The Problem of Self

According to Joe then Bohr was wrong. Smile

<<In fact, the separation between the observer and the observed is always more-or-less arbitrary, although we customarily ignore that fact. An example by Bohr may clarify:

We customarily think of the outside world as separate from ourselves, and the boundary between the two is the surface of our skin. However, think of a blind person who gets around with the assistance of a cane. In time that person will probably treat the cane as part of his or her body, and will think of the outside world as beginning just at the tip of the cane. Now imagine the blind man's sense of touch extending out of the tip of the cane and into the roadway itself. Imagine it extending further, down the block, into the countryside, to the whole world. There is no point where the blind man ends and the world begins. Similarly, we can not say which is the system and which is us observing it.

This is the heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics>>
David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics, University of Toronto 2000

(....would those present like to step forward and use the spades...)

0 Replies

Joe
Sorry for intruding in your discussion with Frank, but I think his position is not contradictory.
When he said that he knew 2+2 = 4 and that his name was Frank he was talking - if I am not distorting his thinking - about analytical or conventional facts. 2+2 = 4 is an analytic proposition. His name is a convencional fact. But the nature of the world, accepting there is an objective nature, supposes a knowledge that cannot be only supported only by convention or by empirical experience.
To give a known example: the causality. Empirically we cannot sense causes. Only events in time. Causality is a conceptual explanation that establishes a relation between those events. So, skepticals like Hume assumed that there were no reasons to accept the existence of causality, since it was only a matter of habit.

Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate.

0 Replies

there is, of course, another aspect of the 'grasping' of reality; if one understands 'reality' - one becomes 'responsible' for it!
And, arms length philosophy, no longers 'cuts it'!

[to 'live' 'reality', it is necessary to engage it; hypocrisy dictates that the end of the rainbow is always a possibility!]

0 Replies

Fresco, the blind man analogy is very good. Closing the eyes helps sometimes.

In the matters of subtle quantum world the distinction between the observed and observer start getting blurred. Only in the gross newtonian frames does the distinction acquires some significance. Perhaps the sensory perceptions and the intellect are addicted to that distinction and tend to obscure the connection with the whole lot which lies beyond "visible" spectrum.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Joe
Sorry for intruding in your discussion with Frank, but I think his position is not contradictory.

Feel free to intrude. That discussion is quite finished.

val wrote:

When he said that he knew 2+2 = 4 and that his name was Frank he was talking - if I am not distorting his thinking - about analytical or conventional facts. 2+2 = 4 is an analytic proposition. His name is a convencional fact. But the nature of the world, accepting there is an objective nature, supposes a knowledge that cannot be only supported only by convention or by empirical experience.

That's true, but that's very different from saying, as Frank does, that he has no knowledge of reality.

val wrote:

To give a known example: the causality. Empirically we cannot sense causes. Only events in time. Causality is a conceptual explanation that establishes a relation between those events. So, skepticals like Hume assumed that there were no reasons to accept the existence of causality, since it was only a matter of habit.

Quite right, but then Hume never said that he didn't know the nature of reality.

val wrote:

Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate.

I agree. Frank, however, is not the person with whom to have that serious debate.

0 Replies

Hmm, joe, that seems rather duplicitous;
you discard Frank's comments with: "Cut the bullshit, Frank.";
but then concur with val's:
"Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate."
with:
"I agree. Frank, however, is not the person with whom to have that serious debate."

Is his point serious, and worthy, or not?

[and, of course, i ask why must it be a 'debate' rather than a 'discussion';
must there be a 'winner'?]

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

According to Joe then Bohr was wrong.

<<In fact, the separation between the observer and the observed is always more-or-less arbitrary, although we customarily ignore that fact. An example by Bohr may clarify:

We customarily think of the outside world as separate from ourselves, and the boundary between the two is the surface of our skin. However, think of a blind person who gets around with the assistance of a cane. In time that person will probably treat the cane as part of his or her body, and will think of the outside world as beginning just at the tip of the cane. Now imagine the blind man's sense of touch extending out of the tip of the cane and into the roadway itself. Imagine it extending further, down the block, into the countryside, to the whole world. There is no point where the blind man ends and the world begins. Similarly, we can not say which is the system and which is us observing it.

