/lit/ - Literature

>>15071176
>Humans are the observers

>>15071176
whatever the fuck kant was talking about

>>15071176
>So what is the most likely version of non materialist ontology
a little something called..... ADVAITA VEDANTA

>>15071176
Husserl/Heidegger have, imo, the best text on phenomenology which is right up this alley.

>>15071176
In what way is this a falsification of materialism? There is nothing non-material in this finding.

>>15071176
>>15071205
Since the state of superposition is dependent on not being observed, what if the observer isn’t human? How does that work? I can see this suggesting that humans are the only conscious beings on the planet.

>>15071410
You're a retard. The act of observation is just a classical system interacting with a quantum one.

>>15071232
Can it get any more materialist than Kant?

>>15071176
You said it yourself, this just one of many interpretations, so "materialism" (I am putting it on quotes because I am confident you have no idea what the word means) has not been falsified.

>>15071482
You’re fucking retarded

A combination of Neoplatonism, Hegel, Husserl, Ponty, deleuze and Meinong

>>15071522
>everything is a product of the mind
>not materialist
Nice try faggot

>>15071403
The superposition that indicated in this experiment is inherently non material.
>>15071516
I know what materialism is in terms ontological materialism and this experiment falsified it as well as interpretations which are predicated on it (like MWI and pilot wave).

>>15071529
Replace deleuze with Derrida then you're onto something

>>15071544
This is bait.

>>15071545
Then explain how reducttve or eliminative materialism is falsified with a non crackpot interpretation of quantum mechanics.

OK, and now what would the world look like if the article said, "A quantum experiment suggests there is such a thing as objective reality"? Would it make a difference? No.

>>15071176
>>15071545
You obviously have zero understanding of quantum mechanics. The experiment showed no such thing.

Say what you want about materialism, but it tends to dictate what happens in the material world

>>15071176
>But Proietti and co’s ... experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
Welcome to Quantum Mechanics. The answer is that entanglement is nonlocal. Simple as that.

>>15071569
The superposition that is shown in this experiment is inherently non material so this falsifies all materialist ontologies, whether reductive or eliminative or any other.
The only crackpot interpretations of QM are those that are built of materialism (many worlds, pilot wave, etc).
>>15071584
Nope, I have taken quantum mechanics courses in university, I understand the mathematics and the motivations for the different interpretations of the math.

>>15071588
It's cool until people start pushing it beyond its' scope.

>>15071595
Nonlocality is falsified.

>>15071599
>The superposition that is shown in this experiment is inherently non material
No, it isn't.

>>15071599
You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>15071588
Yikes

>>15071555

I like derrida’s work in relation to husserl but deleuze’s machine ontology and chaosmos conceptions work really well, so does his ontology of difference/his form of process ontology.

I have my disagreements mostly based on he (and also Whitehead) mostly on the structure, insofar as while I agree that it seems from one angle a chaotic plane of immanence of mechanistic parts all interacting as active and reactive forces is logical, you can easily imo recover God and true transcendence. imo to me the key is applying Chaos-Theory and computational Ontology and that for me at least is the basics of my own ontology. What’s your view roughly look like?

>>15071609
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is

>>15071607
Nope. Read it again. Locality is falsified. We already knew that.

>>15071609
Why did you quote the same post twice?

>>15071609
You're wrong

>>15071621
No, it isnt.

>>15071618
Explain how a superposition can be "nonmaterial", brainlet.

>>15071612
Huh that's not at all why I would have assumed you picked Deleuze, now I've got more reading to do. For my own view I'm a Baudrillardian (especially his later texts) all the way through.

>>15071176
>consciousness causes collapse
How though? What is the mechanism of action?
Why should physics include this big hulking variable when it has no good physical explanation?

>no objective reality
This is such crap. The superposition is objective reality. It merely demonstrates that probability is ontological and embedded in reality.
The objective reality falls under the rubric of "all possible outcomes" of the superposition. And the slipperiness of quantum measurement just shows the limitations of measurement, not "proof there is no objective reality." Both observers see what is physically possible --- objective--- not something magical; even if they disagree on the final observation, those different observations are extracted from the same objectivity.

Fuck man, I have no idea what is happening to me but quantum mechanics keeps popping up everywhere for me at the moment.

It all started when I read Dark Matter by Blake Crouch. Had no idea that it was about quantum mechanics and the many worlds interpretation. After reading that I picked another book I had on my kindle at random, that book was The Gone World by Tom Sweterlitsch which also happened to be about the many worlds interpretation.

