The Narrative

[RevdTess]

and the belief that anyone who believes they are a woman really is a woman, regardless of their genetics or the body they were born with. I was banned from reddit for refusing to accept this sort of reality-denial.

It entirely depends on your definition of 'woman', and whether you accept the possibility of 'brain sex' differing from chromosomal biological sex, e.g. caused by hormonal imbalances during pregnancy, and how you judge the sex of someone with atypical sex chromosomes, and various intersex conditions that leave individuals with different secondary sexual characteristics from birth to what their chromosomes would normally dictate. Even biologically, it's not black and white.

Regardless of biological reality, it is possible for a trans woman to accept that they are not biologically female and still experience complete relief from the psychological trauma of gender dysphoria by socially transitioning. This is why the whole 'trans women are women' slogan is deeply unhelpful to the debate imo, as is the counter-slogan 'trans women are men'. If 'trans women are women' means that trans women are to be considered biologically female then this is a wrong and a denial of reality. If 'trans women are women' means that we try to treat trans women as women in society as far as humanly possible as an act of compassion for the sake of their wellbeing then I think this it right. But the same slogan gets used for both.

What concerns me is the complete absence of a recognition that a person transitioning in their teens or even earlier has a very different experience of social gender and outcomes than someone who transitions when they are in their 40s, 50s, 60s etc. And yet both sides of the debate argue that all trans people are the same and allowing a trans woman who transitioned when they were 10 into a female-only space is the same as allowing a trans woman who transitioned when they were 60 and just wants the affirmation of being allowed in women's spaces to do the same. This is why I'm not really in favour of 'Self-ID', as it enforces the idea that the 60 year old who transitioned yesterday is exactly the same as the trans woman who transitioned 50 years ago when they were 10. This is no more true than the idea that a trans woman can ever be biologically female.

A couple of decades ago, there were two words - transvestite and transsexual - that distinguished between men who cross-dressed as a fetish, and those who needed to transition for their psychological wellbeing. These got amalgamated into 'transgender' over time, but now all trans people get accused of being sexual fetishists, and the whole concept of a transsexual is now considered a denial of reality. This in my view is not a scientific debate, but one caused by the changing meaning of words that's left us unable to express what the the psychological condition of being trans actually means without causing grievous upset and offence. Sad times for everyone concerned. And an unnecessary conflict in my view. I'm sorry you were banned.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is very much a faith/philosophical position at the moment, hence your use of "I believe".

I could not disagree more strongly. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with science. If there is no reality external to human minds, why does science work? Magic? Luck? No. Science works for a reason, and if there's no external world then there is no credible explanation. This belief is justified, hence it is not faith-based.

Then you shouldn't use "I believe" but rather "There is such a thing as a reality external to human minds".

Semantically, there can be such a thing as a justified belief. Just because it is justified doesn't change the fact it is a belief.

But scientists don't agree on this. And don't seem to agree on whether it can be proven.

It's not a scientific question. It is philosophy of science, though quantum physicists have little option but to at least hold an opinion about it. And no they don't agree.

Still, I think that's where the science is leading.

Which science? QM? This isn't science. It's 100% philosophy.

Personally I see God as sustaining physics, not intervening from outside. I think this is compatible with hard determinism.

That's indistinguishable from deism. From my point of view, this is an impoverished philosophy on which to base theology. It's depressing and nihilistic. I just can't imagine why anybody with a spiritual worldview would choose to believe such a thing. But maybe you didn't consciously choose.

Fair enough. I'm not sure if I believe in an external world. It depends on what form you believe that world can take. If you believe there are particles out there whizzing around without observers, then I would disagree.

I believe there are information states without observers, and these can be in an indeterminate state (a superposition). What the information is instantiated in -- what noumenal reality is "made of" -- I don't care. We don't have a word for it and there's no point in inventing one. It's noumenal information.

If you believe there is a quantum probability function that independently exists
and collapses into particles when observed, then yes I believe an external world exists.

A "quantum probability function" is an abstract mathematical object. I believe the information exists, I don't care what form it takes. It doesn't have to "be a function".

1: The many worlds interpretation, which is purely deterministic and probably what you mean by "block universe". (You might also have meant something relating to philosophy of time, involving the past existing but the future not existing (this is usually called "expanding block universe", where the present moment is the expanding edge). If so, this isn't a position in QM.)

This is an interpretation that can - as I understand it - never be proven. It is a reality that may or may not objectively exist and we could never know.

None of the metaphysical interpretations can be proved. Which one you believe in is a philosophical choice. It depends on the rest of your belief system. We will never be able to objectively choose between them (as a community).

2: Copenhagen or other objectively random interpretation. This involves only one timeline, but it is objectively random (according to the laws of QM) which one manifests.

I currently think Copenhagen is more likely to be the best representation of objective reality.

Why? It's an ad-hoc mess. Why should reality behave on the "quantum scale" in a way that is apparently contradictory to the way it behaves at our scale? Why is there a "Heisenberg split"? Where is it? Why is it where it is? Nobody can answer these questions. The whole thing is entirely unnecessary. John Von Neumann - the last great polymath and quite possibly the cleverest human being ever to have lived - rejected the CI on the grounds that these questions have no coherent answers. He was the first person to formalise the mathematics of QM, by declaring that there was just one universal wavefunction, and it was "collapsed" from the outside by the consciousness of observers. He did this for reasons of mathematical efficiency and elegance, not for philosophical/spiritual reasons. But it opens the door for a reconciliation between science and mysticism that the western world desperately needs. That's why I am so mystified as to why a theologian would reject it in favour of soul-destroying determinism which is not supported by science or logic.

3: Von Neumann / Stapp interpretation aka "consciousness causes collapse". Again, only one timeline, but the quantum dice can be loaded. I can see no reason why any theologian would opt for anything else, since the agent that loads the dice could include both God's mind/will and human minds/will.

This is a fascinating idea, and fondly promoted by my main maths professor at uni in the early nineties. It's what got me interested in the first place. I think recently experiments have cast doubt on it though?

Which experiments?

I can't say I understand those experiments but I've watched a bunch of videos on experimentalists trying to prove that consciousness is not necessary for collapse to occur and I was pretty convinced, but I never did physics beyond A Level so what do I know.

Nobody said consciousness was necessary for collapse to occur, so those people failed to understand the position they were trying to falsify. All Von Neumann said was that it is metaphysically and physically possible, and that it leads to a better mathematical formalisation. He has not been refuted. His position has been updated by Henry Stapp.

Fair enough. It's woolly theology after all. I was trying to convey the idea that perhaps objective reality only manifests when it experiences an interaction with something.

That sounds like idealism, presuming the thing it interacts with is an Observer. It's not really objective at all.

Otherwise it's just a block of possibility. If a quantum system only collapses when observed, did it exist beforehand?

Yes. It existed in a superposition. Why can't noumenal reality be blurry? It is still objective, in the sense that it cannot take on any value it likes -- the possibilities are finite. This makes objective reality real and objective in the sense that the biblical miracle of the feeding of the 5000 is physically impossible. It doesn't matter how much you load the quantum dice, it won't make one basket of fishes and loaves feed 5000 people. But it does make other sorts of "miracles" possible -- ones which are physically possible but highly improbable (which could include revelation). I am describing a situation where the laws of physics are still limiting what is possible in reality, but not limiting supernatural causes loading the quantum dice. It means we can still strictly respect science, but we don't have to "disenchant reality".

Does one's answer to that question have anything at all to do with scientific realism? I expect you will answer 'no', in which case I have to admit I still don't understand your argument yet. But I do find it fascinating so don't give up.

If reality only exists when perceived then you aren't a scientific realist. You're an idealist, but a rather strange one, because you're also a determinist.

[UndercoverElephant]

and the belief that anyone who believes they are a woman really is a woman, regardless of their genetics or the body they were born with. I was banned from reddit for refusing to accept this sort of reality-denial.

It entirely depends on your definition of 'woman', and whether you accept the possibility of 'brain sex' differing from chromosomal biological sex, e.g. caused by hormonal imbalances during pregnancy, and how you judge the sex of someone with atypical sex chromosomes, and various intersex conditions that leave individuals with different secondary sexual characteristics from birth to what their chromosomes would normally dictate. Even biologically, it's not black and white.

