What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

As usual you change the context and talk about models/human cognition in a more general sense. Yes, in THAT sense everything is a model. Everyone with half a brain knows that too.

Lolwut? What other SENSE is there? Do you know of a mechanism for retrieving information from reality (a.k.a learning) WITHOUT using your cognition and SENSES? Do you have some extra-sensory powers for perceiving reality that the rest of us don't? Please, do tell.

Statistical/mathematical constructs are just abstract constructs too, so that didn't say anything.

Yes they are. As is every conception in your head. Again - by definition of what an abstraction is!

In software engineering and computer science, abstraction is the process of removing physical, spatial, or temporal details[2] or attributes in the study of objects or systems in order to more closely attend to other details of interest[3]; it is also very similar in nature to the process of generalization;

So that idea of a 'cat' you have in your head. Is just an abstraction. What blood type does a cat have? How many hairs does a cat have? You don't know - because your abstraction (what you might call essence) doesn't store such information! Your abstraction of a cat is incomplete! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

Except actual physical entropy, which is not the same as entropy of information.

In classical physics it is EXACTLY the same entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History
And it is a statistical concept. So it is 'abstract' as you say. The deadliest abstraction in the universe!

The principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957[1][2] where he emphasized a natural correspondence between statistical mechanics and information theory. In particular, Jaynes offered a new and very general rationale why the Gibbsian method of statistical mechanics works. He argued that the entropy of statistical mechanics and the information entropy of information theory are basically the same thing. Consequently, statistical mechanics should be seen just as a particular application of a general tool of logical inference and information theory.

And in quantum mechanics there is Von Neumann entropy and quantum information, but because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle you are actually destroying your very own argument for having anything other than a STATISTICAL model of reality at the quantum level.

So what you are saying is that quantum mechanics are 'just abstraction". So be it. And quantum computation works - so I don't care if it is 'just an abstraction'. It is useful.

[Atla]

Well what other SENSE is there? Do you know of a mechanism for retrieving information from reality (a.k.a learning) WITHOUT using your cognition and SENSES? Or do you have some extra-sensory powers? Please, do tell.

Science mostly deals with instrumentalist models, while philosophy mostly deals with interpretation, trying to make sense of what science has found. But maybe you are from another planet so you couldn't have heard of this use of the word "model".

Yes they are. As is every conception in your head. Again - by definition of what an abstraction is!

You are confusing concepts with abstractions. We already covered this; you don't seem to understand the difference between the concrete and the abstract. in the relevant context, all abstractions are concepts but not all concepts are abstractions.

So that idea of a 'cat' you have in your head. Is just an abstraction. What blood type does a cat have? How many hairs does a cat have? You don't know - because your abstraction (what you might call essence) doesn't store such information! Your abstraction of a cat is incomplete! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

See above - you still don't seem to understand the abstract vs concrete, your example just as your 10 prior examples are from another context.

In classical physics it is EXACTLY the same entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History

Changing the context. That's statistical mechanics vs Information theory. Statistical mechanics is also just a description/prediction tool.
I meant the "actual" physical entropy, the arrow of time, that's physically happening in our universe (or maybe our part of the universe).

And in quantum mechanics there is Von Neumann entropy and quantum information, but because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle you are actually destroying your very own argument for having anything other than a STATISTICAL (or in your language: abstract) model of reality at the quantum level.

You can't just say that. In some interpretations it's about quantum information, in some interpretations it isn't.

Also, you seem to be confusing the uncertainty principle with the measurement problem.

Also, "statistical" and "abstract" have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

Also, I never made any kind of claim whatsoever about having a non-statistical model of reality at the quantum level (well not for instrumentalist purposes).

How do you even come up with all this stuff?

[TimeSeeker]

Science mostly deals with instrumentalist models, while philosophy mostly deals with interpretation, trying to make sense of what science has found. But maybe you are from another planet so you couldn't have heard of this use of the word "model".

My conception of science deals only with epistemology. And I didn't realise there is any room for re-interpretation of knowledge?
At least - insofar as I understand the process of induction at information level, going from the particular results to a general interpretation is by definition hallucination of details which are not there. What is the purpose of that?

Also. I don't care about your 'common use' of words. My definition is more useful ( to me). It is grounded in Mathematics. So you don't get to dictate to me how to use language. OK, kid ? You can agree or disagree with my definition. But I get to keep using it anyway It is such an overloaded word anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model

I am from the planet where errors in reasoning have actual, real-world consequences. So my mind is as sharp as it needs to be to avoid people dying and getting hurt. Your linguistic objections aren't even being acknowledged as relevant.

