religious when your religious is pretty damn obvious. Logicism.

The end.

Where did I state things need to be perfect? ...nowhere. Arguments are never "fully" complete, never "fully" consistent. Because there is no direct 1-to-1 application of Logic to Reality. Even if, hypothetically, mankind could take "perfect" still-frames of the universe, they would only ever be fragmented representations of a universe in motion.

There is no set of parameters big enough to be 'complete' or 'consistent'. Logic is an (Artificial) ruleset which Humanity imposes upon reality, to guide humanity, opposed to emotional manipulation and feedback. Otherwise, humans act as animals, relying on Instinct and Reflex. What popeye calls 'Reactive' rather than Proactive.

The Ruleset is a tool. You're not even arguing against me.

[Skepdick]

Philosophical realists don't claim to be solipsistic

And North Korea doesn't claim to be dictatorial. In fact North Korea claims to be democratic.

[Skepdick]

Where did I state things need to be perfect? ...nowhere. Arguments are never "fully" complete, never "fully" consistent. Because there is no direct 1-to-1 application of Logic to Reality. Even if, hypothetically, mankind could take "perfect" still-frames of the universe, they would only ever be fragmented representations of a universe in motion.

There is no set of parameters big enough to be 'complete' or 'consistent'. Logic is an (Artificial) ruleset which Humanity imposes upon reality, to guide humanity, opposed to emotional manipulation and feedback. Otherwise, humans act as animals, relying on Instinct and Reflex. What popeye calls 'Reactive' rather than Proactive.

The Ruleset is a tool. You're not even arguing against me.

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

Which you weaponised in your lame attempt to dismiss me.

In punch much harder than you punch...