Just a coincidence right? Well, then I started watching this new show called Devs, didn't know what it was about, just knew it was a new show. Guess what? That show is also about quantum mechanics and the many worlds interpretation.

It's not just these three things either, I keep seeing and hearing stuff about quantum mechanics and all the difference interpretations everywhere. It all started with the lockdown and not a single day has gone by where I haven't heard or seen something related to quantum mechanics on some level or another. This thread being another one.

What the FUCK is going on?

>>15071610
>YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>15071599
>The superposition that is shown in this experiment is inherently non material so this falsifies all materialist ontologies, whether reductive or eliminative or any other.
The only thing that quantum mechanics show is that the fundamental laws of nature may be indeterministic rather than deterministic. How do you get from there to "materialism is false"?

>>15071658
Schizophrenia

That or someone keeps messing with the timeline.

>>15071631
Superposition literally is a nonmaterial mathematical state vector that represents the sum of all possibilities that you interpret via the born rule.
MWI attempts to salvage this by saying all possibilities are happening in their own branch of the multiverse and when you do an experiment you find out which branch you're in. This experiment falsified that because two different experimenters doing the same experiment experience different wave function behavior, which contradicts Everettian branching, and indicates the inherently nonmaterial, platonic mathematical existence of the wave function.
The experiment best aligns with the vonNeumann-Wigner interpretation of QM.

>>15071176
This argument presumes the existence of objective wavefunction "collapse", which we already know is absurd and which most realist interpretations reject.

>>15071663
>That or someone keeps messing with the timeline
Most likely this.

>>15071641

I really enjoy baudrillard’s S&s I haven’t gotten to his theory of objects though. Definitely give difference and repetition a read though if you haven’t, i personally really like mechanistic models and I think an error of post modern philosophy is the rejection of reason/structure when reason can really blossom in the current structure.

What’s the most important ontological concept of baudrillard to you?

>>15071176
The Bible
>>15071588
sure, but it's not the whole scope

>>15071672
See don't "already know it's absurd", you simply assume it must be absurd because you don't like the implication.
In reality, that is how it actually works.

>>15071672
But the waveform collapse is proven by the two slit experiment.

>>15071687
If you assume that's how it works, you get absurd results.

>>15071688
No, it isn't.

>>15071691
>No, it isn't.
Retard, there are many youtube videos covering this. Some of the from MIT lectures and leading partical physicist.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPr

>>15071687
Everett solved "Wigner's Friend" in his thesis, years before Wigner even published about it. Wavefunction collapse doesn't happen.

>>15071709
>youtube videos
Lmao. I don't need to watch youtube videos, zoomer. Collapse doesn't happen.

>>15071176
read this

>>15071728
This experiment shows it does happen.
>>15071734
This looks interesting, thanks

>>15071728
You dense motherfucker. Did you even click the link I posted? The one to lectures from MIT? There are many credible videos about on youtube, as I said from leading partical physicist.

I suggest you go watch some. Also this one, also from MIT https://youtu.be/lZ3bPUKo5zc

>>15071743
>This experiment shows it does happen.
The experiment shows that collapse does NOT happen. The results further support MWI and other non-collapse theories.

>>15071744
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

>>15071678
D&R is on my Deleuze list, I'm most the way through ATP, I've knocked out AO, and I'd also like to get his book on cinema.

Baudrillard basically has two ideas that all of his thought ends up being about. Either simulacra/simulations/other concepts that have become detached from reality to the point where reality is unknowable, and his other work is based on what we can do to act in this hyperreal world. He calls them Fatal Strategies. IMO if you liked S&S get Transparency of Evil or Impossible Exchange. Anything pre-1980s is heavily indebted to Crit Theory that was popular at the time, his books in the '80s and onwards are where his ideas become his own. His style after his break with his influences also becomes really gripping, linked directly to his ideas.

Personally I find his treatment of the Other to be his best ontology. There's his book Radical Alterity which is a series of lectures solely on that where he draws from a number of enat sources. His idea that we live in a world that's eradicating the Other, and should strive to find the Other, and to be the Other gets very interesting. I can't do it justice on 4chan, but it's quite good.

>>15071774
Have a (you) retard

>>15071786
Retards like you shouldn't use the term "retard". It's not good for your self-esteem.

>>15071796
Have another (you) retard

>>15071765
It shows different experimenters get different results on the same experiment, which supports superposition and contradicts everettian branching.

