4 ms·

I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abst

I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abstraction you are operating on. "Every statement is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense". The term "reality" implies a perceiver, and that perceiver is generating "reality" based on their neurological instrument, which has its own biases based on its prior experience and genetics.

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.
- an0malous 1y ago
  But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks
  - d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
    I would disagree, completeness is not required consistency is all you need really. QM is consistent.
yubblegum 1y ago
> The term "reality" implies a perceiver No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term. So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'. No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103
- rramadass 1y ago
  Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220 If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.
  - yubblegum 1y ago
    I find your chauvinism is what doesn't belong to HN. Bohr was familiar with Eastern scriptures so it is perfectly understandable as to why he would reference its formulations. I happen to familiar with both and I do not see any discrepency or antagonism in these scriptures. You may not benefit with such comments but it is possible that others will find it useful and informative.
    - peterfirefly 1y ago
      Quoting the Quran in a positive light is like doing the same with Mein Kampf, except that Islam has caused a lot more deaths over the years. I'd say it's yours that doesn't belong on HN.
      - thefaux 1y ago
        If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity? There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago

I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.

an0malous 1y ago
But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks
- d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
  I would disagree, completeness is not required consistency is all you need really. QM is consistent.

yubblegum 1y ago

> The term "reality" implies a perceiver No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term. So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'. No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103

rramadass 1y ago
Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220 If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.
- yubblegum 1y ago
  I find your chauvinism is what doesn't belong to HN. Bohr was familiar with Eastern scriptures so it is perfectly understandable as to why he would reference its formulations. I happen to familiar with both and I do not see any discrepency or antagonism in these scriptures. You may not benefit with such comments but it is possible that others will find it useful and informative.
  - peterfirefly 1y ago
    Quoting the Quran in a positive light is like doing the same with Mein Kampf, except that Islam has caused a lot more deaths over the years. I'd say it's yours that doesn't belong on HN.
    - thefaux 1y ago
      If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity? There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.