4 ms·

That would still be quantifying values against the tangible axes of time and/or money. There are still various other intangible factors such as happiness, goodw

That would still be quantifying values against the tangible axes of time and/or money. There are still various other intangible factors such as happiness, goodwill etc which are immeasurable, yet contribute to the overall picture.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world), we just haven't figured out a proper framework for them yet. Eventually, hopefully, we will.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > They are definitely measurable No, not "definitely". You are assuming they are because "reasons". However, we have no idea whether those "reasons" apply, or whether they mean something is measurable. You may have an argument that they should be measurable, but that's a far cry from "they are definitely". A little humility is a Good Thing™
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It's not about humility. The only way for them to be not measurable in principle is if they were running out-of-band on a supernatural plane, magically inaccessible and yet affecting the real world. Because unless you assume magic, everything that affects the real world in any way is observable and thus measurable, by definition. We have no good evidence so far to believe in magic.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world) Everything is definitely measureable? How did you solve the Measurement Problem? It seems to have all the other quantum physicists stumped. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem The problem with saying "everything in reality is physical/material", is that we don't even know what that is on a quantum level.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Measurement problem is a problem of our understanding of the quantum world, but otherwise a feature of the entire universe, not a human limitation - and definitely not a license for magic under the hood.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      Who said it's a "license for magic"? That's a silly strawman. It is however a license for doubt over certainty. >not a human limitation Once again, no one is sure about this.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world), we just haven't figured out a proper framework for them yet. Eventually, hopefully, we will.

mpweiher 9y ago
> They are definitely measurable No, not "definitely". You are assuming they are because "reasons". However, we have no idea whether those "reasons" apply, or whether they mean something is measurable. You may have an argument that they should be measurable, but that's a far cry from "they are definitely". A little humility is a Good Thing™
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  It's not about humility. The only way for them to be not measurable in principle is if they were running out-of-band on a supernatural plane, magically inaccessible and yet affecting the real world. Because unless you assume magic, everything that affects the real world in any way is observable and thus measurable, by definition. We have no good evidence so far to believe in magic.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>They are definitely measurable (by virtue of being a part of a physical process happening in the real world) Everything is definitely measureable? How did you solve the Measurement Problem? It seems to have all the other quantum physicists stumped. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem The problem with saying "everything in reality is physical/material", is that we don't even know what that is on a quantum level.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Measurement problem is a problem of our understanding of the quantum world, but otherwise a feature of the entire universe, not a human limitation - and definitely not a license for magic under the hood.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Who said it's a "license for magic"? That's a silly strawman. It is however a license for doubt over certainty. >not a human limitation Once again, no one is sure about this.