>>15071176
/M8UpmE7

>>15071815
It's just an actualization of Wigner’s Friend. There's nothing new here at all.

>>15071779

Fair enough. The dialectic of irrationality and the rational, known and unknown and noumena in contrast to simulacra is a big part of my own model. I honestly disagree heavily with the critical theory material I’ve read of Horkheimer because to me it shows a really juvenile understanding of scientific knowledge and how knowledge developed in the traditional sense, which if you dissolve the basic principle of Even needing a critical theory it all kinda falls apart right? I’ll give the books you shilled a read.

>>15071815
Measurements that are actually made are always consistent with each other.

>>15071176
See Sean Carroll:

"This headline is very wrong; quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with objective reality. Reality is modeled by a wave function, but we should have understood that for years now. No observer gets to see all of reality, but that’s a very different idea.... One observer has branched, so one version of them sees one result, the other sees the other. The other observer hasn’t branched, so they think the first observer is in a superposition. That’s all."

https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1105548702272258049

>>15071839
Yeah I figured we'd be at opposites. Either way, it's nice to see someone on /lit/ who can actually engage with Deleuze and other related thinkers.

>>15071176
These "quantum experiments" are definitely just dreamt up by the labcoats to get more money. Its a fucking money laundering operation. Similar to modern art they say they need 20 million to build some fucking box for a dying cat, when in fact they just take all the money for themselves and "the box" is a broken washing machine they got out of a skip.
You are retarded if you believe any of this shit. Have you ever seen a fucking neutron or whatever they are on about these days? No. because they ARENT REAL. Its all dreamt up by scam artists in MIT.
You need to hide 1 million, you buy modern art. You need to hide 100 million you build a haldron collider.
CRINGE

>>15071893
>definitely just dreamt up
Go back to redit kid

>>15071893
>Have you ever seen a fucking neutron or whatever they are on about these days? No. because they ARENT REAL.
Exactly. I've been saying the same thing about coronavirus. People say the virus exists but it's just too small to see... YEAH RIGHT. These crisis actors will stop at nothing.

>>15071869

Hey since you’re actually studied I have an essay more or less against nihilism and the destruction of meta-narrative as a illusion more or less. Think you’d be down to critique it? It more or less shows how the concept of petits recits is imo incorrect.

>>15071815
>It shows different experimenters get different results on the same experiment
Wrong. The second experimenter didn't make a measurement.

>>15071919
Sure, email it to me ian277634@gmail.com

can't believe how successful this bait has been

>>15071929

I’ll just drop it in pastebin. It’s relatively short. https://pastebin.com/AAdKMRyG

>>15071934
>i was only pretending to be retarded

>>15071903
>>15071916
Yeah. Ok retards. Call me back when you have a picture of a fucking quark. Its all theoretical. Its nothing but a poor mans philosophy.

>>15071648
>>15071662
These.

>>15071688
It isn't proven. It has never been proven that the 'collapse' is anything other than an artifact of representational mathematics.

>>15071964
(you)

>>15071709
>>15071744
>partical

I don't usually nitpick about spelling, but you're really straining credibility here, as you've claimed to have taken relevant university physics courses.

>>15071176
>ontological materialism is false
People believed that it was true? I can see plebs believing this but for anyone who has delved into ontology, I see no convincing arguments for absolute ontoloigcal materialism

Please convey them unto me

>>15071926
When he does its different which contradicts mwi
>>15071934
This isn't bait you retard
>>15071955
You're a retard

>>15071991
Do you not realize there are multiple people in the thread?

>>15071945
Yeah, you definitely can speak Deleuze/post modern. I'd say the weakness is the lack of an full application of your ideas to an actual piece of culture. Try taking a look at a piece of recent historical fiction, like the HBO series Chernobyl. That would give you a lot more meat to work with. You take potshots at plenty of cultural objects but never fully attack one. I'd replace the paragraphs 19 and 21 with a critique of a single object. The theory in the piece is solid, and the writing style is more lucid than a lot of the stuff you tend to see in academic journals.

>>15072019
>>15072026
see >>15071863

>>15072026
>When he does its different which contradicts mwi
No, he doesn't. The measurement outcomes are always consistent. The first observer entangles with the system, the second observer doesn't. The results are only 'paradoxical' if you assume objective collapse.

