You can decide that facts don't conform with your world view sure, but measurements are measurements.

Well agree to disagree.
Again quantum mechanics is said to be true in all frames of reference.

So you are going too far if you think that minds somehow reflect reality in some true fashion. As I say, you are leaving out the self-interested reasons of the modeller, as well as the modeller's desire for modelling efficiency. — apokrisis

How could you possibly know this?
This is just a bald assertion.

You would have to know what is true reality to say that minds do not reflect that reality, which then of course would be refuted by your assertion that minds cannot know true reality.


You have basically ignored my question in this post.
What useful results does the assumption that there is no objective reality bring?
How is it useful to assume there either are no laws of nature without observers, or that the laws of nature are different in frames without observers?

As far as I am aware no great discoveries or breakthroughs have come about as result of that assumption.
The same is not true about the assumption that there are objective laws of nature and they are the same in all frames of reference.

So for me there is not much point in pursuing that assumption, in fact I don't think it can produce results.

Again quantum mechanics does not disprove realism.
If it did that would be quite remarkable.
Further the Einstein Bohr debates were not about the principle of relativity.
In quantum mechanics there are no frames of reference where quantum mechanics does not apply.

No I measure 6 ft.
I don't interpret it.

I am talking about the principle of relativity, not the theory of relativity.
The principle of relativity is the principle that the laws of nature are the same in all frames of reference.

It is the assumption that there is an objective reality.

My point is that this assumption is extremely useful.
The assumption that there is not an objective reality (different/no laws when there is no observer) appears to be useless.

Art is a way to experience and express culture.
As a purpose it serves to reinforce your identity.

I would have thought that if it had been discovered that the principle of relativity had been violated I would have heard about this.
Do you have some source?

I never said models should be simulations.
I implied that a model was useful if it produced results and assuming that our models are about reality rather than about our minds is extremely useful in that it produces very reliable results.
That models are as simple as possible but predict as much as possible does not negate that those models presume that nature is an objective thing that exists independent of the human mind.

What results are produced by the model that we cannot know what is really real?
Does this foundational assumption produce any results?
Does it unify different theories under a single model or produce better predictions than the models that presume the principle of relativity?

Suppose I tell you my height is 6 ft tall.
How is that fact just an interpretation?

Sometimes depression can be debilitating and people lose functionality because of it.
This greatly reduces the quality of their lives..
Often they resort to treatment as a last resort, as it is the nature of depression.
So it is only when the depression becomes too much to handle that people suffering then seek treatment.
What the medical field suggests is that you seek treatment not as a last resort but as soon as your functionality is compromised.

So it is not that manageable depression is regarded as an illness, but rather that unmanageable depression is an illness and it is an illness that often gets worse without treatment.

There are two distinct ways in which the word truth is used.

When you believe something is true because there is strong evidence and or good reasoning to support the claims.

And when you believe something is true because you lack any doubt about that belief.

The models are useful because they help to achieve some end, that's what being useful is. Whether or not they are "of something real" is irrelevant to whether or not they are useful — Metaphysician Undercover

This is where we disagree.
If our models were not of something real then it seems to me that they should not produce useful results.

That seems intuitively obvious, but I think that the 'nature' which you say our minds 'reproduce', is also a mental artefact. — Wayfarer

Yes, but what does this belief contribute?

What breakthroughs has it lead to?

Also I pointed out that if we can't know what is real because everything is a mind artifact then we can't know that those artifacts don't model reality accurately.

Because these are things which are done by minds, and all of our examples of them, are done by minds. If it happens in nature, then this is something other than what we are talking about, because we are talking about the instances which are done by minds. Why would we assume that the thing which minds do, happens in nature without a mind? We see that minds do very special things, creating products, manufacturing, and all sorts of artificial things. Why would we think that what a mind does would happen naturally without any minds? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you have it backwards.

Our minds reproduce what occurs in nature and not that nature arranges itself to conform with what occurs in our minds.

Also this does not really answer my question.
How do you know that these things do not occur in nature.
That you have a mind is not proof that these things do not occur without minds.

