RE: The Pinocchio Paradox and Possibility, Objectivity and Truth
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.
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.
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?