This is the heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics>>
David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics, University of Toronto 2000

(....would those present like to step forward and use the spades...)

This post presents an excellent opportunity to offer another installment in my occasional series on logical fallacies (for previous posts and links, click here). In the past, I've explored "begging the question," the fallacy of equivocation, and the argumentum ad novitam. In the present case, fresco's post provides an excellent opportunity to examine the argumentum ad verecundiam -- the appeal to authority.

In an argumentum ad verecundiam, the speaker attempts to prove his point by claiming that an expert or someone in authority agrees with his position. For example, one might say: "this Nobel laureate economist agrees with me that we need lower taxes, so it must be true." The fallacy here is obvious: on its face, there is nothing that insures that the authority is any more correct than is the speaker. Adverting to the authority's position, then, does nothing to prove the speaker's claim.

The most common example of an argumentum ad verecundiam that I have found on A2K involves citation of dictionary definitions. The poster, questioned about the use of a particular term, supplies the dictionary definition of the term. That, however, is simply an appeal to authority (the experts usually being Messrs. Merriam and Webster); it is, in other words, a logical fallacy.

In this case, fresco appears to think that the statements of Niels Bohr regarding the nature of subject-object duality close the subject: after all, if Niels Bohr questioned the distinction between subject and object, then it must be so. This argument, however, proves nothing beyond the fact that, if this is a representative example of his genuine beliefs, Bohr might have been just as wrong as fresco. A chilling thought, to be sure, but one that we must consider when examining any kind of appeal to authority.

0 Replies

here, here!

spoken authoritatively (oops, i really 'do' agree)!

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Hmm, joe, that seems rather duplicitous;
you discard Frank's comments with: "Cut the bullshit, Frank.";
but then concur with val's:
"Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate."
with:
"I agree. Frank, however, is not the person with whom to have that serious debate."

Is his point serious, and worthy, or not?

Read again what I wrote to Frank before:

Now, [b]I have a suspicion that your claims of knowledge are very similar to mine[/b], but if you refuse to allow anyone to subject those beliefs to the same kind of scrutiny that you'd direct at others' claims, then you are admitting that you have no interest in a fair dialogue.Frank's problem isn't that he's necessarily wrong, it's that he can't explain why he might be right. That is a topic worth discussing, but Frank has amply demonstrated why he is not the person who should be discussing it.

BoGoWo wrote:

[and, of course, i ask why must it be a 'debate' rather than a 'discussion';
must there be a 'winner'?]

I'm willing to have a debate, discussion, discourse, digression, or any manner of interaction with anyone who is genuinely interested in exchanging ideas.

0 Replies

poor Frank's preoccupation with "sufficient unambiguous evidence" is only his 'religion', and should not be taken too seriously, or allowed to interfere with his actual capacity to think, and converse!

0 Replies

Quote:

Bohr might have been just as wrong as fresco

Possible, or they both are right. Why should one be dismissed just because he quoted an authority? And a relevant authority at that in context of quantum physics.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

Quote:
Bohr might have been just as wrong as fresco

Possible, or they both are right. Why should one be dismissed just because he quoted an authority? And a relevant authority at that in context of quantum physics.

True, they might both be right (although, in fresco's case, the mind reels at the thought). I do not dismiss either Bohr or fresco: the point of knowing about logical fallacies is to understand whether an argument is sound or faulty, not whether the speaker is right or wrong.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

val wrote:
When he said that he knew 2+2 = 4 and that his name was Frank he was talking - if I am not distorting his thinking - about analytical or conventional facts. 2+2 = 4 is an analytic proposition. His name is a convencional fact. But the nature of the world, accepting there is an objective nature, supposes a knowledge that cannot be only supported only by convention or by empirical experience.

That's true, but that's very different from saying, as Frank does, that he has no knowledge of reality.