I ken speek lyk diz eef I wont too. If you have it in you to correct me - then you have clearly understood my meaning. So you are just being a Grammar Nazi.

You are confusing concepts with abstractions. We already covered this; you don't seem to understand the difference between the concrete and the abstract. in the relevant context, all abstractions are concepts but not all concepts are abstractions.

And you have drawn a distinction without a difference. I don't even differentiate between epistemology and ontology. Let alone concepts and abstractions.
But here is how you can prove me wrong: tell me the concrete number of hairs or the blood type of a cat.

See how long it takes you to see the parallels between Object Oriented Programming ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-or ... rogramming )

See above - you still don't seem to understand the abstract vs concrete, your example just as your 10 prior examples are from another context.

And if you are a scientific mind - you need to consider the alternative hypothesis (until dismissed). That it is your understanding which is flawed. But again - distinction without a difference. So do demonstrate the 'concreteness' of your conception/abstraction (same difference) of a cat.

Changing the context. That's statistical mechanics vs Information theory. Statistical mechanics is also just a description/prediction tool.
I meant the "actual" physical entropy, the arrow of time, that's physically happening in our universe (or maybe our part of the universe).

I am starting to get the feeling that you are using me as an encyclopedia because you are too lazy to Google. The 'arrow of time' IS the entropy from thermodynamics! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_ ... ow_of_time

Which is the same entropy as the one in Information theory.

We don't understand quantum entropy much because of the problem of time. Physicists have different conceptions of time in the GR vs QFT world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

You can't just say that. In some interpretations it's about quantum information, in some interpretations it isn't.

Then don't interpret it. I can and I did say it - take it at face value. Epistemically - you don't know either way.

Also, you seem to be confusing the uncertainty principle with the measurement problem.

I am highly certain that they are same thing. Physicists will figure it out soon enough. I could be wrong here - but again. Distinction without a difference. I am happy to treat it as an epistemic failure again - I don't know.

Also, "statistical" and "abstract" have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

Seriously? Those are YOUR language/words...

Statistical/mathematical constructs are just abstract constructs too, so that didn't say anything.

Also, I never made any kind of claim whatsoever about having a non-statistical model of reality at the quantum level (well not for instrumentalist purposes).
How do you even come up with all this stuff?

Inference. The consequences of one beliefs have implications to other beliefs. You don't recognize the probabilistic nature of your 'knowledge'. I do. It looks like mind-reading to you. It's just prediction.

[TimeSeeker]

Well what other SENSE is there? Do you know of a mechanism for retrieving information from reality (a.k.a learning) WITHOUT using your cognition and SENSES? Or do you have some extra-sensory powers? Please, do tell.

Science mostly deals with instrumentalist models, while philosophy mostly deals with interpretation, trying to make sense of what science has found.

But you ignored the important part of my question. Other than your cognition and your SENSES what other mechanism do you use for learning/understanding reality?

[Atla]

My conception of science deals only with epistemology.

What do you mean? Science deals with a branch of philosophy?

And I didn't realise there is any room for re-interpretation of knowledge?

What do you mean? The "knowledge" of quantum mechanics for example has like a 100 different interpretations. And they will come up with 100 more.

At least - insofar as I understand the process of induction at information level, going from the particular results to a general interpretation is by definition hallucination of details which are not there. What is the purpose of that?

They tend to use falsifiability.. what details that aren't there? They deal with laws that appear to hold everywhere. Extra details we can't know about are metaphysics, interpretation, philosophy.

What is the purpose of that? Trying to make sense of existence for example?

Also. I don't care about your 'common use' of words. My definition is more useful ( to me). It is grounded in Mathematics. So you don't get to dictate to me how to use language. OK, kid ? You can agree or disagree with my definition. But I get to keep using it anyway

That's fine and you could just say so, but then why are you trying to communicate with others?

I am from the planet where errors in reasoning have actual, real-world consequences. So my mind is as sharp as it needs to be to avoid people dying and getting hurt. Your linguistic objections aren't even being acknowledged as relevant.

