Calling something "nonsensical illogic" is not a logical argument. Cite one of my assumptions or my extrapolations therefrom, as I admittedly then proceed out on a limb pretty far in some cases, and show me where I started with an inherently flawed assumption or set of assumptions, or where I took a wrong step on any extrapolation, where I should have taken a step in a different direction down a different limb.

Your close-minded rejection is the OPPOSITE of philosophy and logic. Just a child saying "No it isn't!"

Ken

Calling something "nonsensical illogic" is not a logical argument. — ken2esq

No, because you have to present a logical argument first, burden of proof is on you since you have an extraordinary claim that features misunderstandings of physics and cherry picked non-correlated parts that does not equal any of the conclusions you make. So, yes, what you are doing is nonsense, that's why I said so.

Your close-minded rejection is the OPPOSITE of philosophy and logic. — ken2esq

Philosophy is not about just thinking whatever bs you can think of. Philosophy requires a praxis of rational reasoning, which you haven't presented yet, so it's not close-minded to ask for better philosophy, it's the exact purpose of philosophy.

If all you do is demand that people accept your "theory", then you are doing nothing right. You need some philosophy 101 and then come back with a proper argument, otherwise there's no starting point for any of this.

"No, because you have to present a logical argument first."
Lol, that is so wrong-headed! What if I did present a logical argument? The way you show I did NOT present a logical argument is by showing how it is illogical, by dismantling the actually assumptions and or extrapolations therefrom. The conclusory "that's not a logical argument" skips all the NECESSARY steps to support your conclusion.

EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent, but they do not get to say just "that's illogical" as their rebuttal. Seriously, explain a debate with opposing sides where both sides AGREE the other's side is LOGICAL. You cannot do it.

Christopher Hutchins debating theists...he did not think they had a logical argument. Did he therefore say it was impossible to address their arguments?

You position is so absurd...

This is literally the HEART and MEAT of philosophical debate, dismantling -- in detail, with exactitude -- why the opposing view IS illogical. To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense.

Please, I beg of you, defend that position. Defend the logic of your assertion that an illogical argument merits NO rebuttal, that we only rebut LOGICAL arguments. I REALLY want to hear how you will rationalize stating such an obviously false position. Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.)

Ken

I think there is a grain of truth in this, but I emphasis 'grain'. And here moreso than many other places, a little learning is dangerous. But this 20-year-old article on physicist John Wheeler's 'participatory universe' can be interpreted to say something like that. — Wayfarer

In my view Wheeler and especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are the pinnacle of (logical) positivism. Hence we have these models that puts the human observing something in the center of everything. Because ...it's us humans making the observations.

Logical positivism has been killed many times over by philosophers. But no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart, it arises unbidden in the minds of scientists. For if the content of a theory goes beyond what you can observe, then you can never, in principle, be sure that any theory is right. And that means there can be interminable arguments about which theory is right that cannot be settled by observation.

This, in a nutshell, is the central conundrum of quantum mechanics: how does the mathematical formalism used to represent a quantum system make contact with the world as given in experience? This is commonly called the measurement problem, although the name is misleading. It might better be called the where-in-the-theory-is-the-world-we-live-in problem.

Tim Maudlin: The Defeat of Reason

In my view Wheeler and especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are the pinnacle of (logical) positivism. — ssu

Not at all. Neils Bohr was highly critical of logical positivism. Heisenberg relates in his book Physics and Beyond that the Vienna Circle positivists visited Copenhagen in the 1950’s to hear Bohr lecture, and Bohr felt that they didn’t understand him at all. That is the source of that often-quoted exclamation from Bohr, ‘if you are not shocked by quantum mechanics you haven’t understood it’. The ensuing discussion provides a thumbnail sketch of Bohr’s criticism of positivism but I don’t have it on hand.

French philosopher of science, Michel Bitbol, makes a far better case for the Kantian nature of Bohr’s epistemology.

When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function — JuanZu

Not according to Brian Greene.

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq

No-one ever observes a probability wave, because it’s a mathematical function that describes the distribution of probabilities. What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement.