>>15071893
You know that neutron radiation is used in cancer treatment right? I mean... Yes, the kind of bullshit you're talking about is sadly happening with alarming regularity (mostly in social sciences, but it is creeping everywhere), but your skepticism has morphed into paranoia. I sympathize with your rejection of corruption, but don't go full retard and become a schizo.

>>15072042
>for the specifics please buy my book
In any case, this is a matter of the headline being sensationalist or being properly defined. The situation is still reducible into the maxim "there might be objective reality but the human observer cannot absolutely observe it."

>>15072051
chemotherapy doesnt work sweaty xoxoxo Follow the money and youll soon understand. See what happens to lads who have cures for cancer. Do the maths. If they are willing to wage international wars to make money, what makes you think chemo and radiation therapy is legit? Wake the fuck up.

>>15071176
>the von-Neumann Wigner interpretation, NOT to be confused with Copenhagen interpretation) has been very solidly shown to be correct
Wrong.

Your conclusion assumes that we perfectly understand the universe and know for a fact that the conclusions made in this experiment are due wholly to the hypothesis being proven and not some unknown other factor interfering with the results.

Furthermore, the pleb mind is barely big enough to understand that our political adversaries might not necessarily be cartoon moustache-twirling villains. Even if materialism is wrong, we're living the material world. Living in a material world
Living in a material world (material)
Living in a material world
Boys may come and boys may go
And that's all right you see
Experience has made me rich
And now they're after me
'Cause everybody's living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
A material, a material, a material, a material world
Living in a material world (material)
Living in a material world
Living in a material world (material)
Living in a material world
Living in a material world (material)
Living in a material world
Living in a material world (material)
Living in a material

>>15072031
I do, but I think it's just more likely that you and anyone who misrepresents quantum research so transparently are full of shit.

>>15071863
>This headline is very wrong; quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with objective reality.
Wrong.

>>15072038

Thanks m8, I appreciate it. I actually prefer the wider net approach since it doesn’t force the critique and theory into the specific piece of work, but hell I’ll give it a shot next time. Do you see any flaws in the core idea that the technical existence of characteristic means narratives, structures and so must exist in nature? I’ve yet to find a way to really disprove the existence of Sosein/Characteristics

>>15072111
Go back retard

>>15071666
>The experiment best aligns with the vonNeumann-Wigner interpretation of QM.
Wrong.

>>15071863
He's saying objective reality is outside the reach of any one observer. Therefore, no individual observer can claim knowledge of absolute truth, as no individual gets to see all of reality.

The ability of individual observers to make absolute statements on reality is a precondition of materialism/physicalism, since as a monism, it asserts knowledge of the full nature of reality, and yet by its own terms it shows it cannot observe all of it. At the very least, this leaves one being a non-empiricist materialist (it's not empirical to assert knowledge of the unobserved), which I guess is something one can be, but not something I have seen anyone actually defend.

>>15072128
No.

>>15072031
There's no objective reality as to the number of people in this thread, asshat.

>>15072139
>>15072139
this. as I said "there might be objective reality but the human observer cannot absolutely observe it."

In any case I think this is an argument of semantics or by people attempting to prove two different semi related arguments without knowing it

I suppose it's time to espouse Gnosticism.

>>15072139
You have no idea what you're talking about. Materialism is a metaphysical thesis. Limitations on knowledge are epistemological conditions. We've known from the outset that QM puts constraints on what observers can measure, and the precision with which they can measure it. That doesn't make the universe any less material.

>>15072151
Wrong.

>>15072097
Well, by all means I encourage you to obtain a chunk of cf-252 and put it into your pillow at night. If neutrons aren't real, then you should be fine.

>>15072202
(you)

>>15071482
Kant was a transcendental idealist

>>15072116
No problem. Funny, again we both go for the opposite idea on critiques. Butt the core idea? That's actually an idea that I'm a big fan of. There's a section in ATP, I want to say in On the Refrain where they talk about art pre existing mankind, that art exists in nature independent of us. Clearly more than just art pre exists us. There's a Baudrillard essay "Ideological Genesis of Needs" that takes a similar approach, arguing that individual identities can only exist as a result of a network of exchanges that pre exist humans.

The supposition of objective reality to be anything other than noumenal requires the human perception and analysis of phenomena to be likewise objective - the true form of an object is that object's form independent of the analysis of the observer: that thing in itself. Since our perception of reality is just that, insofar as there is an "I" that perceives a phenomenon X (which implies that "I" is not the phenomenon X but rather is merely aware of that phenomenon), we can never experience objective reality because we can never perceive removed from perception

>>15072259
I'd say that because subjectivity is a subset of objectivity, we do experience objective reality (everything possible is contained by objective reality) — just not in its entirety. Even appearances are objectively real.

