right, so you saying table is concrete and photon is not is... not quite it then is it? — flannel jesus

I'm trying to distinguish between the word "table" which exists in language and a table which I don't believe exists in the world.

I believe that what does exist in the world are fundamental particles and forces, such as electrons and photons.

Similarly, I believe that the word "photon" exists in language and photons exist in the world.

It takes the word out of the context of mathematics, it doesn't bring metaphor into mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

As with Berkeley's Absolute Idealism, ideas exist in the mind and the material world only exists as ideas in the mind.

You mentioned multiplication. Addition is also a fundamental concept in mathematics, and as a concept only exists in the mind.

What does "+" mean?

It doesn't literally mean +, as this would be a tautology. It must mean something other than it is. The most basic interpretation of addition is in the combining of sets.

When two or more sets are combined into a single set, the number of objects in the single set is the sum of the number of objects in the original sets (Wikipedia - addition).

A metaphor is a figure of speech that in mentioning one thing actually refers to another thing. For example, the symbol "+" in mathematics refers to the combining of sets.

Even the word "set" in set theory is a metaphor. In set theory a set is a collection of distinct objects considered as a whole.

As a metaphor is a figure of speech that in mentioning one thing actually refers to another thing, a collection of distinct objects refers to these distinct objects being considered as a whole.

The concept of addition can be used outside mathematics, as in "it doesn't add up" but can also be used within mathematics, as in addition is the combining of sets.

The only way a set of distinct objects can be thought of as a whole is metaphorically.

I actually think a table is MORE abstract than a photon. — flannel jesus

My belief is in Nominalism, in that "table" only exists as the name of a concept.

My belief is also in Realism, in that there is something in the world that caused us to see a "table", and this something is real, and is made up of elementary particles, such as electrons.

sorry buddy, "table" is a concept in the English language, and concepts are something abstract. — flannel jesus

But then again, the concept of a table may be an abstract thing, but the content of the concept is a concrete thing, a table.

So give me an example of something material. — flannel jesus

If the meaning of the concept "table" is about something material, then the meaning of the concept "thought" is about something immaterial.

This fits in with the Merriam Webster definition of material as "relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter" and immaterial as "not consisting of matter".

Surely mathematical concepts cannot be classified as metaphorical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Taking one example, that of the mathematical concept of zero.

A metaphor is a figure of speech that in mentioning one thing actually refers to another thing, such as "all the world's a stage".

As with Derrida's concept of différance, absence is as important as presence. It is the absence of meaning that allows the presence of interpretation to emerge (Wikipedia - Jacques Derrida).

Zero is metaphorical in that it turns absence into presence. Zero refers to nothing, but it has the sense of something.

Words need boundaries. Words without boundaries are usually words without meaning. If everything is immaterial, the designation "immaterial" has no weight. — flannel jesus

In a language of abstract concepts, there are still boundaries, Such as between chair and non-chair, material and immaterial.

As with Derrida's "différance", the meaning of "material" arises from its relationship with "immaterial".

Sure, BUT if you're calling photons "immaterial" as if to compare them to something abstract, I think that's a mistake. Matter or not, mass or not, they're a part of physics. — flannel jesus

But "photon" is a concept in the English language, and concepts are something abstract.

The sense of a concept is abstract. Its reference may be concrete, even if we never know the concrete reality.

From SEP - Concepts

An alternative conception of concepts takes concepts to be abstract objects of one type or another.

I think "photon" is a concept created in an attempt to explain the photoelectric effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is the nature of language, where concepts are about the sense of things in the world rather than refer to things in the world (Frege).

Scientific language is full of figures of speech. Andrew May in Metaphors in Science 2000 makes the point that even Newton's second law is probably a metaphor.