What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement. — Wayfarer

An analogy I've used before is that a differential equation (like the Schrodinger equation) may have a multitude of solutions, one of which suits the experiment being performed. Upon measurement one of these is determined to be be correct. No "collapse". But my analogy may be incorrect.

When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function
— JuanZu

Not according to Brian Greene.

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement.
— Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos — Wayfarer

Sorry if I misinterpret, but where would he disagree with me?

You say:

we are physically intervening... — JuanZu

But Greene's quote seems to question that, doesn't it?

Upon measurement one of these is determined to be be correct. No "collapse". But my analogy may be incorrect. — jgill

It's more the fact that prior to the measurement, you can't say what actually exists. It's not as if there's a pre-existing thing, whereabouts unknown, but that there is no determinate object up until the point of measurement. What has 'collapsed' is the range of possibilities which are reduced to one single actuality - 'made manifest', one could say.

You say:

we are physically intervening...
— JuanZu

But Greene's quote seems to question that, doesn't it? — Wayfarer

If I do not misunderstand what he is referring to, it is that a quantum system has its properties of uncertainty even without the intervention of the scientist's measurement. And what I have referred to is that the loss of that property of uncertainty occurs when the scientist measures with his physical devices.

Both positions are not contradictory. In fact they complement each other. Since I have not said that the quantum properties of a coherent system are an effect of measurement. Instead, I have said that the loss of these properties is an effect of the measure.

What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq

Because it makes no sense. Probability waves are mathematical/physical descriptions which have predictive power. They might or might not exist in real life. If you are talking about a particle in particular that is described by a probability wave, the universe is not created by its observation as there needs to be a universe to begin with for that observation to even happen.

Probability waves are not intrinsic to reality, again: it is an equation whose ontology is unknown, hence the different interpretations of QM.

What even is your background in physics to be abusing these concepts?

Probability waves are not intrinsic to reality, again: it is an equation whose ontology is unknown, hence the different interpretations of QM. — Lionino

:up:

I don’t know if there such a thing as ‘the property of uncertainty’. It is the properties (of momentum and velocity) that are uncertain prior to measurement.

What? Isn't a lab part of nature? — Lionino

No, a lab is not natural, it is artificial, and "natural" is defined as not artificial.

When we need to calculate the voltage a heater/boiler must take, should we not treat the heater as a closed system because supposedly it is not natural? — Lionino

There are energy loses, therefore the system is not truly closed. This is understood under the concept of efficiency.

What energy is lost to entropy? Entropy and energy are different measurements. — Lionino

No system has 100% efficiency, therefore energy is always lost from a system.

2 - closed or isolated system are not theories. There is no theory in physics where it says "there is a (true) closed system", physics does not make existential statements even though it relies on them. Open, closed, isolated system are abstract concepts used to specify the conditions of a system. You could replace those words by ΔE = 0, Δm > 0, Δm = 0, if it helps you solve the exercise faster. — Lionino

So, as I said there is no such thing as a truly closed system. A "closed system" is an ideal which represents nothing natural or artificial, it is a theory only. Not only that, but as I explained, it is impossible for a closed system to actually exist, either naturally or artificially, such a thing is actually impossible. So we must respect this fact, and not allow ourselves to be misled by the idea that a closed system could actually exist.

o? Your inability to see is not my problem. Tell me the illogic. What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq

Let me put it this way. How would a person know oneself to be observing "probability waves"? What are the identifying features of these, so that I can find them in the universe and observe some?

I look out and I see a universe, and I observe this universe. You say, that the universe which I observe has been created by some other consciousness observing probability waves. But you seem to be incapable of telling me what a probability wave is, and how a consciousness could observe one, or a bunch of them.

Tell you what: Google Schroedinger's cat, read up on the concept of probability waves being intrinsic to reality. You seem to be bereft of basic science to claim probability waves are "magic." — ken2esq

It's your theory, so I want to see it explained by you. What type of existence do you think that a probability wave has, and how do you think that a consciousness could observe probability waves? This type of explanation is required so that I can judge the logic of your theory.

There are energy loses, therefore the system is not truly closed. This is understood under the concept of efficiency. — Metaphysician Undercover

I used it as an example of a closed system, not an isolated system. You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed and an isolated system.

