I woke up with an intense feeling of anger toward philosophical realists so I'm making a post about it. tl;dr Realism is bullshit.
Suppose you are born in a room from which the outside world cannot be seen. Descartes' demon is clearly and visibly in the same room with you. It reacts in a predictable (though not necessarily deterministic) way to your actions but does not talk to you directly. It does not let you leave the room or study the outside world. Soon enough you learn which actions lead to which results. Although you gain mastery over the rules of the room you cannot ever know whether they are real and universal or just the arbitrary inventions of the demon.
One day another person is created by the demon. The person insists that certain actions are moral, certain things and beautiful, and that the laws of the room necessarily apply to the outside world. When pushed on how he knows these things he states that while there is no indication from within the room that a certain thing is objectively moral or beautiful there is also no way to tell whether the room's rules are objective in themselves, so if you choose to act according to the room's rules for which there is no rigorous epistemological proof then it is only consistent to accept other ideas similarly lacking in rigorous proof.
Here's the thing: you have no choice but to accept the room's rules if you want the demon to treat you well. The universe's rules might or might not match the demon's but there is, as far as anyone knows, no way to tell. While you are under the demon's mercy acting according to the demon's rules is the only way to at least perceive yourself as having reached the goals of the actions you performed. There is no other starting point for building a model by which you can navigate the world. You MUST accept the demon's rules not as absolute truth but as the only thing you have to work with. There is no similar force coercing you to accept objective aesthetics or morality!
>>588964
>Realism is bullshit
So you're asserting that reality isn't real? Or that we can't know the the true nature of the real?
>Although you gain mastery over the rules of the room you cannot ever know whether they are real and universal or just the arbitrary inventions of the demon.
so the room isn't real? Then the room does not exist.
>no indication from within the room that a certain thing is objectively moral
You can't derive morals from empirical study. See the is-ought problem.
>>588964
>predictable (though not necessarily deterministic)
LOL
OLO
LOL
>>588964
>if you want the demon to treat you well
What if I want the demon to treat me badly?
>universe's rules might or might not match the demon's
Does the demon exist outside reality? Are you saying the demon isn't real?
>coercing you to accept objective aesthetics or morality
If you need to be coerced into accepting objective morals than you wouldn't accept them anyways.
>>589024
>So you're asserting that reality isn't real? Or that we can't know the the true nature of the real?
The latter, but also that we have no choice but to accept certain facets of "reality" at face value because if we didn't we wouldn't be able to accomplish even our most basic day-to-day goals. Realists claim that because we accept these facets of reality at face value despite the lack of definite proof we should also similarly accept claims about moral/aesthetic facts for the sake of consistency, ergo there is an objective morality/objective beauty.
>so the room isn't real? Then the room does not exist.
The room is real (as far as you know) but the demon might make it operate differently than the outside world.
>You can't derive morals from empirical study. See the is-ought problem.
See, I agree, but realists (which the majority of modern philosophers count themselves among by the way) claim that it is inconsistent to accept some weak epistemological claims (e.g. induction is possible, logic exists) and not other similarly weak claims with the same amount of backing. Because both logic and morality derives from intuition, they say, and both appear self-evident to the majority of people, then one ought accept both.
>>589032
Quantum mechanics prove that the idea of a fully deterministic universe is impossible. Some aspects are probabilistic. Think of rolling a dice which you cannot predict the result of even with the aid of Laplace's demon.
>>589045
>What if I want the demon to treat me badly?
Haha.
>Does the demon exist outside reality? Are you saying the demon isn't real?
You cannot know whether the demon is real or not, just like you don't know whether anything is real or not. Not in a philosophically rigorous way anyway.
>If you need to be coerced into accepting objective morals than you wouldn't accept them anyways.
If someone were to prove that objective morals exist it would be illogical to defy them since morals are inherently an objective conditionless Ought the kind of which does not exist in our world.
>>589051
>as far as you know
I can know a priori that there is at least one real thing.
Hell, even illusions are real. They exist, but they just aren't what they appear to be.
>that because we accept these facets of reality at face value despite the lack of definite proof we should also similarly accept claims about moral/aesthetic facts for the sake of consistency
I don't take the appearance of reality at face value at all, but the above claim is logically valid.
>both logic and morality derives from intuition
lol no, they're primary to and independent of the human subject.
Otherwise two people holding contrary intuitive conclusions could be simultaneously correct, which is impossible. They call this "realism"?
