Apustimelogist

Ironically, the original point I was making there is that you are the one finding such things ambiguous hence why you conflate 2+2 referring to comple...

So its like discussing spelling: m-i-n-u-t-e.

I don't think so, because I don't explicitly need concepts for the world to be intelligible. I can see the trajectory of a thrown ball, predict where ...

Its all different things blanketly labelled as 2+2 when really that doesn't actually describe the specifics of each thing and why they are like that. ...

But this is just because you are giving completely differernt things the same representation.

I don' really follow what you're saying. Knowledge is just predicting things that we see in the world. We then apply a self-consistent description tha...

Yes, which causes changes to what clocks read in an unambiguous way! Yes, exactly!

Strongly disagree. The problem is that there is no theory of experience; I believe its impossible and you can't access experience empirically. If ther...

Not at all, its the conclusions I come ro exploring those questions. Sure, observations can be interpreted differently, but these are not intended as ...

Interesting; yes, I think this part: Is where I get ambiguous or perhaps ambivalent over indirect or direct realism. I can see arguments in both direc...

Maybe we don't experience the world "as it is", out of perspective, but I would say that all that characterizes a perspective is the incompleteness or...

Can I ask what characterizes the difference between your direct realism, indirect realism and naive realism?

Count two fingers, then another two fingers. Now count four fingers.

Yes, physicalism is arguably vacuous as a metaphysical category precisely because all of these fundamental metaphysical categories are somewheat vacuo...

I mean, I offered a description of what happens. You haven't offered an argument for why that explanation isn't adequate. So, what? None of this is th...

But so what? This is an epistemic or explanatory point. Its just about complexity. No one you're arguing against finds this an interesting point, it d...

I mean, weak realism just means a realism weaker than strong realism, and a naive realism would be a strong realism.

Oh, so you are saying people tend to be weak realists instead? What a coincidence, chimes right in with my thoughts just there, thank you!

Because when people say realism they tend to mean a completely unique God's eye view of reality, which is a much stronger realism. Once you start to b...

Maths is like writing. Its a language that describes structure. The unreasonable effectiveness of writing is not magic, its that you can invent words ...

This is a good point that made me think and want to look up about how smell works more, but couldn't you also say we can distinguish our emotional rea...

But mathematical structures are effectively tautologies so I don't see any reason for them to be meaningfully instantiated in some realm of their own ...

What's your point?

I've always found this point quite strange because from what I see, people reason "badly" and get things wrong literally all the time, including scien...

Apologies, very long reply. Again, I don't expect any replies to these kinds of thoughts because when I come to these replies I am just ending up writ...

Aha, I actually removed the reference to your post on purpose because what originally was going to be just a reply to your post ended up as just compl...

I think though that just because we do not have a unique, objective "god's eye view" though, doesn't mean that the information we obtained in any give...

I think the disagreement is that what you are attacking is some kind of unique objective description of the universe (e.g. Newtonian mechanics, falsel...

I think it depends on the person. These views are perfectly mutually consistent although different people may be more or less inclined to enactivism; ...

But again, why assume that such a vague, abstract, distal question can be given a coherent answer? Doesn't make sense to me, and you're never going to...

What is "free active inference"? Neither would I say these views are having a debate; they are perfectly mutually consistent. One thing I like about a...

Overall, especially closer to the beginning, this was fairly good albeit I would say it saidsome of its claims very overconfidently imo. But there is ...

I linked you the EPR paper and the whole centra idea in stochastic mechanics is that you can derive the Schrodinger equation which means that all pred...

Completely disagree. I mean, what your A.I. gave me about stochastic mechanics is false in a way that can be easily checked. And I have my own experie...

I just gave you a quote earlier that says that it is in accord with Bell inequalities but they actually do have a paper where they produce the Bell vi...

Well, my reply would be that if this were not the case, then it would suggest a picture of the world and metaphysics which is much more inflated than ...

Btw, you can see a pdf download link by just searching something like "Levy & Krener (1996)" in google. The pdf link comes from the author's website a...

This is absolutely false and A.I. do not reliably give you information. Often when I research something, I will read the A.I. summary thing on google ...

I am pretty sure this is not the case. For instance: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=856861870672922375&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1 "Nelson...

I wouldn't say its necessarily ignoring an issue but expressing skepticism that anyone can sensibly tackle this topic without more context and knowled...

I don't think so, because I didn't make any assumptions about labelling other than inadvertantly in order to convey the point about perspective. Regar...

If someone wants to call it a variation of Bohmian mechanics, I don't really see an inherent issue but you don't explicitly need Bohmian kind of non-l...

Very true, we all have different dispositions for intuition; albeit, I would say that the only reason these intuitions are open to us in physics is be...

Sure, but I would say it is arguably still better than many other interpretations given it provides an explanation for quantum behavior, it completely...

It is an interpretation in the sense of Bohmian mechanics, in fact their underlying mathematical structure is very similar. Entanglement and Bell ineq...

Again, my point is that this issue is so abstract and we know comparatively little about thr universe works that I don't trust anyone's reliability in...

There is actually a mathematically rigorous theory called stochastic mechanics which shows that you can produce all quantum behavior from classical pa...

For me, i think one might be able to say that even though we view the universe from different perspectives, they arguably all procure information abou...

And there may be others but imo we don't know enough about the universe to give any a substantial construction. There are some cases with theories or ...

But this is part of my point. Like you've started using analogies like this when it isn't really clear if this is even a fitting analogy because we ju...