Do we create reality with our mind?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sabine concluded with,
"We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea."
I do not agree with the above; nevertheless there a lot of points to learn from the video

Do we create reality with our mind? A physicist's reply.
Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv51ROmfiz4

[quote]Do we create reality with our minds?
I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
But it’s not that simple.

Let me explain.
To some extent the question whether we create reality is a matter of semantics, so we have to get this out of the way first.
If we define reality to be that which is independent of our mind, then of course we don’t create it with our minds because then it wouldn’t be independent, would it.

The quip that reality is what doesn’t go away if you stop believing in it therefore should better not be used as a definition of reality, it’s rather a way of summarizing what we mean.
Because if you define something to have a certain property, then it becomes moot to ask whether it has that property.
It’d be like asking if red apples are red.

To make sense of the question whether we create reality, we will therefore use the word “reality” to refer to what people think it means.
Yes, that’s vague, and that’s why physicists normally leave that question to philosophers, but this physicist doesn’t want to leave philosophers all the fun.

The biggest problem with reality is that you can’t know that there is anything which exists without you.
Because to find out you’d have to stop existing and check if it’s still there and that’s not the kind of experiment that people like to volunteer for.

Strictly speaking, therefore, the only thing that you can be sure exists is yourself.
This is the origin of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, but of everything else I can’t be quite sure.
It’s also the inspiration for movies like the Matrix where an alternate reality is created by inputting it directly into people’s brain, and sometimes I think this really explains a lot.
It's called the problem of solipsism, that the only information you have to work with is the information that comes into your brain.
It tells us that even if there was such a thing as reality, your brain input might not represent it, so then how are you to know what’s real?

One could now debate how you know that your brain is real.
I mean maybe that whole brain idea is just a marketing scheme by the education industry.
Then again, the question wasn’t really about the brain but about our “mind,” so I’ll leave it to you to figure out if you want to believe that you actually do have a brain.

This video turns out to be somewhat weirder than anticipated.
To come back to the original question, the solipsism problem means you can’t know whether you do or don’t create reality with your mind.
So maybe you are the reason this video exists.
It’s not that you have trouble understanding me, you don’t understand yourself.
That said, solipsism is not a widely spread philosophy for the simple reason that it has no practical consequences.

While I strictly speaking can’t rule out the possibility that everything I experience is created by me, most of this so-called reality doesn’t seem to care much about what I want to create.
Even if reality isn’t independent of us, it sure well does a good job pretending it is, which is how we deal with it.

The issue becomes somewhat more complicated if we take into account quantum mechanics.
The reason is that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics contains possibilities which we never observe.
The best-known example is Erwin Schrödinger’s dead-and-alive cat.
These possibilities are there in the maths, but when we make an observation, they disappear.
When we look at a cat, it’s either dead or alive but not both.
But just exactly what is it that makes the dead-and-alive possibility of a cat disappear?

In the early days of quantum mechanics, some physicists argued that quantum mechanics gives a special role to the observer.
In some sense, they thought, it seems to be the observer who makes things real.
However, as physicists understood quantum mechanics increasingly well, they saw that what removes these weird mathematical possibilities is not the observation by a conscious being, it’s the use of a measurement apparatus.
Just exactly what it is that makes one thing a measurement apparatus and another thing not is still not entirely clear.
But, the the famous measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
But what’s clear is that it doesn’t require a mind of any sort.
Except, of course if there wasn’t a mind of some sort looking at the measurement result then we wouldn’t be talking about it being real would we.
So it’s arguably the case that whenever we talk about or think about a measurement result, there must have been an observer involved, at the very least we ourself.
And like with the solipsism problem, it’s impossible to rule out that this played a role.

Then again, we know experimentally that to predict the outcome of an experiment we don’t need to worry about conscious observers.
It just doesn’t play any role in the mathematics.
So like with the solipsism problem, we can strictly speaking not rule out that the observer influences the creation of reality in quantum mechanics.
However, like with the solipsism problem, we also find that if there is such an influence, then no one can do anything with it, so for all practical purposes we might as well ignore the possibility.

