On knowledge v belief: who to trust?

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Actually Walter, we do, because at no instant are we equal to another.  

 

Could you please answer the question I put to you regarding the difference I pointed out?

 

Do you see that difference or not?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's try this instead because we don't limit our lack of understanding.  

 

We are in the universe and the universe has a practical universal truth.  Earth and humanity are without limitation to the universe and that truth.  But, because we are subject to the particulars of Earth, our truth is subjective....

Let's try you answering the questions concerning Statement 1 and Statement 2 first.  Because if this is just going to be another episode of you not listening to understand, while simultaneously lamenting your lack of understanding,  I'm out.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let's try you answering the questions concerning Statement 1 and Statement 2 first.  Because if this is just going to be another episode of you not listening to understand, while simultaneously lamenting your lack of understanding,  I'm out.

 

I'm with the Prof here.

 

Either this thread has a two-way flow of questions asked and answered by the participants or I'm out too.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let's try you answering the questions concerning Statement 1 and Statement 2 first.  Because if this is just going to be another episode of you not listening to understand, while simultaneously lamenting your lack of understanding,  I'm out.

I'm not using statement 2 at all.  I'm using the differences between what we are able to discern and unable in statement one.  What is full, what is empty.  Those are still subjective.

[Edgarcito]

This is a practical example of gaslighting M....and you mentioned Christians doing this shit...  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This is a practical example of gaslighting M....and you mentioned Christians doing this shit...  

No one is gaslighting you; and I've already spoken to you about poor-mouthing yourself.

 

Answer the questions, please.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No one is gaslighting you; and I've already spoken to you about poor-mouthing yourself.

 

Answer the questions, please.

I’m giving you this statement and am done.  Do with it whatever you want.  Every perspective is instantaneously different all the time for reasons we understand and don’t.   Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Have a good day.

[walterpthefirst]

Goodbye, Ed.

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I’m giving you this statement and am done.  Do with it whatever you want.  Every perspective is instantaneously different all the time for reasons we understand and don’t.   Thanks.

 

 

Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia

 

This is for your information, Ed.

 

With regards to quantum unknowability, this effect is not cumulative and the uncertainties do not add up at scales larger than the molecular.  Instead, the uncertainties cancel each other out, leading to the knowable reality described by classical physics.

 

So, if your above statement relies upon quantum uncertainty, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  Reality, from the molecular level all the way up to the cosmic scale is (to a certain degree) fixed, knowable and certain.  The uncertainties are not infinite, they are manageable and allow us to experience a (more or less) common reality.  

 

Where our experiences overlap is where and how we communicate with each other.  Nobody experiences a personal reality that is totally different from another person's.  If this were so then you would not be able to read this.  It would mean that everyone would be completely isolated within their own unique bubble of subjectivity.

 

But, we aren't.  

 

Your ability to see, read and comprehend these words is the logical proof of that.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Tacking on to what Walt has posted above, this is why we all recognize whether a jug (or glass) is either full (A) or empty (not-A).  And personal interpretation, perception, or perspective has nothing to do with it. 

 

There is simply no way for a glass or jug to contain liquid and be empty at the same time.  Even if there is only 250uL down in the bottom, and one would need a micropipettor to extract it, it's still there.  So while some might consider it empty and others might not, no one can perceive it as full while retaining their intellectual integrity and credibility. 

 

In fact, such a situation is precisely what Excluded Third tells us: either the jug is full (A), or the jug is empty (not-A)... or the jug is neither full nor empty (neither A nor not-A).  If there is any liquid in the jug, it is not empty, so not-A is false; but if the liquid measures less than a gallon, then it is not full, so A is also false.  Thus, Excluded Third tells us: Either A or not A or Neither A nor not-A.

 

How full is "full" might be open to interpretation; as might how empty is "empty," especially for folks who might insist on redefining the meanings of words in order to cling to untenable positions.  But, ultimately, there simply is no subjective interpretation for whether or not there is tea in the jug; it's there or it ain't.  Plus, there are definitive ways of measuring whether or not it is full or empty.  We can weigh it or perform a volumetric assessment. 

 

This simple test verifies the objective truth of Excluded Third; and the fact that it works the same in China as it does in that Dirty Old Town of Dublin demonstrates that it is a universal and absolute truth. 

 

If the jug is full, it cannot be empty; it can only be emptied, which requires acting on the jug and altering its current state.  If it is empty, it cannot be full; but it can likewise be filled.  But even these are exclusive.  One cannot simultaneously fill and empty the same jug at the same time.

 

Certain truths are subjective; others are objective.  But an objective truth is not subject to personal interpretation; nor will a subjective truth ever be Absolute. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia

 

This is for your information, Ed.

 

With regards to quantum unknowability, this effect is not cumulative and the uncertainties do not add up at scales larger than the molecular.  Instead, the uncertainties cancel each other out, leading to the knowable reality described by classical physics.