It's black and white enough.

Regardless of biological reality, it is possible for a trans woman to accept that they are not biologically female and still experience complete relief from the psychological trauma of gender dysphoria by socially transitioning. This is why the whole 'trans women are women' slogan is deeply unhelpful to the debate imo,

Somebody wrote this on a dog poo bin in my local park in Hastings (before I moved). Underneath somebody wrote "And quorn is meat!"

Trans women are men. Period. Or rather...not.

I'll get my coat.

What concerns me is the complete absence of a recognition that a person transitioning in their teens or even earlier has a very different experience of social gender and outcomes than someone who transitions when they are in their 40s, 50s, 60s etc. And yet both sides of the debate argue that all trans people are the same and allowing a trans woman who transitioned when they were 10 into a female-only space is the same as allowing a trans woman who transitioned when they were 60 and just wants the affirmation of being allowed in women's spaces to do the same. This is why I'm not really in favour of 'Self-ID', as it enforces the idea that the 60 year old who transitioned yesterday is exactly the same as the trans woman who transitioned 50 years ago when they were 10. This is no more true than the idea that a trans woman can ever be biologically female.

A couple of decades ago, there were two words - transvestite and transsexual - that distinguished between men who cross-dressed as a fetish, and those who needed to transition for their psychological wellbeing. These got amalgamated into 'transgender' over time, but now all trans people get accused of being sexual fetishists, and the whole concept of a transsexual is now considered a denial of reality. This in my view is not a scientific debate, but one caused by the changing meaning of words that's left us unable to express what the the psychological condition of being trans actually means without causing grievous upset and offence. Sad times for everyone concerned. And an unnecessary conflict in my view. I'm sorry you were banned.

To be honest I cannot summon up the will to get deeply involved in this debate. I find it depressing. Let's stick to the physics, metaphysics and epistemology. Much more fun.

[RevdTess]

Trans women are men. Period. Or rather...not.

Well, as I said, this is equally unhelpful, and deliberately cruel and unhelpful. The whole point of a trans person transitioning is because being seen as their birth gender in society has become psychologically traumatic. Whether this has a biological cause or a psychological one is irrelevant. The trauma is there and being referred to in that way is simply a cruel way to exacerbate that trauma. It's done deliberately to hurt people and the excuse is simply that "it's fact". It may be a biological fact (or in some cases it may not). It's still infeasibly cruel.

By stating this, you force everyone to take sides in a debate that doesn't need sides, only compassion for each other's suffering.

Many biological women also haven never had periods due to other medical conditions. Periods are not a requirement for being treated as a women in society.

You may find it a depressing topic but you were the one who brought it up. Trust me, it's far more depressing for those on the receiving end, who cannot escape the name-calling by simply deciding not to talk about it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Trans women are men. Period. Or rather...not.

Well, as I said, this is equally unhelpful, and deliberately cruel and unhelpful.

It's a reaction to people trying to suppress my right to speak the truth. I am so sick of it that I take extra pleasure in speaking that truth. It may or may not be cruel and unhelpful, but it is certainly true.

It's done deliberately to hurt people

I don't have anything against trans people. It's the people who are acting vicariously on their behalf as self-appointed defenders of "woke official reality" who I do not like, and I deliberately wind them up by defying their dictats.

My religion is truth, and claiming trans women really are women makes a mockery of that religion.

[RevdTess]

That's indistinguishable from deism. From my point of view, this is an impoverished philosophy on which to base theology. It's depressing and nihilistic. I just can't imagine why anybody with a spiritual worldview would choose to believe such a thing. But maybe you didn't consciously choose.

Well, you may find it so. In practice, as a parish priest and former nun, I don't find it so.

I believe there are information states without observers, and these can be in an indeterminate state (a superposition). What the information is instantiated in -- what noumenal reality is "made of" -- I don't care. We don't have a word for it and there's no point in inventing one. It's noumenal information.

Then I agree.

This is a fascinating idea, and fondly promoted by my main maths professor at uni in the early nineties. It's what got me interested in the first place. I think recently experiments have cast doubt on it though?

