>>13878649>>13878659>When you perceive a chair, it doesn't follow that there's a chair-like object . . . text displayed on a laptop is binary data / a decoded form of something entirely different. Isn't that Kant's epistemological dualism?
I can understand not being interested in concepts which are not falsifiable.
However interesting they may be conceptually, the usefulness appears to be quite limited.
I've never known anyone to try to convince others that solipsism is true. There would be no reason to, in the case of solipsism, but I digress.
If my understanding of Kant's epistemological dualism is correct, it wouldn't have been useful in his day either, even if from the viewpoint of a pure materialist, it was considered interesting.
But fast forward to:
The Copenhagen interpretation, my understanding of which can be paraphrased with the famous expression "The map is not the territory" i.e, the menu is not the meal. You cannot use the word water to quench your thirst.
Suddenly quantum mechanics is showing that epistemological dualism can be demonstrated in consensus, material reality.
So I'm not so much looking for
>"philosopher X is a waste of time due to concepts that cannot be falsified, but exist mathematically"It's more about
>I'm probably oversimplifying / misunderstanding BOTH the Copenhagen interpretation AND Kant's brand of epistemological dualism. Until I've reached a high enough level of mathematical understanding to be able to make certain determinations on my own,
I'd like to avoid spending my time understanding someone like Kant, whose writings are not easy to digest quickly, if such a person has been "btfo" so to speak.
Then again, there often seems to be more discussion about conflicting interpretations of famous philosophers than the philosophy itself.
