rangrz
Bluelighter
Then, you agree with the existence of objective reality and that facts about it can be determined empirically.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Correctness
- Thread starter tmdoca
- Start date
trees_please
Bluelighter
i agree that you posted the same answers to two different statements. also, you dont need a comma after then.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
rangrz said:
Shouldn't the distances be ever so slightly different (because Pythagoras!!one
)?This is where I think that the matter isn't quite so clear cut.
1. If we take the process of experimental research seriously, every experimental complex involves an active researcher to read measurements from the instrument at some point and some sort of action applied to the object of observation. The question then is, how can we infer the character and dynamics of physical systems divorced from the role of the observer?
2. Because of this intrinsic role played by the observer, valid physical theories leave open our interpretation of the epistemologies and ontologies underlying these theories, hence current controversy over WHAT exactly our physical theories describe, despite these theories' well established validity as analytical and predictive tools; in other words, we have a solid mathematical framework which explains how physical objects will interact given whatever initial conditions, and we can use this knowledge to make cool things that do cool stuff, but we have no idea what these forces, objects, etc. actually are.
None of this is to say that 'anything goes' or that 'it's subjective, man'. It's easy to rule out the empirically disconfirmed and logically invalid, but more legitimate uncertainty remains.
(have to admit...I've still not fully come to grips with your ink-deprived printer thought experiment covering the issue...regardless, I want to hear more about your preferred ontological interpretation of what quantum theory (the standard model now, I guess?) and your justification for this preference (ideally cast at a layperson's level, so I can understand it nearly competently
)ebola
Psyduck
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 672
Rangrz cannot help you. He's an empiricist and realist (re: non-idealist). He doesn't even understand your question or confusion because he presupposes there exists an objective reality, whatever that may mean. Your perspective exactly wants to think further about this presupposition. How is the subject-object duality/identity in the first place possible? How must one conveive of this when acquiring knowledge about nature? And for that matter: what is knowledge anyway? What is objectivity? What does it mean that nature is "intelligible" and conforms to the laws of our cognition? And how does one get out of the dichotomies of idealism/realism; foundationalism/skepticism, etc.?
If he must keep true to his own position, he cannot even say, as a great physicist, that he has any real knowledge about the universe at all. The only thing he can say is that whenever X happens "it is very likely" that Y happens according to some "regular law" which is not yet refuted due to induction. Knowledge is reduced to "pragmatic information" in order to manipulate or predict the universe. Of course, there is nothing wrong with taking this position. Just pointing out that your discussion very likely will continue to take place on two different levels.
Last edited:
Psyduck
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 672
To intoxicate your common-sense notion of "objective distance" with some philosophical ambiguity... In Philosophical Investigations §50 Wittgenstein says something puzzling about the standard metre stick
A Wittgensteinian "language game" can only be played by human beings (e.g. a community of scientists who start to use this standard at a certain moment in history). The notion of "one meter" cannot exist outside such a language game. Ergo, the notion of "one meter" cannot exist independently of people complying to the rules of the language game. Ergo, the notion of "one meter" is not objective (if one takes "objectivity" to mean: independent of any perceiver or consciousness).
Of course, you may easily reject this argument by saying "well, maybe only the word or concept of 'one meter' doesn't exist when there are no human beings." But then you are again trapped in the circle of consciousness. Because when you say that "one meter" does exist outside language or conceptual thought, your very own consciousness is producing (by using the concept of one meter) the thought that there exists "one objective meter" (independently of conceptual thought). Your consciousness cannot make a consciousness-independent claim. In other words, welcome to philosophy: it doesn't work bitches!
Last edited:
tmdoca
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 69
I'd like to have a go at redeeming myself towards my original metaphor. It turns out my metaphor already existed in another form (to some degree). It is called the "Parable of the Plants" and it is the 5th chapter of the "Lotus Sutra", a Buddhist teaching. Someone summarized it like this:
"Picture a great cloud full of water, ready to burst and pour down rain on all grasses, shrubs and herbs, on trees and plants of all kinds, on hills and even pouring water into caves – rain that will gush down everywhere at the same time. All such vegetation, whether having young, tender stalks, twigs, leaves and foliage or whether they are in a more developed state, will each, according to their particular need, take from the water emitted by the cloud. All will grow because of that water which shares the same essence, with blossoms and fruits being produced. All these various forms of vegetation are rooted in the same soil and are drenched and vivified by water of the same evidence."
here we see that while all the plants are externally subject the the same conditions (they are all under this cloud), they each take advantage of the cloud in a different way which is particular to their needs. The parallel I was trying to make in the real world was that we are all subject to the laws of cause and effect (like all of us being subject to the cloud), but it is our individual discretion when it comes to these laws interpretation that allows us to fulfill our roles as being carriers of consciousness.
This parable was used in the Lotus Sutra to explain why the Buddha had taught so many different "meanings" of the "One True Dharma." It explains that all individual have their own level of delusion and suffering, and as such need an individualized method of gaining understanding of these delusions. Granted, in this case, the implication of the whole thing is that there is really on only "true" understanding. But since that true understanding doesn't involve dependence on an establishment, I think it isnt really the same as universal correctness.