No system has 100% efficiency, therefore energy is always lost from a system. — Metaphysician Undercover

That does not answer the question.

Whether a closed or isolated system are physically possible is irrelevant as it is a concept, not a theory, which, like in everything in physics, makes an approximation of reality. The inside of an average-sized black hole may be treated as a closed system when no matter is entering the event horizon, as the Hawking radiation emitted every second or even year is nothing compared to the billions of billions of tons of mass the BH has.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed and an isolated system. — Lionino

I am ready for a descriptive explanation, if you care to give it a go.

Whether a closed or isolated system are physically possible is irrelevant as it is a concept, not a theory, which, like in everything in physics, makes an approximation of reality. — Lionino

So we agree on this, except maybe terminology, you say "concept", I say "theory". Whatever. Now, my point was that if we get swayed by the idea (which is proposed in some metaphysics) that this "approximation of reality", is a representation of what really exists, we will be misled.

The inside of an average-sized black hole may be treated as a closed system when no matter is entering the event horizon, as the Hawking radiation emitted every second or even year is nothing compared to the billions of billions of tons of mass the BH has. — Lionino

Didn't you just say that a closed system is a concept which "makes an approximation of reality"? Why would you now say that a black hole ought to be treated in this way? Do you understand why it was so difficult for ancient astronomers to figure out the true nature of the solar system? It was because they were treating the orbits of the planets as perfect circles rather than as ellipses. This is how the ideals mislead us, and modern science has numerous examples, black bodies, white bodies, etc..

They might or might not exist in real life. — Lionino

So they might exist, good enough for me.

What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves?
— ken2esq

No-one ever observes a probability wave, because it’s a mathematical function that describes the distribution of probabilities. What happens when an observation is made is that those probabilities ‘collapse’ into a precise measurement. — Wayfarer

Geez, nitpicky much? That is what I meant. Saying when you look at a probability wave it collapses or when you observe a probability wave it collapses seems pretty irrelevant to my arguments. I would suggest you not get distracted by irrelevant semantics (relevant semantics are fine). But, despite that, thanks for the tip on keeping my language clean. I did think of your point and caught myself in other writings, but maybe after writing the above.

Ken

That is exactly what I have referred to: the moment in which the scientist and his measuring devices intervene and affect the coherent system. Such a thing supposes an ontological continuity between the scientist, the measuring devices and the system in a state of "coherence". It would not be legitimate to say that perception or having a "mental representation" alters the system. No, the scientist needs measuring devices (physical devices) to be able to "observe" the system. The effects produced by the measurement are caused by a physical cause and not a mental one.

Isn't the philosophical difficulty implicit in quantum physics the ambiguous nature of sub-atomic objects prior to their being measured? And that ambiguity arises from superposition. This principle suggests that particles exist in all possible states simultaneously until they are observed or measured.

This concept challenges classical notions of reality and determinism. In classical physics, objects have definite properties and states at all times. However, in quantum mechanics, entities like electrons or photons exist in a superposition of states, with probabilities for each state, until an observation "collapses" these possibilities into a single state.

Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter.

Saying when you look at a probability wave it collapses or when you observe a probability wave it collapses seems pretty irrelevant to my arguments. I would suggest you not get distracted by irrelevant semantics (relevant semantics are fine). — ken2esq

It's more that it's very easy to misunderstand and misrepresent the facts of the matter. There is a lot of loose talk and outright nonsense talked and written about quantum physics. In fact it's an entire cultural genre. Go to Amazon and do a search for quantum consciousness. There might be some genuine books returned by that search but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of new-age nonsense returned as well.

I've already acknowledged that there is a grain of truth in the idea the role of mind in constructing reality but it's a very tricky thing to understand and rife with possibilities of misunderstanding.

And that ambiguity arises from superposition. This principle suggests that particles exist in all possible states simultaneously until they are observed or measured.

This concept challenges classical notions of reality and determinism. In classical physics, objects have definite properties and states at all times. However, in quantum mechanics, entities like electrons or photons exist in a superposition of states, with probabilities for each state, until an observation "collapses" these possibilities into a single state.

Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter. — Wayfarer

Not ambiguity, but uncertainty -- the uncertainty principle. So, with that, the Schrodinger's cat experiment doesn't deny the definite properties and doesn't deny space time. It is actually more like a critique of the very notion of the uncertainty principle, which, in all fairness, is a principle about us! -- the observer. And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate.

And it doesn't purport to state that all possible states exist, rather only two states -- is the cat dead because of the poison, or is the cat alive because the poison didn't detonate. — L'éléphant

Stephen Hawking said 'whenever I hear of Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun.'

My take on that thought-experiment is that it was a rather sarcastic model to try and communicate the philosophical conundrums thrown up by this issue. It was kind of a joke albeit with serious implications.

Besides, the philosophical implications of the uncertainty principle are indubitably profound. One of the best books I read on it was Manjit Kumar - Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality'. It's a legit book, mainstream popular science, not new-age publishing. And note well the sub-title - there really was a grand debate between Einstein and Bohr that endured for decades, well into Einstein's Princeton years. Einstein was an adamant supporter of scientific realism, that objective reality is just so, and it's the job of science to gradually enlarge our knowledge of it. He always said that quantum theory must be incomplete or partial. That was the conviction behind the EPR paradox, which is what lead to the John Bell theorem and Alain Aspect and others proving the actuality of quantum entanglement.

Here's a good essay on it, Quantum mystery: Do things only exist once we interact with them?, Marcelo Gleiser, Big Think.

Perhaps the weirdest thing about the quantum world is that the notion of an object falls apart. Outside the world of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles, we have a very clear picture of an object as a thing we can behold. This applies to a door, a car, a planet, and a grain of sand. Moving to smaller things, the concept still holds for a cell, a virus, and a large biomolecule like DNA. But it is here, at the level of molecules and of distances shorter than a billionth of a meter or so, that the problems begin. If we keep moving to smaller and smaller distances, and continue to ask what are the objects that exist, quantum physics kicks in. “Things” become fuzzy, their shapes unclear and their boundaries uncertain. Objects evaporate into clouds, as elusive in their contours as words are to describe them. We can still think of crystals as being made of atoms arranged in certain patterns — like our familiar kitchen salt, which is made of cubic lattices of sodium and chlorine atoms.

Part of a series, A Brief History of Quantum Mechanics.

Yes, good passage. But what should we think of the thought behind it? That quantum mechanics removes the vantage point of the observer and presents the world as a collection of sub-atomic elements. We really have a "flat" earth without the interaction of the observer.

So, let's say that we should really think of the world in terms of atoms and particles, not the fabulous world we live in -- the trees, and the birds, and the bees. What does philosophy have to say about that? Because it would all eliminate the "illusion", the deception, or the errors in beliefs, or even the whole metaphysics itself. From now on, we have a one-dimensional reality -- it's all atoms and subparticles. No time and space to consider.

The truth is, we don't interact, or rather we don't act as if our world has no colors and dimensions. We make decisions based on the wholeness of existence, the three dimensional reality is what we see. We based our morals based on the whole people and whole animals. We have a sense of completeness or fullness or composition which the quantum world does not recognize. We think of ethics in terms of life, death, suffering, harm, pleasure -- which, again, the quantum world does not know about.

I don't understand why we are so torn apart because subparticles exist. They should be thanking us for being here in the universe. For the first time, someone had paid attention to them. People discovered them. That we aren't in a symbiotic relationship with them is something we need to keep telling ourselves. In the billions of years that organic life weren't here, nothing fucking happened. It's 80 billion years of blank pages. You can skip to the last page and it's still the same.

Stephen Hawking said 'whenever I hear of Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun.' — Wayfarer

Hahaha. :grin:

My take on that thought-experiment is that it was a rather sarcastic model to try and communicate the philosophical conundrums thrown up by this issue. It was kind of a joke albeit with serious implications. — Wayfarer

But isn't that exactly what you presented in your previous post?

The conclusory "that's not a logical argument" skips all the NECESSARY steps to support your conclusion. — ken2esq

It does not. If you're not arguing from logic, then a rebuttal cannot be one in logic. That's the claim being made about your position. It isn't a logical position (not that it fails a test of logic).

EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent — ken2esq

No it isn't.

Christopher Hutchins debating theists...he did not think they had a logical argument. Did he therefore say it was impossible to address their argume — ken2esq

Yes he did. Most of his debates with the likes of Lane-Craig and Lennox are expressly arguments about logical propositions. The premises are whats up for debate in those instances (though, admittedly, there are some great rebuttals to the conclusions of faulty premises - such as infinite regress not being as big-a-problem as once thought).

To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense. — ken2esq

Its quite happy then, that the claim as i understand it (or at least, the one im standing behind) is that you haven't made a logical argument. Not that it fails a test of logic. It doesn't pretend to be a logical argument other than in your outright claims. Even happier, the lack of logical basis has been outline to you multiple times ..

I REALLY want to hear how you will rationalize stating such an obviously false position. Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.) — ken2esq

Just a caution that this entire passage makes it seem as though you have absolutely no interest in discussing anything and purely an interest in defeating opponents. Not even their arguments.

And happily again, it's not a false position as best anyone but you can make out. I apologise that i've not been across many other threads regarding your OP. I shall take a stab at some elements there after this post.

Reality is a dance / battle between two opposing forces, a consciousness that, by observing waves of probability, collapses them into particular reality. This is the process of creation. — ken2esq

As other's have said, this makes no sense. What are you taking reality to be, in which this dance occurs? It's nonsensical to posit objects without a reality in which to exist.

On the other side is Wave Consciousness, which seeks to turn particular reality into waves, I think by blocking/destroying/hemming in the observations of the Particle Consciousness. — ken2esq

Can you explain what htis actually is? Mechanistically?

his means that all the far galaxies we observe through telescopes actually did not exist until we peered through those telescopes and then collapsed the waves of probability out there into what we expected to see. Strangely, this means scientists often, if not always, create rather than discover. — ken2esq

Again, totally nonsensical. Scientists often do not/i] find what they expected and these are considered more interesting results. Besides this, scientific claims are generally based on hundreds of thousands of data points crunched through multiple systems by multiple subjects. Is the claim that all scientists are predisposed to expect the same things, in the same way, at the same time, based on varying sets of data?

Women embody the wave consciousness and men embody the particle consciousness, at least primarily. — ken2esq

Where, specifically, with exactitude are you deriving this absolutely wild suggestion from? And when i ask this, i'm looking for a bottom-up description of how you concluded A. that creation and entropy are gendered somehow, B. That they relate to human genders, and C. How you apportioned each to the respective gender that you have apportioned them to?

If anyone has logic, reason, evidence, scientific studies, that refute this, I am happy to reconsider / revise. — ken2esq

Suffice to say your request for 'evidence' and scientific studies' is misplaced, to put it politely. You've presented precisely zero of them to support your argument.

"That which is presented with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence"

Life arises in a quadrant of space as a fragment of God creating the universe in that area of space, by observing and choosing what to bring about in existence there, and once that process is complete in that area, the life is now obsolete, so it dies off and returns its energy to God, or perhaps we have eternal souls that are then reincarnated elsewhere in the universe where we can do more creation, as alien life forms on a distant world where observation is still needed to create the local reality. — ken2esq

Logically speaking, this defeats the preceding theory handily. If God is the source of creation, decision-making and completion, we have no place in those processes and therefore are not in any way creating anything. We are discovering God's whimsy.

It appears that your entire thrust of thought is predicated on ideas you cannot support and in fact, defeat later in your piece.
Secondarily, it appears that you're not open to update or further understanding of hte concepts you are misusing. I'd be first to say im no expert in Quantum physics. But i absolutely know enough to be entirely sure your use of 'wave', 'particle' and 'consciousness' are wanting. And in lieu of you providing sources for your suppositions and speculations, i don't think you're on very good footing to talk down to those who are spending their time pulling apart you claims on empirical grounds. You are factually wrong in many places, and so the speculations are necessarily as wrong or worse. Some noted above, some noted elsewhere but much smarter and better-read posters than I.

IN responding to this comment (if you do) please begin with the questions. Answering questions is really the only way to defend these thesis.