>>589069
>Quantum mechanics prove
DROPPED
>rolling a dice which you cannot predict the result
A number 1-6, or if you want to be cheeky and say it's a d20 then any number. Do you have a better analogy?
>the kind of which does not exist in our world
prove it
>you don't know whether anything is real or not
lol no
I can know I am real, given that if I wasn't then I wouldn't even be able to ask the question.
Define "real".
>>589074
>I don't take the appearance of reality at face value at all, but the above claim is logically valid.
In context accepting reality at face value means things like "I accept that if I put one foot in front of another to walk forward and I feel like I am walking forward I am actually walking forward; to walk I am not going to try to flail my arms and shout 'forward', reject the input my stimuli give me of me not getting forward and believe I'm actually moving forward."
You accept your perception of reality as real, at least at face value. So do just about all sane humans because it is impossible to operate otherwise.
>lol no, they're primary to and independent of the human subject. Otherwise two people holding contrary intuitive conclusions could be simultaneously correct, which is impossible. They call this "realism"?
Perhaps here I've misrepresented my mortal foes. They claim that since it is impossible to empirically prove very basic claims such as "Logic exists, induction is possible" human knowledge of such things (which in their minds are real) comes from their intuition; that intuition is capable of giving us the correct answers on such subjects. Humans know of logic thanks to intuition and the same applies to morality.
>>589087
Quantum mechanics is a rigorous science many idiots who know nothing about it quote to prove nonsensical claims. Look at the non-deterministic pattern of "teleporting" electrons. As far as we know they behave in a purely probabilistic fashion with no hidden mechanic in play.
>A number 1-6, or if you want to be cheeky and say it's a d20 then any number. Do you have a better analogy?
We are not in disagreement! The action is predictable (e.g. you can predict one result of several will occur) but non-deterministic (there is no way to predict the exact result.)
>prove it
Null hypothesis m8. If I am to be generous I'll say that if it exists no one has ever produced proof of such and indeed I do not think doing so is possible.
>Define "real".
Come on now. If you're here to troll me at least do it directly.
>>589069
>Quantum mechanics prove that the idea of a fully deterministic universe is impossible. Some aspects are probabilistic.
Nope, this is unkown. Only local variables is disproved. It's possible the universe has subtle action at a distance mechanisms.
>>589094
>I accept that if I put one foot in front of another to walk forward and I feel like I am walking forward I am actually walking forward
I never assume that as a certainty. Why would I?
>it is impossible to operate otherwise
No, I know it seems as if I can function just fine by assuming all the physical laws are true while simultaneously knowing I can't really be certain that they are.
Aristotle said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
>it is impossible to empirically prove very basic claims such as "Logic exists, induction is possible"
Why would you have to empirically prove logic, given that empirical systems are derived from logic in the first place?
Deductive proofs are infinitely better when possible.
>>589111
I thought hidden variables have been disproved entirely. Is this not the case?
>>589119
Only local hidden variables.
>>589118
We are not disagreeing. My entire argument is that one has to treat the systems in front of them as real while also knowing that they cannot know for certain that they are real. We do not have to do the same for morality or aesthetics and there is little reason to do so, even if those ideas have similarly little backing.
>>589124
Then I apologize!
>>589108
>As far as we know they behave in a purely probabilistic fashion with no hidden mechanic in play.
>as far as we know
As far as we know we know no farther then as far as we know.
>The action is predictable (e.g. you can predict one result of several will occur) but non-deterministic (there is no way to predict the exact result.)
If you were omniscient and knew precisely the molding of the die, the contours of the surface upon which it was rolled, it's velocity and momentum, the direction of the wind and literally everything about the physical universe you could predict the outcome with 100 % certainty.
In other words, God can predict the outcome.
>Null hypothesis
>the hypothesis that sample observations result purely from chance
That's not what you said, and the assertion that you hold some sort of null hypothesis here seems out of place.
You said that there is no Objective Ought, but you can't prove it.
>>589145
>If you were omniscient and knew precisely the molding of the die, the contours of the surface upon which it was rolled, it's velocity and momentum, the direction of the wind and literally everything about the physical universe you could predict the outcome with 100 % certainty.
It appears that you are not familiar with the demon I mentioned. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
>>589154
>rolling a dice which you cannot predict the result of even with the aid of Laplace's demon
Not omniscient. His demon only knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, I specifically left out any mention of particles to avoid that problem.
Literally everything about the physical universe, beyond just the movement of particles.
Besides, quantum indeterminacy is just one of many competing interpretations of a relatively new and untested theory.
If you really did believe all that then why don't you an hero