"In his article on the use of metaphors in physics (November issue, page 17), Robert P Crease describes several interesting trees but fails to notice the wood all around him. What is a scientific theory if not a grand metaphor for the real world it aims to describe? Theories are generally formulated in mathematical terms, and it is difficult to see how it could be argued that, for example, F = ma "is" the motion of an object in any literal sense. Scientific metaphors possess uniquely powerful descriptive and predictive potential, but they are metaphors nonetheless. If scientific theories were as real as the world they describe, they would not change with time (which they do, occasionally). I would even go so far as to suggest that an equation like F = ma is a culturally specific metaphor, in that it can only have meaning in a society that practices mathematical quantification in the way that ours does. Before I'm dismissed as a loopy radical, I should point out that I'm a professional physicist who has been using mathematical metaphors to describe the real world for the last twenty years!"

In other words, "force" is purely conceptual. It is only one of a number of conceptions which can be applied toward representing the effects of gravity, but not the only one. "Force" doesn't represent gravity, it is a method of categorizing the effects of gravity. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are two ways of looking at it.

One way is that "gravity is a force". "Gravity" and "the force of gravity" are synonyms, as the hotness of a body is the motion of its constituent parts.

The other way is that "gravity has a force". Gravity can be quantified by a force, as the hotness of a body can be quantified by temperature.
===============================================================================

I made no conclusion about God. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that the following is still relevant to Berkeley's Idealism and ‘esse est percipi’.

A photon is an example of a massless particle.

A massless particle may be defined as immaterial.

I agree when you say "and suggested that if a person believes in the real existence of massless particles, then they believe in the real existence of the immaterial"

I believe in the real existence of the immaterial.

But you also said "In the first example there is thoughts, conception etc., and in the second there is God. Each case uses "Immaterial" in the same way, by the same definition."

So, both photons and God are immaterial, where immaterial means the same thing.

But if a person believes in the real existence of photons then they believe in the real existence of the immaterial.

But if a person believes in the real existence of the immaterial, and God is immaterial, then should not a person believe in the real existence of God?

That article also says unambiguously that photons are STUFF, like matter. So if we're going by that article, photons are material, as are electrons and protons and neutrons — flannel jesus

Yes, Strassler's article says that photons are material (stuff).

But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
Photons are stuff; energy is not.

But, today, matter is commonly defined as something that has mass, meaning that a photon must be immaterial.

In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume (Wikipedia - Matter)

Whether a photon is material or immaterial depends on one's particular viewpoint.

If matter just is energy then, then photons are material. Are electrons, protons and neutrons material in your opinion? — Janus

I don't know.

Some physicists say that matter is just stable energy. For example, Wilhelm Ostwald regards energy as a form of substance.
https://readfeynman.blogspot.com/2017/04/section-41-what-is-energy.html

Other physicists say that matter is categorically distinct from energy. For example, Matt Strassler.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
===============================================================================

That would be an invalid inference. — Janus

This is my point.

So we have two very different ways to conceive what you call "gravitational force". One is as a force, the other as a property of spacetime. The latter is distinctly not "a force" — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there are at least two ways to think of gravity. One is as a force and one is as the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass energy.

The NASA article refers to the first way

Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun.

The article on General Relativity refers to the second way

Gravity isn't a force, it's the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass-energy.

===============================================================================

Can you agree that a person can know one's past and cannot know one's future, and because of this we ought to conclude that there is a real difference between past and future? — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, there is a real difference between past and future.
===============================================================================

I don't think those two examples constitute two different meanings. They are applying the same definition of "immaterial" to refer to different things......................................And if such things are believed to be real, independent and not merely conceptual, then we'd have a belief in the real existence of the immaterial. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you are are making a logical leap too far.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "immaterial" as "not consisting of matter".

As photons don't consist of matter, they can be considered immaterial.

The article Immateriality of God writes

The immateriality of God simply means that God is not composed of material.

Premise 1 - God is immaterial
Premise 2 - Photons are immaterial
Premise 3 - Photons have a real existence

Conclusion - as some immaterial things have a real existence and as God is immaterial then God has a real existence.

