NB According to Rovelli, we have got things wrong about 'time'.

Anyone who seriously thinks/believes that nothing exists prior to human awareness of it has lost their fucking mind.

Some things exist prior to us, and thus prior to our reports.

Are you denying that?

Things require thingers...

I doubt if there are primitive 'thingers' in philosophy today, even in phenomenology, having a specific method of analysis. Therefore the concept of a thing needs a more precise definition. The thing as I see it is a phenomenon; the thing as I believe, theorize is some quantity of energy, God's creation or what comes to a theoretical/religious/mystical mind. 'Unthinging' of our reality doesn't do anything good to it.

You are using 'existence' as an absolute. The thesis here is that 'existence' is a word used by humans regarding what is 'a useful concept'....nothing more ! Time is a 'useful concept' in social contexts but not in frontier physics which demotes it to a 'psychological construct'. Similarly 'science based' comments can be made wbout concepts like 'mind', phenomenon' and even 'causality'.

IMO we need a dump a whole bunch of axioms about 'existence' which might require moving from 'definitions' to 'neologisms' (as emplified by Heidegger's attempt).

'Reality'...? That is just another word used in social contexts to denote agreement about 'what is the case'. The fact that humans have much physically, psychologically and socially in common, implies they are often in agreement. Actually, the word tends not to arise at all except when potential disagreement occurs.

You are using 'existence' as an absolute. — fresco

I am using common sense.

The problem with 'common sense' is that it assumes language to be representational of 'extant permanent objects', which is fine for daily transactions, just like a geocentic model is still useful for gardeners. However, 'common sense' is at odds with scientific paradigms with not only usurp normal 'logic', question 'causality', speak of sub atomic particles 'popping in and out of existence', and eliminate 'time' as fundamental parameter . 'Common sense' would not have given us computers or satnavs, or led to the discovery of 'black holes'.
I refer you back to the OP point about the Einstein Bohr debate. Einstein took a basic step,away from 'common sense' in his deconstruction of lay views of 'time', but as a 'realist' he could only go so far, and refused to accept quantum theory 'illogical' notions like 'nonlocality' which he called 'spooky'. It turns out he was emprically 'wrong'.
Finally, I ask you what 'common sense' would make of Brian Cox's sub-title for his book on 'Quantum Physics'....'Whatever CAN happen, DOES happen !'

How do you define existence?

If you define it relative to the individual experience, then it is relative to that one person. If you define it relative to the collective experience, then it is relative to that group. But if you define it relative to the total spatio-temporal configuration of the objects in the universe, then most people would call that absolute.

Now, I am not a physicist, but I do know that there are quite a few contending (equivalent, to the extent of their empirical confirmation) QM interpretations. Some allow you to make a claim that may never be verified - i.e. they are counterfactual.

I can tell you - this coin has "99%" chance to land tails, and if it lands heads, I can say that the result confirmed with my expectations. If I tell you (for the same coin) that it now changed and has "99%" chance to land heads, and it lands tails, I can take this as validation again. If the coin obeys consistent probabilistic behavior, the results will almost surely provide intuitive confirmation after infinite amount of time. But almost surely is not surely (and this is very important point). And infinite time is a lot of time. And no confidence can be extracted from observations performed without apriori model. (You need to have started with evolutionary trait that provides initial intuitions.) So, I am skeptical that we understand probability (other then according to our definitions), less so physical non-determinism. At this early stage, I think QM is a very nasty philosophical tool. We know how to use it and probability to our benefit, but that is far from complete understanding.

Regarding relativity, again, I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that it offers a switch from the prior definitions, rather then a reform of our reality. Instead of measuring using a single device, or particular global periodic phenomenon, it measures relative to the local physical processes. Which, makes much more sense physically, but doesn't preclude any measurement of time or space one could wish. In fact, the theory doesn't really afford "ontological" space and time, merely parameters that trace the physical relations.

I don't define it. It is a concept which denotes 'utility' of another concept and the utility of all concepts is relative to human needs. Some concepts imply expectance of lasting physicality and others do not. Concepts are denoted by 'words' whose abstract permanence suggests permanence of "objects' relative to human experience. But concepts are all we've got !

The problem with 'common sense' is that it assumes language to be representational of 'extant permanent objects'... — fresco

My common sense doesn't.

Sigh...

Are you denying that things existed prior to us?

Simple question.

The thesis here is that 'existence' is a word used by humans regarding what is 'a useful concept'....nothing more ! — fresco

That's not a thesis. That's an absolute statement. Ironic.

