Friendly reminder that naive realists are the embodiment of plebeianism and the antithesis of science.
>>8826702
I agree.
>he doesn't read Neo-Kantian epistemology and existential phenomenology at the same time
>>8826702
So psychology is a science?
>>8826702
The wave function is real and there's nothing you can do about it
>>8826725
Indeed.
>>8826745
Bullshit
>>8826754
Go ahead and account for Kochen-Specker/Bell/PBR theorems using a psi-epistemic model. I'll wait
Implying reality has to be really real to be reals.
>>8826745
Okay then what is it, if not just a measure of our knowledge of the state of a quantum system?
>>8826815
An a posteriori correlate of consciousness.
>>8826827
In what sense does the wavefunction exist if there are no conscious observers?
>>8826849
Observer in physics means literally anything that can interact with the system. It doesn't have to be conscious. Why do philosophers can't understand this?
>>8826855
Still haven't answered my question of how the wavefunction exists independently of consciousness
>>8826849
In the sense that it's radically unknowable to us.
>>8826702
Friendly reminder that scientists are remembered for their scientific contributions and not their wacky theories about God.
>>8826864
What a nonanswer. Purple unicorns flying around outside the observable universe are also radically unknowable to us. No one is claiming they're real though.
The wavefunction is nothing more than a statistical apparatus.
>>8826702
Why are you so mean to Dennett-san?
>>8826863
who knows, it just does
>>8826815
A real probability density
>>8826745
The wave function is complex, you fucking pleb.
>>8826827
That's a good one. I like it.