You seem to think that I am arguing that "reality doesn't exist" or "reality isn't real", but I'm not. Of course it's real! Of course it exists! It's just isn't as the Realist describes it. Realism is false and Materialism is false, this does not mean that nothing is real, only that the nature of reality is not as you believe it to be.
This has always been the case. That's why we do experiments. IDIOT.
What you perceive as an external material object is not actually an external material object. If it were, it would be completely unaffected by observation. If this were a objective material reality, there is no way in hell one object could effect another object instantaneously without physically interacting with it in any way.
And QM says that any observation is
automatically a physical interaction, so observation
can affect the observed. IDIOT.
Bell's Theorem was devised to test the thought that, "well maybe these two separated objects can interact with each other over a distance because there is some kind of physical signal being sent that we can't detect."
No.
Bell's Inequalities are a way to test whether or not entangled particles carry their polarization information with them when created, and as such are in definite states before measured. Leggett's inequalities are a way to test whether or not the systems as a whole were in definite states. The failure of both indicate that there are no definite underlying states constraining the systems,
even ones enforced by an underlying consciousness. IDIOT.
For 80 years Quantum Physicists have been trying to save Realism and they have now eliminated every conceivable possible way that Realism could coexist with our observations about how reality actually behaves.
And the implication of the violation of both equalities mean that QM is complete: that means that there is no deeper theory than QM. This is it. There is no underlying classical system (which would preserve either Leggett's or Bell's inequality) that underpins QM,
even a computer simulator running on conscious fairy dust. IDIOT.
You can take an object, a 430 atom molecule for instance, and when it is unobserved it instantly ceases to exist in any classical meaning of the term "exist". We know that this actually happens, and we have mathematical formula's that describe the probability of where we might observe it when we decide to observe again, but while unobserved everything about it's state is transformed into mathematical probabilities that are more like thoughts and ideas that we made up than actual objective material objects. Realism states that physical reality is independent of observation. Therefore, IF REALISM WERE TRUE THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY MATERIAL OBJECT ESPECIALLY A 430 ATOM MOLECULE!!!!!!!
And how would you know how a 430 atom material object is
supposed to behave without observing it first?
It's still totally made out of atoms, which is what materialism dictates.
And again we come to your bait-and-switch — it is
materialism that opposes your idealism, not realism. After all, couldn't the consciousness computer underlying reality encode definite state data for each object just as well as a "realistic" reality, and thus be, in itself, realistic? Your particular argument against realism proves FUCK-ALL for your case for idealism. IDIOT.
I don't understand your argument at all. What are you saying? "Realism means that physical reality exists independent of observation, but just because physical reality doesn't exist independent of observation doesn't mean that Realism is false." Is that your argument? Or is it more like, "Just because Bell's and Leggett's Inequalities were violated doesn't mean that all of reality is observation-dependent, it only means that all of the atoms and particles that make up all of reality are observation-dependent." Is that your argument?
No, it means that the kind of "observation" that you think
should exist if the world is realistic is not actually implied by realism, nor does it exist in the world. It also means that matter is not bound to your expectations. The fact that subatomic particles don't behave the way YOU think they should behave if everything is made up of those subatomic particles has no bearing on whether the everything is made up of those subatomic particles. IDIOT.
Hidden-variable theories test if there is any possible way that QM results can be explained under the assumption of classical realism.
That's right. CLASSICAL realism. Quantum mechanics is not a classical theory and as such there should be no expectation that it should follow CLASSICAL realism. That doesn't mean that there is not some other form of realism that QM could adhere to.
Local and non-local hidden variable theories have been violated, and thus to maintain that classical realism is somehow still a viable assumption can only be described as a unique sort of cognitive-dissonance. Especially coming from someone intelligent as you obviously are.
That's right. Except that I don't retain CLASSICAL realism, because they don't pertain to QUANTUM theories. Further, this argument has FUCK-ALL to do with whether or not the universe is materialist, because that is a separate question altogether. A question that, in all of your spiel about realism, has not been answered to the slightest degree.
Your screeching about realism is, at best, a distraction from your
real stated issue — the defeat of materialism. Strictly speaking, you don't even have to destroy realism in order to prove idealism. You are pursuing a red herring. IDIOT.