 

So, if your above statement relies upon quantum uncertainty, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  Reality, from the molecular level all the way up to the cosmic scale is (to a certain degree) fixed, knowable and certain.  The uncertainties are not infinite, they are manageable and allow us to experience a (more or less) common reality.  

 

Where our experiences overlap is where and how we communicate with each other.  Nobody experiences a personal reality that is totally different from another person's.  If this were so then you would not be able to read this.  It would mean that everyone would be completely isolated within their own unique bubble of subjectivity.

 

But, we aren't.  

 

Your ability to see, read and comprehend these words is the logical proof of that.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

I appreciate that Walter… but it doesn’t change anything in my mind.  What I understand you saying is at a level the certainty is negligible.   I don’t see that changes what I’m saying.  The atmosphere I’m standing in reacting with matter in my body is unique all the time always… instantaneously different… and that’s not even addressing the quantum level.  Which I gather  increases the complexity… but you’re saying no at our observable level.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I appreciate that Walter… but it doesn’t change anything in my mind.  What I understand you saying is at a level the certainty is negligible.   I don’t see that changes what I’m saying.  The atmosphere I’m standing in reacting with matter in my body is unique all the time always… instantaneously different… and that’s not even addressing the quantum level.  Which I gather  increases the complexity… but you’re saying no at our observable level.

 

My pleasure, Edgarcito.

 

 

And that's right, but its not me that's saying it - scientists are.  

 

Quantum uncertainty only dominates at scales below the molecular.  Everything else above that - from the realm of microbes and viruses all the way up to stars and galaxies feels the effects of this uncertainty in subtle ways, but not in major and dominant ways.

 

We know this because phenomenon like quantum tunnelling are never seen to happen at these larger scales. 

 

As much as they'd like to, criminals can't use quantum tunnelling to pass through solid walls and enter securely locked bank vaults.  Nor can I exit my lounge, where I'm typing this, by passing through the wood and glass door into the hallway.  Barges and ships don't slip effortlessly through the steel and wood of lock gates - they have to wait for the lock keepers to swing those gates open.  And so on.

 

Ditto for quantum entanglement.  Two photons can become entangled, so that a change in one results in an instantaneous change in the other.  But two widely-separated buildings cannot become entangled in the same way.  If they could then when one is levelled by an earthquake the other would collapse at the same time, even though there was no earthquake shaking its foundations.

 

The same goes for particle/wave duality.  A photon can act as either a particle or a wave, but a fifty-foot ocean wave bearing down on the coast cannot.  If it could then such a storm-driven wave could pass through a 1 millimetre wide gap in a sea wall, reform itself into a destructive wall of water on the other side and then smash the beachfront property.

 

These weird quantum-scale behaviours cannot and do not scale up to our level as we might naively think.  And it is this misunderstanding that seems to lie at the root of your thinking about subjectivity.

 

The uncertainties inherent in all of the quantum particles that make up our bodies do not stack up, one on top of the other, going up and up and yielding infinite uncertainty.  No large-scale system (people, planets, plants or penguins) does that.  Instead, all of these uncertainties negate each other and cancel each other out, yielding the mostly predictable and mostly knowable reality that we inhabit.

 

It is in this overlap of reasonable predictability and reasonable knowability that you, me, the Prof and everyone else live, interact and communicate with each other.  That is why the Prof can write words like jug, glass, full and empty and you and everyone reading this thread know what he means.  The quantum uncertainty of the particles we are made of don't cause us to inhabit our own personal bubbles of subjectivity because their quantum effects are smoothed out into a  common experience of reality. 

 

Sure, it's not 100% common to everyone, but then it doesn't have to be, does it?

 

It just has to be sufficiently common to allow us to communicate.  And since you've read and understood my words and I've read and understood yours it'd be pretty difficult to argue that we're not communicating?  I'm never going to experience reality in 100% the same way as you do and vice versa.  But so what?  As long as we have enough in common, that's good enough.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I appreciate that Walter… but it doesn’t change anything in my mind.  What I understand you saying is at a level the certainty is negligible.   I don’t see that changes what I’m saying.  The atmosphere I’m standing in reacting with matter in my body is unique all the time always… instantaneously different… and that’s not even addressing the quantum level.  Which I gather  increases the complexity… but you’re saying no at our observable level.

Ed, if this is true, then wouldn't that mean that your speculated Absolute Truth would also affect each of us in independent and unique ways... making it... subjective?

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ed, if this is true, then wouldn't that mean that your speculated Absolute Truth would also affect each of us in independent and unique ways... making it... subjective?

Not if we were able to calculate the complexity… and understand the small and large to infinity… but for right now it’s subjective…

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Not if we were able to calculate the complexity… and understand the small and large to infinity… but for right now it’s subjective…

 

That's a nice thought, Ed.

