QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, you wrote: "What we have today is a continuing trend of subjectivist cry-babies who just can’t abide the FACT of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects."

Among the "cry-babies" in the physical sciences are men and women who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the pursuit of knowledge, and have benefitted mankind beyond anyone's power to repay. And in order to do so, they have employed a theory of knowledge, an allegiance to their best understanding of reality, that should cause lesser people to remove their hats in salute. Do they ever make mistakes? Sure. Everyone does -- even Ayn Rand. But for someone who is not an expert in the physical sciences, and whose well-being is made possible by such men and women, to employ sweepingly-negative generalizations -- such as "whim-worshippers." "subjectivists ," and "mystics" -- in order to denigrate them and to use against them jargon-filled arguments which he clearly has picked up on the fly and barely understands, is truly repulsive.

In my talk on "Objectivism and Rage," I said the following:

"The view that ideas can be evil is held implicitly or explicitly by a great many Objectivists. If someone tells us, for instance, that he is religious, presumably we know—without knowing his context, the extent of his understanding, or the depth of his commitment—that this is an evil idea that cannot be accepted by a mind devoted to reason. Therefore, at least to the extent of his religiosity, we know that the person is evil. Or again, if a man tells us he is a political liberal, presumably we know—again without knowing his context, the extent of his understanding, or the depth of his commitment—that this, too, is an evil idea that cannot be maintained by a mind devoted to reason. Therefore, at least to the extent of his liberalism, we know that the man is evil.

"How do we know it? How do we decide which ideas are proof of evil? What the argument ultimately amounts to is that mistaken ideas of a fundamental sort—fundamental to whichever branch of knowledge is being considered—are evil. The concept of error, of innocence, vanishes, and error is transmuted into evil.

"And worse. What do we hold to be the mistaken ideas that constitute proof of evil? Why, those ideas that contradict our own, of course. We are not religious mystics, we do not believe that the use of force is permissible in human society, we despise non-objective art, we know that certainty is possible, we know that emotions are not tools of cognition—and those who do not recognize these truths are our mortal enemies, Satanic beings to be shunned, denigrated, denounced.

"It makes moral judgment so very easy, does it not? All we require in order to know that someone is worthless is to know that he holds convictions contrary to our own.

"And if we hold such a view, we necessarily will morally denigrate and verbally abuse those who do not agree with us. We will be indignant at our opponents’ presumption in asking that we even consider or attempt to disprove their evil ideas. Instead, to the cheers of those who agree with us, we will ringingly denounce their dishonesty, their irrationality, their evasion, so that the world will recognize them for what they are.

"And what superior and virtuous beings we are! And how incredibly smug and self-congratulatory! We cavalierly dispense with most of the human race for not agreeing with our philosophy. Socialists are evil, theists are evil, determinists are evil, so are Democrats and so are Conservatives and so are Libertarians, so is anyone who has read Rand and is not an Objectivist, and so are many who call themselves Objectivists but who don’t think ideas can be evil. As someone once said, 'That leaves you and me, my friend . . . and I’m not so sure about you!'"

You wanted me to use more examples in my talk on "Objectivism and Rage?" Your statement that I quoted at the beginning of this post is one I could use as Exhibit A. I would only have to add quantum physicists to my list of the damned. You disagree with quantum physics? Then, clearly, you have the power to peer into the minds of quantum physicists and to pronounce them whim-worshippers, subjectivists, mystics, cry-babies who want reality to conform to their wishes and their false beliefs and who hate the fact that reality is objective.

Victor, it's time you took a cold, hard look at the means by which you arrive at your tendency to fling moral accusations at those you disagree with, time you learned to consider whether it is your own false beliefs and wishful thinking that have led you into grave error. It's time you began seriously working to correct that error. I don't know if you'll do so. I know you have the power to do so.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Paul, Michael, Bob:

There have been some misunderstandings. Let me establish some context here: It was the 1920’s when a revolution occurred in fundamental physics that shook the scientific community and focused attention as never before on relation the relation between the observer and the external world. Known as the quantum theory, it forms a pill in what became known as the “new physics”—and it challenged previous established paradigms. It provided the most convincing scientific evidence yet that consciousness plays an essential role in the nature of physical reality. Quantum theory demolished cherished “commonsense concepts” about the nature of reality. By blurring the distinction between subject and object, cause and effect, it introduces a strong “holistic element” into our world view. This was seen as a “loop hole” for certain mystic types to enter.

