Does anti-realism mean there is no external world?

General Discussion
1

I’m confused by the top answer to this question because it seems to use science to support anti-realism, but I can’t really make sense of what they mean by that. When I asked I just got quoted a lot of books in philosophy of science but philosophy is my weakpoint. I understand what terms in it mean but not what they “mean” or how it comes together, leaving me more lost than anything else.

What I do know is that some of the cited things like embodied cognition and predictive coding aren’t really solid enough to posit anti-realism.

My guess is that since everyone has a different perception of reality that means there is no universal standard that can be used. But isn’t that what science is for? Because we all have differing experiences?

2

You hit it just right.
Reality is the perception and experience of solid objects, measurable patterns. That’s where cognition and predictive coding can be used. But that is at “gross” levels of perception and is explained by General Relativity.

The “fine scale spacetime” exists at quantum levels, where objects are no longer expressed as “patterns”, but as relational “values” i.e. quanta.

At atomic levels objects become no longer solid in a sense that atoms themselves are not solid objects but are mostly clouds of dynamically separated individual particles.

An atom is neither a solid object nor the smallest unit known to scientists. Instead, an atom is made of many different particles that interact according to specific rules. At its core, an atom is a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons.

In physics, a quantum (pl.: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction.

Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. The fundamental notion that a property can be “quantized” is referred to as “the hypothesis of quantization”.[1]

This means that the magnitude of the physical property can take on only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum. For example, a photon is a single quantum of light of a specific frequency (or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation). Similarly, the energy of an electron bound within an atom is quantized and can exist only in certain discrete values.[2]

Atoms and matter in general are stable because electrons can exist only at discrete energy levels within an atom.

Quantization is one of the foundations of the much broader physics of quantum mechanics. Quantization of energy and its influence on how energy and matter interact (quantum electrodynamics) is part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature.

(Quantum - Wikipedia

3

Can you link to where asked? This is a lengthy discussion and I don’t want to respond if you aren’t specific about your question. In a top comment someone says this is one of the most complex questions in physics, so it’s not surprising you find it confusing.

4

This answer specifically:

This is just one answer out of many I got back from them.

“ In fact, I suspect you might benefit from reading up a bit on plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptualism to understand why natural kinds are constructed, why abstract objects don’t exist, and how our senses, perception, and linguistic abilities are highly entwined at the level of intuition to explain why many ontological commitments to abstracta are category mistakes. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy))

But I didn’t really understand what they meant by any of it and when asked how does this mean anything I just got more philosophy of science. I didn’t need to know any of this for my science classes in college or high school so I don’t see why it matters.

The only thing I really know is that their understanding of the science is rocky.

The other thing is that the links he gave me don’t really seem to support what he says but more are just schools of thought that argue that. Even the link on nominalism says no one can agree how to define the thing they’re arguing if it exists or not (abstract objects).

He mentioned something about how logical positivism failed, which just kinda left me indifferent on it.

5

These are questions on the edge of our understanding. They aren’t rocky, they are difficult. You need to understand all the things they talk about if you are going to discuss them. Obviously your classes aren’t handling this, it is graduate level stuff.

6

I don’t really understand it. The more I read the more lost I get, my brain just can’t make sense of it. I just latch onto pieces and fixate on that for months

7

So what do you make of it, do you think it supports anti-realism? To me it reads more like bias from the tone of it.

8

Realism relies on the formation of patterns of various shapes and densities.
i.e. Gaseous, Liquid, Solid.

H2O is a perfect example of a pattern that can assume all 3 states of realism,
i.e. vapor, water, ice.

from Copilot:

Realism relies on patterns, but the metaphysics of patterns is still imperfectly understood. Scientific inquiry extracts patterns from data, but the criteria for real-patternhood remain elusive 1 2 3 4 5.

and

Patterns are fundamental to mathematics 1 2. They appear in numbers, shapes, algebraic expressions, and problem-solving. Recognizing patterns helps in predicting future events and understanding regularities in various mathematical contexts.

of realism

9

I don’t make much it. I don’t understand QM enough to question reality, and I don’t care to discuss the philosophical question. I know that I don’t know everything and that I can’t price existence one way or another.

If you want to delve into it, you need to understand the question better. The page you linked provides a ton of good information. This comment is a good one

What definition of realism are you using on philosophy SE, if not the philosophical one? What relationship, then, does this question have with ontology or “anti-realism”, which is also a philosophical term? If you are using specific definitions of a term, it’s fine but please be upfront about it because precision in terminology is paramount. And if your question is about physics ask to physics SE.

– armand

CommentedDec 18, 2023 at 5:19

10

I don’t understand how the stack exchange is organized exactly. I don’t see anything written by you, so when you say “I asked” I don’t know what you are referring to. The thread is too long for me to bother with and has many links. It’s not the best way to learn these concepts.

11

Julius Hamilton
"Quantum mechanics is said to indicate that the universe is not “locally real”, because a particle is not in a defined state before measurement . But if a particle is not in a defined state, what is it ontologically ? Can something still exist “in an undefined state”? Does “measurement” of something’s properties fully determine if that thing is “real” or not?

This stuff is down at Planck scales, isn’t it?

"Does that philosophically imply that “existence” is exclusively determined as a manifestation of observed properties"? "

If we look it from a consilience with other known information framing - and follow the implications of that paragraph, it sounds, to me like this comes down to asking if: Do atoms observe each other?