If a human observer cannot know the future, but can know the past, this implies a real difference between future and past. How can a determinist adequately account for this difference? — Metaphysician Undercover

Even someone who believes in Determinism may know their past but cannot know their future.
===============================================================================

If the determinist laws (the laws of physics which support one's belief in determinism), are not believed to extend to all parts of the universe, then how is the belief in determinism supported — Metaphysician Undercover

In the same way that mathematicians have a belief in the axioms they use, statements assumed to be true as a starting point for further reasoning.
===============================================================================

Wouldn't it be possible that nondeterministic activity reigned in some part of the universe, and there could be some interaction between the various parts? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it is possible, but so far science does not seem to have found such nondeterministic activity.
===============================================================================

The question is, what supports the belief that the supposed hidden variables are deterministic. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not a physicist, but I do know that there are some physicists that I trust, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, who do believe in Superdeterminism.
===============================================================================

A person who believes in free will, and the reality of the immaterial in general, does not allow that Newton's first law extends to a living body moved by final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

On the one hand, some believe in Physicalism, that everything is physical, and there is nothing beyond the physical realm.

On the other hand, some believe in the immaterial.

It depends what is meant by the word "immaterial".

The article What Sorts of Things Exist, & How? writes

But the immaterial things are the philosophically more interesting. These include consciousness, thoughts, words, meanings, concepts, numbers, emotions, intentions, volitions, moral principles, aesthetic experiences, and more. What would philosophy be without them?

However, the article Immateriality of God writes

The immateriality of God simply means that God is not composed of material. In other words, God is not made of any kind of matter, material, or substance which entails that he cannot be seen.

There are different meanings to "immaterial".

What causes the stone to fall is gravity. "Force" is not an independent thing in the world which causes anything. "Force" is a mathematical concept, how we quantify the effects of things like gravity. — Metaphysician Undercover

The equation ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$ describes the position of a stone above the ground dropped from rest with time under gravity.

We could say "gravity causes the stone to fall".

We can quantify the force of gravity. On Earth, the average gravitational force is about 9.81 m/s². On the Moon, it is about 1.63 m/s².

However, if gravity had zero force, 0.00 m/s², the stone would not fall.

So we cannot say that it is gravity per se that causes the stone to fall, but rather it is the force of gravity that causes the stone to fall.

So really, "it is the force of gravity that causes the stone to fall".

Actually that's untrue, because without ontological commitment to universal quantification over absolute infinity, one cannot distinguish the hypothesis of determinism from its anti-thesis. — sime

I have the belief that ontological Determinism is true, in that all events in the Universe can occur in only one possible way.

But I am not committed to my belief and have not suspended any scepticism towards my belief, because I accept that tomorrow someone using a persuasive argument may change my mind. I doubt it, but who knows.

However, for the moment, for me, ontological Determinism is a good working hypothesis.

Yes, that is perfectly reasonable as an informal description of gravity when describing a particular case of motion in the concrete rather than in the abstract — sime

In language, one can justly say that "the force of gravity causes a stone to move towards the ground". Some of these words are figures of speech, some are concrete and some are abstract.
===============================================================================

as Russell observed, in such cases the concept of causality can be eliminated from the description. — sime

In physics, one can justly write that ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$. This equation predicts the position of the stone with time under a gravitational force. The concept of cause within the equation is redundant.

But a sentence and an equation are very different things. The sentence is about why something happens, "why did the stone fall towards the ground, because of the force of gravity". The equation is about how the stone falls towards the ground, ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$.

It is true that the concept of causality may be removed from an equation, but not true that the concept of causality can be removed from language.
===============================================================================

But determinism takes the causal "determination" of movement by gravity literally, universally and outside of the context of humans determining outcomes — sime

From Britannica - Determinism

The thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.

There is a difference between what happens and why it happens. Equations are about what happens not why it happens. Equations are about predictions not causes. It is true that Determinism, as Britannica notes, is the thesis that all events are casually inevitable, universally and outside any human observation.

The equation ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$ is about what happens, not why ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$.

Why ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$ is, according to Determinism, causally inevitable.
===============================================================================

and in a way that requires suspension of Humean skepticism due to the determinist's apparent ontological commitment to universal quantification over generally infinite domains. — sime

That all events in the universe are causally inevitable is the thesis of Determinism. A thesis is an hypothesis, not an ontological commitment. As a thesis, it accepts that it may be proved wrong, in the same way that the equation ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$ may be proved wrong. A thesis does not require a suspension of scepticism, which is why it is a thesis.