In summary, do we create reality with our minds?
We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.
[unquote]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Flannel Jesus]

Then again, we know experimentally that to predict the outcome of an experiment we don’t need to worry about conscious observers.
It just doesn’t play any role in the mathematics.
So like with the solipsism problem, we can strictly speaking not rule out that the observer influences the creation of reality in quantum mechanics.
However, like with the solipsism problem, we also find that if there is such an influence, then no one can do anything with it, so for all practical purposes we might as well ignore the possibility.

In summary, do we create reality with our minds?
We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

Amazing to read this in a post from you.

[FlashDangerpants]

We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

When I told you something similar to that about the realism/antirealism debate 5 years ago, and many times since, you tried to overrule and force me to take sides in that irrelevant misunderstanding of a debate...

So what gives?

[Skepdick]

In summary, do we create reality with our minds?
We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

Useless how?

What could be more useful than the idea that we can use our minds to create the future we desire?

There's a future in which I punch you in the face.
There's a future in which I don't punch you in the face.

Which future should I create?

[Skepdick]

We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

When I told you something similar to that about the realism/antirealism debate 5 years ago, and many times since, you tried to overrule and force me to take sides in that irrelevant misunderstanding of a debate...

So what gives?

What gives is your total disregard for reification.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In summary, do we create reality with our minds?
We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

Useless how?

What could be more useful than the idea that we can use our minds to create the future we desire?

There's a future in which I punch you in the face.
There's a future in which I don't punch you in the face.

Which future should I create?

I stated,
Sabine concluded with,
"We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea."
I do not agree with the above; nevertheless there a lot of points to learn from the video.

What is critical here is "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

Sabine is a physicist, her "it’s a practically useless idea" is due to her ignorance on the deeper philosophical nuances.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

When I told you something similar to that about the realism/antirealism debate 5 years ago, and many times since, you tried to overrule and force me to take sides in that irrelevant misunderstanding of a debate...

So what gives?

I stated,
Sabine concluded with,
"We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea."
I do not agree with the above; nevertheless there a lot of points to learn from the video.

What is critical here is her conclusion "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

Sabine is a physicist, her "it’s a practically useless idea" is due to her ignorance on the deeper philosophical nuances.

[Iwannaplato]

Sabine Hossenfelder said:
Let me explain.
To some extent the question whether we create reality is a matter of semantics, so we have to get this out of the way first.

If we define reality to be that which is independent of our mind, then of course we don’t create it with our minds because then it wouldn’t be independent, would it.[/quote]I agree with her that semantics becomes very important. Prior to her own specific point, I would say we would need to look at what 'we' means if we create reality with out minds? (and then likely also minds, reality, also would need reevaluation and even the grammar of the assertion version of that question). We would not be what we usually mean by humans when we talk about we. Which is not an objection to the hypothesis (at all) just a suggestion about how fundamental the issues we are dealing with here are.

Now to the specific. If we created reality it would not have been mind independent in that moment of creation. At least that makes sense to me. But it might now be mind independent. We might have lost control of it or even access to all of it. Normally when we create something, we use materials that we continue to have access to in some way - though at a certain point we may lose access to it and it may get beyond out abilities to observe it. Even we rather mundane versions of what we have created that may be outside out access at some time in the near future: Voyager 1. But if we have the implicit power to have created all of reality or had that power, we can't rule out that it has gotten away from us so to speak. Or, either, that we were not what we are now. Can we create a reality where our power is diminished? Can what we create be cut off from us?

The quip that reality is what doesn’t go away if you stop believing in it therefore should better not be used as a definition of reality, it’s rather a way of summarizing what we mean.

But then we have to wonder how deeply beliefs go in us. Some beliefs are very hard to change, such as those that are connected to metaphysics or built in presumptions in our sensory systems for example. It's not like we can simply decide to no longer have beliefs. Even beliefs that we can show to be demonstrably false can still be held onto by people despite being shown this, including beliefs about how people view themselves.

In a sense I am questioning the assumption implicit in this statement that we know what can and what cannot be influenced by what we believe.

And note that she frames it as a 'we' set of beliefs. If we all create via our beliefs, what happens to minority beliefs/creatings? Is there a kind of consensus in this creating reality?