An end is a goal, so to be justifiable means that the end is demonstrably good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that this follows.
We must know the ends that justify the means or we can not be sure the means are real.
To me it seems you are appealing to some teleology here.
How can you be sure that in order for something to be real it must rely upon teleology?

So whether or not our models are useful is not at all an issue. Of course they are useful, or else we would not produce them, we only produce them for a particular purpose, and if a model did not fulfil that purpose it would be thrown away, and we'd choose another instead. The issue is "what is that purpose". — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not what I asked, I asked why should they be useful at all if they are not models of something real?

To "navigate reality" does not answer that question at all, because this only constitutes a coherent purpose in relation to a further purpose, which tells us where we want to go in our navigation. Navigating is meaningless nonsense unless there is some place where you are going, because "navigating" refers to the means (how to get there) rather than the end (where you are going). — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe it doesn't answer the question of where we are going, but it does seem odd, to me at least, that we should regard reality as a thing unknown and then marvel at the miracle that our arbitrary quantification of reality should meet with any results.
Or it could be that our quantification are not arbitrary they are tuned to obtain real results in a real world.

Well actually that is why I was discussing the argument with aletheist in symbolic form.

But we can't even agree what the argument being made is.

If you wanted to discuss the argument in logical form I would be happy to do that.

P therefor P is a circular argument.
To my understanding circular arguments are not regarded as valid justification of claims.

That is fine.
I just don't agree with the logical form of the argument you used to get there.

Yes except it is contradictory to say it would be true that there would be no truths for example.
In logic at least that is contradictory in the sense that it is self refuting.

This is necessarily true - if P, then P - and thus obviously not self-contradictory. — aletheist

No the argument is not if P then P

The argument is if ~P then ~Q
where p if there is there are minds
and q then there are truths

I still see that as self refuting because would not be true that there were no truths

Sure that seems reasonable, if it were that judgments and truths were the same thing.

I am a person that does not know much about philosophy and I talk to myself all the time.
So yes, yes I do.

Why should we have to substitute these terms if they are equivalent?

No I don't agree with that view.

The argument is the combination of both statements
~P--->~Q
And not Q is still self refuting

I am done with worlds.

I will simply have to take your word for it.

~P = if there were not minds in our actual world
then
~Q = there would not be truths in our actual world

Is the inverse of

P = If there are minds in the actual world
then
Q = there are truths in the actual world

But this part in particular is self refuting in my view
"There are no truths".
I can make no sense of the notion that it can be true that there are no truths.
I can make sense of this as false.

Perhaps that is a different topic you could post.

That is irrelevant. Do you agree that the following statement is NOT self-contradictory? — aletheist

What statement?

And I offered to concede the point that it may be true and that we can't know.

The only way that an if-then statement can be self-contradictory is if the antecedent is P and the consequent is not-P. That is not the case here, so there is no self-contradiction. — aletheist

If there are no minds = P
Then there are no truths =Q (self refuting)

As far as I can tell there is no possible world argument such that it is necessarily true that truth depends upon minds and only minds.

I can't even make out a modal argument that this is the possible case.

You are saying that world y contains world x.
Same difference.

Or your stubbornness.

Old ground

Let say world x is a set.
You are saying there is set such that the set is empty and such that the set does not contain itself which we will call x.
You then proceed to say that set y contains the set x that is empty but that set x contains itself.
That is a contradiction..

Which

And according to Terrapin Station, at that point in time in this world, there were no truths. But he is asserting that now, when there are minds and truths. Obviously no one asserted it back then. — aletheist

Yes this is circular, truth depends on minds, because there are minds now therefor truth depends upon them..
.

It is true that at one point in this world there were no minds, so world x is just a reference to that point in time in this world.

It is you two that want to use world x and world y.

I simplified the gist in a much earlier post.
We can simply examine the claim that if there are no minds there are no truths in this world.

But I suspect you want to keep world y around so you can keep doing this circular reasoning thing.

Yes
That is why it is a redundant step.
If they are identical you can just one symbol and it will represent the same thing.

No if you claim it is true about world world x that there are no truths that is a contradiction because it is the case about world x that there are no truths.