Both Determinism and the equation ${s = 0.5 * g * t^{2}}$ may be thought of as axioms, statements taken to be true or self-evident, and serve as a premise for further reasoning.

The distance (amount of space) between any two things at some "point in time" is not dependent on perception, even though the measurement of that distance can be said to be so. — Janus

As regards the second point, yes, the actual measurement of distance between two points in space is dependent on human observation.

But as regards the first point, what is the true reality of the space between two points?

What is empty space?

Even if there is no empty space and every part of the universe contains fluctuating energy fields, what is the nature of the space that contains these fluctuating energy fields?

Was Newton right, that space is an absolute existing independently of any objects within it, or was Leibniz right that space is only defined by the relation of objects within it?

How is "several possible futures" consistent with determinism? — Metaphysician Undercover

My intention was that from the viewpoint of a human observer, even in a deterministic world, they cannot know the future.
===============================================================================

Meanwhile, "God's Will" is a sound theory, supported by the experience of every human being who makes choices. And "superdeterminism" is just the pie-in -the-sky clutching at straws of deluded determinists. — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends on whether one believes that there is a divine entity or there is nothing over and above the physical.
===============================================================================

On the other hand, we can say that Newton's first law applies only to the aspects of the universe which our sense capacities allow us to observe................................we have no reason to believe that it behaves in the same way as the part which we can observe. — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't need to know whether Newton's Laws apply to those parts of the Universe that we don't observe, we only need to know that they apply to the parts of the Universe that we do observe.
===============================================================================

That sounds just like "God's Will". However, there is one big difference. "God's Will" is consistent with human experience of choice, free will, the known difference between past and future, and our knowledge of final cause, while "superdeterminism" is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

In Determinism, the changes a human makes to their present are determined by the past.

It seems that in In God's Will, the changes a human makes to their present are determined by the final cause, the unmoved mover. A human's will is free providing they use their will to move towards this final cause, this unmoved mover.

a commitment to determinism looks like a metaphysical commitment to the objective existence of intentional forces of agency (i.e. spirits) that exist above and beyond the physically describable aspects of substances. — sime

A stone falls to the ground under gravity.

Materialism was the old term that just referred to matter, the stone and the Earth. Physicalism is the new term that refers to both matter and force, gravity. Though sometimes Materialism and Physicalism are still used interchangeably (Wikipedia - Physcialism)

The movement of the stone is determined by the force of gravity.

It is part of the nature of language that many words are being used as figures of speech rather than literally, such as "determined". Also included are metaphor, simile, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, irony and idiom.

What is a table to you, is a meal to a termite, and a landing place to a bird. — Wayfarer

True. As an Indirect Realist, I don't believe that tables exist in a mind-independent world, but only exist in the mind as a human concept.

However, some do believe that tables exist in a mind-independent world, and as such are objects rather than relations.

Without wanting to wade into the endless quantum quandries...................................But it seems irrefutable nowadays, that at a fundamental level, physical reality is not fully determined. — Wayfarer

Neither do I. I am sure that science in the future will look back at current knowledge on quantum mechanics as we look back to alchemy.

But today not everyone agrees. Some believe in Superdeterminism, in that there are hidden variables that we do not yet know about.

Superdeterminism - Why Are Physicists Scared of It? - Sabine Hossenfelder

Newton's laws cannot account for the reality of free will, where the cause of motion is internal to the body which accelerates. — Metaphysician Undercover

True. When thinking about the equation f=ma, in determinism force is a physical thing whereas in free will force is a mental thing.

In determinism there is no place for Aristotle's final cause, whereas in free will there is.

In determinism, an object moves because of a prior physical cause whereas in free will an object moves because of a future mental goal.

There is only one past, one present and several possible futures.

In determinism, the one past determines the one present.

In free will, as there is only one present, one of the several possible futures must have been chosen, and it is this choice that determines the one present.

Even in fee will, the present has been determined.

The mind does make mistakes, but it is a lot cleverer than that. It judges the size of distant objects by comparing their height with other objects in the field of vision. It knows the actual height of the other objects, so it can work out the height of the unknown object.
So, yes, it creates a perception, but not necessarily a false one. — Ludwig V

If object A is 1.8 metre in size and object B is 1.7m in size, then there is a relation between their sizes. Does this relation exist in the mind, the world or both?