At the heart of the subject--among other things--lies the bald question: is an atom a THING, or just an abstract construct of the imagination usual for the explaining a wide range of observations? If an atom really EXISTS [and would thus have an identity] as an independent entity, then at the very least it should have a location and a definite motion. But the quantum theory denies this. It says that you can have one or the other but not both. [it’s here, Bob, where I see you having a problem with The Law of Identity and I would like to have you to please speak freely. Let’s pursue whatever concerns you about it].

Given the above, it’s here, again, where certain “mystic types” have infiltrated the area, and proceeding from a “primacy of consciousness” orientation, have attempted to concoct quantum physics [via its 'loop holes'] as establishing "a case" for the existence for God. It was in the news at one time or another. I remember reading some science journal years ago announcing something like “Science discovers God” or some such nonsense. I found it funny then, and I still do. I don’t, however, want to give the impression that all I have to do is wave an “Objectivist wand” to explain everything about reality, but the Objectivist metaphysics does wipe clean any variant of the supernatural or a “subjectivist universe.” That’s all I was trying to do, and I didn’t mean to get Paul all upset. That’s what I was poking fun at in my article.

The ideas of quantum ideas have percolated through to the laymen, so that even a simple-minded fool like me can comprehend it enough. It’s no wonder really, because the quantum theory is, in its everyday application, a very down-to-earth subject with vast body of supporting evidence. The “new physics” should not unsettle Objectivists either, or perceive it as a threat to the axioms of Objectivism. I have come across this in my experiences.

As Ed Hudgins said: "After all, Newton's description of motion in the universe was correct in context. When the context changed and we looked at a different aspect of reality -- matter accelerating to near the speed of light -- you must add Einstein's insights."

Victor

[edit: this post was written before I saw Barb come in. Yikes, you misunderstand me, Barb, I just read your post and I will respond.]

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

I can see that I’m continuing to make a good impression on you. I’m afraid you entirely misunderstand me, and I can take a share of the blame as I’m primarily a visual artist, and being a “writer” is second hat. I still have a lot to learn about article writing.

Nevertheless, I will address some of your criticisms, and we'll see if we can come to a better understanding so that fruitful discussions might result.

Of course I grant the men and women “who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in the pursuit of knowledge the highest kudos and esteem. As an Objectivist, how could I not know and appreciate this. My criticism was targeting a small and deserving minority. I’m not--repeat NOT—trashing the scientists of quantum physics. If I gave that impression, I’m very sorry.

But my criticisms still stand, and I can substantiate my “sweepingly-negative generalizations” of those who are, no doubt, worthy targets. In the briefest possible way, I will concretize my claims a little further:

I recall reading, again some years ago, an article that declared: “There’s bad news for atheists these days, from—of all places—the world of science.” What intrigues me is the way the “super-scientists” are talking about a “mind” or God in the cosmos. [“Mistakes of this size are not made innocently.”]

One of the other accounts I recall of how science is “finding God” was on the cover of an issue of The Atlantic. Over a color photo of a butterfly runs the caption: “Did the Universe just happen? The subhead reads: “Controversial scientist Edward Fredkin says no—the universe is a computer and was built for a purpose.” Another writer followed up on this by asking: “Who or what set the computer in motion? Where is it, in some fifth or sixth dimension within the universe or in some meta-universe beyond?”

All this is a mere fragment of examples of what’s going on. And I just want to give a few examples to show that I might, after all, have reason to be critical.

Now, let me ask you, Barbara, why is it that I’m reading things like this? What’s the cause behind a head-line like this? Do you not grant the phenomena of “junk science” and are these men and women not to be morally evaluated at all?

What else would explain such a phenomena as described above, other than the fact that you do have “mystics” entering---or rather---“hijacking” a rational field, such as science, to undermine it entirely? I don’t attribute this as “innocent errors.” The same criticisms are to be hurled against the “global warming” crowd, too—even more fiercely. Mistakes? Innocent errors? I think not.

Conclusion:

Science, like politics, is not a primary—it is subject to the veto power of philosophy. The physical sciences rest on a philosophic foundation. And that’s why, as I said in an earlier post, Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking discoveries in epistemology would be truly revolutionary. I really believe that.

Respectfully,

Victor

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Gordon, you wrote: "I certainly think that ones pre-disposition to philosophy influences many scientists pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum Physics."

How about this: I think that one's pre-disposition [like the scientist himself] to philosophy [what kind of philosophy?] influences many scientist's pronouncements on the nature of the universe and nowhere as it does in Quantum physics.