...concepts are all we've got ! — fresco

Throwing rocks at fresco...

'Reality'...? That is just another word used in social contexts to denote agreement about 'what is the case'.

To me reality is more than just a word. As a word 'reality' is a channel to 'aletheia'. Words have two functions: a) to connect two different, communicating aletheias, b) to connect mind and things in a personal aletheia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia

Anyone who seriously thinks/believes that nothing exists prior to human awareness of it has lost their fucking mind. — creativesoul

No, they've just been corrupted by philosophy. (I jest.)

More seriously, I think it's just a switch in ways of talking and hearing. I argued once that in a certain peculiar sense the stars weren't here before we were. Though I had my reasons, I'd no longer feel motivated to give them. It's just not the interesting part of philosophy for me anymore.

As far as 'things prior to us' is concerned. in so far that it denotes a 'useful' concept for current humans as an imagined scenario, then 'such things existed'. However since both 'prior to' and 'us' are concepts which are candidates for deconstruction at other levels of analysis, the italicised phrase implies contextual relativity for that use of exist

I'm not sure whether Heidegger himself used 'reality' in that way to imply his promotion of aletheia. Afterall, his use of Existenz was restricted to the operational 'being' of humans which seems to indicate that all his terminology was anthropocentric.

Absolute/Fundamental: covariant quantum fields.

All else as relative/emergent/relational, including:
space, time, particles, classical fields, waves, light…

The only problem with that is that you are citing a mathematical model and maths taken as a metalanguage carries with it all the linguistic issues already covered, particularly nonrepresentation.

I don't define it. It is a concept which denotes 'utility' of another concept and the utility of all concepts is relative to human needs. — fresco

I think of the relationship between reality and the personal momentary impression of utility like the direction of water molecules in the path of a water stream. Each molecule has a direction and is a quantity of water. However, it may or may not be consistent with the overall direction of the surrounding volume of water. And if it is inconsistent, it is likely that it will be altered, numerous times, with the overall tendency to follow the same path as the rest. Or not, but more likely, it will. The surrounding volume of water also may deviate from the total turn of the stream, due to an obstacle, for example. But ultimately, it will probably join with the rest. Or not, but usually it does. And if it does, by the time it does, the stream may have changed direction.

The point is, the water molecule can only account for its own motion. But there is such thing as consistency or inconsistency, and there is impact from the said consistency of motion that usually affects the individual molecule. Knowing this, one is tempted to talk about the shape of the stream bed, rather then the direction of that individual molecules, even if one is granted limited view of the body of water.

To claim that existence is relative is a restriction of scope - of single sentient point of view in a single instance of time. But it is not mandatory to commit to this scope for the purposes of methodological and epistemological analysis.

Some concepts imply expectance of lasting physicality and others do not. Concepts are denoted by 'words' whose abstract permanence suggests permanence of "objects' relative to human experience. — fresco

One could similarly argue that conceptualization is extrapolation of form derived from sensory experiences. You might then claim that you don't have concepts, but delusional elaboration of your senses. But if the concepts, sensory experiences, and the phenomena which cause them are joined in through methodical interactions, existence can be claimed in the usual way - through observational verification.

But concepts are all we've got ! — fresco

Concepts are like self-fulfilling prophecies. In the event of contention, each side assumes it is consistent with the human condition on a larger scale. Each side fights for recognition and self-affirmation, until the "correct" belief is justified if it becomes testable, and compels a wider consensus. Then, the relativistic conceptualization transcends its boundaries. Realism is a statement, that such convergence is inevitable.

I think you are avoiding the notion that all 'concepts' are denoted by 'words' which are socially acquired.
Convergent consensus may be inevitable, but only to the extent that human language users have large parts of their physiology in common. Now, it may be, that an 'uncommon physiology' like the brain of Einstein, can deconstruct previously 'useful' concepts like 'time', thereby triggering a paradigm shift with its associated 'concept/language revision'. But there is no theoretical limit to such potential deconstruction , and hence 'reality' recedes further into the distance like the carrot on the end of the stick.

mathematical model — fresco

An absolute Totality is complete in itself (not infinite), and so it must be finite and have a boundary, but Zero/'Nothing' cannot be, and thus Zero cannot be outside the boundary; thus, an absolute One of Totality is not possible, either, leaving all to be relative?

Yes. I think we may be getting into aporia territory here (Derrida) in which every assertion evokes its negation. Aporia may indeed be the ultimate 'relativity'.

