So what is realism vs anti-realism? Its not as solipsistic as you think. :) One way to really see it is imagine a truck. Well, what is a truck? Its a combination of parts, which is a combination of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. If we were using realism, we would want to know every single detail of that truck down to its atomic level. Anti-realism allows us to take higher level properties such as, "I press the pedal and it go zoom." as a 'truck'. Notice that anti-realism does not mean a labeling system that is at odds with reality. It just means constructing a notion of reality that does not necessarily involve all of the specifics.

Realism: I speak into my phone and it transmits a microwave radiation out to a cell tower which interprets it, sends it out to be captured by another phone which creates a series of electrical impulses into speakers that emulate my voice. — Philosophim

That seems like a mistaken notion of what realism is. Also that is how talking on the phone works since sound is pressure waves that our brains turn into sound. So I’m guessing that means realism is true?

But it does more than that. Yes. there is an external reality, but no, we don’t see it as it is. That surely provides scope for philosophical analysis, doesn’t it? — Wayfarer

Not really no. What I know is that science works and built the world and that there is an external reality. To the extent that we see it as it is is debatable but a moot point to me.

I've found this video very insightful regarding this question. It's exploring basically the same question as you're asking — Wayfarer

My main issue is the existence of external reality, and the video says yes which is the main issue I have

No. The paper doesn't suggest that we can't trust science. Or the scientific method.
If you pay attention to the bottom-up and top-down (theory) influences that the paper explained, you will understand that when the evidence (facts) are strong, our theory or schema does not override this objective information. Only in cases where the supposedly objective information or facts are ambiguous, then we have the problem of theory-ladenness. — L'éléphant

There's a bit at the end of the paper that shows that theories can override our memory and interpretations even if the data is strong.

Of course not. Science works pretty damn well. If you were an astronaut would you distrust the science that got you to the moon and back? The proof is in the pudding. — jgill

But the evidence showing how theories can alter our perception...

Perhaps the most important thing to learn in such discussions is that existential topics (including the question of suicide) are mostly pointless to try to discuss with others, and that this is due to the nature of those topics. — baker

Maybe, but they are also extremely important. To be honest such questions are more important than ontological or metaphysical stuff.

The OP makes the error of implying that death is something that individuals can opt for or against. — LuckyR

Well you can, it's just that death wins in the end.

But perhaps overthinking it leads to insights.

"Overthinking it", in philosophy, is far from a bad thing — Moliere

In my experience it leads to more words but not really saying anything. Furthermore in my experience there are no insights in philosophy, just people with their own theories who can't agree on anything.

I'm saying there is a 70% chance it won't be at a suicide inducing level in the future. — LuckyR

And I'm saying you don't know that.

So this means you are not going to explain how they know particles are in a state of superposition at exactly the moment they are not measuring them, or what? — Gregory

Again it just simply is, I'm not a physicist myself but that's how they are. As someone who is if you want specifics.

I don’t know how general the inscrutability of reference is; whether it goes “all the way down,” so to speak. What if Quine had used “truth” instead of “rabbit,” e.g., as the thing being referenced as “gavagai”? The linguist visiting the tribe could be supposed to follow a simple if-then argument between speakers, using words she already knows, and then a native listener smiles, nods, and says “Gavagai!” Our linguist wants to ask “Do you mean ‛That’s true’?” but since that’s impossible to ask, what should she do next? — J

I think Quine is just massively overthinking it. This is something most people engage in on a daily basis, if we're wrong in our assumptions we can just ask and work it out. If we can't speak the same language all there really is to do is figure it out.

But if his grand insight is that we'll never be able to truly understand someone else's perspective or worldview, that's got nothing to do with language. The reality is we aren't the other person. Even if the language is the same we cannot truly be them without some mind-link device. But that doesn't mean we can't try, I mean it's worked out pretty well so far.

Like I said above, the dude is unknowingly arguing against communication, the thought experiment doesn't help that case.

Though I will say this:

Holism: This is the notion that the meaning of an individual word is tied to its place in the whole language. Thus, to truly understand “Gavagai,” one might need to understand the entire language and culture it comes from.