The biggest problem with reality is that you can’t know that there is anything which exists without you.
Because to find out you’d have to stop existing and check if it’s still there and that’s not the kind of experiment that people like to volunteer for.

Note the implicit agnosticism. I'd also like to note that 'know' is implicitly being defined in a certain way here. That's not a criticism, just pointing out that there are more possible questions for her.

Strictly speaking, therefore, the only thing that you can be sure exists is yourself.
This is the origin of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, but of everything else I can’t be quite sure.

Then she can't know whether her assertion here applies to others. IOW she is assuming that her situation is universal for all minds/persons/entities. Given what she says, how can she know this, since as she says the only thing she knows is that she exists and cannot be sure of anything else. Yet, she frames the issue, as a whole, in terms of 'we'.

This video turns out to be somewhat weirder than anticipated.
To come back to the original question, the solipsism problem means you can’t know whether you do or don’t create reality with your mind.
So maybe you are the reason this video exists.
It’s not that you have trouble understanding me, you don’t understand yourself.
That said, solipsism is not a widely spread philosophy for the simple reason that it has no practical consequences.

Unless her sense of what can be unbelieved is limited. Some beliefs may well only seem intractable. Also there are beliefs that are not conscious. These can be very hard to change, but if they can be changed and are causal, there may well be useful applications of the idea that we create reality.

While I strictly speaking can’t rule out the possibility that everything I experience is created by me, most of this so-called reality doesn’t seem to care much about what I want to create.

And the key word is 'seem'.

Even if reality isn’t independent of us, it sure well does a good job pretending it is, which is how we deal with it.

And I recognize that this seeming also seems to at the least be easy, so far, to get around.

In the early days of quantum mechanics, some physicists argued that quantum mechanics gives a special role to the observer.
In some sense, they thought, it seems to be the observer who makes things real.
However, as physicists understood quantum mechanics increasingly well, they saw that what removes these weird mathematical possibilities is not the observation by a conscious being, it’s the use of a measurement apparatus.
Just exactly what it is that makes one thing a measurement apparatus and another thing not is still not entirely clear.

Yes.

But, the the famous measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
But what’s clear is that it doesn’t require a mind of any sort.

Though any experiment showing this would have had a mind present in some way, at the end, looking at the data. Or there would be no 'evidence' because evidence in a research product is heading towards a mind.

Except, of course if there wasn’t a mind of some sort looking at the measurement result then we wouldn’t be talking about it being real would we.

A different way of putting it.

So it’s arguably the case that whenever we talk about or think about a measurement result, there must have been an observer involved, at the very least we ourself.
And like with the solipsism problem, it’s impossible to rule out that this played a role.

yes.

Then again, we know experimentally that to predict the outcome of an experiment we don’t need to worry about conscious observers.
It just doesn’t play any role in the mathematics.
So like with the solipsism problem, we can strictly speaking not rule out that the observer influences the creation of reality in quantum mechanics.
However, like with the solipsism problem, we also find that if there is such an influence, then no one can do anything with it, so for all practical purposes we might as well ignore the possibility.

I think the conclusion that we cannot do something about it is based on assumptions about beliefs, believers that are not grounded.

[Age]

Sabine concluded with,
"We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea."
I do not agree with the above; nevertheless there a lot of points to learn from the video

Do we create reality with our mind? A physicist's reply.
Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv51ROmfiz4

Do we create reality with our minds?
I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
But it’s not that simple.

The Mind, Itself, it can be argued very simply and easily, creates Reality, Itself.

But, you human beings do not create Reality with what you call 'your minds'. For, if you were, then you would all be imagining the exact same thing, at the exact same times.

Let me explain.
To some extent the question whether we create reality is a matter of semantics, so we have to get this out of the way first.

Is there anything to do with words, which are not 'semantics'?

For example, what do you mean by 'semantics' here, exactly?

If we define reality to be that which is independent of our mind, then of course we don’t create it with our minds because then it wouldn’t be independent, would it.

And, just as obvious is the fact that if 'you' decided to define 'reality' as what is dependent upon 'the mind', then 'reality' is created by 'the mind'. Therefore, it could be claimed that 'we' do create Reality by 'our mind'. That is; if 'we' have 'our mind'. But to know whether this is true or not, then 'we' have to define who and what 'we' are, exactly, and who and/or what 'our mind' is being defined, and thus is exactly.

