3 ms·

Actually, I find it very intuitive that reality is just information. It's much easier than setting it apart as ineffable.

by duaneb 10y ago

eternalban 10y ago
That's not what Bohr said. He said we can't know -- per Bell "have no right to know" -- what is "[objective] reality" [at the atomic scale]. I am personally not comfortable with using 'information'. I think Bohm's formulation "phenomena" is more appropriate. Note that, for example, the manifestation of wave/particle duality is an actual physical phenomena. The 'information' bit is our observation of this phenomena. And in case the question is still on the table as to are these distinctions merely a matter of philosophical taste or aesthetics?, from same source cited: Alain Aspect At the time of Einstein and Bohr it was just a theoretical discussion. You could endorse either Einstein's position or Bohr's position, and it was just a matter of taste. And then there was the great discovery by John Bell in '65 that it is not only a matter of taste, because according to the position you have at the subatomic point, you have predictions which are not the same. If you follow Einstein you have a certain type of predictions -- that is to say you have results that are in agreement with what is called the Bell's inequalities -- and if you follow Bohr's position you have another type of prediction which are in contradiction, in opposition, with Bell's inequalities. Aspect at this point had conducted a series of EPR experiments that proved that the Einstein line of reasoning was in contradiction with the obtained experimental results.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Well, I'd put "can't know" squarely in the ineffable. But yes, I think phenomena are the atomic building blocks of science. The logical positivists at least got that right.
  - wamatt 10y ago
    > I think phenomena are the atomic building blocks of science Lacking context, this could seem somewhat opaque. Would you mind clarifying which definition of "phenomenon" you are intending to convey? (eg Kantian or otherwise)

Actually, I find it very intuitive that reality is just information. It's much easier than setting it apart as ineffable.

by duaneb 10y ago

Actually, I find it very intuitive that reality is just information. It's much easier than setting it apart as ineffable.

eternalban 10y ago

That's not what Bohr said. He said we can't know -- per Bell "have no right to know" -- what is "[objective] reality" [at the atomic scale]. I am personally not comfortable with using 'information'. I think Bohm's formulation "phenomena" is more appropriate. Note that, for example, the manifestation of wave/particle duality is an actual physical phenomena. The 'information' bit is our observation of this phenomena. And in case the question is still on the table as to are these distinctions merely a matter of philosophical taste or aesthetics?, from same source cited: Alain Aspect At the time of Einstein and Bohr it was just a theoretical discussion. You could endorse either Einstein's position or Bohr's position, and it was just a matter of taste. And then there was the great discovery by John Bell in '65 that it is not only a matter of taste, because according to the position you have at the subatomic point, you have predictions which are not the same. If you follow Einstein you have a certain type of predictions -- that is to say you have results that are in agreement with what is called the Bell's inequalities -- and if you follow Bohr's position you have another type of prediction which are in contradiction, in opposition, with Bell's inequalities. Aspect at this point had conducted a series of EPR experiments that proved that the Einstein line of reasoning was in contradiction with the obtained experimental results.

duaneb 10y ago
Well, I'd put "can't know" squarely in the ineffable. But yes, I think phenomena are the atomic building blocks of science. The logical positivists at least got that right.
- wamatt 10y ago
  > I think phenomena are the atomic building blocks of science Lacking context, this could seem somewhat opaque. Would you mind clarifying which definition of "phenomenon" you are intending to convey? (eg Kantian or otherwise)