Ok fair enough. On this planet however not all errors in reasoning have actual consequences.
Btw you seem to be making an error in reasoning like every second sentence, luckily you are from this planet too after all. Otherwise many people would die

And you have drawn a distinction without a difference. I don't even differentiate between epistemology and ontology. Let alone concepts and abstractions.
But here is how you can prove me wrong: tell me the concrete number of hairs or the blood type of a cat.

That's not what I meant by concrete here.
Okay you mix everything together, and only use your own definitions, so then how do you expect to communicate with others on a philosophy forum?

And if you are a scientific mind - you need to consider the alternative hypothesis (until dismissed). That it is your understanding which is flawed. But again - distinction without a difference. So do demonstrate the 'concreteness' of your conception/abstraction (same difference) of a cat.

You presented no alternative hypothesis. Some words/concepts refer directly to things-in-themselves; while some words/concepts refer to other words/concepts. And this is pretty much a fact.

I am starting to get the feeling that you are using me as an encyclopedia because you are too lazy to Google. The 'arrow of time' IS the entropy from thermodynamics! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_ ... ow_of_time

That's what I wrote too. I added the arrow of time so you can reply with this:

Which is the same entropy as the one in Information theory.

Bullshit; entropy of information is an abstraction of an abstraction. The arrow of time is actually happening physically.

We don't understand quantum entropy much because of the problem of time. Physicists have different conceptions of time in the GR vs QFT world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Well you certainly don't understand much about time, you didn't even know about the Turing paradox.

Then don't interpret it. I can and I did say it - take it at face value. Epistemically - you don't know either way.

So again we are dealing with just models. Then you have no argument.

I am highly certain that they are same thing. Physicists will figure it out soon enough. I could be wrong here - but again. Distinction without a difference. I am happy to treat it as an epistemic failure again - I don't know.

You are wrong, and there's nothing to figure out about them being not the same.

Seriously? Those are YOUR language/words...

Not my words, I have no idea how one could equate statistical with abstract

Inference. The consequences of one beliefs have implications to other beliefs. You don't recognize the probabilistic nature of your 'knowledge'. I do. It looks like mind-reading to you. It's just prediction.

My entire worldview is based on probabilities, you are a pretty bad mind-reader. Also, such probabilities have almost nothing to do with quantum probabilities.

[Atla]

Well what other SENSE is there? Do you know of a mechanism for retrieving information from reality (a.k.a learning) WITHOUT using your cognition and SENSES? Or do you have some extra-sensory powers? Please, do tell.

Science mostly deals with instrumentalist models, while philosophy mostly deals with interpretation, trying to make sense of what science has found.

But you ignored the important part of my question. Other than your cognition and your SENSES what other mechanism do you use for learning/understanding reality?

Not sure what you're asking. I use the Internet for example.

[TimeSeeker]

My conception of science deals only with epistemology.

What do you mean? Science deals with a branch of philosophy?

Hahaha. That's a cute taxonomy. Lets agree to disagree. https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

What do you mean? The "knowledge" of quantum mechanics for example has like a 100 different interpretations. And they will come up with 100 more.

So don't look at the interpretations! Look at the utility. Quantum computation. Quantum Chemistry. Statistical modeling. Machine learning. Solving NP-hard problems. Science doesn't care about interpretation - science cares about UTILITY.

They tend to use falsifiability.. what details that aren't there? They deal with laws that appear to hold everywhere. Extra details we can't know about are metaphysics, interpretation, philosophy.

Yeah.. Hallucinations. There are no laws that hold everywhere. They are SUPPOSED to. But they don't. Because model error. Put another foot in your mouth.

What is the purpose of that? Trying to make sense of existence for example?

And what would 'making sense' feel like? How would you figure out when it all 'makes sense'? What does a 'sufficiently sensical explanation' look like?
How will you tell when you have found it?

Btw you seem to be making an error in reasoning like every second sentence, luckily you are from this planet too after all. Otherwise many people would die

By what objective standard for 'errors'? The one you were taught in philosophy class? Shame
Reality doesn't think the systems I build contain many errors e.g they work as designed and are pretty resilient to failure. How did you assert I've made errors? Are you just deducing from the general to the particular 'because all software has bugs'?

That's not what I meant by concrete here.

Oh, so there is yet another meaning? So that is another distinction without a difference?

Okay you mix everything together, and only use your own definitions, so then how do you expect to communicate with others on a philosophy forum?