Interesting that you say that, because I am (albeit only in college) a 4th year mechanical engineering student. But you are right in what I think you are saying. The tool of "ultimately relying on what you choose to perceive" circumvents the value of scientists and engineers. BUT, if it was in the nature of people to accept a lack of progress and not have to ride the "hedonic/progressive treadmill", then we could be perfectly content living as tribes-people. That would be satisfactory iff people truly accepted being content as a goal in life.
"Picture a great cloud full of water, ready to burst and pour down rain on all grasses, shrubs and herbs, on trees and plants of all kinds, on hills and even pouring water into caves – rain that will gush down everywhere at the same time. All such vegetation, whether having young, tender stalks, twigs, leaves and foliage or whether they are in a more developed state, will each, according to their particular need, take from the water emitted by the cloud. All will grow because of that water which shares the same essence, with blossoms and fruits being produced. All these various forms of vegetation are rooted in the same soil and are drenched and vivified by water of the same evidence."
here we see that while all the plants are externally subject the the same conditions (they are all under this cloud), they each take advantage of the cloud in a different way which is particular to their needs. The parallel I was trying to make in the real world was that we are all subject to the laws of cause and effect (like all of us being subject to the cloud), but it is our individual discretion when it comes to these laws interpretation that allows us to fulfill our roles as being carriers of consciousness.
This parable was used in the Lotus Sutra to explain why the Buddha had taught so many different "meanings" of the "One True Dharma." It explains that all individual have their own level of delusion and suffering, and as such need an individualized method of gaining understanding of these delusions. Granted, in this case, the implication of the whole thing is that there is really on only "true" understanding. But since that true understanding doesn't involve dependence on an establishment, I think it isnt really the same as universal correctness.
Interesting that you say that, because I am (albeit only in college) a 4th year mechanical engineering student. But you are right in what I think you are saying. The tool of "ultimately relying on what you choose to perceive" circumvents the value of scientists and engineers. BUT, if it was in the nature of people to accept a lack of progress and not have to ride the "hedonic/progressive treadmill", then we could be perfectly content living as tribes-people. That would be satisfactory iff people truly accepted being content as a goal in life.
aussie101
Ex-Bluelighter
Firstly, using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in a way that you originally posted is incorrect. It is actually not even a principle, it is more a theory related to quantum mechanics... It is interesting that we cannot predict what is always going to happen and I find this makes science more fun. In science we are interested in what we can observe. So to say there is uncertainty, is only to say that we are uncertain of what we can prove/observe with an experiment. From my point of view, this "universal correctness" garbage has nothing to do with the "HUP".
You can quote buddhism all you want, that does not change a thing.
It doesn't matter what year in college you are in. You sound like an intelligent person and you are more than capable of researching or looking up things at the library. I tend to play games a lot in my life with language that i use, mostly due to people not understanding what I am saying if i speak intelligently...one might refer to this as "playing dumb". If i am curious about something i go to the library and read about it. I am what one may refer to as an autodidact. We all make mistakes though, this is part of "the human condition".
You are correct in your interpretation of what i was implying - "ultimately relying on what you choose to perceive"; using logic and reasoning to turn around what humans believe as FACT, to make them think in another way entirely is possible due to this. Religious people are a classic example, but i won't go into that too much as I do not want to offend any body.
One of my favourite philosophers and essayists is Michel De Montaigne, who more or less instigated invention of humanism. A large amount of future philosophical literary views came from this family of thought. He is known as "the father of modern skepticism". His writings humour me massively. You should look them up.
tmdoca
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 69
I'll disagree with you (referring to my "universal correctness garbage" and HUP) but with a heavy grain of salt in that I was very very unclear in my statement. This does not mean that if I were clearer it would be a good metaphor either. My metaphor completely ignores an important substance of HUP in that it doesn't involve understanding the subject as having two forms (like wave-particle duality in the actual HUP).
What is clear is that using the HUP metaphor was entirely unnecessary for this matter. As far as quoting buddhism, the essence of what I quoted is independent of my motivation in quoting it, if you are implying that someone would quote buddhism to sound exotic and well-read. It was only my hope to use something that other people seem to understand to try and validate my argument. But at this point I spend too much time trying to think of how to fit other peoples arguments in the HUP metaphor. I think I'll just have to euthanize it.
I have a lot of trouble understanding other peoples works of philosophy. Reading through this thread, it was a strain to try to keep up with what you guys were talking about. I tend to just try to think about things on my own because I can't figure out the context of what other people are writing. Perhaps one day I will feel confident enough to look up some of the people mentioned this thread.
Anyway, thanks for trying to analyze my, inefficient, post.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
I happen to agree with that statement, though I don't agree with how you have gone about demonstrating this using quantum mechanics. If you insist on using quantum mechanics to answer these questions, then universal correctness (σ_c) and uncertainty in happiness (σ_h) are a poor choice of variables. Recall that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle only applies to complementary variables (like position/momentum or energy/time). You'd be hard pressed to show these are complementary.