Once again, since he cannot refute any of the items I have actually introduced...Joe has resorted to his usual trick of pretending that I said something I did not say.

I have on several occasions said: I do not know the nature of REALITY.

I have NEVER said I have no knowledge of reality.

And there is a difference...a significant difference.

And the fact that I have capitalized REALITY every time I have written that word in this context...should give anyone with a functioning brain (which I am beginning to suspect excludes Joe)...pause to consider that I am talking about the ULTIMATE REALITY of the universe and existence.

In any case, I think the fact that Joe has now misquoted my position twice just in this thread is ample evidence that he is not to be trusted.

Quote:

val wrote:
To give a known example: the causality. Empirically we cannot sense causes. Only events in time. Causality is a conceptual explanation that establishes a relation between those events. So, skepticals like Hume assumed that there were no reasons to accept the existence of causality, since it was only a matter of habit.

Quite right, but then Hume never said that he didn't know the nature of reality.

Perhaps he didn't...but if he didn't...it most likely was an oversight on his part.

Quote:

val wrote:
Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate.

I agree. Frank, however, is not the person with whom to have that serious debate.

No...because Frank will actually argue rather than doing what so many others do when confronted with Joe's nonsense...simply giving up under the onslaught of the kind of thing he does in discussion after discussion.

Ahhh...this is all a joke anyway. Joe is not a serious person...and that is why he is playing the "How do you know your name is Frank?" and "How do you know 2 + 2 = 4?"

It is a joke...just as damn near all of Joe's posts are jokes.

All said with a huge smile on my face, of course.

I am enjoying this more than Saturday morning pancakes with bacon! :wink:

0 Replies

How about argumentum ad latinargument by pseudo-learned appeal to a dead language and its simplistic concepts of "right" and "wrong", or argumentum ad hoc argument by clutching at straws.

No better still let's have a poll:

In the case of Quantum Theory and its implications for the nature of observer and observed hands up for:

(a) Neils Bohr, Nobel Lauriate and major contributer to QM.
(b) Joe from Chicago - Lawyer.

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not dismiss either Bohr or fresco

Right, the content of the argument should occupy the discussion regardless of its source, an authority or not.

Quote:

the point of knowing about logical fallacies is to understand whether an argument is sound or faulty

Agree. In this context, is bohr argument sound according to you? And if not, how?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

.........No better still let's have a poll:

In the case of Quantum Theory and its implications for the nature of observer and observed hands up for:

(a) Neils Bohr, Nobel Lauriate and major contributer to QM.
(b) Joe from Chicago - Lawyer.

i'm sure all will agree; both are capable of being right, and of being wrong; at the same time, or at different times.
And, even though the points of the pickets in this 'metaphorical fence' are punishing my ass, i would have to agree with Fresco that Bohr is more likely to be correct on quantum theory; and agree with joe that there is no guarantee in 'credentials'.

[just use my nickname - "Solomon"!]

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:
Hmm, joe, that seems rather duplicitous;
you discard Frank's comments with: "Cut the bullshit, Frank.";
but then concur with val's:
"Although I disagree with Frank's position, I think that it is a very serious point of view that deserves a serious debate."
with:
"I agree. Frank, however, is not the person with whom to have that serious debate."

Is his point serious, and worthy, or not?

Read again what I wrote to Frank before:
Now, [b]I have a suspicion that your claims of knowledge are very similar to mine[/b], but if you refuse to allow anyone to subject those beliefs to the same kind of scrutiny that you'd direct at others' claims, then you are admitting that you have no interest in a fair dialogue.
Frank's problem isn't that he's necessarily wrong, it's that he can't explain why he might be right. That is a topic worth discussing, but Frank has amply demonstrated why he is not the person who should be discussing it.

Ahhh...so because Frank cannot "explain" why he says he knows his name is Frank Apisa...and because he cannot "explain" why he says he knows 2 + 2 = 4...he is somehow, in Joe's mind ,to be disqualified from asking people who make assertions "How do you know that?"

Good grief...this is so pathetic...I am actually feeling a bit of pity for Joe.