Bingo!

Yes, I agree. But then, this is my whole point, isn't it? This is what I wish to draw attention to in my article. Philosophy is primary.

Victor

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

... I didn’t mean to get Paul all upset.

Can somebody please pass me a tissue?

Victor, you didn't get me "all upset." I have been questioning my relationship to Objectivism for some time now. Something Ellen said to me a few months ago has been bouncing around in my head, drawing my attention to the role Objectivism has in my life. I read your post while asking myself, for quite different reasons, "Am I an Objectivist?" From where I sit, your post was a fine example of the dark side of Objectivism. I did a little venting but your post was not the cause, only the release valve. I know I'm not the kind of Objectivist your post represents. Perhaps you are not either.

The tougher question for me is: do I see myself to be in alignment with Objectivists like Michael, Barbara and others here who have earned my respect? Or is Objectivism just an important source, among others, of the principles that make up my own authentic and autonomous personal perspective of existence? Should I think of myself and the world outside of the Objectivist box? Is my perspective larger than Objectivism? I'm still thinking this one through.

I have questions for you, Victor. Do you ever read your own posts over before posting, with a critical eye questioning whether your writing expresses your intended meaning? You seem to be often misunderstood. I am wondering if it might be because you are mis-expressing. I'm sure you have very vivid images that are the source of your writing. Are the images well defined? Are they being translated well into words so they can be translated into the images you intended in someone else? Is the moral element that comes through in your writing an expression of your own perspective or an expression of the Randian software program that is automating elements of your responses? Your moral tone and language has the flavour of randroidism. I wonder if you have noticed.

Paul

[Victor Pross]

Paul,

I don't want to get into a war-of-words with you. Let's leave my "style" out of this and let's leave any hemlock at the door. What doubts do you have about being considered an Objectivist? Is it other people OR the philosophy itself? Come on, let's talk about that. That might be more interesting.

Victor

ps

I was like this before I came across Rand. If you saw my paintings, that would explain a lot.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

Victor,

I wasn't talking about your style. I was talking about your content. If you would rather not talk about you, that's fine.

I didn't say I have doubts "about being considered an Objectivist." I said I am doubting that I should consider myself an Objectivist. It's more the psychology of Objectivism than the philosophy. At the root, I think there is a contradiction to having an autonomous perspective and adopting a philosophical system as one's own. Psychologically, you listen to the voice of one or the other.

I don't have time right now to discuss further.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I can assure you that poison was the last thing on Paul's mind. I think his questions came from a good place inside him and were aimed at a good place inside you.

If that post had been made elsewhere by another person out here in Objectivism-listland, well maybe it could have been aggressive...

Paul is one of our gentle voices of wisdom around here. You don't have to agree with him, but from my own experience, reflecting on his words have always made me wiser.

Paul,

I have a description of the basic principles of Objectivism I am preparing from an outline given in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand by David Kelley. His critics NEVER mention that part. I definitely see you there. But of course, you will decide for yourself.

Coming soon...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

M, you wrote: "I can assure you that poison was the last thing on Paul's mind. I think his questions came from a good place inside him and were aimed at a good place inside you.

If that post had been made elsewhere by another person out here in Objectivism-listland, well maybe it could have been aggressive...

Paul is one of our gentle voices of wisdom around here. You don't have to agree with him, but from my own experience, reflecting on his words have always made me wiser."

**

Okay, I'll take your word for it. You know him better than I do, and I suppose I was on a 'defense premise' here. ;] I have been slapped around, and sometimes I brought it on myself...and sometimes not. If I misunderstood the man...well, like Maxwell Smart would say: "Sorry about that!"

Edit: I'm only interested in talking about the subject matter of this thread--not my psychology or my style or my so-called Randian content or my dark side and all that crap. Sorry, it's all beside the issue. You can toss that at me if you wish, but I decided that I won't respond. My points and views in the article stand and I'm sincere in expressing of them. Back to the subject...

Edited August 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

When times were really ugly and Barbara and Nathaniel were heavily under attack from of the PARC crowd (with a plethora of foul language and behavior even more embarrassing than now), I came across this post from Paul on NB's Yahoo list. I liked it so much I wrote to him and asked him if I could post it on OL (I did not know him then and he was not a member here).

