Dialectical_Idealist

"Look, we shouldn't transition from a monarchy to a democracy: the democracy would be corrupt as well!"

I'm going to reiterate my original claim because much of your comment misses the point. In the comment above I argued that quantum theory has interesting philosophical implications. It opens the door for us to consider an anti-materialist metaphysics based on scientific evidence. Your response has been to explain away the bizarre observations concerning the features of subatomic particles as compatible with materialism. And perhaps materalism does a better job at capturing certain aspects of reality. Perhaps the anti-materialist do a better job of accounting for epistemological uncertainty and probabilistic features. But my sense from your attempt to show that the evidence is compatible with materialism is that you don't take the philosophical debate seriously.

It is always possible for two different groups of people, given the same predictive body of mathematics, to draw different metaphysical conclusions......This is blatantly obviously his personal metaphysical interpretation ...

So when you assert materialism this is intellectual honesty, but when someone argues for an anti-materalist stance, based on observable evidence as strange as quantum entanglement (which you are quick to explain away) this is just personal metaphysics? How could you possibly evaluate the salience of his position without reading his arguments?? Occam's razor doesn't allow us to flippantly dismiss positions we deem unintuitive. Again, you're familiar with the physics side but are incapable of considering alternate philosophical points of view.

We can critique "metaphysical-physicists" while still acknowledging philosophical implications. You seem familiar with the physics side of the discussion, but there is an entire philosophical literature comprised of sharp academics working at the intersection of metaphysics and empirical science. You may have good arguments for one camp within this discussion (e.g., sophisticated materialism) but to dismiss the philosophical implications outright prima facie indicates either a lack of familiarity with the philosophy of physics or perhaps a dismissal of metaphysics as a fruitful enterprise.

To be fair, my earlier comment was vague: the following example will make the case. The typical materialist argues that external objects are mind-independent, comprised of matter, and have determinate properties. Call this "strong objectivity". In contrast, Bernard d'Espagnat, theoretical physicist and philosopher of science, argues against materialism on the grounds that standard quantum mechanics is only "weakly objective". (See his book, "On Physics and Philosophy".) Although our observations are intersubjectively valid, quantum mechanics is predictive rather than descriptive: it does not describe the world as consisting of mind-independent entities that have determinate properties before they are observed/measured. There is no fact of the matter concerning the state of the system before we measure it. Furthermore, Bell-type experiments, which are a part of the broader quantum theory, display quantum entanglement such that measuring one half of the experiment decides the outcome of the other. To be clear, Bernard does not promote skepticism about reality or its objectivity. But he argues convincingly that the evidence is inconsistent with materialism.

Whether you agree with Bernard is immaterial (pun intended). The larger point here is that reasonable people can disagree with materialism giving the probabilistic, relational, and epistemologically problematic nature of subatomic particles. These insights obviously conflict with our understanding of materialism! We cannot simply presume the truth of materialism because we find it more intuitive. At best, scientists can justify their assumption of materialism on practical grounds.

The presupposition of a mind-independent material world seems justified on practical grounds so long as we exclude subatomic particles. But the emergence of quantum physics has interesting philosophical implications.

This is an interesting blend of skepticism, existentialism, and atheism. But if you really thought that nothing is real you would probably act more boldly.

Get this solipsism out of my thread

The concepts "reality", "objectivity", "subjectivity", "being", "existence", and "everything" are all subject to debate. There are too many questions here for this to have any meaning (to invoke another elusive concept)

Do all entities that have reality also exist? (Consider, for example, the unicorn in my dreams)
Do all entities that exist also have being? (Consider the natural numbers)
Is "everything" merely the set of entities that exist or does it also include the things that we can identify with language but do not exist? (Consider the logically contradictory "square circle")
Are "objective" and "subjective" mutually exclusive? (For example, I am objectively feeling pain but pain is a subjective mental state; the stick in water objectively has the property of subjectively appearing bent in water)
Why should objectivity entail materialism? Why should subjectivity entail idealism?

Ofc this is all in good humor but it's worth flagging these issues.

Some speculate that Netanyahu led Trump by the nose on this one. After the "victory" in Venezuela, it probably wasn't that difficult. On the other hand, Israel's existence is beneficial to western billionaires, so maybe the influence is mutual. (Though I can't imagine what the oligarchs have to gain from these unstable markets.)

Weird how an island nation isn't fully self sufficient. I am very smart.

It's time to go watch Smiling Friends. You're missing out

Maybe the people wouldn't stay at home if there was someone worth voting for.

The name of the game is exploit or be exploited. Either you're a capitalist or a worker.

Absolutely deranged times we're living in

Reddit has only gotten worse since the company went public. It's just rage bait and ads now.

I feel this in my bones

It really is an indescribable feeling

A prolonged escape produces a similar feeling. I once had the privilege of a research sabbatical in Europe. I got a taste of the freedom to do my own work without care for my basic needs. At the end, the bitter feeling of returning to my own exploitation washed over me. And now the awareness of being a wage-slave follows me every day.

Ah, I see. I never watched Parks and Rec.

You didn't finish the analogy. For what purpose does a company need a singular leader?

It's also obvious just how much work being a musician is. Even a child understands that you can't just pick up an instrument and play your favorite song without training. Whereas the work in being a Youtuber/Twitch streamer is hidden from the audience.