Isn't true. Maybe for a some words and maybe some languages (though not very many) but on a whole the words aren't really tied to their place in the language. You don't need to know the whole language to understand some words in say Spanish, and definitely not the culture. The only real thing is the vosotros which is in Spain.

I can see why people argued his theory is false.

Ok. I'll leave you to it. — Banno

You're saying he's not when that's what the argument is pointing to, even why that's a common criticism of him. You're not really making a good case for the alternative.

Quine? No, he isn't arguing against communication. More that he's pointing out that communication takes place despite such issues. — Banno

He is arguing against it though. Especially in that thought experiment, I mean...he might as well quite writing philosophy at that point if that's his argument.

What do you make of it? — Banno

Sounds like overthinking it to me, no wonder people accused him of being a relativist or a scientific skeptic. The dude is more or less arguing against communication just because language isn't perfect and neither is translation.

Like...what exactly is the point of bringing that up and to what end? Like...I'm finding it hard to take him seriously because it just sounds dramatic. Yeah there is a chance we might not mean the same thing, but people do this all the time, they just ask what they mean when it's not clear. Apart from that we just trust, especially if we speak the same language. Otherwise what's the point of making and sharing a language if you're just gonna constantly doubt if they mean the same thing?

In all honesty I can see why people call his argument wrong.

You read the reference from the wiki yet? — Moliere

Still reads like he's mistaken IMO. I don't think a sentence can be translated in more than one way, but context does change that.

One phrase would be like "netflix and chill" which most take to me code for sex, unless you are on the spectrum or out of the culture and literally see it as just watching movies (I'll admit I've done this).

If we were not in communication with others, there would be nothing on which to base the idea of being wrong, or, therefore, of being right, either in what we say or in what we think. — Davidson, Indeterminism and Antirealism

I dunno about that one.

For Quine, there is no fact of the mater. Others differ. — Banno

That was sorta my other take on him, but I still don't really think he's right in his conclusions. I'm pretty sure I say a paper proving his theory wrong and himself mistaken.

That's it? No explanation? — Gregory

I mean...you either get QM or not, it's solid math so there ain't much else to say.

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable? — Gregory

And that's where I stop taking you seriously.

Yup, same thing. I don't "know" the store is still standing until I arrive there (which is some time in the future from when I set out from my home), you don't "know" your grief is temporary until it passes at some time in the future. Not difficult to grasp. — LuckyR

Not really, this is more like predicting future events. The store still standing is pretty much likely apart from a bomb going off or something.

But you prove my point, you don't know your grief is temporary so telling someone it is when you don't know isn't an answer just because other's was. It's like for those whom it wasn't they took their lives.

Just so you know, retrospective knowledge (what you call "hindsight"), is in fact knowledge. And as knowledge, is extremely valuable ("valid") to normal people (including yourself). When I hop in my car and drive to the store, do I "know" that the store is still there? No I don't "know" that, but I know it was there yesterday and that I haven't heard that some sort of incident occurred overnight. — LuckyR

Not the same thing.

You’re making a claim that something doesn’t last forever which can only be known in hindsight. Telling someone with suicide that is lying because you can’t predict the future.

Whenever we are met with an influence, interaction, or probabilistic correlation that may seem to go faster than the speed of light we either devolve into rather esoteric notions of 'action-at-a-distance' again or postulate that the fastest possible manner in which something can influence something else (the speed of local causation) isn't actually exhibited by any known signal. Photons are the fastest influence we have access to but there could be physical signals or interactions that violate this in undetectable manners. — substantivalism

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense — Gregory

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction

There are several interpretations which disagree with this though, including Bohmian and Many Worlds. — Apustimelogist

That's not what non locality here means and Many Worlds is tenuous at best.

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't — Gregory

It's not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other.

think the reason why you choose to remain silent on it and cite sources is because either you'd be shown as a dogmatist who can't think beyond his textbooks or your literally start talking about things that philosophers of science have discussed to death already. — substantivalism

They haven't discussed it to death, in fact they can't settle on anything. You're just making noise because what you offer has no real value to science, not anymore anyway. Maybe when it still had it's birth as natural philosophy but science has grown past that point to where philosophy just gets in the way.

Explain to me why the word analogy doesn't fit? With a cited source? — substantivalism

You don't need cited sources when it comes to philosophy, it's all just arguments.