I don't understand why we are so torn apart because subparticles exist. — L'éléphant

Isn't it because of the influence of materialism? That was the philosophical view which sought to understand the Universe as aggregations of physical particles. (As you probably know I'm generally critical of materialism, hence my OP The Mind-Created World.)

The way you show I did NOT present a logical argument is by showing how it is illogical, by dismantling the actually assumptions and or extrapolations therefrom. — ken2esq

I did, I pointed out the fallacies and the biases. I pointed out that you make up some arbitrary speculation based on a wrong interpretation of already defined science, and then you use your made up stuff as supporting evidence for new speculations, ending up in a mess of interconnected made up ideas that you try to communicate as a solid rational conclusion.

EVERY argument which has an opponent necessarily is viewed as an ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT by the opponent — ken2esq

Not at all, not in philosophy. I've read a lot of logical and rational reasoning on this forum that changed my views. Sometimes a lot, sometimes just as a slight tweak to my own concepts. But for this to happen, you need to have a good philosophical praxis. You do not.

You position is so absurd... — ken2esq

Maybe you shouldn't just take my word for it, but also everyone else in here.... it's your position that is absurd. This "no, it's you who's stuooopid" behavior when people point out your lack of logic and proper arguments is downright childish.

This is literally the HEART and MEAT of philosophical debate, dismantling -- in detail, with exactitude -- why the opposing view IS illogical. To claim you are free from that because the other side is somehow a priori illogical is just nonsense. — ken2esq

I dismantled it, by pointing out how your logic is faulty, your interpretation of evidence is wrong and your argument is fractured. Now, either you present a new argument that's properly put together, with avoiding biases and fallacies, which use a proper premise and conclusion structure (doesn't need to be hardcore, but at least clear points of evidence that leads to something inductive or deductive).

As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you've done nothing in that department and instead just continue to try and force others to accept your perspective.

The only perspective you've presented when reading your argument is that you're absolutely confused about all of it. You don't understand the science you use as a foundation and you don't know how to avoid the most common biases and fallacies.

It's like someone picked up a dictionary about philosophical terms and then tried to shoehorn them into an argument to make the appearance of being smart, or thinking they are doing high level philosophy because they believe in their idea so much that any notion of it being wrong is shattering their entire ego.
You're absolute lack of humility is a dead giveaway.

Will you blame drugs? exhaustion? brain fart? being under the control of a super-conscious organization that does not want you to see the logic of my arguments and so puts really really stupid words in your mouth? (I'm partial to the last, by the way, do not blame you but that which controls you.) — ken2esq

Why don't you go back to reddit where your rhetoric belong, if you argue like that you won't last long in here. Check the forum guidelines if you don't believe me.

Didn't you just say that a closed system is a concept which "makes an approximation of reality"? Why would you now say that a black hole ought to be treated in this way? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because, as I said, a black hole is not a true closed system when you account for Hawking radiation, which is so small that you may consider it as such, approximately.

I am ready for a descriptive explanation, if you care to give it a go. — Metaphysician Undercover

Those two are extremely basic concepts of physics which you could easily look up, why do I have to provide you with education? A concept and a theory are not the same thing at all, that is also extremely basic philosophy of science.

I stand by what I said previously. Almost everybody in this thread is completely unequipped to deal with physics beyond F=ma, especially OP. I will let this thread rest as it is a complete waste of time, even on the philosophy side, as OP is clearly what some corners of the internet call a "schizo".

What is determined though, what our measurement will be? Or maybe the possibility that was actualized is retroactively determined? Or maybe all possibilities occur and we only gain information about which possibility occurred in our universe?

The problem is that there are several equally supportable explanations for what is going on. Popular scientists muddy the waters by declaring that one such position is "what science says happens," or more often by declaring various perfectly defendable positions "absurd." Ironically, one of the models that best keeps our classical intuitions in tact, and keep locality, is retrocausality.

Does the act of measurement create the state of the particle, or does it reveal a pre-existing but unknown state? I had the idea it was the latter.
15h — Wayfarer

The term "create" seems to me to lead to confusion towards the thought of a creatio ex nihilo. I prefer to say "catalyze", "induce" or "provoke".