Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[DLJ]

Sure, the dialectic, the scientific method... all good. But that’s not quite what I meant.

I’m attempting to build a model that accounts for / encompasses all perspectives (however dumb they might be) and the formation of those perspectives.

Okay. But aren't some perspectives just plain wrong? eg. flat earth, creationism etc.

What good model encompasses "just plain wrong" perspectives?
...

A generic one. One that accounts for flawed reasoning and faulty beliefs too.

...
I mean tangible vs. intangible - for example, fiction, concepts, ideas etc. All part of reality-reality. But not as real in the same way as reality-reality.

"physical vs. logical" comes from network topology... the physical design of a network vs. information flows. In biology the analogy would be: genes and memes.

You lost me a little bit. It's the second line about network vs. information flows that I don't quite follow.
...

Sorry. Maybe I’m jumping ahead a bit.

I’m looking at humans as ‘phenotypic machines’ (service providers to internal and external stakeholders) thus as food-processors and information-processors... body-mind kinda thing.

The first line makes sense to me and, again, I'm reminded of Plato so I'm going to (annoyingly?) refer to his thinking to see if there is overlap between what you are saying and he is saying:

Far and away the most influential passage in Western philosophy ever written is Plato's discussion of the prisoners of the cave and his abstract presentation of the divided line. For Plato, human beings live in a world of visible and intelligible things. The visible world is what surrounds us: what we see, what we hear, what we experience; this visible world is a world of change and uncertainty. The intelligible world is made up of the unchanging products of human reason: anything arising from reason alone, such as abstract definitions or mathematics, makes up this intelligible world, which is the world of reality. The intelligible world contains the eternal "Forms" (in Greek, idea ) of things; the visible world is the imperfect and changing manifestation in this world of these unchanging forms. For example, the "Form" or "Idea" of a horse is intelligible, abstract, and applies to all horses; this Form never changes, even though horses vary wildly among themselves—the Form of a horse would never change even if every horse in the world were to vanish. An individual horse is a physical, changing object that can easily cease to be a horse (if, for instance, it's dropped out of a fifty story building); the Form of a horse, or "horseness," never changes. As a physical object, a horse only makes sense in that it can be referred to the "Form" or "Idea" of horseness.

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors/Plato.htm

Is this what you're getting at?

No annoyance here. It’s exactly what I’d hoped for.

Plato’s ‘visible’ and ‘intelligible’ (as described above) fit nicely with Popper’s Worlds 1 and 3. But does not account for your ‘reality-reality’.

The latter would be closer to Kant’s Noumenon / thing in itself.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. My background is not philosophy (no one is surprised) it’s data/information governance and management.

I mean tangible vs. intangible - for example, fiction, concepts, ideas etc. All part of reality-reality. But not as real in the same way as reality-reality.

I wonder if Popper's Three Worlds structure might be useful here.

https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documen...pper80.pdf

Yes. Thank you.

There’s some weak semantics there (which no doubt Popper covers in other publications) e.g. “mind”, “thought process”, “objective”, “consciousness”, “knowledge” and there seems to be a misstep in the summary when describing World 2 as “conscious experience” when earlier it was described as “process”.

But yes, that’s the kind of thing.

So, can we label Kant’s Noumenon and Vulcanology’s Reality-reality as World 0 given that World 1 (as described) requires human lenses and filters to detect/perceive/interpretat its contents?