Again, engage with the science, not this philosophy of science noise where they can't agree on anything.

. . . and your trying so hard to not have a discussion about things that confuse laymen all the time. I see tons of questions by such people all the time asking if the statements made by popular pop-cultural depictions of scientific facts or by actual scientists themselves are 'true' or 'mere language games/metaphor'. — substantivalism

They aren't saying that. And the answer to that question is NO. The sensationalism behind QM isn't true. People just like to co-opt it for their pet theory because we don't fully understand it, therefore magic, therefor....my nonsense is true because quantum.

To draw back to the actual subject, I asked physicists and they all said this non locality doesn't really affect your day to day life and even then we aren't entirely sure how it does this. Quantum physics is hard to put into daily words because we still don't have the entire picture yet. This is bleeding edge science after all.

Kind of a dud answer if all you're gonna say is "it's subjective".

First, I said it's usually temporary, not always temporary. — LuckyR

You can't even say that, again it's hindsight.

Second, while "some people" never get over their girlfriend's breaking up with them, wouldn't a normal person be interested in knowing that historically that number of "some people" is way less than 5%? — LuckyR

We don't know that.

So, if I'm stressed out enough by my girlfriend dumping me to consider suicide, the feeling that I'll be this stressed out for the rest of my life according to you is: "valid", but the advice that the Suicide Prevention Hotline person tells me that I'll likely get over it (and her) is: "hindsight" and therefore : "invalid"? — LuckyR

The suicide prevention hotline has a success rate of barely 50% so their assessment on a problem isn’t exactly valid.

And yeah the advice they give you is hindsight, they can’t see the future. Some people never get over something and they just suffer in torment at feeling like they should be when they don’t.

You just don’t have a counterargument to what is obvious hindsight. You don’t know the future so you can’t say it’s a temporary problem.

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that? — Gregory

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle.

Read a scientific journal on the topic matter. . . a quick search got me this paper on hydrodynamic analogue modeling for gravitational modeling (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511105). Clearly, a hydrodynamical analogy is much more amenable to investigate or wrap your head around than talking about the forest of pure math approaches to quantum gravity along with the unclear, vague, or esoteric language that accompanies it. This is a valid approach — substantivalism

I have read some but to use the word analogy means you don’t understand what is going on and what they’re doing.

You think the math is the pure data and it has to be translated to language and that’s just not what’s going on.

Again you keep trying to make philosophy valid where it isn’t. This is just noise.

This isn't only limited to gravity as here is a huge plethora of quantum analogue models along with well needed discussions as to the place or importance of them. Happy reading! — substantivalism

I know you didn’t really these, you literally quoted the first paragraph. Not only do you not understand what science is doing but you link evidence to the contrary, nice work.

Like I said, it’s noise. Maybe read what you link first before posting. Again, that’s not what’s happening in science.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe position and momentum aren't really the fundamental building blocks of existence, but maybe the wave function itself (which describes a probability distribution of position or momentum) is the true existence of the particle. — Brendan Golledge

They are and it's not.

So you are trying to find the right terms to interpret a mathematical model. Language games again. — substantivalism

Not language games, just that translating the math is hard because quantum physics isn't exactly intuitive.

These mental tools do not need a degree for someone to fully analyze it or get it on first viewing. — substantivalism

Yes they do, otherwise you end up with people like you talking about things they don't understand.

When a scientist has constructed explanations of phenomena they make use of something other than purely descriptive or mathematical terms. They use an assortment of analogies to other phenomenon — substantivalism

No they're not. We have data and then determine what that data means. If you put sodium in water and it explodes you can reason that sodium and water create that reaction.

Usually going along the same lines as saying 'let us treat light as if it were a wave', 'imagine that the electron is small ball and the nucleus is a dense collection', or 'pretend that atoms in lattices are balls connected by springs'. — substantivalism

Not language games and not what they do.

These are analogue modeling which is extremely prevalent and a fundamental fiction creating tool which physicists use all the time. — substantivalism

Not fiction.

I'd say that is all that the majority of what a scientific interpretation of a theory is composed of.