He agreed. I put it up, Roger then had some other wise things to say, and then I wrote the following in that thread:

You know what I like the best about Paul's post? He is over here in the corner, sipping a nice tall glass of iced mint tea, watching all the acrimony pass by without ever paying any real attention to it. He throws a log in the fireplace and sits down, instead.

As he stretches out his legs on the hammock and opens the book he's been reading, Getting it Right with The Wisdom of the Ages, he speaks to those passing by.

His voice is soft and melodious. Well articulated. Pleasant.

He speaks of what you see and the importance of understanding how you see it. He speaks of gazing inward with the same eyes you use for gazing out. He speaks of how short life is for anything less. He speaks of health as the good.

The storms rage all all around him, yet here he sits with his mint tea and book by the warm fire, telling his message of life to anyone who will listen.

When the storms die down and newcomers arrive, I have a feeling that this quiet voice of reason will not be the one that is silent.

His statement, "...if you are blind to elements of your inner world you will be blind to corresponding elements of the outer world as well. Sight works in both directions or it works in neither," has been a very good one that helped improve my own life. It is one of the things that help convince me to abandon the acrimony.

When you need to get ballsy, gently pulling a trigger shoots someone just as dead as pulling it with a lot of noise and bluster (and you usually aim better).

I believe this is part of where he was coming from with you - and if I know him, he came in peace with intention to help.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

Angie brings out the better side that IS in me. If you read the 'sex' thread, you'll see a bunch of fun-lovin' and wicked good humor going down.

Now to return to our program.

[Dragonfly]

At the heart of the subject--among other things--lies the bald question: is an atom a THING, or just an abstract construct of the imagination usual for the explaining a wide range of observations? If an atom really EXISTS [and would thus have an identity] as an independent entity, then at the very least it should have a location and a definite motion.

HALT! How do you know this? You state this as if it is an obvious condition, but the point is that it isn't. It seems obvious to you while you've never experienced anything to contradict this, and possibly our brains are already prewired to perceive the world that way, as it would be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view, while it enables us to interact succesfully with our environment. Now it might be a reasonably first conjecture to extrapolate the rules of behavior of things as we know them to the behavior at a subatomic scale, our whole intuition is screaming that it should be so! But intuitions can be wrong. If your intuition is in disagreement with the scientific evidence, then so much the worse for your intuition.

Given the above, it’s here, again, where certain “mystic types” have infiltrated the area, and proceeding from a “primacy of consciousness” orientation, have attempted to concoct quantum physics [via its 'loop holes'] as establishing "a case" for the existence for God.

No doubt many mystic types like new age gurus and quack doctors have tried to use QM for their own purposes to give their theories some scientific aura; it is even possible that some former scientists have joined the bandwagon. But it's silly to blame the scientific community for such aberrations, just as it is silly to blame Darwin for what the Nazis have done (as some Christians apparently do). Sensational headlines in the media about some crank theories are in no way representative for the scientific concensus.

The ideas of quantum ideas have percolated through to the laymen, so that even a simple-minded fool like me can comprehend it enough.

I think that is a dangerous notion. As one of my professors once said: "You should first study the subject and work with it - philosophizing comes later". Popular presentations never can give you the same understanding as a real study of the theory. That's hard work, but there is no shortcut.

As Ed Hudgins said: "After all, Newton's description of motion in the universe was correct in context. When the context changed and we looked at a different aspect of reality -- matter accelerating to near the speed of light -- you must add Einstein's insights."

In fact Newton's theory was wrong, as it was built on the hypothesis of an absolute space and time and on the notion of instantaneous action. That doesn't in any way diminish Newton's magnificent achievement - his theory is for many purposes still an excellent approximation, but we shouldn't evade the fact that it was in fact wrong by using weasel words like "context". There is no contradiction between the fact that Newton was one of the greatest scientists and the fact that he has been proved wrong.

Science, like politics, is not a primary—it is subject to the veto power of philosophy. The physical sciences rest on a philosophic foundation. And that’s why, as I said in an earlier post, Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking discoveries in epistemology would be truly revolutionary. I really believe that.

Philosophy may in a hierarchical sense be the foundation of science, but that doesn't mean that the actual knowledge in these fields reflect such a relation. In the optimal case they would be developed together, and perhaps this has been the case in former centuries, but nowadays philosophy is hobbling far behind science and in the case of orthodox Objectivism it's just standing still at the time of Newton. Such a lag between science and philosophy is probably unavoidable, as it is the scientists who obtain new knowledge that sometimes may shatter the foundations that once seemed to us to be self-evident, and not the philosopher in a comfortable armchair in an ivory tower who is pronouncing judgements ex cathedra.

