1. Everybody is right

2. Everybody is wrong.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

#2 because in most cases there are multiple ways to be wrong and only one way to be right.

E.g.: 2 + 2 =

a) 2
b) 22
c) 5
d) 11

If all answers are right, you have a contradiction but not so if all are wrong.

:up:

#2 because in most cases there are multiple ways to be wrong and only one way to be right. — ArmChairPhilosopher

you're genius :smile:

1. Everybody is right

2. Everybody is wrong.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

Everybody is wrong. Because all we ever know is tentative and defeasible and evanescent.

False dichotomy – 3. Everybody is uncertain (re: the future). 4 Everybody is ignorant (re: the past). Etcetera..

2. Everybody else is wrong.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

Everybody is wrong. — Tom Storm

If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right.

The other problem is that two wrongs make a right. I think that's the rule.

If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right. — Hanover

That's my plan!

If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right. — Hanover

Genius!

False dichotomy — 180 Proof

Yup.

Thanks go out to all the above posters.

I'm doing this on the fly and so I don't really have a clear-cut, well-defined, position on the matter, but what's interesting is 1. Everybody is right is a bona fide philosophical stance [re relativism (Sophists) & anekantavada (Jains)]. True that relativism has a bad rep, relatively speaking, but the point is it pops up now and then in serious philosophy i.e. there are takers for such a viewpoint.

This isn't the case for 2. Everybody is wrong. There are no known philosophies with this outlook or if there is one I haven't heard of it.

I maybe drifting into the subjective-objective distinction here.

False dichotomy – 3. Everybody is uncertain (re: the future). 4 Everybody is ignorant (re: the past). Etcetera.. — 180 Proof

:fire:

Everybody is wrong but they are not aware of it.

I don't really have a clear-cut, well-defined, position on the matter — Agent Smith

For which you should be profoundly thankful. :roll:

I think everybody is right, which is kinda hard to swallow for philosophers being descendants of Plato et al.

Everybody is wrong but they are not aware of it. — javi2541997

This, in my book, means truths are objective; the real truth is hidden from view and everyone has, well, the wrong idea about the world (us inclusive).

The other option where everyone's right implies, inter alia, truths are subjective. There is no, as @Wayfarer would've said, orthodoxy or samyak-dṛuṣṭi / sammā-diṭṭhi, no right view. "Sophism" written all over it.

For which you should be profoundly thankful. :roll: — jgill

:smile:

Wouldn’t say that. The first step on the eightfold path is indeed ‘samma ditth’ generally translated as ‘right view’ (although a big part of that is ‘not clinging to views’.)

This wikipedia article is not a bad starting point.

Wouldn’t say that. The first step on the eightfold path is indeed ‘samma ditth’ generally translated as ‘right view’ (although a big part of that is ‘not clinging to views’.)

This wikipedia article is not a bad starting point. — Wayfarer

Sorry about the misrepresentation of your position. It wasn't deliberate.

So, Buddhism endorses objectivity of truths. That doesn't sound right unless some kinda linguistic callisthencs is involved e.g. by claiming no view is the right view (the view from nowhere).

You don’t generally encounter the term ‘objectivity’ in that context but I suppose you could say that is a property of samvrtisatya, conventional truth. But the domain of paramarthasatya is that of transcendental truth see this article https://www.britannica.com/topic/paramartha-satya

You refer to the so-called two truths doctrine. Maya (illusion) joins the fray. Magic!

The concept of an objective, absolute truth is a strong one, ruling at the base if science and modern thought. "But there has to be such human-detached reality". Sure. But it depends on who you ask what that "fundamentally unknowable" reality looks like. For one it's particles and spacetime, for another that's a mere contingency, and judged by partisans following another party line, it's just spirits existing. Now who's right? All of them! What's the point in arguing? The wrong is just an invention to strengthen one's own ideas.

How are you doing?

How are you doing? — L'éléphant

Well, I just recovered from Covid (my 3 jabs helped) and now I have a mild bakcache. I hope the question wasn't rhetorical.

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the so-called wave function collapses when an observer makes a measurement. I'm told that consciousness is the key player in the whole process.

I'm told that consciousness is the key player in the whole process.

Definitely, it is! :up:

Well, I just recovered from Covid (my 3 jabs helped) and now I have a mild bakcache. I hope the question wasn't rhetorical. — Agent Smith

Covid?

Of course that was not a rhetorical question. If I'd do that, I'd insult your intelligence first, followed by a jab.

How the fuck did you get covid by posting everyday on the philosophy forum? We can't breathe or sneeze at each other here, dude.

Whoever said that was misinformed. It is the measurement that collapses the wave function, no consciousness necessary. And the measurement is any interaction with any kind of measurement device. That's why it is so difficult to build quantum computers. You have to maintain the superposition until you want to measure.

Yeah, but isn't conscious perception an inseparable part of measurement.

Question: Suppose you set up a quantum experiment. You rig it up to perform a measurement at time t₁. However you check the measurement only a later time (say two days after) at time t₂.

When does the wave function collapse? At time t₁ or time t₂?

When does the wave function collapse? At time t1 or time t2? — Agent Smith

At t1 and that has been shown. Measurements in decoherence experiments like the delayed quantum eraser are done by computers (the effects are much too fast for human perception). The idea of conscious observation being necessary has been refuted in physics a long time ago but it still lives on in quantum woo. And if it were true, it would end up in solipsism.

At t1 and that has been shown. Measurements in decoherence experiments like the delayed quantum eraser are done by computers (the effects are much too fast for human perception). The idea of conscious observation being necessary has been refuted in physics a long time ago but it still lives on in quantum woo. And if it were true, it would end up in solipsism — ArmChairPhilosopher

You can never know can you, whether the wave function collapse took place at t₁ or t₂.