CON says, (cr2.3) "Quanta is the only one where I don't agree with how you name and describe it. For convenience we can keep referring to it as quanta but "quantifiable" is not an accurate criteria for it. It is not raw, value-neutral information but rather it is the physical behaviour of noumenon itself. Physicality must exist for consciousness and qualia to exist and noumenon must exist for physicality to exist, because noumenon is the essence of all that "is" and quanta is what allows qualia to exist through the principles of chemistry and biology etc. Scientific methodology is designed to determine how reality behaves, not what reality is, as such it is capable of bringing you to objective conclusions [conclusions cannot be objective] about reality because even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality."
PRO says, (pr3.3) let me highlight one statement, "...even if we are living in a simulation quanta is still part of the behaviour of an objective reality." Ok, do the physics algorithms and collision detection in a video game describe a one-to-one relationship to the computer circuit board? Nothing in the game, no matter how reliable it might seem to the players, does not tell you anything at all about the hardware it is running on. You could never figure out how to build a computer and learn how to program it from playing a single game. I know this is the final round, but I would love to read your preferred definition of the term "science". In my understanding, we can only apply our subjective apparatus, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and mind, in an effort to identify as specifically as possible, data that is generally indisputable by people with similar perceptions and mental inclinations. Purely scientific data cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. We generally presume it is reasonable to inductively reason that what happens in a laboratory, probably will happen similarly outside of the laboratory, and what happens in other mammals will probably have similar effects in humans, but as we know, this inductive reasoning is very often incorrect or incomplete or misleading. And even if the data is pure, so-to-speak, it is still sample-biased and objectivity cannot tolerate any sort of bias, but even if we had what we could call, purely objective data, our scientific conclusions will always be qualia. The data is scientific (and often mistaken for objective) because it is meaningless. The scientific conclusions are an attempt to inject meaningfulness into meaningless data.
CON says, (cr2.4) "Noumenon and quanta are always objective. The problem is when qualia interferes with our perception of Quanta. We know that we can know things about Quanta, as in our brains are capable of comprehending it, so as long as we are using an accurate methodology we can ascertain quanta. Scientific methodology works when applied correctly, and only fails when qualia interferes. Ironically, one of the main ways Qualia interferes is when we try to quantify reality itself instead of accepting Noumenon as a field rather than a series of quantifiable "bits" (quantum/theoretical physics itself is qualia and is unscientific in methodology as it assumes theoretical mathematics is a valid substitute for empirical data)."
PRO says, (pr3.4) Ok, we may be closing in on our most important point of disagreement. Quanta is merely a subcategory of qualia. Quanta is the qualia that is reliably measurable and specifically identifiable between a broad cross-section of multiple human perceptions. Because humans often disagree about value-judgments, we purposefully strip this specific subcategory of qualia of its meaningfulness in order to facilitate a certain level of indisputability. Without qualia, we humans would be incapable of perceiving anything at all, and therefore science as we know it would not exist. There is no way for quanta to be measured without "qualia interfering" (through the very act of perception and another particularly key ingredient, qualitative "motivation").
CON says, (cr2.5) "Qualia is subjective experience and quanta is necessary for it to exist. You can experience quanta subjectively and you can also experience things that are entirely qualia but qualia itself is rooted in the mechanics of quanta and we are capable of knowing quanta (which basically is reality itself in terms of how noumenon itself behaves)"
PRO says, (pr3.5) The "fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon" is the only thing "necessary" for qualia to "exist" and since we have no way of comparing quanta with "the-fundamental-objective-essence-of-noumenon", there is no way to say confidently if, when, or how they might or might not be similar.
CON says, (cr2.6) "They apply to reality itself (noumenon) and thus to quanta as well (how noumenon behaves physically).Qualia is the only thing that can be considered not real, as it is the realm of what is imagined or felt and is only a reflection of processes occurring in the realm of quanta."
PRO says, (pr3.6) I'm not convinced the term "fact" can apply to noumenon. Furthermore I am unable to detect any direct or indirect relationship between noumenon and quanta. I agree with you that qualia is 99% imaginary, I also believe that quanta is (axiomatically) 100% real.
PRO's round 3 closing statement:
This has been a phenomenal debate. I would like to thank CON for their focused and well reasoned arguments, fine attention to detail and obvious rhetorical skill.
I would also like to make a note that in the event of a tie on points, I would like to award one additional point to CON (as a tie-breaker) in appreciation of their outstanding performance.