Comment on double slit

• K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Sure firstly id like to say these are theories just as anything in science starts as. I am not saying this is fact by any means and could be totally wrong. here are some sources:

  Donald Hoffman Ted talk

  Papers by Bernardo Kastrup

  source

  • nifty@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Thanks for sharing, I’ll take a look when I get a chance!

    source

    • K0W4LSK1@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Thanks for being open minded and at least looking at the data before you draw your conclusion

      source
  • bunchberry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Both these figures are embarrassingly bad.

    Hoffman confuses function for perception and constantly uses arguments demonstrating things can interpret reality incorrectly (which is purely a question of function) in order to argue they cannot perceive reality “as it is.,” which is a huge non-sequitur. He keeps going around promoting his “theorem” which supposedly “proves” this yet if you read his book where he explains his theorem it is again clearly about function as his theorem only shows that limitations in cognitive and sensory capabilities can lead something to interpret reality incorrectly yet he draws a wild conclusion which he never justifies that this means they do not perceive reality “as it is” at all.

    Kastrup is also just incredibly boring because he never reads books so he is convinced the only two philosophical schools in the universe are his personal idealism and metaphysical realism, which the latter he constantly incorrectly calls “materialism” when not all materialist schools of thought are even metaphysically realist. Unless you are yourself a metaphysical realist, nothing Kastrup has ever written is interesting at all, because he just pretends you don’t exist. Metaphysical realism is just a popular worldview in the west that most Laymen tend to naturally take on unwittingly.

    If you’re a person who has ever read books in your life, then you’d quickly notice that attacking metaphysical realism doesn’t get you to idealism, at best it gets you to metaphysical realism being not a coherent worldview… which that is the only thing I agree with Kastrup with.

    source