Which experiments?

Ahhh, I will try and figure that out, but it was discussed in several of those PBS Spacetime or Sabine Hossenfelder videos I mentioned. I mean, I'm not a physicist or a philosopher, so it's likely I misunderstood them, or have misrepresented them to you.

Yes. It existed in a superposition. Why can't noumenal reality be blurry? It is still objective, in the sense that it cannot take on any value it likes -- the possibilities are finite. This makes objective reality real and objective in the sense that the biblical miracle of the feeding of the 5000 is physically impossible. It doesn't matter how much you load the quantum dice, it won't make one basket of fishes and loaves feed 5000 people. But it does make other sorts of "miracles" possible -- ones which are physically possible but highly improbable (which could include revelation). I am describing a situation where the laws of physics are still limiting what is possible in reality, but not limiting supernatural causes loading the quantum dice. It means we can still strictly respect science, but we don't have to "disenchant reality".

I don't feel like reality is disenchanted by what we believe it to be.

It is an interesting question though how God can communicate with us. I obviously believe this can happen, and have experienced it. But I don't know whether this occurs through natural physical processes or a suspension of them permitting a divine causal influence that transcends reality. I'm not altogether opposed to the idea of divine influence from outside the universe, but I'd interpret everything in that way, rather than some unique events. So in that sense everything is 'enchanted'.

[Catweazle]

A friend's child, a biological boy, has behaved as you'd expect a girl to since before three years old. I don't know why and won't pretend to understand it, but he becomes very upset if treated as a boy and always has. If there is a possibility of a female brain in a male body this is it, it's not learned behaviour, the wide circle of friends and siblings don't act this way.

[UndercoverElephant]

A friend's child, a biological boy, has behaved as you'd expect a girl to since before three years old. I don't know why and won't pretend to understand it, but he becomes very upset if treated as a boy and always has. If there is a possibility of a female brain in a male body this is it, it's not learned behaviour, the wide circle of friends and siblings don't act this way.

I think it is just a variant of body dysmorphia, but treated differently because it has bigger social implications. Some people are also absolutely convinced that amputated limbs are present, or present limbs are amputated, and get very upset and confused if forced to confront reality. I don't think it is possible for a person who has not experienced this sort of disorder to understand what it must be like, but the distress is very obviously real and not a matter to be taken lightly.

[northernmonkey]

I've just had a quick browse through this thread and note the implied emphasis on "Science" being the sole arbiter of the "Truth". Which leaves me twitchy for the following reasons:

It's true that the methodology of science, when scrupulously adhered to, produces objective results. However, that does not necessarily mean they are impartial. So, on the above, I would add the following:

1) Human are often unscrupulous meaning that the methodology cannot always be trusted to have been carried out properly.

2) Whilst empiricism is generally seen as being at the centre of modern scientific method, the empirical landscape (that is to say, the phenomena that exist in the universe and are, in principle, amenable to empirical inquiry) is functionally infinite. So, some value system must be applied when deciding what things to enquire into and what things not to enquire into. Such value systems will tend to vary according to cultural forces that may have little if anything to do with "Science". Money, for example. Religion/ideology, for example. So, when I read words to the effect of "Trust The Science" and anyone who is uneasy or rejects some aspect of "The Science" being rejected out of hand as somehow mentally deficient, which is effectively what I have seen implied here, it leaves me rather unimpressed.

The results of any given scientific enquiry, if carried out properly, are indeed objective. But, they are a small island in a vast ocean of opportunities for enquiry that have been ignored and/or not been amenable to enquiry for practical reasons.

One example that comes to mind is the research carried out by pharmaceutical companies. Their lines of enquiry, whist certainly employing the scientific method, will have been driven on the basis of that which is likely to be maximally profitable as opposed to that which is likely to produce the best medical outcome. Curing people of medical conditions is not profitable. Providing long term, repeat prescription treatments for said conditions is. I'm not saying what pharmaceutical companies do is without merit. But, it is partial.

The scientific approach is like the logical approach. They are both very useful tools. But, it is values that dictate how and where those tools are deployed.