Van Fraassen’s is an antirealism concerning unobservable entities. Recognizing the difficulties of basing antirealism on a “broken-backed” linguistic distinction between O-terms and T-terms, he allows our judgments about unobservables to be literally construed but, he argues, our evidence can never entitle us to our beliefs about unobservables. CE is consistent with SR3 and SR4 (though it does not commit to them, it has no quarrels with realist objectivity or semantics) but replaces SR1, SR2, and SR5 respectively with:
In general, which ever scientific views that oppose scientific-philosophical-realism is scientific-anti-realism.
Hawkins Model Dependent Realism is scientific anti-philosohical-realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
The present popular Quantum Mechanics theories are grounded on scientific-anti-philosophical realism.
The alchemy FSK [low degree of credibility and objectivity] can be realist [philosophical] [the most likely] or antirealist dependent on whether they incorporate the assumption of a mind-independent reality or not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:54 am
The present popular Quantum Mechanics theories are grounded on scientific-anti-philosophical realism.
Atla the KG wrote:Which currently popular Quantum Mechanics interpretations are grounded on philosophical realism and which are grounded on philosophical anti-realism?
God wrote:Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of particles at the quantum level. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and these interpretations often have different philosophical implications, ranging from realism to anti-realism. It's important to note that the distinction between realism and anti-realism can sometimes be subtle, and interpretations may not fit neatly into one category or the other.
Here are a few interpretations of quantum mechanics and their general philosophical inclinations:
Copenhagen Interpretation: This interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is often considered to be more anti-realist. It emphasizes the role of observation and measurement, arguing that the quantum state only has a definite value when measured. Outside of measurement, the state is described by a probability distribution.
Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI, proposed by Hugh Everett III, is often associated with a realist perspective. It suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum measurement actually occurs, with the universe splitting into multiple branches, each representing a different outcome. In this interpretation, all possibilities are considered equally real.
De Broglie-Bohm Pilot-Wave Theory: This theory, also known as the Bohmian mechanics, is a deterministic interpretation. It posits the existence of hidden variables that determine the behavior of particles, making it realist in nature. The particles have definite positions, and the wave function guides their motion.
Objective Collapse Theories: Some theories propose that the wave function collapses spontaneously, without the need for an observer. Examples include the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. Depending on how these theories are formulated, they can lean towards realism or anti-realism.
QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): QBism is an interpretation that focuses on the subjective nature of quantum probabilities. It's often associated with anti-realism, emphasizing that quantum theory provides a way for an observer to make predictions about their experiences but doesn't necessarily describe an objective reality independent of observation.
It's essential to recognize that the philosophical stance of an interpretation can be debated and may depend on how the interpretation is formulated. Additionally, some physicists may not strictly align with either realism or anti-realism, preferring a more agnostic or instrumentalist view that emphasizes the predictive power of the theory without making strong claims about the underlying reality.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:45 am
................
Carry on
So??
The original was this, i.e. IWP's ignorance yet arrogant.
viewtopic.php?p=693076#p693076
No, no. You don't understand VA.
Let me come at it from another angle. Science is actually realist and this distinguishes it from, for example, Alchemy which is anti-realist. Otherwise they are the same:
I stated,
In general, which ever scientific views that oppose scientific-philosophical-realism is scientific-anti-realism. So, there are realists and anti-realists views re Quantum Mechanics and I stated the present popular is an anti-realist one, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation. I did not claim the CI [anti-realist] is the ONLY one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:54 am
The present popular Quantum Mechanics theories are grounded on scientific-anti-philosophical realism.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:45 am
................
Carry on
So??
The original was this, i.e. IWP's ignorance yet arrogant.
viewtopic.php?p=693076#p693076
No, no. You don't understand VA.
Let me come at it from another angle. Science is actually realist and this distinguishes it from, for example, Alchemy which is anti-realist. Otherwise they are the same:
I stated,
In general, which ever scientific views that oppose scientific-philosophical-realism is scientific-anti-realism. So, there are realists and anti-realists views re Quantum Mechanics and I stated the present popular is an anti-realist one, i.e. the Copenhagen Interpretation. I did not claim the CI [anti-realist] is the ONLY one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:54 am
The present popular Quantum Mechanics theories are grounded on scientific-anti-philosophical realism.
The point is don't be too arrogant when one is ignorant.
No, "theories" is plural, and the above ones are "popular" according to God. MWI, a realist one may have already overtaken the Copenhagen in popularity, not sure.
Also, I suppose you are trying to get away from Advaita, but the creators of the Copenhagen were influenced by it, that's why it originally had such a strong anti-realistic bend. Which was quickly dropped for instrumentalism by many physicists.
(Btw both the Copenhagen and the MWI ar wrong but that's beside the point.)
Van Fraassen’s is an antirealism concerning unobservable entities. Recognizing the difficulties of basing antirealism on a “broken-backed” linguistic distinction between O-terms and T-terms, he allows our judgments about unobservables to be literally construed but, he argues, our evidence can never entitle us to our beliefs about unobservables. CE is consistent with SR3 and SR4 (though it does not commit to them, it has no quarrels with realist objectivity or semantics) but replaces SR1, SR2, and SR5 respectively with:
It's funny, you cut that off in the middle, as if you didn't really read it.
We cannot observe other minds. So, other minds are a T-term. We have to infer their existence from behavior. If there is a we.
We can observe behavior we call moral, but we cannot observe morals. We have to infer their existence.