Sun-Fever game

[alexrgct]

This thread wins the all-time boneyard tangent award. Take a bow everybody.

 

[meyers7]

Nor am I sure that the technology to quantify everything exists. Therefore in pragmatic terms not everything can be quantified.

Well duh, I said that. But I'm not talking about quantifying things from the point of view of the quantifier, I'm talking about things being quantifiable.

Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would call into question the ability to quantify certain things because the very act of observing and quantifying alters the reality.

Alters our observation. Or our point of view. Reality isn't altered. Reality is what it is. Even if things change from our point of view, the thing (even the change) is quantifiable.

There are entire schools of philosophy that would reject the possibility of anything being quantified.

Quantifiable. And if that's what you mean, they would be wrong.

 

[Icebear]

Well duh, I said that. But I'm not talking about quantifying things from the point of view of the quantifier, I'm talking about things being quantifiable.


Alters our observation. Or our point of view. Reality isn't altered. Reality is what it is. Even if things change from our point of view, the thing (even the change) is quantifiable.


Quantifiable. And if that's what you mean, they would be wrong.

Subjectivism vs objectivism, it is a classic argument. The debate over what is reality is difficult to label right or wrong. I have a box you may crawl in to check my cat.

All that matters is what is quantifiable at present, someday is irrelevant to the present. As to Heisenberg reality is altered by the observation and the precision of observation makes it impossible to quantify the momentum and if one is to quantify the momentum then location is increasing uncertain.

 

[meyers7]

All that matters is what is quantifiable at present, someday is irrelevant.

So your saying everything CAN be quantified. Excellent.

Figured eventually you'd come around.

 

[meyers7]

This thread wins the all-time boneyard tangent award. Take a bow everybody.

 

[Icebear]

So your saying everything CAN be quantified. Excellent.

Figured eventually you'd come around.

Not everything is quantifiable presently, it is an assumption that it may be so someday. Someday is not a practical reality on which one can make present decisions.

 

[pinotbear]

Okay, you two, enough! (please?). Yer makin' my head hurt. It is, at this point, time for the obligatory comment, "the season can't start soon enough for me!"

 

[diggerfoot]

I see where you are going with this, but no. There are purposes, but they don't matter anyway, as yours doesn't. Things don't need a reason to be quantifiable. , they just are.


None the less, true.

Quantify/quantifiable/etc. are concepts with meaning derived only from the subjective human mind. Some human minds may consider infinity to be quantifiable, some may not. You obviously are one that does, but that places at least one caveat on your position. Recategorizing on/off properties as something quantifiable (degrees of "on-ness") and possible in every single case would be another caveat. Speaking of infinity, if the universe is infinite and has sentient properties, it probably would not self-regard those properties as quantifiable, if an infinite entity would/could have any concept of quantify at all. Indeed, such an entity might consider such infinite properties more along the lines of on/off. This is all just conjecture of course, as is the claim that everything is quantifiable.

 

[meyers7]

Not everything is quantifiable presently, it is an assumption that it may be so someday. Someday is not a practical reality on which one can make present decisions.

I do hope as a pastor you don't really believe that.

Keeping on subject though, everything being quantifiable has nothing to do with making decisions, present or future.

 

[meyers7]

Okay, you two, enough! (please?). Yer makin' my head hurt. It is, at this point, time for the obligatory comment, "the season can't start soon enough for me!"

Well you are in luck, because tonight.......

 

[meyers7]

Quantify/quantifiable/etc. are concepts with meaning derived only from the subjective human mind.

Not from the things being quantified's point of view.

Some human minds may consider infinity to be quantifiable, some may not.

By calling that thing we call infinity, infinity, it is essentially quantified.

Speaking of infinity, if the universe is infinite and has sentient properties, it probably would not self-regard those properties as quantifiable, if an infinite entity would/could have any concept of quantify at all.

And why not? I would believe it would.

 

[VAMike23]

Reality isn't altered. Reality is what it is. Even if things change from our point of view, the thing (even the change) is quantifiable.

There is group of people whose mission it is--and has been for centuries--to measure, quantify, and then explain various aspects of our objective reality. It is their profession, which for many of them likely means it has also been their passion. More than anyone these folks wanted and needed to believe in objective reality. Today these people call themselves physicists. Their siblings might also call them smarty pants.

Meanwhile, on a daily basis and as a result of those very same practices (measuring, experimenting, quantifying and inquiring--then having other people duplicate the exact same thing), science marches on.

As a direct result, since the 1920s or so this process has led the vast majority of physicists around the world to a profoundly unsettling conclusion. It is that the fundamental nature of reality itself is neither just "what it is" nor "unalterable" nor objectively independent like we all want it to be. No outsiders came from distant shores to convert them to this conclusion. It came from within their own ranks and has only grown in acceptance through the years. Why didn't it take immediate hold right away? But it was so shocking and disturbing that most of them couldn't bring themselves around to what their own objective science was telling them.

 

[meyers7]

There is group of people whose mission it is--and has been for centuries--to measure, quantify, and then explain various aspects of our objective reality. It is their profession, which for many of them likely means it has also been their passion. More than anyone these folks wanted and needed to believe in objective reality. Today these people call themselves physicists. Their siblings might also call them smarty pants.

Well played.

As a direct result, since the 1920s or so this process has led the vast majority of physicists around the world to a profoundly unsettling conclusion. It is that the fundamental nature of reality itself is neither just "what it is" nor "unalterable" nor objectively independent like we all want it to be.

Reality is what it is. It has to be. If it's not, then it's not reality.

But absolutely it is alterable. But what it is altered to, is reality. But the reality is quantifiable, the alteration is quantifiable, and the new reality is quantifiable.

 

[Waquoit]

I think it was Max Plunk who invented Quantified Theory.

Max Plunk had a brother named Kerwin but everyone called him Ker.

 

[diggerfoot]

Not from the things being quantified's point of view.


By calling that thing we call infinity, infinity, it is essentially quantified.

And why not? I would believe it would.

Hmm. Now I see what you are doing here. My next step in this "debate" would be to pin you down on your operational definition of quantify and/or quantifiable, but I have a feeling we would just get to the point where we would have to agree to disagree on that definition and its practical value.

 

[Icebear]

Hmm. Now I see what you are doing here. My next step in this "debate" would be to pin you down on your operational definition of quantify and/or quantifiable, but I have a feeling we would just get to the point where we would have to agree to disagree on that definition and its practical value.

That is exactly the issue, you and VA have been spot on as to the nature of the problems and issues involved.

 

[meyers7]

Hmm. Now I see what you are doing here. My next step in this "debate" would be to pin you down on your operational definition of quantify and/or quantifiable, but I have a feeling we would just get to the point where we would have to agree to disagree on that definition and its practical value.

Prolly. But it was a nice discussion.