Which, more or less, again, just means 'we' have to get 'semantics', or 'the meanings' so-called 'out of the way, first'.

Which, by the way, if you human beings had done this thousands of years ago, and kept doing this, hitherto when this is being written, then you adult human beings, in the day when this is being written, would not be so lost and so confused as you obviously are here, if this forum is anything to go by. And, you would not be arguing, bickering, and fighting with each other as you very clearly are, in the days when this is being written.

The quip that reality is what doesn’t go away if you stop believing in it therefore should better not be used as a definition of reality, it’s rather a way of summarizing what we mean.
Because if you define something to have a certain property, then it becomes moot to ask whether it has that property.
It’d be like asking if red apples are red.

A better question to ask would be, 'How can 'we' know that 'my red' is not 'your blue', for example, or vice-versa?

Which, the answer to is, 'we can never ever know'. Which points out the irrefutable Fact, that is through 'agreement' and 'acceptance', only, what makes 'things' come to be known as true and right.

So, if you define some 'thing' in anyway, then that, by itself, does not make 'that thing', that thing. But, then again, 'that thing' is only that thing, because that is what some one is saying and claiming 'it' is.

Which leads to how and why 'things' are, and are not, created by 'the Mind', or not.

Which, leads to, the reason these human beings, back when this was being written, had not come to also see and realize the GUTOE, which explains, fully and absolutely, just about absolutely every topic that has been raised and talked about here, in this forum.

To make sense of the question whether we create reality, we will therefore use the word “reality” to refer to what people think it means.
Yes, that’s vague,

This is beyond 'vague' "veritas aequitas".

and that’s why physicists normally leave that question to philosophers, but this physicist doesn’t want to leave philosophers all the fun.

Is this the same so-called "physicists" that cannot even ascertain that the earth existed before human beings came along?

The biggest problem with reality is that you can’t know that there is anything which exists without you.

But it is very, very, very easy to know that there were 'things' existing without you "veritas aequitas", or without any of you other human beings.

All of you obviously came from some thing else. Therefore, I know there are 'things', which exist without you, human beings.

Because to find out you’d have to stop existing and check if it’s still there and that’s not the kind of experiment that people like to volunteer for.

Probably because it is not even necessary to 'know', for sure, what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, here.

Strictly speaking, therefore, the only thing that you can be sure exists is yourself.

The word or term "yourself" is an oxymoron.

The only Real Thing that One can be known for sure of is the only One 'I', which can also be proved to exist.


The word 'you' refers to 'another', which might not exist.

This is the origin of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, but of everything else I can’t be quite sure.

The, 'I think therefore I am', conclusion is not, exactly, True and Right. But, you, human beings, are evolving to become aware of this irrefutable Fact.

It’s also the inspiration for movies like the Matrix where an alternate reality is created by inputting it directly into people’s brain, and sometimes I think this really explains a lot.
It's called the problem of solipsism, that the only information you have to work with is the information that comes into your brain.
It tells us that even if there was such a thing as reality, your brain input might not represent it, so then how are you to know what’s real?

One could now debate how you know that your brain is real.
I mean maybe that whole brain idea is just a marketing scheme by the education industry.
Then again, the question wasn’t really about the brain but about our “mind,” so I’ll leave it to you to figure out if you want to believe that you actually do have a brain.

Considering that 'a brain' is an actual physical thing, which can be seen, whereas 'a mind' cannot.

This video turns out to be somewhat weirder than anticipated.
To come back to the original question, the solipsism problem means you can’t know whether you do or don’t create reality with your mind.

One would first have to 'have a mind'. No one 'has a mind'.

So maybe you are the reason this video exists.
It’s not that you have trouble understanding me, you don’t understand yourself.
That said, solipsism is not a widely spread philosophy for the simple reason that it has no practical consequences.

While I strictly speaking can’t rule out the possibility that everything I experience is created by me, most of this so-called reality doesn’t seem to care much about what I want to create.
Even if reality isn’t independent of us, it sure well does a good job pretending it is, which is how we deal with it.