It must be horrible to be that insecure!

Quote:

BoGoWo wrote:
[and, of course, i ask why must it be a 'debate' rather than a 'discussion';
must there be a 'winner'?]

I'm willing to have a debate, discussion, discourse, digression, or any manner of interaction with anyone who is genuinely interested in exchanging ideas.

I would have accepted that statement from Joe if the last few words were changed from: "...with anyone who is genuinely interested in exchanging ideas"...to...

..."...with anyone who is genuinely interested in having me be declared the winner of the debate, discussion, discourse, digression, or any manner of interaction."

For the most part, Joe doesn't discuss. He lectures. And if he gets the slightest incling that someone is going to stand up against him...he starts distorting.

You really cannot trust him. He is not trustworthy.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

In this context, is bohr argument sound according to you? And if not, how?

I am not familiar with the Bohr quotation, except as presented by fresco. I'll assume, therefore, that the quotation is both accurate and a genuine reflection of Bohr's beliefs. Here, again, is what he said:

We customarily think of the outside world as separate from ourselves, and the boundary between the two is the surface of our skin. However, think of a blind person who gets around with the assistance of a cane. In time that person will probably treat the cane as part of his or her body, and will think of the outside world as beginning just at the tip of the cane. Now imagine the blind man's sense of touch extending out of the tip of the cane and into the roadway itself. Imagine it extending further, down the block, into the countryside, to the whole world. There is no point where the blind man ends and the world begins. Similarly, we can not say which is the system and which is us observing it.It's a charming metaphor, but Bohr has really set out a rather unconvincing sorites paradox. Sorites is the Greek for "heap," which gives an insight into its nature. Suppose we take a heap, composed of peppercorns. Take one peppercorn away, and the heap remains a heap. Take another away, and we are still left with a heap. Thus, we can assert that taking away a single peppercorn does not make a heap a non-heap. But if we keep taking away one peppercorn at a time, we are eventually left with a single peppercorn. So we either must conclude that a single peppercorn is also a heap, or else that there is some point at which subtracting a single peppercorn transforms the heap into something else.

In the same way, Bohr extends the reach of the blind man. If his sense of distinction between himself and the outside world can be extended to his cane, then it can be extended to the sidewalk. And if it can be extended to the roadway, it can be extended to the countryside, and thence to the entire world. But this is merely the heap in reverse: if adding the cane to the blind man's sense of self doesn't make any difference, then adding the roadway doesn't make any difference, and adding the countryside doesn't make a difference, ad infinitum. That may work on the metaphorical level, but it's hardly convincing logically, since there is no real reason to accept even Bohr's first premise: i.e. that the blind man cannot distinguish between his can and himself.**

On the larger level, there is no reason to think that Bohr jettisoned the distinction between subject and object in his work as a physicist, since it would be impossible to make any kind of scientific conclusions based upon an identity of the two. If all I see is all I am, then all of my conclusions are bare assertions, nothing more. One would be living in the land of ipse dixit,* not in the realm of science and reason.

*and old times there are not forgotten.
**EDIT: that should be "cane," not "can." As far as I know, the blind man would still be able to distinguish his can from, say, a hole in the ground.

0 Replies

Frank and Joe,

The significant issue here is wther anybody learns anything from the exhanges, I should really thank Joe for example for his citation of Foucault with whom I was not previously acquainted. In return I should perhaps have offered him the sceptical Feynman who claimed with others that "he did not understand QM".

When discussing "self" it seems to me we have a potentially excellent opportunity to get our hands on some interesting data i.e. "us", but how many of us are prepared to take the risk, to expose our vested interests or our psychological crutches ? It is those potential minefields that concepts such as "belief" and "truth" can disturb and perhaps why we tend to defend them with undue vehemence.

0 Replies

A heap of popcorn is finite and its size is already known by amount the cash paid for it. Hence there is never dilemma about nature and the distinction between single popcorn and heap. Popcorn metaphor doesn't address the subtle issue of 'what is not known' to begin with as addressed by bohr.

0 Replies

The Problem of Self

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know