How else would you explain to someone what a mathematical model even means when there are no familiar, direct, and meaningful concepts? — substantivalism

Easily, we do it every day. Math is part of how we get the result but that's not all physics is. You're just making shit up that scientists don't do to try to justify that philosophy has some use when it's long been obsolete in navigating the world apart from ethics and morality.

You can call research and experience "hindsight", if you want to. And "knowing what's gonna happen" isn't the requirement to make life decisions, otherwise no one would decide anything. — LuckyR

Knowing what's going to happen is a requirement, that's how we make decisions. We do what we think is best based on reasons.

But seriously, we're in agreement that being in the state of mind to seriously contemplate suicide pretty much guarantees the individual is unlikely to be able to process counterintuitive data. Hence the need to broadcast what is known in general from past experience. — LuckyR

No we're not, because the alternative data is just hindsight and is invalid.

Suppose spacetime is fundamentally entangled ... — 180 Proof

From what I gather it doesn't mean much for our day to day lives, but for quantum cryptography maybe.

Arrogance is showing a good peak here rivaling mine. Perhaps I should be the adult in the conversation here — substantivalism

It’s just facts. Most of the nonsense I heard around this is just misunderstanding the science.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't partake in it or that you don't ALREADY partake in it even if you say 'you don't — substantivalism

That’s actually a good reason to not partake in it and why I don’t.

If its meant to explain why something occurs then your going to need a proper language and collection of metaphors to do so otherwise nobody will think you even understand what your even talking about. — substantivalism

No it doesn’t. Like I said we have data and it adds up. This is really only an issue with QM where things are harder to figure because it’s still pretty new.

Oh we know how nature works we just can't put into the right words. . . so a language choice is required. . . its as if we need to have a discussion about what terms we use. . . you know. . . indulge in a language game of sorts. — substantivalism

Wrong again. It’s not really the terms it’s just trying to translate the math to people speak. The problem is that much of QM is still unknown, even this locality stuff. This is already far removed from the OP.

Neither does science then if the problem is that IT DOESN'T have any coherent picture or as you put it, '. . . regular speak is the issue.' — substantivalism

It does, but in the case of QM you need a degree to understand it. Even then they don’t fully know everything because there’s much to cover.

Like…this entire reply was just noise and trying to give philosophy more due and use than it really has when it comes to this.

Uummm... no. 1) the reasons for most suicides are temporary. 2) many lay persons don't realize that.

It behooves all of us to make fact #1 more widely appreciated. — LuckyR

Ummm...yes. The reasons for suicide aren't temporary, we just say that because of hindsight. At that moment you don't know what's gonna happen.

Think of Stephen King's Mist where the dad offs everyone in the car at the end because there is no guarantee the horrors will be gone and they can't live like that. Later the mists lifts but regret remains. But again it's hindsight.

Define understanding here as I'm curious if you have in mind what scientific philosophers have in mind when they say that we 'understand' something. — substantivalism

I don't really care because half of what they have to say isn't worth listening to.

Either science only deals in manipulating nature and observational results with NO speculation on the going on of the world beyond our senses therefore being rather explicitly tautological. That or it still indulges in speculative 'nonsense' separate from any observable foundations even conceivably and therefore it indulges in what I'd consider metaphysics. — substantivalism

Or none of that. The whole "world beyond our senses" is just noise from philosophy. What we see is the world and based on the data we have there is no reason to think otherwise. Our senses are fallible but that's what science is for, and it have often shown our intuitions to be mistaken.

How does a mathematical model 'explain' the data? Given physics specifically is really only concerned with mathematically modeling nature and manipulating it to pre-desired or predicted outcomes. — substantivalism

no that's not what physics is about.

Ergo, if you wanted non-philosophical science it would be a rather bland one devoid of all speculation and only ever referencing a particular symbol on the black board or a reading on a detector. All other language would have to be interpreted as mental slight of hand to mean the same thing. — substantivalism

We have non-philosophical science, it's done every day. This nitpicking isn't really yielding anything valuable, this is why I think in terms of science philosophy does nothing. With ethics and morality sure but not science.

Interpretations are entirely subjective and largely pragmatic. YES, science indulges in such nonsense all the time from textbook to textbook as taught to new upcoming physicists on a yearly basis. — substantivalism

Wrong again and kinda shows you don't understand what quantum interpretations are.

