Comments on Ina's Blog: Subjectivity

I still need to think about this further, so comme...

2010-02-22T15:01:59.255Z

I still need to think about this further, so comments to follow. Still, thank you for putting it down into am argument so I can actually think it through :)

Nice :) I was taking 'all matter is made up o...

2010-02-22T11:38:54.453Z

Nice :)

I was taking 'all matter is made up of quanta' as an axiom there, rather than merely using it as part of some torturous circular logic. An object - by standard definition - is some grouping of, or interactions between matter (depending how scientific you'd like to get). Therefore, all objects are made up of quanta. Further to this, all non-object entities (thoughts, abstract concepts) are also made up of quanta (see proposition 1). However, I agree that if you don't accept 'matter exists' and 'it is made of quanta' my argument is worthless, but that's a rather nihilistic viewpoint - matter and quanta are fairly readily observed and quite rigorously proven.

I'm confused by your point about objects existing in a context. I think it stems from your simplification of proposition 2 - my point there is that yes, whilst all quanta exist in all possible states, at the point of observation their observables are of fixed value. Objects therefore objectively exist; however, any given observer is unable to determine this objective state due to the uncertainty principle. Q.E.D. objects objectively exist, yet may only be viewed subjectively.

Finally, if objects exist, we have a way to probabilistically determine them, not merely to probably determine them. I accept that subjectivity is by its very nature flawed, but still believe that if a problem is fully defined within its subjective context, that a correct answer to that problem may be obtained. I still believe in the concept of objective truth, but can't see any way to observe this without the taint of subjectivity.

No wonder it's been so long between posts.

2010-02-22T10:43:36.658Z

No wonder it's been so long between posts.

Okay, so you have proven that there is an objectiv...

2010-02-21T23:54:09.196Z

Okay, so you have proven that there is an objective reality out there.
What is not proven from your demonstration is that there is a certain way to find what that objective reality is like.
If you can't ever be absolutely certain of the real nature of the objective reality - then how do you know that your demonstration of the existence of it applies to it?

I'll simplify your argument:
1. matter exists and it's made up of quanta
2. at a point of observation there is a thing

If there is a way to process all the variables in a point of observation, one can determine the objective thing

The uncertainty principle says that it's impossible to measure all variables

subjective logic allows us to represent a belief about a thing but only as a probability,
with a certain answer to be basically picked ( decision theory) from the probable scale.

So, you want to set out to prove that an objective reality exists. To prove that, you can't start with stating it, because it's the conclusion.
The conclusion cannot be contained by the premises.
How your argument is like:
Premise 1: objects exist
Premise 2: they exist within a varied context
Premise 3: there is no way to observe all variables but one can determine a probability about them
Conclusion: objects exist

You're presupposing the existence of objects. Plus, if you haven't yet shown that they do exist, how can you be sure they are within a context? This bears resemblance to "The present king of France is bald." dilemma. This proposition is neither true nor false because there
is no king of France. If you haven't proven that objects exist, then you can't say anything about them, as a proposition about them
presupposes their existence.
Therefore, each sentence of your argument should be preceded by "if objects exist"
IF objects exist, matter exists and it's made up of quanta
IF objects exist, they are within a varied context
IF objects exist there is a way to observe most of them and determine a probability of their nature
Objects therefore exist?
It is not right, because all your theory is BASED on objects existing.
If objects don't exist, ALL your theory is defeated.
If you had at least demonstrated the absolute certainty of the existence of objects which can be CERTAINTLY verfied by anyone... then you would have been at least closer to demonstrating they exist - even though you based your demonstration on a presupposing their existence.
You have shown that if they exist, we have a way to PROBABLY determine them? that's very interesting, so if x (which we are not sure exists or not) does exist, we might know it. :) Sounds like we're grabbing at thin air here.