Also it seems like what is often lost is that Quantum Mechanics has to do with people observing the infinitesimal building blocks of the Physical Reality we exist within, and that created us. Quantum Mechanics is our limited human map of reality, not reality itself.

The very premise of this paper is dubious.
It uses our observational shortcoming to imply Physical Reality doesn’t exist.

Trying to unravel reality, using science-fictional building blocks …

===========

I mean the fact of our being here, is proof enough that particles don’t depend on an “observer” - they simply are and they interact. That’s it. Time brings increasing folds within folds of harmonic complexity. particles, atoms, stars, etc., then came Earth, then came geology, then came biology, then came Evolution, then came awareness, and a need for consciousness developed out of all that, then came us.

As an aside.

I keep wondering how people can justify looking for consciousness in the pre-biological reality of the cosmos?

Anyone care to take a stab at it?

Where does that from, if not, our God fixation in one of its many guises?

12

I don’t really learn the concept so much as fixate on a part of it and don’t let go. I’ve been pretty much traumatized by reading philosophy to the point that it feels like everything I think and do is wrong.

Like when someone argues individuals don’t exist and I start getting heart palpitations and breathing fast:

Or when I read about how people say that magic mushrooms open you up to reality instead of this illusion and I literally had an anxiety attack from reading it and needed medication to relax. It almost compelled me to seek them out because I didn’t want to be doing something wrong.

13

I agree, but one can make an argument that any reaction to external stimulus is a form of sensitivity (related to sensory ability), albeit only reactive, but eventually evolving into sensory consciousness and cognition.

IMO, consciousness is an evolved state of non-conscious “reactive cognititon”, i.e. any differential equation results in a reactive result.

In a self-referential system such as in chirality, there are elements that may lead to cognition.

This from Copilot:

Not directly a cognitive action
Chirality is not directly a cognitive action, but it is related to the brain’s cognitive function. Research has connected chirality to atomic orbitals and the handedness of human cognitive and psychological functions 1 2 3 4.

This is how migrating birds navigate to the earth’s magnetic fields and chameleons can triangulate the distance to that little morsel.
Note that both are very old species which suggests a long evolutionary line from abiogenesis.

And of course, there is that little communicating dimer, the microtubule, which was already present in early Eukariota and is a “common denominator” in all Eukaryotic life on earth! And they facilitate unconscious information transmission at the unconscious cellular level, where a brain is not required. Witness the slime mold.

14

Because per the link I posted some think individuals don’t exist and that consciousness isn’t a product of the brain.

15

The question was about justification. That some people think something, is not justification. Not for anything. Ever.

16

You have that backward. Consciousness is a product of the brain, but reactive behaviors do not necessarily require consciousness, as explained above with slime molds that can solve mazes, and learn, and remember time intervals at the cellular level.
Slime molds have no brains or neural system. They operate at the systemic cytological level.

1 Like
17

I guess that’s true. It’s just hard for me to let go when folks say stuff like that.

18

Have I got a video for you,

The link wasn’t convincing for me.
To imply “individuals don’t exist” - takes us nowhere.
Every organism is an individual.

19

Oh, yesssss. That’s what I have been talking about!
Hazen puts it in proper contextual order. Excellent find!!!

But every object is more than an individual. It has multiple functions and puposes at different levels.

All we need is to look at humans and our fantastical inventions and experimenting with potential space travel to terraform other planets, while a the same time we function as a destroyer of the earth’s ecosphere!

Humans engaging in 2 divergent evolutionary functions!

OTOH, Carbon is an inert element but also has 2 divergent evolutionary functions

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a byproduct of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels2. It is highly toxic and can cause severe health issues, including headaches, dizziness, and even death2.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, is essential to plant life and is a key part of the global carbon cycle1.

1 Like
20

That’s what I thought. I came across this postcard of a guy of who argues that life is goal directed matter.

I read the transcript because listening takes too long for me:

“And what’s fascinating is that teleonomic matter mobilizes emergent levels to understand itself. So we have a concept of ourselves that we mobilize our minds to understand it. It obeys brain dynamics. But I have no idea what my neurons are doing and neither do I care. And that extends up through the disciplines.”

And

“No, that’s really interesting. It’s odd, Chris Kempes and I just wrote a paper called Life is Problem Solving Matter and you know, this is a hole, we can go down this path. But I think the way that you are thinking about it is correct because the way we typically think about origin of life, which is what you’re talking about is the origin of certain kinds of chemistry which are correlated with life, [laughter] right? And so we often confound to the chemistry with life itself, but life is doing the thing you are describing, which is some weird inferential representational thing. And when that first happened, I think genuinely mysterious. I do think we’ve been a little bit misled by an obsession with organic chemistry. And one thing to point out that helps us is I think we’ve built life so many times as non-chemical digital life. I think that if you write a little code on your computer, Sean, on it, it could be very simple form of life. But I think it qualifies and life is this weird thing just to use a physics concept, which things I… Two things I kind of work on life and intelligence. Life I consider intensive, whereas intelligence, I consider extensive. You are not more alive if you have a hundred cells in one [laughter] right?”

“An elephant is not more alive than a flea, that would be kind of silly. But an elephant might be more intelligent than a flea. And there’s this very interesting connection between those two concepts. I don’t think that you can treat them independently. I think once you develop life, you’ve developed intelligence and vice versa. And working out that difference is complicated.”

I don’t know how reliable the guy is though.

1 Like