4 ms·

Known Unknowables

48 points by diodorus 4y ago

O__________O 4y ago
TLDR: “Since different things affect us differently, there is no way to know what the existing things are like independent of any human perception.” ____________ Related physics topics on known unknowable true state of the universe: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem ____________ Related, but not cited quote: “Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.” source: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns https://wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns ____________
- n4r9 4y ago
  > Related physics topics on known unknowable true state of the universe I'd argue it's an open question whether this is related, depending on which interpretation you prefer :)
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Agree, though struggle to find any of the alternative interpretations as plausible, though it’s obviously still an open question pending actual proof.
pixl97 4y ago
Maths fundamental flaws https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo
- qsort 4y ago
  I quickly skimmed it. It seems like a very decent introduction to the topic for a non-technical audience (it even points out the relation between TMs and Godel's first), but I can't for the life of me figure out why every pop-culture presentation of this topic talks about it like we found out a CVE in math or something. It's a property of how logical systems work; there are no problems with math, I promise.
  - a-saleh 4y ago
    I think it is more along the lines of how some people reacted to the theory of relativity with moral panic :D
bena 4y ago
The fact that we may technically perceive things differently doesn't matter. If the blue I see is not the blue you see, it doesn't change the fact that we both agree that other things we see like that are also perceived as blue. When this isn't true, that's when we discover certain things about our biology. Color-blindness, for example. So the question of what are things like "independent of any human perception" is kind of a non-starter. They are almost always exactly like they are when being perceived. A tree falling in the forest does everything necessary to create sound. Whether it makes a sound or not depends on how you define sound. If you define it as the various vibrations in the air, then you could say it does. If you define it specifically as those vibrations being received by something capable of interpreting those vibrations, then it doesn't. The only counterexample is the double slit experiment. However, at that level, our observation is no longer technically passive. So it is possible that our observation is the element that changes the behaviour of the particles.
- spacebanana7 4y ago
  It’s a problem if the blue you see differs from the blue you saw yesterday. One could try to solve this by using an independent measure of blueness with some kind of machine. However, that simply shifts the problem. The number you see on that machine could differ from the number you saw yesterday because of the same faulty visual perception. I find this kind of uncertainty to be a real challenge with emotions. Am I judging someone more leniently than I was yesterday become of my emotions? Can I even judge my emotions properly in state of happiness?
  - bena 4y ago
    If the universe is changing in that manner, so? It doesn't matter. We can only deal with the world as it presents itself currently. You're dipping a bit into solipsism. "We can't be sure of anything external to ourselves." I love to slap people like that and then deny it until they can prove that it happened, using all of the solipsistic arguments to dismiss their claims. You'll find people are really ready to dismiss solipsism in the face of being slapped in the face. You are the only true judge of your emotions. If you think you're feeling something, you're feeling it. And yes, your emotions will color your actions. But that's irrelevant to whether or not something is blue.
shanebellone 4y ago
"To our modern minds, scepticism is normally associated with frustration and sceptical conclusions are usually taken to be disturbing because they seem to stand in the way of certainty about the world and our place in it." Say cognitive dissonance without saying it. "But we might be tempted to say that the appearance of the majority is to be preferred: if the majority finds honey sweet, or finds hemlock poisonous, shouldn’t we just trust them? Sextus answers negatively. He argues that we cannot prefer the majority, because the perception of the majority of Greeks is often different from the perception of the majority of, say, the Persians. We must avoid making any judgments and withhold our assent. We must be sceptics." Interesting argument regarding democracy and virtue being mutually exclusive. Societies often conflate quorum with moral authority.
- n4r9 4y ago
  > Say cognitive dissonance without saying it It appears related to cognitive dissonance, but not quite the same. Cognitive dissonance is when you hold simultaneously conflicting or contradictory feelings or opinions about something. For example, you might believe that you care about animal welfare, but simultaneously eat meat indiscriminately. Both of these things fulfill an inner need, but their combination gives rise to a level of discomfort. The quotation refers to the wilful avoidance of doubt and complexity. The analogy here would be taking a position like "It is fine to eat animals because they obviously don't think or feel". This makes various presumptions about what thinking or feeling is, and the moral status of those concepts (or their negation), while dismissing the idea that this is up for debate. Again, this fulfills an inner need, but without the conflict and discomfort.
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    "the wilful avoidance of doubt and complexity" That precisely describes the typical conflict resolution process. We almost always take the path of least resistance. Cognitive dissonance causes the behavior described.
    - n4r9 4y ago
      It can in some cases, but the example I described is one where I'd argue it doesn't.
piva00 4y ago
A book that I really enjoyed on the same topic was "The Outer Limits of Reason" by Noson Yanofsky [0]. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841838-the-outer-limits-of-reason https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841838-the-outer-limit...