YOU SPECULATE ON HOW NATURE WORKS! That is why a SINGLE MATHEMATICAL model can have MULTIPLE inconsistent philosophical interpretations which can all agree on the same observations. — substantivalism

Interpretations aren't philosophical dumbass. We know how nature works based on the math and data, trying to put that into regular speak is the issue.

If its unknown then what is it that science has over philosophy? — substantivalism

Results and data...I would think that's obvious. Philosophy ultimately has nothing at the end of the day. I get that people suggest it has value here and how it teaches you how to think but all my experience with it just shows how pointless 80% of the discussions in it are.

The most worthless question I've heard is "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Who cares? There is something and that's all that matters.

"The Houston study interviewed 153 survivors of nearly-lethal suicide attempts, ages 13-34. — LuckyR

That age range is kinda problematic and the size is too small.

Hence my reference to suicide trying to solve (most commonly) a "temporary problem". — LuckyR

It's only temporary in hindsight, so that statement is false.

There doesn't have to be a consensus because it makes no sense to ask which is 'right' or 'wrong'. Nor does it make sense to ask which is 'closer' to how it really is.

If you want some populist preference to be made clear on a purely subjective affair then sure but otherwise its still entirely up to you as it would be for every person on that ivory tower jury. — substantivalism

Science is consensus, that’s how it works. It makes perfect sense which is right or wrong because one explains the data and the other doesn’t.

The problem with QM is that while the math and data are iron clad trying to explain it is tough. New discoveries might prove some interpretations and invalidate others, but until then it’s largely unknown.

But it’s not a purely subjective affair, that’s just stupid. It’s not up to you because you know nothing about the subject. Like…this has to be the dumbest take I’ve heard on the subject so far.

Not to mention that none of this is relevant to my original post. Though it’s proving my point that philosophical speculation on this stuff is just noise.

I can give a picture of a virus, end of story. I can't of an electron without a tremendous amount of speculative holistic open-ended philosophical interpretation to even analyze the output of said detector. — substantivalism

Well no, philosophy isn’t required and just kicks up the data since philosophers don’t understand what’s going on.

Stuff like this just reinforces my stance that science has advanced beyond philosophy in terms of explanations and knowledge.

It is impossible to communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the Big Bang theory, and a metaphor for accepting the theory blindly with no reasoning or evidence which is similar attitude of blindly accepting the creation of the world episode in Genesis of the Old Testament. — Corvus

No it’s just that you don’t get it and are starting pointless arguments.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence. — Corvus

And this, again, is just ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn't really merit much more engagement than that.

I think we’re lucky to exist. Sure life is unfair and a struggle at times but we’re lucky enough to experience the good that comes from it. You don’t have to be rich to enjoy it, it’s just a ride and getting off it before it finishes hurts (suicide) so just let life play itself out, don’t put too much pressure on yourself, we’re blessed that we get to exist because when we cease to exist that will be forever and it’s a once only event. — kindred

Not even a reply because it's speaking massively of privilege and doesn't grasp the whole scope of life. Outside of modern society life is pretty brutal, and even in society you have to be born lucky to experience the good stuff. Honestly man...have some perspective.

I think it's often the case that people find that there are fewer reasons for living than there are reasons for dying. Sometimes those people choose suicide. It's a common enough phenomenon and there might be many reasons for it. It's been interesting to read people's responses to your OP. What are the least helpful answers here? — Tom Storm

I think the least helpful answers are the ones that insist life has good points or that one is lucky to be alive. That smacks of hindsight bias. I'm not an anti-natalist myself but I find it hard to argue against their claims and reasoning. People who think life is worth living are lucky and shouldn't speak on it's value.

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency. — Corvus

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid.

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB? — Corvus

It's so ignorant that I cannot fathom it.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined. — Brendan Golledge

The anti-realism is based on a misunderstanding of quantum physics, it still hinges on the notion that consciousness is involved when it's not.

The particles exist but their properties are uncertain, or that they can influence each other from a distance.

But bear in mind the physicists don't use the word realism, that's the public. So this doesn't affect our day to day like people think it does, and at the moment it's still uncertain what it actually means.

So the links in my first post I learned can just be ignored as the people in them don't know what it means, not even the guys who discovered this do.