The point of the Wigner's Friend is that both can see the different responses to the same thing and be right, meaning we aren't seeing the same thing yet aren't wrong, at least on the quantum stage not the macro stage. — Darkneos
What? They are how we can even derive counterfactuals to test. They are the axiomatic basis of truth claims. — apokrisis
Have you studied biophysics? — apokrisis
A little, but again that's not quantum physics. — Darkneos
The point of the forks is that we both can see the different responses to the same thing and be right, meaning we aren't seeing the same thing yet aren't wrong, right there at the table. — Banno
Yeah, it is. One fork. Left, right.
You haven't made a case for a difference, which leaves the suspicion that you only wish to hide your views behind QM verbosity. — Banno
metaphysical claims have no truth value.
— T Clark
:100:
3 hours ago — 180 Proof
The statement is not a contradiction, it's conceptually incoherent (i.e. not even false)."My spirit is green and my spirit is not green." Metaphysical claim that is necessarily false. — god must be atheist
The statement is not a contradiction, it's conceptually incoherent (i.e. not even false). — 180 Proof
What? — apokrisis
They are how we can even derive counterfactuals to test. They are the axiomatic basis of truth claims. — apokrisis
"My spirit is green." metaphysical claim.
"My spirit is green and my spirit is not green." Metaphysical claim that is necessarily false.
"My spirit is green or my spirit is not green. " Metaphysical claim that is necessarily true. — god must be atheist
metaphysical statements are not true or false — T Clark
No, it hasn’t proven that, and even when it’s talked about you have to twist your use of the word “reality.” What is reality? I think it’s the sum total of all of our collective conscious experiences. No more and no less. How that reality is “implemented” is really of little consequence.
In the movie The Matrix Neo points out a Asian restaurant inside the Matrix that he’d previously patronized, noted that they had great noodles, and said “I have all these memories. They never happened.” I completely disagree. He had those experiences, and furthermore he shared them with other living thinking human beings (who were also in the Matrix, but that’s not the point). He didn’t dream them in isolation from other humans. So they happened. If a man and woman fell in love in the Matrix, would they be less in love because of meeting inside a simulation? I don’t think so at all.
Physicists say the universe is comprised of quantum fields, among which quanta of energy move back and forth. But they don’t say, or even try to say, what a quantum field is. They just presume such fields exist and describe their interactions. They’ve built a model that we can use to make predictions, which in many cases can be extremely accurate. But there is absolutely no way to know what that model actually is or how it works.
A big debate along these lines today (which I don’t think is even a scientific debate, because science can’t actually answer the question) is whether reality is “materialist” (i.e., made of physical matter and energy from which our minds arise via the laws of physics) or “idealist” (our minds are fundamental and our interactions create our perception of physical things). Does it even matter? The point is that you and I are self-aware and we consciously experience events and interactions with one another (well, not you and me specifically, but you know what I mean).
Usually when someone says there is no objective reality they are professing a position of idealism, the second of the two positions I outlined above. But as I said, I think it’s an empty claim. Reality is what we experience.
Stay safe and well!
Kip
[Subjective reality is a local perspective adapting to context. This is complementarity in QM. Each causal relation resulting in a contextual interaction is objective. This is a condition to be a valid complement in QM. The generalization of all local positions and contexts is also objective. The shift from local subjective to general objective is split by uncertainty principle.
When you understand Copenhagen Interpretation correctly, questions like this do not occur. They become the play things of those who haven't graduated from philosophy to empirical reality./quote]
180 Proof says your statements are "conceptually incoherent." I say they are meaningless. I think we're both saying the same thing. — T Clark
What's an example you reach for to explain this idea? (This is Collingwood, right?) — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.