Every object in the Universe has a size, from a quark to a galaxy, so there is a relation between every possible pair of objects in the Universe.

If there were only 2 objects in the universe there is one relation. If there were only 3 objects in the universe there are 3 relations. If there were only 4 objects in the universe there are 6 relations. IE, in the Universe, there are more relations than objects.

If relations do exist in an ontological sense in the world, then there are more relations than actual objects.

Where did these extra relations come from?

The relation just is the amount of actual space between them. That is, if you allow that space exists mind-independently, which I find it most plausible to think. — Janus

Suppose a table exists mind-independently. A table is an object, not a relation.

Suppose space exists mind-independently. As with the table, then isn't space an object rather than a relation?

And did it occur to you that your understanding that she is bored might be erroneous? — L'éléphant

Exactly.

"Esse est percipi" is translated as "to be is to be perceived".

But does this mean perceived through the sense, I perceive a loud noise, or perceived in the understanding, I perceive Mary is bored.

In my mind I perceive Mary to be bored. Therefore, from "esse est percipi", if I understand Mary to be bored, then in the world Mary's state of being is that of being bored.

But my understanding may be erroneous, as you say, and in the world Mary's state of being may not be that of being bored.

So I cannot depend on my understanding to know the true state of being in the world.

Therefore, "perceive" in "to be is to be perceived" cannot refer to the understanding but only to the sensibilities.

The point is that universals are not “in the mind” — not mere thoughts or conventions. — Wayfarer

As a Nominalist I disagree. But I don't think we will be able to resolve the debate between Universals and Nominalism in this thread.

There is a spatial relation between a particular atom in the JADES-GS-z14-0 galaxy and a particular atom in our sun.

The relation cannot be in the particular atom in the JADES-GS-z14-0 galaxy.

The relation cannot be in a particular atom in our sun.

The relation cannot be in the space between the JADES-GS-z14-0 galaxy and our Sun.

Then where is this relation?

Very good. What's your criterion for something to exist in the world? Colours, for example, occupy space - admittedly in two dimensions - and have definite locations. — Ludwig V

When someone says that they perceive the colour red, science may discover that they are looking at an electromagnetic wavelength of 700nm.

Where in an electromagnetic wavelength of 700nm can the colour red be discovered?

Your mind is not a spatial object - it occupies no space whatever. The physical substrate of your mind is in your brain (though I prefer to say that it is your entire body). — Ludwig V

The mind is a mysterious expression of the brain, but we know the brain has spatial extension. We know of no example of a brain that has no size.

If the physical brain was removed, we know of no example where a mind would remain.

This suggests that the mind, which depends on a brain, which has a physical size, should be able to cognise spatial relations.
===============================================================================

But then, how can the relationship "next to" be between between the ship and the quay? It is true that we can see that the ship is next to the quay, and you might choose to describe that as having the ship and the quay and the relationship between them in your mind in some sense. But that doesn't mean that your mind has created any of them. — Ludwig V

In the world are two people of the same height, one standing 10 metres away from an observer and the other standing 100 metres away.

The observer perceives that one person appears taller than the other.

The mind has created the perception of a height difference, even though a height difference does not exist in the world.

Where does the relation between their heights exist in the world?

If the relation between their heights existed in the world, then it wouldn't change dependent on how far the observer was standing away form them.

The fact that the relation between their heights is relative to the observer suggests that the relation between their height exists in the observer not the world.

I see that you have decided that the relationship is between the ship and the bollard. — Ludwig V

The fact that I perceive the colour red does not mean the colour red exists in the world.

The fact I perceive a spatial relation between Glasgow and Edinburgh does not mean the spatial relationship exists in the world.

But for me Bradley's mistake is thinking of the relation as if it were an entity in its own right - an object corresponding to R. — Ludwig V

Perhaps that is what I am trying to say. A relation is a concept in the mind rather than an object in the world. Relations exist in the mind, not the world.

