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.
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-d?u??i / samm?-di??hi, no right view. "Sophism" written all over it.
Reply to Agent Smith 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’.)
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.
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).
Reply to Agent Smith 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
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.
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.
Well, I just recovered from Covid (my 3 jabs helped) and now I have a mild bakcache. I hope the question wasn't rhetorical.
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.
ArmChairPhilosopherApril 30, 2022 at 06:28#6885160 likes
Reply to Agent Smith 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.
Question: Suppose you set up a quantum experiment. You rig it up to perform a measurement at time t[sub]1[/sub]. However you check the measurement only a later time (say two days after) at time t[sub]2[/sub].
When does the wave function collapse? At time t[sub]1[/sub] or time t[sub]2[/sub]?
ArmChairPhilosopherApril 30, 2022 at 06:46#6885220 likes
When does the wave function collapse? At time t1 or time t2?
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
You can never know can you, whether the wave function collapse took place at t[sub]1[/sub] or t[sub]2[/sub].
I dunno! I'd need to undergo a battery of tests to find out, something I don't have time for. I should've taken a picture pre-Covid and then one post-Covid. I would've got a rough idea about what Covid does to people.
ArmChairPhilosopherApril 30, 2022 at 16:20#6887330 likes
Not yet. I only see it now! But all things involving QM are interesting. As a physicist I've aways questioned the standard offer in the two fat Cohen-Tannoudji books, interesting their offered story is, and the same can be said about Ryder's QFT book. Griffiths' introduction to elementary particles is vividly written, with fun and anecdote and a lot of prose besides the math, but it still sticks to the standard. I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. So, in honor of Bohm (and his holographic universe), a video for you! I watch yours if you watch mine! :smile:
I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM.
That's the problem. Especially in QM the second option of the OP is valid. Everybody is wrong. Models only ever describe part of reality, the better models describe more of reality or are more precise but we should never confuse the map for the territory.
A frisson of excitement passed through me when I realized how similar relativism/anekantavada is to a trivial system of logic that allows contradictions without making the necessary adjustments to prevent the ex falso quodlibet logic bomb from detonating.
Comments (47)
#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.
you're genius :smile:
Everybody is wrong. Because all we ever know is tentative and defeasible and evanescent.
Quoting Tom Storm
If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right.
That's my plan!
Genius!
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.
Quoting 180 Proof
:fire:
Everybody is wrong but they are not aware of it.
For which you should be profoundly thankful. :roll:
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-d?u??i / samm?-di??hi, no right view. "Sophism" written all over it.
Quoting jgill
:smile:
This wikipedia article is not a bad starting point.
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).
Well, I just recovered from Covid (my 3 jabs helped) and now I have a mild bakcache. I hope the question wasn't rhetorical.
Definitely, it is! :up:
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.
Question: Suppose you set up a quantum experiment. You rig it up to perform a measurement at time t[sub]1[/sub]. However you check the measurement only a later time (say two days after) at time t[sub]2[/sub].
When does the wave function collapse? At time t[sub]1[/sub] or time t[sub]2[/sub]?
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.
You can never know can you, whether the wave function collapse took place at t[sub]1[/sub] or t[sub]2[/sub].
I don't understand quantum mechanics enough to explain it. Have a look at Prof. O'Dowd's video:
What has covid done to you these days?
I dunno! I'd need to undergo a battery of tests to find out, something I don't have time for. I should've taken a picture pre-Covid and then one post-Covid. I would've got a rough idea about what Covid does to people.
De nada.
Okay that, too. But I meant to your mind or attitude.
Unlike computers which can generate self-reports, humans can't or if they attempt to, it all comes out wrong.
Quoting Agent Smith
Every statement is true. Ex falso quodlibet. A trivial logic.
In the standard interpretation it is the conscious observer who collapses the wavefunction. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse.
Not yet. I only see it now! But all things involving QM are interesting. As a physicist I've aways questioned the standard offer in the two fat Cohen-Tannoudji books, interesting their offered story is, and the same can be said about Ryder's QFT book. Griffiths' introduction to elementary particles is vividly written, with fun and anecdote and a lot of prose besides the math, but it still sticks to the standard. I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. So, in honor of Bohm (and his holographic universe), a video for you! I watch yours if you watch mine! :smile:
That's the problem. Especially in QM the second option of the OP is valid. Everybody is wrong. Models only ever describe part of reality, the better models describe more of reality or are more precise but we should never confuse the map for the territory.
:up:
A frisson of excitement passed through me when I realized how similar relativism/anekantavada is to a trivial system of logic that allows contradictions without making the necessary adjustments to prevent the ex falso quodlibet logic bomb from detonating.
Most likely.
:ok: