reality comprises a real 'realm of possibility', from which particular ('determinate') outcomes are precipitated. — Wayfarer

More generally, I like to argue for the view that whatever we believe to exist (even things existing unobserved) exists in a determinate manner - meaning that if we encounter a previously-unseen celestial object, we will know what kind of thing it is. But that still leaves room for the assertion that the kind of reality the world has outside of the mind of the observer is indeterminate. That means that it is not non-existent, but it's also not strictly speaking existent. At best it has a kind of presumptive existence — Wayfarer

Aren’t you just mixing up epistemology with ontology? — apokrisis

Once upon a time there was a wave function, which was said to completely describe the state of a physical system out in the world. The shape of the wave function encodes the probabilities for the outcomes of any measurements an observer might perform on it, but the wave function belonged to nature itself, an objective description of an objective reality.

Then Fuchs came along. Along with the researchers Carlton Caves and Rüdiger Schack, he interpreted the wave function’s probabilities as Bayesian probabilities — that is, as subjective degrees of belief about the system. Bayesian probabilities could be thought of as gambling attitudes for placing bets on measurement outcomes, attitudes that are updated as new data come to light. In other words, Fuchs argued, the wave function does not describe the world — it describes the observer. “Quantum mechanics,” he says, “is a law of thought.” — A Private View of Quantum Reality

They don’t need an epistemology - some encoded blueprint or instruction set. — apokrisis

The Heisenberg article explicitly states '“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’.” — Wayfarer

Mathematical physics has necessitated the development of both new forms of mathematics, and the coining of new words ('spin', 'color', 'charm') to describe new discoveries. — Wayfarer

It certainly has an impact on how we think about the nature of reality - so many of the books on physics have sub-titles that refer to that (‘Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality’, for instance.) — Wayfarer

the hallmark of anything that exists is that it is determinate.... — Wayfarer

there is an ontological distinction..... — Wayfarer

whether it is meaningful to speak of what exists in the absence of an observing mind. — Wayfarer

What I object to is the idea that 'that teacup isn't real'. It is real because thst teacup is the sort of thing we use the word 'real' to describe and that's the only measure there is of what a word means. — Isaac

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Correct use of language is determined by the community using the word, not by some subset. — Isaac

whether it is meaningful to speak of what exists in the absence of an observing mind.
— Wayfarer

Put a check mark in the not-even-a-chance column for me. Although, if I’m being metaphysically honest, I’d substitute rational intelligence for mind.

Oh....I like your Pinter stuff. — Mww

Aren’t you just mixing up epistemology with ontology?
— apokrisis

They're intimately linked. — Wayfarer

we exist as classical beings within, or at the level of, nature constituted by classical constaints; what difference does Wheeler's speculation make to our lives – striving for 'the good life' – philosophically or practically? — 180 Proof

we exist as classical beings within, or at the level of, nature constituted by classical constaints; what difference does Wheeler's speculation make to our lives – striving for 'the good life' – philosophically or practically?
— 180 Proof — Tom Storm

Consider the widely-accepted paradigm, that life and mind are thrown up as a byproduct of essentially meaningless physical processes, or as emergent properties of those processes. — Wayfarer

Consider the widely-accepted paradigm ... — Wayfarer

Concommitant with that view is determinism, ...

Wheeler's ideas can be interpreted as [ ... ] It is a philosophical idea that was also suggested by the discoveries of quantum physics ...

Maybe a more apt metaphor is that the universe discovers itself ...

Wheeler was as guilty as Bohr & co of committing the mind-projection fallacy — 180 Proof

All this might be illusory, or it might be connected to unknowable transcendence - but I don't think it makes any functional difference as I go about my business — Tom Storm

↪Joshs I agree. It seems to me that idealism or not - people's embedded values tend to persist above and beyond their ontological assumptions. — Tom Storm

I like to argue for the view that whatever we believe to exist (even things existing unobserved) exists in a determinate manner - meaning that if we encounter a previously-unseen celestial object, we will know what kind of thing it is. — Wayfarer

I'm not familiar with Wayf's "blind spot" notion. — 180 Proof

guess what I meant was that embedded values and ontological assumptions are two ways of talking about the same thing. Most of the world’s ethical dilemmas and history of violence results not from a disconnect between embedded values and ontological assumptions, but from their connectedness. It is not hypocrites but sincere zealots we need fear most. — Joshs

Is the mind-projection fallacy similar to the 'blind spot' so often evoked by Wayfarer? — Tom Storm

Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately.
— Julian Huxley

I'm not familiar with Wayf's "blind spot" notion. — 180 Proof

To put it bluntly, the claim that there’s nothing but physical reality is either false or empty. If ‘physical reality’ means reality as physics describes it, then the assertion that only physical phenomena exist is false. Why? Because physical science – including biology and computational neuroscience – doesn’t include an account of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness is something unnatural or supernatural. The point is that physical science doesn’t include an account of experience; but we know that experience exists, so the claim that the only things that exist are what physical science tells us is false. On the other hand, if ‘physical reality’ means reality according to some future and complete physics, then the claim that there is nothing else but physical reality is empty, because we have no idea what such a future physics will look like, especially in relation to consciousness.

Psychologist George Kelly said what matters is not whether the universe exists, but what we can make of it. — Joshs

What we take to be a galaxy in a picture could turn out to be a new system or phenomena previously unknown in astronomy. So in these cases, we would not know what thing it is, outside of the very general comment of "being something seen by the James Webb telescope." — Manuel

Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately. — Julian Huxley

Nagel’s starting point is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself’. Nagel’s surrounding argument is something of a sketch, but is entirely compatible with a Buddhist vision of reality as naturalism, including the possibility of insight into reality (under the topic of reason or cognition) and the possibility of apprehension of objective good (under the topic of value). His naturalism does this while fully conceding the explanatory power of physics, Darwinian evolution and neuroscience. Most Buddhists are what one might describe as intuitive non-materialists, but they have no way to integrate their intuition into the predominantly materialistic scientific world view. I see the value of Nagel’s philosophy in Mind and Cosmos as sketching an imaginative vision of reality that integrates the scientific world view into a larger one that includes reason, value and purpose, and simultaneously casts philosophical doubt on the completeness of the predominant materialism of the age. — The Universe is Waking Up