Look at what you are doing! Is there any other instance when you have fought so hard against blatant scientific evidence?
Just because you
say it's "blatant scientific evidence" does not mean that it is. IDIOT.
Why are you fighting so hard against science that is so obvious?
Just because you
say that I'm "fighting so hard against science that is so obvious" does not mean that I am, or that it's obvious. Remember, this very point you are arguing is being argued over by real professionals
as we speak. That's hardly a point that is "obvious." IDIOT.
Realism is false. Admit it. Notice how you feel right now, this is EXACTLY how a creationist feels when they are coming up with tortured and twisted apologetics to deny the evidence for evolution. What you are doing is APOLOGETICS.
That's my line. I'm going to defer to the real professional consensus when they say that materialism is alive and well, and going to call you out
unless and until the consensus shifts towards your idealism. Because if it is so "obvious," the guy who works it out and finds a way to demonstrate it is up for a
Nobel Prize, and unlimited fame and fortune going around the woo circuit telling them all they were right all along. IDIOT.
The papers I provided are very clear about what they mean by "realism" and that their results require that realism be abandoned.
Yes, it
is quite clear. That doesn't mean you have understood it, and you have not. IDIOT.
They refer to it as "a realistic description of nature" that's "significance goes far beyond science" and admit that "most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation." How can you maintain that what they are talking about is not what I am talking about? Why would they speak in this way or even bring up philosophical Realism if what their entire paper is about has nothing to do with philosophical realism as you claim????
Because someone well-versed in the argument is cautious not to read too much into those quotes even if the author is being a tad hyperbolic. They know what the score is, so even if the particular author gets it a little wrong, we can still glark his meaning. In science, it is the consensus of professional opinion that decides what is the state of our scientific knowledge, not the ravings of any one author. IDIOT.
I am not saying that "nothing is real" and "nothing exists" I am just saying we do not live in "an external reality [that] exists independent of observation."
Since the kind of "observation" you demand simply plain doesn't exist, period, the statement is actually
true, albeit
vaccuously true. The external reality, if it exists,
does exist independently of all observations that do not involve physical interactions —
all none of them. IDIOT.
You should be able to admit this in light of the evidence but you wont, even though you normally uphold science, because this goes against your cherished beliefs, so instead you do backflips to dismiss the evidence staring you in the face.
Just because YOU think that the stuff you posted goes up against my cherished beliefs and doing backflips to preserve them, does not make it actually the case. IDIOT.
The fact that Realism is a false assumption about reality has deep ramifications. A logical person who intellectually honest would abandon a view that no longer has any empirical evidence to support it, and courageously face the challenge having to fundamentally rethink one's view of reality. A weak minded person who cherished belief over reason would dismiss all evidence that is contrary to what he already believes to be true and close his mind to any new information by sticking his head in the sand in order to avoid changing his mind and rethinking his world view.
See above. Your statements are not convincing in the slightest. I have, in numerous posts,
given my reasons for why I don't believe you. If I have what I think are good reasons why I don't believe you or
your interpretation of what is being said, then the only honest thing I can do is call bullshit. It also doesn't help your case that you pursue this red herring of CLASSICAL realism as if it had any bearing on materialism that is your
real obsticle.
If and when the scientific consensus comes down in favor of your idealism, I'll accept it. But your word is decidedly NOT the scientific consensus. IDIOT.
If you are so convinced that Realism is compatible with QM then prove it by taking the Quantum Randi Challenge and claim your Nobel Prize by overturning every piece of experimental evidence that has come out since 1925. I'll wait.
I do not hold to CLASSICAL realism in QUANTUM reality. I agree that some of the things we normally think as real has no meaning for quantum systems. Perhaps all of them. That doesn't mean that there is not some underlying QUANTUM realism, nor that its absence automatically mean that idealism is correct and materialism is wrong, because that question is quite orthogonal to the question of realism — realism/nonrealism is a fucking red herring to your actual thesis.
I'll leave figuring out what the EPR experiments mean for reality to the professionals, and I suggest you do the same.
Oh, where are my manners?
IDIOT!
