RE: The Pinocchio Paradox and Possibility, Objectivity and Truth
Paradoxes are like contradictions. They don't exist except in our minds, and are failures to understand something, as you say.
For Pinocchio, maybe the rules are not as we think them. Maybe his nose can grow when he says it will grow, and it can override the paradoxical rule we think are the only that apply ;) for example.
But ultimately, if we see a paradox, then what we see is false. Reality doesn't have contradictions or paradoxes. We just fail to express things accurately enough, or like to engage in word-play to sound "mystical" or clever lol.
we should accept the fact that we don't and can't know instead of inventing explanations
The patience of not inventing answers to questions we imagine, to fill in that gap in comprehension about the world, a void, abyss and hole in our worldview that makes us feel less secure, comfortable, but more anxious, stressed. We need an answer to fill in that question, so we invent ideas and accept them as real. Enter gods and creation myths. It's ok to be insecure in not having an answer, and accept the unknown. But the unknown has that fear and insecurity, discomfort, anxiety, stress at the psychological level. We are desperate to fill the darkness with any light, even an illusion :P
Thank you for clarifying conceive from possible. It adds more distinction and clarity :)
Lying indeed does require us to know someone knows that is true and intentionally puts out falsity. Many of us are chalk full of falsity and put it out because we believe in it, not because it's demonstrable or verifiable. Belief is powerful.
100% upvote and resteem buddy, good post to make us all think.
Thank you for both the upvote and the insightful comment! I really appreciate it and it's an honor :)
lol, very well put! :)
Actually, we also have to be careful since we can not rule out that the universe not having something paradoxical in its nature. In a way, that fact that math works and the fact that we can define some laws of nature might also be viewed as a surprise. Some people might view the way quantum mechanics works as inherently paradoxical. Of course, my point here can only work only with one of the possible definitions and understanding of the concept of paradox. If we'd like to, we could say that whatever exists cannot be paradoxical by definition. This only comes to illustrate how many of our concepts break down in fringe cases and that forces us to come up with better definitions and developing deeper understanding.
Yup, better definitions and deeper understanding. Like the macro existence, and the micro quantum "non-existence". They are two completely different things, with different functionality. We don't exist at that low-order level, nor could we even if we wanted to exist with those "laws". That's why I call it non-existence, because it's not existence the way things operate there compared to where actual existence happens at the macro level. Existence is at the macro higher order level. Boundary conditions are met that shift the conditions of operation. Micro unreality stop applying, and macro reality dominates operations.
Quantum mechanics is indeed a great example of a real context where really a lot of our concepts and definitions break down. That's why so many words used in the quantum context have slightly or very different definitions from the way the same words are used in everyday life.
But I would actually object to the term non-existence being used here. On one hand non-existence already carries the connotation related to nothingness and on the other hand, I don't really think that the quantum world exists in a different way from the macro world in terms of the broadest definition of the term. The fact that it behaves so differently doesn't change the fact that it does have a behavior that we can test an interact with. In my opinion, the fact that there is uncertainty of some of the properties of a particle in no way negates it's existence.
So if you want to have a separate term for macro and micro existence, I would propose quantum-existence rather as it is less misleading and more descriptive.
Still, I absolutely understand why you are suggesting non-existence and your point does make sense. And of course, I would much rather discuss the underlying concepts than argue semantics. We can call the concept turd-existence if we felt like it and that would be OK as long as we agreed on the definition and we understood it in the same way so it would have utility for communication.
:P
Things can be broken apart and shit goes wild and we measure some of it. That; rendering things into a state of non-existence. COrrect me if I'm wrong, but those things that are measured, bozon, up down quarks etc, don't persist, right? Then need to be measured at some time.
Also, things pop in and out of existence, like an electron, I presume from the standing wave or however it actually works. It's not really existence once you really think about it. It's ripping things apart and nothing whole exists there like it does here. It's all fragmented in existence, popping in and out, part of fields that shift and move. It's madness lol. Like we have order here, and the quantum "reality", that's chaos by comparison. We wouldn't exist there is the point. But I get what you're saying as well. It "exists", but only by breaking up what really exists. Like a spark, then fades out and blinks into non-existence lol.
I'm not sure if that's exactly the case, but I'm also not sure that my understanding is deep enough to claim to be able to correct you. But let me share how I understand it anyway.
Even when an electron or a quark are a cloud of possibilities, they are not yet non-existent. In my opinion, everything that can be described by any physical quality even if it's just a probability, would still be something that exists. It might be mind-boggling type of existence that contradicts our marco-world-adapted intuitions, but it's still existence nonetheless.
When particles get annihilated or switch from one to another, only then do some of them stop existing. Saying that their state of being is not really existence requires too have a modification of the definition of existence.
