3 ms·

I've got a doctorate and I don't really see what you are saying, primarily because "no objective physical reality" is somewhat vague. QM, for example, is a tot

I've got a doctorate and I don't really see what you are saying, primarily because "no objective physical reality" is somewhat vague. QM, for example, is a totally adequate theory of objective reality! it just describes an objective reality with properties which differ to some degree from those intuitive to creatures at classical scales. It may be inadequate in other respects (not invariant, a little unsatisfying wrt the born rule, etc) but it isn't as if it implies NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.

energy123 1y ago
I second your comment. This is where a degree in philosophy would have been useful. The term "objective reality" is just a semantic indirection to a cluster of loosely defined concepts. Okay, what concepts? That whole discussion is philosophy, informed by physics.
- d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
  See above.
WhitneyLand 1y ago
This is what’s meant by no objective reality as alluded to in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics The claim is not that objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.
- d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
  This is what I mean.
  - fellowniusmonk 1y ago
    And to further clarify, observer independence is referring to the frame itself not that humans imagine the world into being in the solipsistic sense many believe. I say this because just a few days ago on this forum someone was asserting that without humans the earth would not exist, that human observation instantiates the earth and the earth did not exist before human consciousness.
  - GoblinSlayer 1y ago
    What do you mean? That according to relational quantum mechanics absolute reality doesn't exist? But absence of absolute reality doesn't imply absence of objective reality. And it's according to relational quantum mechanics, not according to mathematical formalism of QM.

energy123 1y ago

I second your comment. This is where a degree in philosophy would have been useful. The term "objective reality" is just a semantic indirection to a cluster of loosely defined concepts. Okay, what concepts? That whole discussion is philosophy, informed by physics.

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
See above.

WhitneyLand 1y ago

This is what’s meant by no objective reality as alluded to in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics The claim is not that objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
This is what I mean.
- fellowniusmonk 1y ago
  And to further clarify, observer independence is referring to the frame itself not that humans imagine the world into being in the solipsistic sense many believe. I say this because just a few days ago on this forum someone was asserting that without humans the earth would not exist, that human observation instantiates the earth and the earth did not exist before human consciousness.
- GoblinSlayer 1y ago
  What do you mean? That according to relational quantum mechanics absolute reality doesn't exist? But absence of absolute reality doesn't imply absence of objective reality. And it's according to relational quantum mechanics, not according to mathematical formalism of QM.