So you can be reassured that the ship is securely next to the quay and physics will prevent it from moving. You can decide where the relationship is — Ludwig V

The ship is secured because of physics, the force in the rope between the ship and the bollard.

The ship is not secured because of the relationship between the ship and the bollard, otherwise no rope would be needed.

The actual distinction Kant makes is between empirical realism and transcendental idealism..............................................For Kant, empirical realism means that objects of experience - the phenomena we encounter in space and time - are real within the empirical domain. When we perceive a tree or a rock, these objects have objective reality as appearances. — Wayfarer

Kant's distinction is slightly more than between transcendental idealism and empirical realism, if empirical realism means that the objects we encounter are real within the empirical domain of appearances.

Kant also wanted to make the distinction between transcendental idealism and realism, where realism means that objects exist independently of any perception of them.

In B276 of his Critique of Pure Reason, in his Refutation of Idealism, he attempts the proof of his theorem "The mere, but empirically determined, consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of objects in space outside me."

This is more than empirical realism.

Bertrand Russell has a chapter called World of Universals in his early Problems of Philosophy, which I often refer to. — Wayfarer

Bertrand Russell: Consider such a proposition as 'Edinburgh is north of London'. Here we have a relation between two places, and it seems plain that the relation subsists independently of our knowledge of it.

I agree that it it seems plain that Edinburgh and London exist in different places independently of our knowledge of them.

The concept "relation" certainly exists in our mind, in that I know that Edinburgh is to the north of London.

But is it the case that relations exist independently of the mind?

I see this as a similar problem Bertrand Russell approached in his article On Denoting, where he wanted to show that the puzzles of identity, Law of Excluded Middle and non-existence were problems of language.

For example, "Socrates is a philosopher" logically means that "there is something that is a person, seeks wisdom, tries to understand fundamental questions regarding existence, knowledge, and values and is named philosopher"

Relations is also a problem of language, in that we could remove the word from our language and still be able to communicate.

Rather than say "Edinburgh is north of London" we could say "Edinburgh is at 55.9533 deg N, -3.1883 deg W and London is at 51.509865 deg N, -0.118092 deg W".

In language we could remove relational words such as north of, to the left of, above and replace them by existent spatial locations.

I agree that this may make language cumbersome, but this shows that relations is a problem of language rather than a problem of any mind-independent world.

That's why I say that all forms of realism are grounded in idealism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Kant in Critique of Pure Reason would agree that realism is grounded in idealism, in that the pure intuitions of space and time and pure concepts of understanding are the a priori conditions of experience.

But Kant would also agree that idealism is grounded in realism, in that there have to be experiences before they can be categorized by the pure intuitions and pure concepts.

Idealism and realism are two sides of the same coin.
===============================================================================

When a body is caused to accelerate, it may continue to accelerate long after that cause has ceased acting. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that this is the case. From Newton's Second Law, F = ma. If there is no force, then there can be no acceleration.

So everything in our world except for rock, water and gas, was created by our cousins and ancestors. Their minds literally created/caused these things. — Punshhh

The first living organisms on Earth were bacteria, which had no minds, so It cannot be that life was created by the mind.

The first living organisms on Earth were one-celled organisms known as prokaryotes, which emerged between 3.5 and 4.1 billion years ago.
https://www.naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins

The issue isn’t whether the dinosaur existed before humans. It’s that the meaning of ‘T. rex’, it’s place in our world, is a product of our engagement now. That’s the intertwining I’m pointing to. Empirical knowledge is not a passive representing of what’s out there. — Joshs

Introduction
As a supporter of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I agree that "Empirical knowledge is not a passive representing of what’s out there."

I also agree with Enactivism, the idea that the human brain has evolved in synergy with its environment (Wikipedia - Enactivism)

I am also an Indirect Realist, in that I don't believe that I experience the external world as it really is, but only through representations of how the external world really is.

It follows that I believe in Realism, in that there is a realty that exists independently of the mind.

It also follows that I believe in Anti-Realism, the idea that what we perceive as the world is dependent upon and has been constructed by our minds, whether in language or concept.