48 points by diodorus 4y ago

TLDR: “Since different things affect us differently, there is no way to know what the existing things are like independent of any human perception.” ____________ Related physics topics on known unknowable true state of the universe: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem ____________ Related, but not cited quote: “Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.” source: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns https://wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns ____________

n4r9 4y ago
> Related physics topics on known unknowable true state of the universe I'd argue it's an open question whether this is related, depending on which interpretation you prefer :)
- O__________O 4y ago
  Agree, though struggle to find any of the alternative interpretations as plausible, though it’s obviously still an open question pending actual proof.

pixl97 4y ago

Maths fundamental flaws https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo

qsort 4y ago
I quickly skimmed it. It seems like a very decent introduction to the topic for a non-technical audience (it even points out the relation between TMs and Godel's first), but I can't for the life of me figure out why every pop-culture presentation of this topic talks about it like we found out a CVE in math or something. It's a property of how logical systems work; there are no problems with math, I promise.
- a-saleh 4y ago
  I think it is more along the lines of how some people reacted to the theory of relativity with moral panic :D

bena 4y ago

The fact that we may technically perceive things differently doesn't matter. If the blue I see is not the blue you see, it doesn't change the fact that we both agree that other things we see like that are also perceived as blue. When this isn't true, that's when we discover certain things about our biology. Color-blindness, for example. So the question of what are things like "independent of any human perception" is kind of a non-starter. They are almost always exactly like they are when being perceived. A tree falling in the forest does everything necessary to create sound. Whether it makes a sound or not depends on how you define sound. If you define it as the various vibrations in the air, then you could say it does. If you define it specifically as those vibrations being received by something capable of interpreting those vibrations, then it doesn't. The only counterexample is the double slit experiment. However, at that level, our observation is no longer technically passive. So it is possible that our observation is the element that changes the behaviour of the particles.

spacebanana7 4y ago
It’s a problem if the blue you see differs from the blue you saw yesterday. One could try to solve this by using an independent measure of blueness with some kind of machine. However, that simply shifts the problem. The number you see on that machine could differ from the number you saw yesterday because of the same faulty visual perception. I find this kind of uncertainty to be a real challenge with emotions. Am I judging someone more leniently than I was yesterday become of my emotions? Can I even judge my emotions properly in state of happiness?
- bena 4y ago
  If the universe is changing in that manner, so? It doesn't matter. We can only deal with the world as it presents itself currently. You're dipping a bit into solipsism. "We can't be sure of anything external to ourselves." I love to slap people like that and then deny it until they can prove that it happened, using all of the solipsistic arguments to dismiss their claims. You'll find people are really ready to dismiss solipsism in the face of being slapped in the face. You are the only true judge of your emotions. If you think you're feeling something, you're feeling it. And yes, your emotions will color your actions. But that's irrelevant to whether or not something is blue.

shanebellone 4y ago

"To our modern minds, scepticism is normally associated with frustration and sceptical conclusions are usually taken to be disturbing because they seem to stand in the way of certainty about the world and our place in it." Say cognitive dissonance without saying it. "But we might be tempted to say that the appearance of the majority is to be preferred: if the majority finds honey sweet, or finds hemlock poisonous, shouldn’t we just trust them? Sextus answers negatively. He argues that we cannot prefer the majority, because the perception of the majority of Greeks is often different from the perception of the majority of, say, the Persians. We must avoid making any judgments and withhold our assent. We must be sceptics." Interesting argument regarding democracy and virtue being mutually exclusive. Societies often conflate quorum with moral authority.

n4r9 4y ago
> Say cognitive dissonance without saying it It appears related to cognitive dissonance, but not quite the same. Cognitive dissonance is when you hold simultaneously conflicting or contradictory feelings or opinions about something. For example, you might believe that you care about animal welfare, but simultaneously eat meat indiscriminately. Both of these things fulfill an inner need, but their combination gives rise to a level of discomfort. The quotation refers to the wilful avoidance of doubt and complexity. The analogy here would be taking a position like "It is fine to eat animals because they obviously don't think or feel". This makes various presumptions about what thinking or feeling is, and the moral status of those concepts (or their negation), while dismissing the idea that this is up for debate. Again, this fulfills an inner need, but without the conflict and discomfort.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  "the wilful avoidance of doubt and complexity" That precisely describes the typical conflict resolution process. We almost always take the path of least resistance. Cognitive dissonance causes the behavior described.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    It can in some cases, but the example I described is one where I'd argue it doesn't.

piva00 4y ago

A book that I really enjoyed on the same topic was "The Outer Limits of Reason" by Noson Yanofsky [0]. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841838-the-outer-limits-of-reason https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841838-the-outer-limit...