My definitions are more general than your definitions. Therefore they particularize better than your definitions. That is - they are multi-purpose e.g more USEFUL. As is evident by me demonstrating the edge cases (CONTRADICTIONS - which you apparently care about) in your models.
Because I know what 'errors in reasoning' actually look like. Having EXPERIENCED them through iterative failure and contact with REALITY.

But of course - I can't convince you of that - Dunning-Kruger is a thing with academics/self-anointed intelecktuals

You presented no alternative hypothesis. Some words/concepts refer directly to things-in-themselves; while some words/concepts refer to other words/concepts. And this is pretty much a fact.

I did: the alternative hypothesis is that you are making errors. Which I am pointing out with references. Something you haven't been able to do to me yet.

Nothing refers to 'things-in-themselves'. Everything refers to conceptions of things in your head. It is all in YOUR HEAD. You are neck deep in the correspondence theory of truth and you are drowning.

Whatever it is "out there" you have no way of accessing or perceiving it except through your senses and cognition!

That's what I wrote too. I added the arrow of time so you can reply with this
Bullshit; entropy of information is an abstraction of an abstraction. The arrow of time is actually happening physically.

They are MATHEMATICALLY ISOMORPHIC! That is a fancy shmancy way of saying THEY ARE IDENTICAL.
Any distinction you draw IS a distinction without a difference. A hallucination.

Well you certainly don't understand much about time, you didn't even know about the Turing paradox.

Yes - it is a theoretical paradox with no practical solution. Since you have no way to measure a particle 'frequently enough' you can't say anything more than I can - which is: I DON'T KNOW. And quantum computers still continue computing like they did yesterday. Paradox or no paradox. Despite the paradox which you are tripping over.

So again we are dealing with just models. Then you have no argument.

Fallacy of gray. Until you produce something that isn't a model - you have no ground to stand on. Please - go ahead and produce something concrete/real

You are wrong, and there's nothing to figure out about them being not the same.

If they are both unsolved problems, how did you assert that i am making an error? Have you actually derived the correct answer?

Not my words, I have no idea how one could equate statistical with abstract

This is a blatant lie. I quoted your very paragraph. Here it is again.

Statistical/mathematical constructs are just abstract constructs too, so that didn't say anything.

Maybe you mis-spoke with so many taxonomies in your head I am sure it is hard to keep track between real/abstract/concrete/conceptual/ontological/epistemic. I subscribe to the KISS principle - keep it simple, stupid!

#############

My entire worldview is based on probabilities, you are a pretty bad mind-reader. Also, such probabilities have almost nothing to do with quantum probabilities.

Oh really, so what is the probability you have assigned to yourself being wrong?

And they have everything to do with qubits! Epistemic uncertainty.

Schrodinger's cat is exactly an experiment which bridges quantum and classical information theory. The state of the cat ( dead AND alive) is expressed as one qubit. Making an observation collapses the wave function into a classical bit - dead OR alive.

Is it true? For shits and giggles lets pretend that it's actually false! And then what? It is still fucking USEFUL!

[TimeSeeker]

Not sure what you're asking. I use the Internet for example.

You said:

Yes, in THAT sense everything is a model. Everyone with half a brain knows that too.

I asked: what other SENSES are there? Do you have extra SENSES that I don't have? Do you have a way of perceiving reality using anything other than your cognition and your SENSES? Because that would be very surprising claim to me and would require some supporting evidence.

As best as I can approximate you have similar hardware to me. But maybe the software is different. That is hardly a problem in computer science. We can invent hardware/software-agnostic protocols for communication.

[Atla]

Look idiot, I told you not to edit your comments 10 times. I'll reply to an older version I guess.

So don't look at the interpretations! Look at the utility. Quantum computation. Quantum Chemistry. Statistical modeling. Machine learning. Solving NP-hard problems.

In other words, we are only talking about models and you have no argument.

Yeah.. Hallucinations. There are no laws that hold everywhere. Put another foot in your mouth.

Of course you use an out of context definition of "everywhere" again.

And what would 'making sense' feel like? How would you figure out when it all 'makes sense'? What does a 'sufficiently sensical explanation' look like?
How will you tell when you have found it?

Maybe you aren't using your right hemisphere but most people TRY to make sense of the world.

My definitions are more general than your definitions. Therefore they particularize better than your definitions. That is - they are multi-purpose e.g more USEFUL. As is evident by me demonstrating the edge cases (CONTRADICTIONS - which you apparently care about) in your models.
Because I know what 'errors in reasoning' actually look like. Having EXPERIENCED them through iterative failure and contact with REALITY.

But of course - I can't convince you of that - Dunning-Kruger is a thing with academics/self-anointed intelecktuals

Your definitions are useless, they are too general and out of place. They make philosophical discourse impossible and pointless.

You are the one who doesn't seem to be aware of this so I'm not the candidate for Dunning-Kruger here.

I don't know how to tell you this, but right now you aren't building a computer system. And I don't care about your "heroic" experiences with such systems.

I did: the alternative hypothesis is that you are making errors. Which I am pointing out with references. Something you haven't been able to do to me yet.

Don't be ridiculous. Almost all your references are out of place, out of context.

Nothing refers to 'things-in-themselves'. Everything refers to conceptions of things in your head. It is all in YOUR HEAD. You are neck deep in the correspondence theory of truth and you are drowning.

Whatever it is "out there" you have no way of accessing or perceiving it except through your senses and cognition!

Again you change the context and evade the issue. Okay then there is no point in saying anything about anything then. So then again you have no argument.

They are MATHEMATICALLY ISOMORPHIC! That is a fancy shmancy way of saying THEY ARE IDENTICAL.
Any distinction you draw IS a distinction without a difference.

Bullshit. Being isomorphic doesn't make them identical. There is a difference between a thought and a physical event.

Yes - it is a theoretical paradox with no practical solution. Since you have no way to measure a particle 'frequently enough' you can't say anything more than I can - which is: I DON'T KNOW. And quantum computers still continue computing like they did yesterday. Paradox or no paradox. Solving real-world problems despite the paradox.

No idea what you mean. It's experimentally verified. We can't measure constantly, but we can measure frequently.
Also, all those computers work the way I say they work. You work with information all the time and don't know jackshit about what information actually is. You hallucinate.

Fallacy of gray. Until you produce something that isn't a model - you have no ground to stand on. Please - go ahead and produce something concrete/real

Philosophy deals with interpretation - so then again, why are you here?

If they are both unsolved problems, how did you assert that i am making an error? Have you actually derived the correct answer?

Wouldn't call them unsolved problems. Their interpretation is unsolved. But they are not the same thing.

This is a blatant lie. I quoted your very paragraph.

A statistical calculation is an abstraction. That doesn't make statistical equal abstraction.

Oh really, so what is the probability you have assigned to yourself being wrong?

Wrong about what. About information I'd say 1-2%.

[Atla]

Not sure what you're asking. I use the Internet for example.

You said:

Yes, in THAT sense everything is a model. Everyone with half a brain knows that too.

I asked: what other SENSES are there? Do you have extra SENSES that I don't have? Do you have a way of perceiving reality using anything other than your cognition and your SENSES? Because that would be very surprising claim to me and would require some supporting evidence.

As best as I can approximate you have similar hardware to me. But maybe the software is different. That is hardly a problem in computer science. We can invent hardware/software-agnostic protocols for communication.

Do you not understand English words? In that sense = in that context.

[TimeSeeker]

Do you not understand English words? In that sense = in that context.

Reality has no contexts. Contexts are properties of human minds, and any distinction you draw is a distinction without a difference, so focus on the question.

My world-view is based on my senses and cognition using information as a fundamental property of the universe (whether true or false is immaterial)

What other SENSE is there with which one RETRIEVES INFORMATION? What is it based on if not your senses and cognition?

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe, into parts - physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on - remember that nature does not know it! --Feynman

[Atla]

Schrodinger's cat is exactly an experiment which bridges quantum and classical information theory. The state of the cat ( dead AND alive) is expressed as one qubit. Making an observation collapses the wave function into a classical bit - dead OR alive.

LOL..

Okay look a cat is a huge superposition of infinite states, half of which we can roughly categorize as dead and half of which we can roughly categorize as alive, after the collapse.

I guess you can make a model of 1 qubit or 1 bit out of it, but that's a huge simplification, an abstraction as I said. Again you have no argument you just prove what I say.

Is it true? For shits and giggles lets pretend that it's actually false! And then what? It is still fucking USEFUL!

Who cares about usefullness, that's not the topic.

[Atla]

Do you not understand English words? In that sense = in that context.

Reality has no contexts. Contexts are properties of human minds, and any distinction you draw is a distinction without a difference, so focus on the question.

My world-view is based on my senses and cognition using information as a fundamental property of the universe (whether true or false is immaterial)

What other SENSE is there with which one RETRIEVES INFORMATION? What is it based on if not your senses and cognition?