I think you are avoiding the notion that all 'concepts' are denoted by 'words' which are socially acquired. — fresco

Words mediate concepts in our thought process, but they are not in themselves concepts. The interpretations of words require an interpreter and a universe, where the interpretation is "acted". The interpreter and context are not compelled into existence by language. If the interpreter acts irrationally by virtue of its conceptual understanding, it will face increased adversity. This decreases its odds for successful function (biological, social, etc). Even if very slowly, this will gradually eliminate or rectify the interpretation (by changing or destroying the interpretation bearer, its culture, its species, etc).

Convergent consensus may be inevitable, but only to the extent that human language users have large parts of their physiology in common. — fresco

They have a lot more in common, like culture, economy, ecological factors. Delusions are frequently part of the majority point of view. But they must still be acted out in ways that remain practical. Without practicality, a delusion will be self-destructive. As the technological and anthropological needs of a society increase, prior delusions lose practicality and are removed from majority consensus. New delusions appear in their stead, but reality does gradually settle in.

Now, it may be, that an 'uncommon physiology' like the brain of Einstein, can deconstruct previously 'useful' concepts like 'time', thereby triggering a paradigm shift with its associated 'concept/language revision'. — fresco

Einstein did not invent special/general relativity, just to break the mold. There were good and eminent physical reasons to do it (such as the relative consistency between the speed of electromagnetic waves and the rate of other physical phenomena in all reference frames), and there was already a vigorous debate concerning the meaning of time and space, before Einstein. Similarly, there were discussions about the wave and corpuscular nature of light prior to QM. There was of course conservatism, resistance to change, etc, but in both cases, empirical data prompted the developments in the conceptual model, not aesthetics.

every assertion evokes its negation. — fresco

If there isn't anything absolute, then we are relieved of an unmakable, unbreakable eternal substance, and onto to the conclusion that all is temporary, without anything permanent, except change.

Once a virtual particle is created it would have to change because the effects required for it to be created as it is, creates other effects that must destroy it, as a closure that makes for compositional parity. Absolutes wouldn't follow those rules. Quantum fields cannot be zero, for that is a definite state and disallowed, so there is fluctuation/change.

Apparently, neither complete vacuity nor total solidity can be, leaving the indefinitness of the quantum uncertainty type or random outputs without inputs to result from the limit of the unreachable two nonexistent absolutes of None and One. I conclude that relatively the universe exists, but absolutely it doesn't.

Thus, a temporary reality ever becomes and then ever gets erased, somehow, as kind of akin to a faux presentism, given no absolutes. 'Light' is some kind of a clue, since from its viewpoint 'space' shrinks to a point and time does not pass. Somehow, 'light' gets slowed down from its pure all-at-oncesness of no time and its everywhereness of no space to broadcast a temporary reality of a here and a now.

Wearing my 'pragmatists hat', I can only interpret the phrase 'relative existence' from a contextual pov.Thus 'existence' is relative if the concept of 'the existent thing' is contextually useful to interlocutors.e.g. 'God exists' relative to believers.... 'Particles exist' as useful concepts relative to some aspects of physics experimentation...etc.
I Interpret the concept of 'absolute existence' as the negation of such contextual restraints about usage.

I agree that what 'humans have in common' may be ostensibly more than physiology.
'Commonality' viewed from a nested systems pov, takes on semantic issues of different 'levels of discourse'. So refering to the Einstein scenario, at the neurological level we might consider 'structural uniqueness' as a factor. And at the social level, we might consider Einstein's patent office duties examining time keeping inventions as a factor. And then of course we have the scientific zeitgeist in which paradigms operate...etc. All these are possible contributory factors to the shift in the utility of the concept denoted by the word 'time', that shift being expressed by modifying words like 'local time'.
But at the end of the day, I suggest all those levels of discourse culminate in observational criteria (aka evidence) regarding the utility of the concept and 'observation' is basically a physiological act.

As an aside, my neurophilosophy thread discusses 'evidence' of brain functioning which might correlate 'paradigm dynamics' which might indicate further 'physiological reductionist' possibilities.

'absolute existence' — fresco

Yet, for Relative Totality, there is neither an Absolute Existence nor an Absolute NonExistence, leaving but a relative in-between, as relative to neither or as relative to both, but what could that mean?

Absolute Totality vs. Relative Totality
None isn’t ‘outside’ nor can be in here,
Nor can Finite One be, with None outside;
Thus, there is no absolute One or None,
Which forces a relative ‘in-between’.

‘One’ as an Absolute Totality Fails Even More
Thus, we can’t step into what isn’t there,
Nor can a One expand into a None,
Nor can there be spacers of None
Within the arena of a One.