Therefore, believing in both Realism and Anti-Realism, my approach is similar to the pragmatism as described by Evan Thompson, who wrote that "the world is both found and made: it is made in the finding and found in the making". In the terms of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, the world is found in Realism, in his belief that a world exists independently of the mind, and the world is made in Idealism, through a priori pure intuitions of space and time and a priori pure concepts of understanding.

Heidegger's "Being-in-the-World"
The story goes back to Heidegger's "Being-in-the-World", a statement that I have no trouble with. My question is, where does this world exist, something Wittgenstein avoided engaging with.

There are two worlds, the world as we perceive it and the world that has caused the world we perceive.

The world we perceive is a representation of the world that has caused the world we perceive, not a mirror image.

We perceive the colour red even though the colour red does not exist in a mind-independent world. However, there must be something in a mind-independent world that has caused us to perceive the colour red. This something in a mind-independent world may be different to what we perceive, but it would be invalid to argue that because it is different it cannot exist.

Heidegger's "Being-in-the-World" agrees with our everyday experiences, but ignores the obvious question. Does "world" refer to the world as we perceive it to be or does "world" refer to a world that has caused the world we perceive.

Something has caused the world we perceive, and even though it may be very different to the world we actually perceive, whatever it is, it is still a world.

To ignore this fundamental question, what caused the world we perceive, as Wittgenstein did, may be pragmatic, but not very philosophical.

Well of course, a belief is not evidence of the thing believed..........................However, beliefs do influence the way that we behave. And, I argue that this is in a non-deterministic way. — Metaphysician Undercover

You believe you argue in a non-deterministic way, but as you say yourself "a belief is not evidence of the thing believed."
===============================================================================

I will argue that all forms of realism are reducible to, or dependent on Platonic realism, for ontological support. So, if you are a realist, you are a Platonist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Philosophical Realism is the view that some things have a mind-independent existence (Wikipedia - Philosophical Realism)

It is possible to be a Philosophical Realist and a Nominalist, which is the view that universals and abstract objects do not exist in a mind-independent world (Wikipedia - Nominalism)

Platonism is the opposite of Nominalism, as it affirms the existence of abstract objects (Wikipedia - Platonism)
===============================================================================

It's very evident here, that you have no idea what "force" actually means...Very clearly it is a human creation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does anyone really know what a force is?

"Force" is a word and clearly a human creation. However, a body would not accelerate if there were no external force acting on it, and this force is clearly not a human creation.

From the Britannica article on Force:

(Newton's) second law says that when an external force acts on a body, it produces an acceleration (change in velocity) of the body in the direction of the force. The magnitude of the acceleration is directly proportional to the magnitude of the external force and inversely proportional to the quantity of matter in the body.

That's a silly question. It is presumably an attempt to explain what Bradley meant, but it is very unhelpful, amounting to mystification. It can't be what Bradley was saying. — Ludwig V

As regards the existence of ontological relations in the world, a human may know that Glasgow is west of Edinburgh.

But where in Glasgow is the information that it is to the west of Edinburgh?

Where in Edinburgh is the information that it is to the east of Glasgow?

Where in the space between Glasgow and Edinburgh is the information that Glasgow is at the west end of this space and Edinburgh is at the east end of this space?

As the SEP article on Relations writes:

Some philosophers are wary of admitting relations because they are difficult to locate. Glasgow is west of Edinburgh. This tells us something about the locations of these two cities. But where is the relation that holds between them in virtue of which Glasgow is west of Edinburgh? The relation can’t be in one city at the expense of the other, nor in each of them taken separately, since then we lose sight of the fact that the relation holds between them (McTaggart 1920: §80). Rather the relation must somehow share the divided locations of Glasgow and Edinburgh without itself being divided.

Is it that he never gave his opinion, or that his answer is implicit in his later work, but has been missed by many because they are still looking for answers within the old binary: either mind or world, either inside or outside? — Joshs

I cannot accept that there are no binaries, and everything is a formless soup of amorphousness.

I cannot accept that Tyrannosaurus rex did not have an existence outside the human mind, a real, living and breathing existence outside of our concept of it.

I cannot accept that there is no binary between the mind and a mind-independent world, even if I accept that discovering it is philosophically difficult.