 

But even now there's growing list of un-computable problems that no algorithm can ever solve.

 

List of undecidable problems - Wikipedia

 

At the bottom end there's a limit to how small we can go in our investigations.

 

Planck units - Wikipedia

 

Anything smaller than the Planck length is uninvestigable by us.  And the Planck length is infinitely larger than the infinitely small.  That's because infinity is not a fixed value.  It is without end.  We can never reach the end of something that has no fixed value.

 

The same problem occurs at the other end of things.

 

Observable universe - Wikipedia

 

We can never see the entire universe.  We will only ever see a vanishingly small fraction of it and we call this tiny region the observable universe.  So, for this reason and for the same reason mentioned earlier (infinity is not a fixed value) we can never know or understand or compute the infinitely large.

 

Access to the entire universe is denied us and even if it weren't we can still never reach the end of something that has no fixed value.

 

 

Sorry, but you are hoping for and dreaming of what cannot be.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Not if we were able to calculate the complexity… and understand the small and large to infinity… but for right now it’s subjective…

Then, by definition, it is not, and can never be, Absolute,  for reasons I have already stated, but will reiterate.  By definition, an absolute is not diminished in any way, and exists independently and not in relation to other things.  It is, therefore, not relative or comparative.  If the Absolute Truth you posit exists, it cannot be limited by our current understanding; because it exists independent of our current understanding.  It cannot be diminished by us not knowing the complexities; because it is not relative to our knowledge, nor is it comparable.  

 

If it is dependent on us reaching some higher level of understanding or awareness, as you claim here, then it is not an Absolute Truth.  If it exists relative to our knowledge of the complexities, then it is not an Absolute Truth.  If it is limited in any way, shape, or form... then it is subjective and cannot be an Absolute Truth. 

 

You are positing an "Absolute Truth" that is diminished by our current subjective understanding, exists in relation with our current subjective knowledge, and is viewed in comparison to our current, subjective ignorance of the complexities.  There is no way such a "Truth" can be Absolute. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then, by definition, it is not, and can never be, Absolute,  for reasons I have already stated, but will reiterate.  By definition, an absolute is not diminished in any way, and exists independently and not in relation to other things.  It is, therefore, not relative or comparative.  If the Absolute Truth you posit exists, it cannot be limited by our current understanding; because it exists independent of our current understanding.  It cannot be diminished by us not knowing the complexities; because it is not relative to our knowledge, nor is it comparable.  

 

If it is dependent on us reaching some higher level of understanding or awareness, as you claim here, then it is not an Absolute Truth.  If it exists relative to our knowledge of the complexities, then it is not an Absolute Truth.  If it is limited in any way, shape, or form... then it is subjective and cannot be an Absolute Truth. 

 

You are positing an "Absolute Truth" that is diminished by our current subjective understanding, exists in relation with our current subjective knowledge, and is viewed in comparison to our current, subjective ignorance of the complexities.  There is no way such a "Truth" can be Absolute. 

 

 

I think you are applying diminished incorrectly… there’s more than one way to interpret that definition 

[Edgarcito]

As in the understanding is not qualified or diminished in any way…

[Edgarcito]

You’re right… I’m certainly saying it’s qualified right now and we are highly unlikely to “unqualify”, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think you are applying diminished incorrectly… there’s more than one way to interpret that definition 

 

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

As in the understanding is not qualified or diminished in any way…

The Absolute is not diminished, which means "to make or become less."  What you said was that the Absolute Truth would only exist as an Absolute Truth "if we were able to calculate the complexity… and understand the small and large to infinity… but for right now it’s subjective."  Because only then would it not "affect each of us in independent and unique ways," whereby it is subjective.

 

Therefore, according to your own words, our ignorance of the complexities limits the Absolute and makes it less than an Absolute. 

 

So, no, I am not misapplying the term.  You seem to be wanting to apply the diminishing to the understanding, rather than to the Absolute, which is what the diminishing concerns, per the definition.  This is why I have (twice) attached a screenshot of said definition, specifically so that you could not attempt to redefine the words in question.  I will now do so a third time.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Lastly, it’s certainly reasonable and allowed to speculate on where such a truth my reside

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You’re right… I’m certainly saying it’s qualified right now and we are highly unlikely to “unqualify”, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility.  

Yes.  It literally does, by the very definition of Absolute. 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  It literally does, by the very definition of Absolute. 

Then we are going to have to disagree… positing and defining are wonderfully different…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Lastly, it’s certainly reasonable and allowed to speculate on where such a truth my reside

Certainly.  But it is more reasonable to concede when the very definitions of the words you're using demonstrate that you are wrong.  It is more reasonable, as in a more reasoned choice, to accept an uncomfortable truth than cling to a comfortable falsehood, or, in this case, a comfortable false hope.