>>15072195
> the universe
Ah, but we're talking of reality, not just the universe. You can't claim both 'only the material is real' and 'we can't actually observe all of reality' and still say you're being empirical. Either materialism goes, or empiricism goes.

>>15072218
shut up fag. Theres a labcoat that eats nuclear stuff, its all fake as shit. I dont know what that c-um69 shit is because I read philosophy, not some gay fan fiction by some bugman labcoat faggot. You just swallow whatever bs they shovel into your gaping basedface mouth.

>>15072315
>subjectivity is a subset of objectivity

>>15072372
Based retard

>>15072372
Based

Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" is pretty much exactly what OP is asking for.

Also you'd probably be very interested in Bergson's "Creative Evolution." Vitalism as a whole is extremely interesting to anyone looking to move beyond empirical materialism. Deleuze recuperates Bergson to great effect in "Bergsonism."

>>15072026
/lit/ has turned in to total dumpster fire.
quantum cope has been bashed into the ground so many times here alone, and still same retards keep making these as if nothing

>>15072354
>You can't claim both 'only the material is real' and 'we can't actually observe all of reality' and still say you're being empirical.
Of course you can.

>>15072386
Sounds like a line from the movie "Love and Death".

>>15072315
I am not convinced that reality is as simple as "subjectivity is a subset of objectivity." In set theory, as I know it, a subset is "a set of which all the elements are contained in another set." Can a subset contain more objects that the original set? Subjective implies perception based and thus is both a universal set (since it contains the things-in-themselves) and a complementary infinite number of interpretations of the things-in-themselves. In using set theory, it would appear that all objective elements are contained within the set of subjectivity but all subjective elements are not contained within objectivity; it follows that perception based reality is a set comprised of all subjective and objective elements in which objective elements is a subset of subjective elements.

>we do experience objective reality
Should read, "we very likely may experience objective reality." Subjectivity being not a subset of objectively implies that observing objective reality is possible but that the observer can never be sure that what he is observing is the same as that-which-is-being-observed's true form.

>>15072372
>some gay fan fiction by some bugman labcoat faggot.

>>15072372
Cool, can you direct me to this conoisseur of emissive gastronomy?

Oh, of course everything you read is gospel truth... I never doubted that for a second.

>>15072386
Do you have a counter argument, or just a folder full of manchild cartoon memes?

>>15072509
>Do you have a counter argument, or just a folder full of manchild cartoon memes?

>>15072426
Empiricism means you can't claim knowledge of the unobserved. Since we have admitted we can't observe all of reality, it is impossible to make any absolute statements on reality, so materialism/physicalism is out the window, if you want to hold on to empiricism.

If you want to hold on to materialism instead, then you're claiming knowledge of that which is beyond sense experience, thereby dismissing empiricism.>>15072426

>>15072551
>Empiricism means you can't claim knowledge of the unobserved.
False.

>>15072315
>subjectivity is a subset of objectivity

>>15072487
Galen Winsor is his name. Worked on the Manhattan Project, which I understand is considered as somewhat of an epic moment by bugmen such as yourself.

>>15072452
Well, we're not omnisicent, so we can deduce that (1) there is an objective reality which precedes our experience and (2) that this objective reality contains more than our experience. Basic stuff.

Representation vs. true form isn't relevant to this issue. The point is that everything (including appearances) are contained within a broad (objective) reality, as our lack of omniscience demonstrates.

>>15072509
>Do you have a counter argument, or just a folder full of manchild cartoon memes?

>>15072561
>lets gain empirical evidence of things that can't be empirically substantiated

fuck me you're stupid

>>15072600
This is a peak midwit take

>>15072653
Read a book, retard. Empiricism has an established definition.

>>15072664
Woah no way fields of study have definition? Keep it coming with these absolute fucking bangers

>>15072600
This is mindnumbingly contradictory and discontinuous to a degree that I am forced to consider it bait

>>15072670
Empiricism isn't a "field of study", you embarrassing dumbfuck.

>>15072681
Go read Hume then come back to apologize

>>15072561
I know this is bait but:

> Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience

And since reality is not entirely described by sense-experience, there is no empirical basis upon which to make absolute statements on it, such as 'reality is solely physical'.

>>15072688
Dubs of truth. Stay radically empirical.