[Kat]

Victor, I saw the article the same way as Paul and Barbara did... as a sweeping generalization and just another rant. I cringe when I see people, especially Objectivists, dismiss an entire scientific field offhand like this. I've seen this done a lot with psychology as well. I think that one has a lot to do with the fact that NB was a psychologist though.

Science is based on evidence, hard work and rational thought, not mysticism and whim worshipping. Sure you find nuts in every group, but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Try to keep that chip on your shoulder in check if you want to be taken seriously as a thinker and a writer (or even dating material).

Kat

[bmacwilliam]

Victor Wrote:

"Philosophy is primary".

I do not agree, not always. When a concept in philosophy seems to contradict reality, it's time to check premises. There is absolutely nothing wrong with philosophy, especially a reality-based philosophy, using advances in science to improve/re-examine itself. Using science to validate philosophical concepts is just as valid as the other way around. Often the line between the two is very blurry anyway, especially in fields like basic physics.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Here's an identity conundrum - for me at least.

My coffee mug has an identity. I say (coffee mug)=(coffee mug) from day to day. In other words, it's the same mug it was yesterday - same matter, same atoms. It doesn't matter whether I observe it or whether I live or die.

Now, when it comes to people (and consciousness) things get really messy. I am Bob today, I was Bob yesterday, and hopefully I'll be Bob tomorrow, but why? Certainly not for the same reason. My physical matter has totally changed multiple times in my lifetime. It partially changes every day. I am most certainly NOT 3-year-old Bob in any physical way at all. Well, then why am I Bob? What about psychological continuity? I "am" the same person as 3-year-old Bob because of psychological continuity, I mean what else is there? But wait, that doesn't work either...

Now lets say I am on the starship enterprise and I get transported to the surface of a planet. My atoms are disassembled and put back together the same way, so to me I'm fine and off I go. What if they were only copied? Well the guy on the surface wouldn't know, he'd have total continuity but he wouldn't really "be" me would he? What about the guy left behind he would really "be" me right? But they BOTH have psychological continuity and good luck convincing the guy on the surface that he's not me. In a psychological sense they are both "me". But not physically, but then physicality(matter) doesn't matter for people (at least sometimes) - problem here.

So that doesn't work either (continuity) when it comes to consciousness/people. So when it comes to people and consciousness how and when is Bob=Bob??? The answer just ain't that simple is it?

This is certainly not the only identity problem either.

Bob

Edited August 22, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[vanvlietart]

Yes, I agree with this. Also, I have seen argued that the law of causality follows directly from the law of identity. I do not accept this at this point.

Also, I have a hard time understanding how the law of identity has any real meaning at all. Since there is no restrictions on what something could be, there is nothing that something cannot be - know what I mean. If something can be anything other than what it's not, then I don't see how that's any different than saying "Something can be anything" and I get no meaning out of it.

On identity, what is not being addressed is a delimitation of reality. What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason. Causality merely states that we observe that things have particular aspects that behave in specific manners, thus they can be studied.

Nothing more.

[reponse]

The about question/comment and answer/reply helps me tremendously work through everyday dialogs I am involved with. In my conversations with individuals of different persuasions I at least want the other party to walk away with well supported reponses to think about. Michael you seem to have the ability to do this well... and Victor also. Dialog between the two of you is interesting and instructive. I need better disapline and tools for sorting out issues as both of you seem to have.

[bmacwilliam]

Emphasis mine...

What is being addressed is that we observes that all things have a separate singular essence that we can examine, being that this essence cannot contradict itself (for example exist and and not exist at the same time) without invalidating our reason.

Nothing more.

[reponse]

The about question/comment and answer/reply helps me tremendously work through everyday dialogs I am involved with. In my conversations with individuals of different persuasions I at least want the other party to walk away with well supported reponses to think about. Michael you seem to have the ability to do this well... and Victor also. Dialog between the two of you is interesting and instructive. I need better disapline and tools for sorting out issues as both of you seem to have.

Well, if it helps you that's great, but it doesn't help me. I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.

Bob

Edited August 22, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Well, if it helps you that's great, but it doesn't help me. I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.

Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?

Or do you mean to say that according to what you do know, you have to revise it periodically with new discoveries? And that some of the discoveries will show a deficiency of mental and/or sensory processing?