A better way to make your statement would be that the objective answer to all binary questions (i.e questions with true/false, yes/no answers) is the superposition of all subjective answers. Then we could write a wavefunction operator and get answers:
i.e |Ψ(binary question)⟩ = a |True⟩ + b |False⟩ where |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1
heisenberg's uncertainty principle has nothing to do with correctness or happiness, correct? op, you are just mapping the idea onto two different concepts? in that case, your thread title should be 'tmdoca's correctness uncertainty principle', or such.
i'll be honest, i dont' get what you're trying to say with your op but i do have a great joke about the 'real' uncertainty principle.
heisenberg gets pulled over by a cop. the cop says "do you have any idea how fast you were going?" heisenberg replies "no. but i know exactly where i am!"
later, his wife asks him why he was so late coming home. he replied "it was weird - i glanced down at my speedometer and suddenly had no idea where i was"
alasdair
i'll be honest, i dont' get what you're trying to say with your op but i do have a great joke about the 'real' uncertainty principle.
heisenberg gets pulled over by a cop. the cop says "do you have any idea how fast you were going?" heisenberg replies "no. but i know exactly where i am!"
later, his wife asks him why he was so late coming home. he replied "it was weird - i glanced down at my speedometer and suddenly had no idea where i was"
alasdair
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
heisenberg gets pulled over by a cop. the cop says "do you have any idea how fast you were going?" heisenberg replies "no. but i know exactly where i am!"
later, his wife asks him why he was so late coming home. he replied "it was weird - i glanced down at my speedometer and suddenly had no idea where i was"
alasdair
good one! :D
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Here's the philosophical version without math. This scenario never happened... or did it?
Buddhist Monk Say: You are now ready for test. If you choose to continue to be student of mine you must accept challenge and return in two years with proof that you have mastered this teaching. Then training will continue.
Student Say: I accept challenge.
The monk pulls out a shiny black object with reverence. Painted on the side is a large white '8' and a small window on the top with a magical glow
Buddhist Monk Say: This is magic object that once belong to Dalai Lama. He very protective of its magic. You ask it any question you want. It give answer when turned on side. monk turns over the magic sphere and the Tibetan word for "No" appears like magic in the little window. The student gazes with wonder Think carefully. Then go into world and be shining example of this teaching.
The student accepts the ball. He holds it in his lap and meditates for days on the right question. Then, in a moment of illumination, he decides he is ready. He turns to the ball and asks out loud…
Student Say: Is the Buddhist faith the only true religion?
The student carefully turns over the ball and like magic an answer appears in glowing letters. His answer is: YES! He rejoices at making the correct decision with his life.
Student Say: I knew it! Now I be shining example of this teaching. Bye master, I go now.
Buddhist Monk Say: See you in two year.
Now the student is in the world. He decides that he must outdo himself to earn his masters respect.
Student Say: If Buddhism is true faith I will kill as many infidels as I can. Those pesky Jew, Christian and Muslim will now know the true God. They will reincarnate as lovers of the true faith.
The student declares the Buddhist version of Jihad on every infidel he can get his hands on and goes about exacting his blood battle in the name of Buddha. Two years latter he returns with cold eyes, ripped biceps and a robe tattered with bullet holes and red Dharma stains
Student Say: I have been most loyal great one. I have killed exactly 100,000 Jews, Muslims and Christians. All in two year. They die in name of false religion and come back as Buddhist believer. You see, the magic ball say Buddhism is only true religion. I save them time. I ready now.
Buddhist monk momentarily looks startled and frightened. He puts his head in his hand in disbelief and shakes his head then recovers his composure.
Buddhist Monk Say: You idiot! You not understand teaching at all. I gave you gift that was greater than that. Why you collapse wave function? Why you settle for less then I give you? Now we both fucked! You have failed the test.
Conclusion of story Fucked if I know. I just want to increase my post count so I can get myself out of green lighter status and explore levelsBeyond. Einstein said he abhorred the idea that God played dice, but science has since taken issue with him on this. Quantum mechanics is about probabilities not definite answers. Was Einstein right? Check the magic eight ball!
Last edited by a moderator:
panic in paradise
Bluelighter
But, I believe the distance of the moon from the earth is in fact, subjective. The moons distance from the earth at this time relies on the earths gravity field, and the mass it currently retains, the moon is subjective to that and many other factors which its existence as our moon depends on.
Really, just before when everything is said and done for you, the most true sign of intelligence comes when you realize how happy what you have learned has helped you to be through out your life time.
Last edited:
^ 'subjective' and 'objective but a function of many variables' are two different things.
alasdair
alasdair
aussie101
Ex-Bluelighter
Dude you made me laugh. Good oneheisenberg's uncertainty principle has nothing to do with correctness or happiness, correct? op, you are just mapping the idea onto two different concepts? in that case, your thread title should be 'tmdoca's correctness uncertainty principle', or such.
i'll be honest, i dont' get what you're trying to say with your op but i do have a great joke about the 'real' uncertainty principle.
heisenberg gets pulled over by a cop. the cop says "do you have any idea how fast you were going?" heisenberg replies "no. but i know exactly where i am!"
later, his wife asks him why he was so late coming home. he replied "it was weird - i glanced down at my speedometer and suddenly had no idea where i was"
alasdair