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe, into parts - physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on - remember that nature does not know it! --Feynman

By "immaterial" I guess you mean "irrelevant".

I didn't say anything about some sixth sense or whatever. "Sense" is an English word with multiple meanings.

[TimeSeeker]

Look idiot, I told you not to edit your comments 10 times. I'll reply to an older version I guess.

And I have to listen to you why?

In other words, we are only talking about models and you have no argument.

Fallacy of gray. You haven't yet presented anything that isn't a model. If I have no argument then you have a - negative argument?

Of course you use an out of context definition of "everywhere" again.

What other context IS there for the word 'everywhere' you muddle-brain? Everywhere - the WHOLE known universe. We have no laws which are universal!

Maybe you aren't using your right hemisphere but most people TRY to make sense of the world.

Maybe YOU aren't using the right hemisphere? You are like a dog chasing a car. What are you going to do when you catch it?

WHY do you want to make sense of the world? And we are back in the land of teleology!

Your definitions are useless, they are too general and out of place. They make philosophical discourse impossible and pointless.
You are the one who doesn't seem to be aware of this so I'm not the candidate for Dunning-Kruger here.

And yet they work IN PRACTICE and in the REAL WORLD. I am not sure what the purpose or rules of engagement of 'philosophical discourse' are supposed to be and nobody can tell me, so until you do - I will consider this as an appeal to purity.

I don't know how to tell you this, but right now you aren't building a computer system. And I don't care about your "heroic" experiences with such systems.

Very good! What are YOU doing now? What are your criteria for success and failure in this quest that you are on? How do you know you are even going in the right direction? What if you are going backwards?

Don't be ridiculous. Almost all your references are out of place, out of context.

Another appeal to purity? Or are you going to enlighten me about the context?

Again you change the context and evade the issue. Okay then there is no point in saying anything about anything then. So then again you have no argument.

We are talking about constructing accurate models of reality yes? Because that is all we CAN do, right? I haven't switched context yet despite accusations.

Bullshit. Being isomorphic doesn't make them identical. There is a difference between a thought and a physical event.

Ohhh. You have a better definition for identity than Mathematical isomorphism? Well let us hear it then?
You are drawing more distinctions without a difference! All you have ARE thoughts for perceiving the world - so until you figure out a way to perceive a physical event without a mind, please stop playing this stupid game.

No idea what you mean. It's experimentally verified. We can't measure constantly, but we can measure frequently.
Also, all those computers work the way I say they work. You work with information all the time and don't know jackshit about what information actually is. You hallucinate.

Quantum computers allow machine learning algorithms to perform at 95% accuracy (compared to humans) in sorting objects into categories at 1/1000000th of the cost.

Information answers yes/no questions that HUMANS ask

Philosophy deals with interpretation - so then again, why are you here?

To piss on your parade. You don't even understand how interpretation works. Mechanically. Or as you say - ontologically! Would you like to get onto computational linguistics, natural language processing and word-sense disambiguation? I've written such algorithms too. You might even have a device or two in your household or even in your pocket which "Speak English".

What is your objective standard for determining whether an interpretation is 'good' or 'bad'? Who is the judge?

A statistical calculation is an abstraction. That doesn't make statistical equal abstraction.

The notion of entropy/randomness/chance/luck/uncertainty (and the 20 other names the phenomenology has) is NOT a calculation. It is an Mathematical/statistical concept. It is like God - a label for something we don't understand. Entropy is a measure of IGNORANCE about a system.

The idealized conception we use to TEACH people about entrpopy is a coin. 50/50.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_Elwood_Shannon

My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.'

If YOU think you know what the ontology of entropy is - you are lying

Psychologically and epistemically - it is uncertainty.If I were to make a God-of-the-epistemic-gaps argument then I would equivocate it with the label God!

[TimeSeeker]

Okay look a cat is a huge superposition of infinite states, half of which we can roughly categorize as dead and half of which we can roughly categorize as alive, after the collapse.

Yes. And mathematically OR computationally, or graphically, OR geometrically you have absolutely no way to describe the full range of microstates of a 'cat'.

Luckily we have an apparatus that can tell what the macro-states of dead' and 'alive' mean. We call it a HUMAN.

Who cares about usefullness, that's not the topic.

HUMANS CARE. Who are you doing this for if not other humans?