Be careful here, because if the answer to this last is yes, in order to know that a new discovery has invalidated the previous information or understanding, you need to use your reason. You either use it or you don't. You can't use it and not use it at the same time and claim any kind of logical validity. The whole method of falsifiability is predicated on this.

Are we on the same page?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

"Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?"

No.

"Or do you mean to say that according to what you do know, you have to revise it periodically with new discoveries? And that some of the discoveries will show a deficiency of mental and/or sensory processing? "

Yes, basically.

"Be careful here, because if the answer to this last is yes, in order to know that a new discovery has invalidated the previous information or understanding, you need to use your reason. You either use it or you don't. You can't use it and not use it at the same time and claim any kind of logical validity. The whole method of falsifiability is predicated on this."

Disagree. Or maybe I agree - not sure. What I disagree with is the notion that since we do not have perfect reliability that what we have is useless. Science progresses quite well with senses and reasoning that is "good enough". Improvements seem to be inevitable.

"Are we on the same page?"

Yes, I think so.

Bob

[Victor Pross]

Repeat:

Of course I grant the men and women “who have dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in the pursuit of knowledge the highest kudos and esteem. As an Objectivist, how could I not know and appreciate this. My criticism was targeting a small and deserving minority. I’m not--repeat NOT—trashing the scientists of quantum physics. If I gave that impression, I’m very sorry.

[bmacwilliam]

""Do you mean to say that you can never know? Ever? That your faculty os reason is incapable of knowing anything at all?"

No.

Let me clarify this. When I examine more closely how I really feel about this I find that it's more accurate to say that in some cases, the level of uncertaintly is so small that I am comfortable dismissing it.

Certainty, perhaps a bad choice of words, is not 1 or 0. It is a continuum. In ones thinking there are degrees of certainty in most, if not all cases.

Can you be certain beyond any doubt whatsoever of anything? Tough question. I think we can maybe, but not about most things at least - but that's OK, this doesn't break anything for me. Am I certain that we cannot be certain? Not completely ;-)

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Here is where many people get axioms wrong. Certainty is always contextual because we are not omniscient. We can only know a part of the whole shebang. That is given.

BUT

Is you mind a valid and reliable faculty to judge what you do know - even judge your uncertainty?

The answer to that question is the reason for the existence of axioms.

Like I said: nothing more.

(You unfortunately have engaged people who are very confused about this.)

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it is probably our reason that is lacking.

I have reached a similar conclusion. I wouldn't say it is reason, per se, that is lacking in the case of understanding QM. We have used reason to create a mathematical description of the quantum world. The breakdown seems to be in matching our mathematical descriptions of reality with our intuitive/experiential descriptions. Is this breakdown caused by a fundamental inability to grasp quantum reality in intuitive/experiential terms? Or is it because we have not yet grasped the underlying principles that will allow us to build the right intuitive/experiential model? I think it is the latter. I also think that it is the concepts of identity and causality that have to be made more precise and more inclusive. This requires that we abstract and integrate specific principles of identity and causality from the evidence-- an a posteriori approach to identifying metaphysical laws and epistemological principles.

I think a causal account and an intuitive/experiential account of quantum reality is possible. I also think an intuitive/experiential account of relativity is possible with the right principles. But I tend to be a bit of a dreamer.

Paul

[bmacwilliam]

BUT

Is you mind a valid and reliable faculty to judge what you do know - even judge your uncertainty?

The answer to that question is the reason for the existence of axioms.

Like I said: nothing more.

(You unfortunately have engaged people who are very confused about this.)

Michael

The way I see it is that we do not need perfect reliability to function.

Bob

[Dragonfly]

I have reached a similar conclusion. I wouldn't say it is reason, per se, that is lacking in the case of understanding QM. We have used reason to create a mathematical description of the quantum world. The breakdown seems to be in matching our mathematical descriptions of reality with our intuitive/experiential descriptions.

Right. But if you do the hard work by really studying the subject and working with it, you will develop some intuitive feeling for it. However, there is no shortcut to translate it into our intuition we use in daily life. Take for example the notion of spaces with more dimensions than the 3-dimensional space we live in. If you work with such spaces they'll become in a sense familiar. But can we really visualize for example a 5-dimensional space, not to mention an infinite-dimensional complex space, like we can visualize a 3-dimensional space? I don't think so, we're just not equipped for it, these things are outside our direct experience. In the same way the world of subatomic particles is outside our direct experience. It is not reason that is lacking, on the contrary, it is reason that tells us how this world really is, it is only our imagination that can't handle it well.