https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-is-real
When I get into the philosophy about it I get stuff like "well that depends what you mean by reality", after that I pretty much tune it out. — Darkneos
Late to the party here. I haven't read beyond the first page of posts. But I don't see where the key word has been defined in terms of quantum physics. Hence, the thread has migrated off-topic to loosely relevant notions of "opposition". Anyway FWIW, I'll add my two cents worth on the fraught topic of Reality, which underlies many of the heated disputes on the forum. We seem to split between a narrow physical definition, and a broader metaphysical meaning of "Real".
The early quantum scientists argued among themselves about the same existential question. In his 1958 book, Physics and Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg discussed Descartes' division of the world into "res extensa" (matter) and "res cogitans" (mind). Werner concluded that "the position to which the Cartesian partition has led with respect to the "res extensa" was what one may call metaphysical realism. . . . This is to be distinguished from practical realism." That dichotomy forces us to distinguish between two different uses of the word "real". Then he noted, "actually the position of classical physics is that of dogmatic realism".
Today, some philosophers bow to the empirical authority of Classical Physics, and define "Real" in terms of 17th century Materialism. But a few still see a role for Platonic Idealism ; especially since Quantum Physics emerged, and undermined some of the unproven assumptions for the primacy of matter. For example, the ancient philosophy of Atomism has now crumbled under the onslaught of Quantum reduction into a meta-physical world of amorphous fields of statistical Probability, populated by dimensionless points that are labeled as Virtual Particles.
Despite the philosophical concerns of Quantum pioneers, most physicists today tend to treat "virtual" particles as-if they are "real" lumps of matter, instead of immaterial mathematical concepts of warping "excitations" in a local zone of non-local empty-but-plastic space. So, they are doggedly holding on to the outdated classical definition of "Real". Meanwhile a few contemporary philosophers & scientists are redefining "Real" in the metaphysical terms of Quantum queerness. So, what do you mean by "Real" : pragmatic or philosophical?
How can we know what's Real? :
In a world of idealistic & imaginative humans, how can we know what's real, and what's fantasy? The scientific method was designed for just that purpose. But it originally assumed a clear distinction between Fact and Fiction. Unfortunately, such a precise dichotomy is no longer realistic, since the thoroughly attested Quantum Theory describes the invisible foundations of our observed universe in terms of entities that are literally-unreal abstractions, verifiable only by inference from paradoxical lab results. In my own personal experience, I have never seen a wishy-washy-waving quantum particle or felt the spooky chill of a quantum field brimming with ghostly unborn particles. Hence, I have to trust the professional physicists who assure me that what I see with my natural senses is not the ultimate reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note__ The pioneers of Quantum Theory were perplexed by their inability to apply Classical notions of physical reality to what they were finding in their sub-atomic experiments. Niels Bohr: "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." That last line is prescient of John A. Wheeler's assertion that "We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe".
Realism vs Realistic :
A pertinent philosophical distinction is between Objective reality and Subjective ideality. Or in more technical terms : Phenomena (reality as we know it) and Noumena (ideal reality). Of course, we can only guess at the latter, based on models created from our sense impressions. We only sense the tiny part of Cosmos that is within the limited reach of our physical senses. But our rational minds have allowed us to expand the range of our knowledge of reality. So, we are now aware of an unseen realm, not of ghosts & fairies, but of waves of potential and particles of possibility. To a classical physicist such literal non-sense would sound fantastic. But we moderns now accept such fantasies, because our priests of physics can work miracles, by calling upon the powers of the underworld. I’m kidding, of course, but it’s literally true. For example, flash memory works its magic by producing particles that can pass through solid walls (Quantum Tunneling).
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page54.html