Hard to tell when you're being sarcastic; I may be somewhere on the spectrum in this regard.
But my belief is that truth has an existence independent of the observer, I even reject the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Schrödinger's Cat with it. I believe in MWI and I have reasons I will not mention in public.
Hard to tell when you're being sarcastic; I may be somewhere on the spectrum in this regard.
But my belief is that truth has an existence independent of the observer, I even reject the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Schrödinger's Cat with it. I believe in MWI and I have reasons I will not mention in public.
And when a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear it, it does make a sound, because it creates sound waves, alternating regions of compression and rarification in the air.
So there. Phooey.
Oh, by the way, thanks for this column. Although it's probably my least favorite of all your writings thus far, it kicked my ass to get me writing on my own 'stack, finally.
I am going to do another, an anonymous 'stack not connected to my identity because there are some experiences I need to get into print before I die. I will disclose to a very few people.
I think questions like these are occasionally interesting and generally a waste of time because they don't often lead anywhere useful. Quantum mechanics being an obvious exception. There's lots of room to debate what truth is and what objectivity is and even "who's to say." I think your outright rejection of these concepts is limiting.
But when it comes to practical matters, like women's rights or children's safeguarding, for example, my lack of patience for abstractions is much more similar to yours.
Not many realize how profoundly unsettling QM was to not just physics but to the philosophical foundations of scientific method.
I read one paragraph in a book by Karl Popper comparing intractability with the ultimate unknowability dictated by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; it was some of the clearest thinking in my experience.
It was not all that long ago that to claim to, or even to seek to, understand how things actually worked (“realism”) was regarded as conceit and unscientific.
Yeah, exactly. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is one of the clearest assaults on the concept of objective truth. Of course, we aren't living at the Planck scale. I don't think we need to apply QM to our understanding of daily life and especially of law.
But relativity, too, has lots of interesting things to say about how changes of reference frame can produce two, equally valid interpretations.
I want to note that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't really invalidate there being objective truth, it only affects the outer limits of the measurability of same. There is a tradeoff at quantum scales between the precision with which we can measure position and the precision with which we can measure momentum.
It would be a solid counter to an argument that objective truth is always measurable to infinite precision, but who makes that assertion?
The proponents of CSJ sometimes argue against "objectivity" by pointing out that humans cannot reach absolute objectivity (thus, in their minds, objectivity can be discarded entirely in favor of their favorite subjectivity, to be imposed on others coercively).
However, that misses the point, which is that we can be relatively more objective or more subjective, and that there are real world benefits to developing the former end of the spectrum.
“we can be relatively more objective or more subjective, and that there are real world benefits to developing the former end of the spectrum.”
Yep. This is exactly the point I was making in my conversation with Jane. In our own private world, it’s fine if subjectivity is king. In areas where we collide with others, the attempt at objectivity offers us the best chance of being both fair and correct.
As for Heisenberg, maybe I should have been a little more precise and said it’s the clearest assault on the belief that we can perceive objective truth. There’s the sense that if we just think hard enough or look closely enough, we can figure out all the answers. And Heisenberg, along with Gödel and others, remind us that there will always be a degree of uncertainty in our understanding of the world.
And I’m glad that uncertainty is there. It (hopefully) keeps us humble.
More like the latter. I will not go into any detail online save to note that I have adamantly disbelieved in everything supernatural and paranormal since I was about 12, and then around 20 I started having experiences. Not coincidences. Reliably repeatable experiences, culminating in one that made my skepticism ridiculous.
If you want to read it after I'm done, and it will be quite long, please email to my burner account solonaquila431@gmail.com and include your pledge to not reveal my identity to anyone you refer to the article.
Hard to tell when you're being sarcastic; I may be somewhere on the spectrum in this regard.
But my belief is that truth has an existence independent of the observer, I even reject the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Schrödinger's Cat with it. I believe in MWI and I have reasons I will not mention in public.
And when a tree falls in the forest with nobody to hear it, it does make a sound, because it creates sound waves, alternating regions of compression and rarification in the air.
So there. Phooey.
Oh, by the way, thanks for this column. Although it's probably my least favorite of all your writings thus far, it kicked my ass to get me writing on my own 'stack, finally.
I am going to do another, an anonymous 'stack not connected to my identity because there are some experiences I need to get into print before I die. I will disclose to a very few people.
"So there. Phooey."
I think questions like these are occasionally interesting and generally a waste of time because they don't often lead anywhere useful. Quantum mechanics being an obvious exception. There's lots of room to debate what truth is and what objectivity is and even "who's to say." I think your outright rejection of these concepts is limiting.
But when it comes to practical matters, like women's rights or children's safeguarding, for example, my lack of patience for abstractions is much more similar to yours.
Not many realize how profoundly unsettling QM was to not just physics but to the philosophical foundations of scientific method.
I read one paragraph in a book by Karl Popper comparing intractability with the ultimate unknowability dictated by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; it was some of the clearest thinking in my experience.
It was not all that long ago that to claim to, or even to seek to, understand how things actually worked (“realism”) was regarded as conceit and unscientific.
Yeah, exactly. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is one of the clearest assaults on the concept of objective truth. Of course, we aren't living at the Planck scale. I don't think we need to apply QM to our understanding of daily life and especially of law.
But relativity, too, has lots of interesting things to say about how changes of reference frame can produce two, equally valid interpretations.
I want to note that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle doesn't really invalidate there being objective truth, it only affects the outer limits of the measurability of same. There is a tradeoff at quantum scales between the precision with which we can measure position and the precision with which we can measure momentum.
It would be a solid counter to an argument that objective truth is always measurable to infinite precision, but who makes that assertion?
The proponents of CSJ sometimes argue against "objectivity" by pointing out that humans cannot reach absolute objectivity (thus, in their minds, objectivity can be discarded entirely in favor of their favorite subjectivity, to be imposed on others coercively).
However, that misses the point, which is that we can be relatively more objective or more subjective, and that there are real world benefits to developing the former end of the spectrum.
“we can be relatively more objective or more subjective, and that there are real world benefits to developing the former end of the spectrum.”
Yep. This is exactly the point I was making in my conversation with Jane. In our own private world, it’s fine if subjectivity is king. In areas where we collide with others, the attempt at objectivity offers us the best chance of being both fair and correct.
As for Heisenberg, maybe I should have been a little more precise and said it’s the clearest assault on the belief that we can perceive objective truth. There’s the sense that if we just think hard enough or look closely enough, we can figure out all the answers. And Heisenberg, along with Gödel and others, remind us that there will always be a degree of uncertainty in our understanding of the world.
And I’m glad that uncertainty is there. It (hopefully) keeps us humble.
MWI?
Problem is, most who read it will think, quite reasonably, that I’m crazy.
And how it that a problem? (OK, kidding a bit)
Crazy like a shaman, or crazy like a danger to yourself or society? Like somebody recounting an alien encounter or a ghost?
More like the latter. I will not go into any detail online save to note that I have adamantly disbelieved in everything supernatural and paranormal since I was about 12, and then around 20 I started having experiences. Not coincidences. Reliably repeatable experiences, culminating in one that made my skepticism ridiculous.
If you want to read it after I'm done, and it will be quite long, please email to my burner account solonaquila431@gmail.com and include your pledge to not reveal my identity to anyone you refer to the article.
I'd certainly be interested, if only I knew where to find it.