> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >Realism is the philosophy that there is a real world, apart from our
> >existance and that we have direct access to that world via our senses.
> >Books, tables, chairs, electrons, stars, the universe all exist apart from
> >our observations.
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> How can such simple and logical hypothesis be challenged
> by QM really puzzles me :-)
My questions at this point echo Alberto's puzzlement.
1. Is realism, so defined, a metaphysical theory or an empirical/
physical generalization? If the latter, than it might be refuted by a
scientific theory like QM. If realism is truly a metaphysical theory,
however, then one should be able to understood it as eschewing from making
statements or predictions about the structure of what we colloquially
call the physical world (hence *meta* physics). Likewise, no scientific
discovery should be able to confirm or refute the realistic philosophy as
metaphysics.
The same rule would hold for Kant's metaphysics.
Immanuel Kant:
"First, as concerns the sources of metaphysical cognition, its very
concept implies that they cannot be empirical. It's principles (including
not only its basic propositions but also its basic concepts) must never be
derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical
knowledge, i.e., knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have
for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics
proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is
therefore a priori cognition, coming from pure understanding and pure
reason. " - Kant 265-266, A Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics,
Dan:
> With realism, it is legitimate to draw general conclusions about those
> things that exist apart from us. Without realism, the laws of science
> and math can hold true, but only hold true concerning what we have
> observed, what we do observe, and what we will observe.
2. How can any scientific discovery, if science is so defined, have any
consequences, for or against, any metaphysical theory, whether that theory
is realism or Kant's?
3. Why does QM support the idea that the things we observe have a
noumenal aspect?
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