As we mentioned before, for terms to be meaningful and useful, we need clear definitions. The working definition I put forward for exist as a term would be "having physical properties". Anything we can describe in a physical way and that is part of reality under this definition exists. What would your definition of the term be that would include the macro, but not the micro without having to resort to subjectivity (i.e. qualifiers like "makes sense" and so on). I think we are always better off excluding our intuitions from our definitions as much as we can.
The fact that the quantum world is chaos to us is not an intrinsic quality of the reality of it, it's a subjective judgment on how much it conforms to our intuitions and expectations. As far as a spark goes, it's a relatively brief phenomenon that has a beginning and and ending and it exists as a phenomenon bounded by those.
Sorry, the popping in and out was a bad metaphor that influenced me a while ago. I stand corrected.
About it not making sense, it's about how things work there compared to here. In trying to apply our existence to that micro level, it's not existence as we know, and we would not exist, because the larger order constructs can't operate under those "laws". Sure you can say things going from energy to particle states is it's own form of existence that operates that way, existing as energy or particle. But if we tried to live that way, it wouldn't work :P I know you get what I mean, but I want to stress how we, and other larger order greater complex constructs, can't exist at that level, which makes it "non-existence" to us. It's another form of existence that doesn't align or unite with ours, a lower order form of existence that high order forms couldn't exist within. Emergent properties and forces are not present to sustain the way things work up here, as they aren't developed and emergent at that level. Other processes are present instead.
Relating the other world to chaos, isn't simply subjective conformity. It's a comparative assessment of how one works (reality we can exist in) compared to another (quantum other world). By comparison, that world is chaotic. Chaos isn't an absolute pure application, neither is order. They apply as descriptors in relative comparison.
Thank you for yet another insightful reply and for taking the time to share your thoughts on the matter.
I absolutely understand what you mean and I would also concede that it might be a bit nitpicky on my part to keep arguing the opposite, but I do think such usage of the term offers lower utility and a less rigorous definition.
I absolutely agree that the macro and the micro are very different and exhibit very different properties, but I don't see a good reason to disqualify one of those from being called existing and I also don't see a rigorous definition that can draw a distinction between the two reliably. At what point exactly do we stop calling the micro micro and it enters into the macro? Keep in mind that experimental physicists have successfully repeated the double slit experiment not just with single particles but with molecules. The more we scale it up, the more difficult the boundary becomes to define. The boundary is indeed fuzzy and reliant on a subjective assessment, so by relying on it, we are making our definition of the term fuzzier than it needs to be which I view as undesirable.
Indeed, you have given me clear examples, but I'm still failing to come up with a proper rigorous definition of the term existence that would apply to the macro world only (unless you bake the limitation into the definition).
You can also look at it in another way. What are we made of? Particles. If existence applies to us, why wouldn't it apply to the building blocks that make us up.
While we don't see the results of quantum effects directly, they certainly shape us regardless as their properties give rise to a lot of phenomena in the macro world like electricity. Electrical conductivity and currents are directly dependent on the quantum world so seeing electricity is in my opinion an emergent property of the quantum world at our level and is indeed something that we are very used to.
Sure, what I'm arguing is that we should keep such subjective comparisons out of our definitions whenever possible. My view is that this is a case when such a rigorous and thus more reliable definition is possible and since it is, it's reasonable to use it instead of more subjective options.
Having said all of that, I might see utility to your proposed usage and that's when you are introducing somebody to the quantum world for the first time. In this case, pointing out that existence in the quantum level is very different and in many ways counter-intuitive can actually help said person develop a better understanding of it and can help blow their mind to peak their curiosity to learn more. That's a more rhetorical approach and while it might be am effective introduction, I think it's better for that to be walked back at some stage to make way for a more nuanced and precise understanding.
Well, I'm for accurate definitions, but I understand how they can apply in different contexts and change. I like to use symbolic analogous language to paint an image in the mind's eye, not that it's a perfect use of the word symbol, like a rigorous definition that applies absolutely.
Existence is what can be demonstrated, in a pure definition. Like maybe there is a 13th dimension, but we can't demonstrate it. That level of alleged "existence" is not existence as we know it, if it is possible. That's how I relate to the quantum.
You can look at a house constructed as ordered, and a house demolished as chaos. And that is objective. It's like how do you know something is 20 degrees, or 21 degrees, because of comparative measurement. That's what dualistic conceptual frameworks are for, in order to identify and define aspects of reality. There is no temperature scale in nature, we make it. We put the numbers on a comparative scale. But there is still an objective difference in temperature, just like this is in state of order or chaos.
How can you say that comparing things is subjective? That's how science works, applying contrast of one thing from another. That's what knowledge is, sciere (science), to divide and cut. Maybe in my example I was using symbolism of chaos to apply to the quantum physics, compared to the symbolism of order for classical physics. And that's what you mean by the subjective part? Because it doesn't accurately apply, since the quantum world does have order to it?