>>15072690
It's about how statements are confirmed or disconfirmed. It's an epistemic position. Nothing to do with metaphysics.

>>15072576
If he had been eating refined isotopes and not just oxides, it would be interesting. Of course, such details are lost on retarded schizos like yourself. Acute radiation sickness is real and well documented.

Hey if you're right though, you don't have to worry about 5G anymore.

>>15072688
I hope you are just pretending to be retarded.

>>15072659
>>15072676
Not arguments.

>>15072722
Well the isotopes and the neutrinos are actually two different substances, it says so in my science book. You should read one sometimes. And since quantum mechanics is real, that black guy fucking my asshole is actually Billie Eilish with a strap-on, so its not gay, its quantumly straight.
You see I am very smart. I read two (yes two) wikipedia articles on quantum physics, along with 8 r3ddit posts (yes I know its a lot). So I know stuff.
These scientists, yes these wonderful men. They discovered these things. Yes. Discovered them in labs so they did. And thats that. Love me neutrinos, love me quarks, 'ate religion, ,ate philosophy, and thats that. Simple as.

>>15072775
stop, you're trying too hard

>>15072690
Everything that we can describe appears to be physical (while you can't even define what non-physical specifically refers to)... That's not an empirical basis which supports a probability? It always makes me laugh when people who argue for essentially negative claims try to suggest that physicalism has no empirical basis.

>>15072775
cringed hard reading this

>>15072718
One can absolutely be a non-empiricist materialist, but admit that's what you are, for the statement 'reality is solely physical' cannot be empirically verified. If you think it can be, show me how.

So there is objectively no objective reality?

>>15072794
> Probability

Useless when taking absolute positions such as physicalism.

>>15072722
5g is a frequency not raditation. it beams messages into your mind. it activated the bugs under my skin

>>15071544
Kek

>>15072817
MIT btfo with one question

>>15071666
This is such an embarrassing misunderstanding of quantum foundations that it is not almost not worth correcting you. This all hinges on the meaning of "realism", since the wavefunction interpreted as an ontic entity would mean that the wavefunction - the probability distribution - is a REAL thing - an actual existing object in the world. This does NOT disprove the existence of the objective world. All it does is show that material objects behave in strange ways. Similarly, MWI is a realist theory. It rejects collapse, but posits the existence of a universal wavefunction. Subjectivity does not enter into this at all

>>15072983
>since the wavefunction interpreted as an ontic entity
is pseudoscience

>>15072994
Nah, it's philosophy. Most physicists attuned to foundational questions acknowledge there's a legitimate question there. And of course there is - why shouldn't we ask what the meaning of the equations are?

>>15071176
Why is science always so far behind philosophy? This is literally baby tier phenomenology.

>>15071176
>muh superposition
oh, modern science! Keep on misunderstanding basic spin mechanics in photons.

>>15072983
Wave function existing as an ontic entity is inherently platonic and not material

>>15073710
What do you mean by "platonic" and "material"? Wave-function realism as a position commits you to the reality of the wave function. That is all. It's still a material entity. Platonic realism as a global metaphysical position can commit you to any number of entities, whether abstract or material. The wave function, if it is real, is not an abstract object

>>15072227
Meaning that material transcends ideals, even forms them.

>>15071176
ITT /lit/ chad disobeying every rule of scientific reasoning and conventions while /sci/ cucks use their textbooks as arguments

>>15072372
Based as FUCK

>>15072819
It's a frequency of EM radiation, idiot.

>>15072818
You can't be 100% certain that stepping in front of a speeding train will kill you, but you will act as if that knowledge is certain due to the preponderance of evidence.

Being a physicalist doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to change my position according to new information, it just means that I'm adopting the most reasonable position and that the alternative positions are incredibly weak (they rely upon negative claims... they define themselves by mere contrarianism, not pointing to anything we can actually investigate). There is nothing that makes considerations of probability incompatible with 'absolute' positions (indeed, probability itself could be a physical process, which is what these quantum experiments might actually be showing).

>>15072815
Everything we've investigated is physical. All the evidence is on his side. If you want appeal to non-physicality, then it's up to you to first define what precisely that means and then demonstrate it. If you can't offer a coherent and demonstrable alternative to physicalism, then you can't fault an empiricist for going with the only position that empiricism presents.

All you're doing is making a petty objection via the technical limits of epistemology, while excusing yourself from any rigorous standard.

>>15072659
Really, so Kant is a midwit? Good to know.