Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:05 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:04 pm You left the decisive piece of information out of the example, and you know you did it, and you know that you aren't fooling anyone.
Which spin property does the actual particle have?

How the fuck should I know except via taking a measurement myself ?!?! But I need an apparatus, and the only two machines in the world disagree!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:29 pm You constructed this imaginary scenario you see, so you get to decide which way the actual atom is spinning.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:29 pm That's how you know, and that is how you can fill in missing information to complete the fake puzzle.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:29 pm You constructed this imaginary scenario you see, so you get to decide which way the actual atom is spinning.

I get to decide the state of affairs? We don't really do that in science - we measure stuff.

And we trust our measurement instruments to give us readings.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:29 pm That's how you know, and that is how you can fill in missing information to complete the fake puzzle.

That's not knowledge. That's proclamation.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm The atom is imaginary and so are the measuring devices.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm You aren't measuring anything except my patience for bullshit combined with tedium.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm Fine, the real imagianry atom has left spin.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:46 pm The machine that reads left spin is correct, the other one needs calibration.
I have proclaimed in order to resolve your indecision problem.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:19 am Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.

Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.[16]

Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:57 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:34 pm "Measurable" to you would be the case if someone is just saying "yes" or "no" to "Is x morally permissible" for example, right?

It would be to anybody who knows what a Shannon is, and who thinks their questions are coherent/well-formulated such that they can be assigned a yes/no answer.

Is question X coherent?
Is measurement X objective?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:18 pm Earlier you suggested that simply answering "yes" or "no" to something would be sufficient for a "measurement." (Remember that I made a sarcastic comment about Magic 8-Balls as measuring devices at that point?) That's why I asked you what I asked you above. Are you saying now that that's not sufficient for a measurement?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:18 pm Earlier you suggested that simply answering "yes" or "no" to something would be sufficient for a "measurement." (Remember that I made a sarcastic comment about Magic 8-Balls as measuring devices at that point?) That's why I asked you what I asked you above. Are you saying now that that's not sufficient for a measurement?

It's sufficient in the reductionist sense.

A coin can measure.

Can it measure correctly? Requires a "correct measurement" theory over and above measurement theory.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:29 pm When we're talking about "Do I think this is morally permissible" what would we be getting correct aside from what we think? You'd be saying that whether something is morally permissible isn't just what we think/feel about it but what?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:29 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:29 pm When we're talking about "Do I think this is morally permissible" what would we be getting correct aside from what we think? You'd be saying that whether something is morally permissible isn't just what we think/feel about it but what?

What does that have to do with "correct measurement" over and above "measurement"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:37 pm So with morality, are we not measuring something correctly?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:45 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am
The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

IYO

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.

People chose to die. People face the inevitable.

Note my point above, repeat,

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

Please cite evidence

Note 'will'.
It is an inference from the above, i.e. DNA wise and generically ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:43 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:37 pm So with morality, are we not measuring something correctly?

Your questions is incoherent. Measured I.

How is correctness different from morality in a moral context?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:13 pm Weren't you bringing up the whole idea of measurement because you're thinking that whether something is morally permissible is something we're measuring?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:13 pm Weren't you bringing up the whole idea of measurement because you're thinking that whether something is morally permissible is something we're measuring?

Yes. What is confusing you so far?

"Does the particle have left-spin?", asked the scientist.

"Yes", said machine A.
"No", said machine B.

"Is murder wrong?, asked the scientist.

"Yes", said human A.
"No", said human B.

Up to this point the experiment is "equivalent".

The difference is in recalibration strategies.