The issue becomes somewhat more complicated if we take into account quantum mechanics.
The reason is that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics contains possibilities which we never observe.
The best-known example is Erwin Schrödinger’s dead-and-alive cat.
These possibilities are there in the maths, but when we make an observation, they disappear.
When we look at a cat, it’s either dead or alive but not both.
But just exactly what is it that makes the dead-and-alive possibility of a cat disappear?

In the early days of quantum mechanics, some physicists argued that quantum mechanics gives a special role to the observer.
In some sense, they thought, it seems to be the observer who makes things real.
However, as physicists understood quantum mechanics increasingly well, they saw that what removes these weird mathematical possibilities is not the observation by a conscious being, it’s the use of a measurement apparatus.
Just exactly what it is that makes one thing a measurement apparatus and another thing not is still not entirely clear.
But, the the famous measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
But what’s clear is that it doesn’t require a mind of any sort.
Except, of course if there wasn’t a mind of some sort looking at the measurement result then we wouldn’t be talking about it being real would we.
So it’s arguably the case that whenever we talk about or think about a measurement result, there must have been an observer involved, at the very least we ourself.
And like with the solipsism problem, it’s impossible to rule out that this played a role.

Then again, we know experimentally that to predict the outcome of an experiment we don’t need to worry about conscious observers.
It just doesn’t play any role in the mathematics.
So like with the solipsism problem, we can strictly speaking not rule out that the observer influences the creation of reality in quantum mechanics.
However, like with the solipsism problem, we also find that if there is such an influence, then no one can do anything with it, so for all practical purposes we might as well ignore the possibility.

In summary, do we create reality with our minds?
We can strictly speaking not rule it out, but we’re pretty sure it’s a practically useless idea.

But what one imagines how 'the future' could be like, and then proceeds to make 'that kind of future', is a very, very useful thing, indeed.

[Flannel Jesus]

What is critical here is her conclusion "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is critical here is her conclusion "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

[Atla]

What is critical here is her conclusion "We can strictly speaking not rule it out" rather than many who insisted 'no way'.

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

'God does not play dice' probably refers to a division that's usually located out there in the noumenon, and maybe sometimes inside the mind. It's hardly about your realism/anti-realism issue.

Your optimism is moot. Many scientists aren't as dogmatic idiots as you believe them to be, and are capable of considering anti-realism, but still evidence overwhelmingly supports realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's not saying much, we can't strictly speaking rule almost anything out, including pure Solipsism, brain in a vat, the existence of orcs, and so on. You chose a very strange argument if you meant to SUPPORT your conclusions. "We can't strictly rule it out" is not really much support lmao.

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

'God does not play dice' probably refers to a division that's located out there in the noumenon. It's hardly about your realism/anti-realism issue.

Your optimism is moot. Many scientists aren't as dogmatic idiots as you believe them to be, and are capable of considering anti-realism, but still evidence overwhelmingly supports realism.

The advancing trend since the last 100 years is the conversion from p-realism to antirealism.
Do you have any evidence of Physicists changing their mind from antirealist to p-realist?

[Atla]

The purpose of this thread is to show that there are signs the antirealist reality is breaking the p-realists dogmatic bubble.

What strike me was this:

• Do we create reality with our minds?
  I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question.
  You might think the answer is obviously “no”.
  But it’s not that simple.

That was a surprise coming from Sabine.
Generally as in the past and even now, the answer is a NO!!! period without any doubt at all to the above question. That was what Einstein insisted 'God does not play dice'.

In recent years the hardcore p-realists physicists are coming out of the hardcore bubble to admit some doubts to their fundamentalist belief and accept some possibility of the antirealist mind-related version of reality.

I am optimistic in the future, the antirealists' version of reality will prevail.

'God does not play dice' probably refers to a division that's located out there in the noumenon. It's hardly about your realism/anti-realism issue.

Your optimism is moot. Many scientists aren't as dogmatic idiots as you believe them to be, and are capable of considering anti-realism, but still evidence overwhelmingly supports realism.

The advancing trend since the last 100 years is the conversion from p-realism to antirealism.
Do you have any evidence of Physicists changing their mind from antirealist to p-realist?

And that's like what, 5% of scientists, maybe less?