4 ms·

If you come at it in terms of distributions and information, some information (the observed) has a distribution over possible states, and some other information

If you come at it in terms of distributions and information, some information (the observed) has a distribution over possible states, and some other information (the observer) has a distribution over possible states. When you transition from two systems to one system by interaction, these distributions are no longer independent. As a result, if your definition of objective is that something has a definite state independent of the context, that is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure this holds regardless of which interpretation of QM you adhere to, even "deterministic" ones like Bohmian Mechanics, as in that case the observer influences the wave function, which in turn influences the forces acting on particles, producing a modified system. I'm not arguing that information doesn't exist, that would be silly. My point is that perception (which requires interaction) is impossible without becoming part of the system you are perceiving. Different observers will produce different combined systems, and thus the thing being observed is to some degree inherently subjective. Like I said, the magnitude of this effect is debatable, but that it exists is unquestionable.

Aqueous 10y ago
"As a result, if your definition of objective is that something has a definite state independent of the context, that is demonstrably false." Here is where we differ - it's not my definition of objective. In this context objective just means having the quality of being an 'object-in-itself.' In other words, an external world exists in some sense whether I'm there to observe it or not. In what state it exists prior to my observation I do not know and in fact cannot know. So the definition of objectivity I'm using does not contain a notion of determinacy, of having a 'definite' state. I'm saying that we know reality exists, but nothing at all about the indeterminate or determinate nature of that reality. So in a way, Kant's philosophy harmonizes with quantum mechanics instead of contradicting it. In Kant's proof, in fact, we know that independent reality exists while simultaneously limiting what we can know about it - much like QM.

Aqueous 10y ago

"As a result, if your definition of objective is that something has a definite state independent of the context, that is demonstrably false." Here is where we differ - it's not my definition of objective. In this context objective just means having the quality of being an 'object-in-itself.' In other words, an external world exists in some sense whether I'm there to observe it or not. In what state it exists prior to my observation I do not know and in fact cannot know. So the definition of objectivity I'm using does not contain a notion of determinacy, of having a 'definite' state. I'm saying that we know reality exists, but nothing at all about the indeterminate or determinate nature of that reality. So in a way, Kant's philosophy harmonizes with quantum mechanics instead of contradicting it. In Kant's proof, in fact, we know that independent reality exists while simultaneously limiting what we can know about it - much like QM.