I hate racism, sexism, ageism and basically all forms of discrimination. This is not because I'm a morally reputable, virtuous person; I'm not. It's because these discriminations fly in the face of science, logic and that which is correct.
I care a lot about the right answer - be that to a scientific problem, an artistic ideal (the resolution to a suspended chord; the phrasing of a sentence) or even a societal interaction. There is always such an answer.
Here's why.
Proposition 1 - All is Matter
Every single thing in existence is made up of quanta. I refer not only to physical objects, but also to abstract notions and concepts. The word 'concept', for example, physically exists in a multitude of places: my brain; yours; paper and digital publications - to name a few.
Proposition 2 - Reality is Stateful
Every single thing in existence has a state space. Quantum Field Theory (and specifically, Quantum Mechanics) tells us that the eigenstate of an observable is fixed only at the moment of observation. However, a correct answer requires full knowledge of all variables. This paradox may be resolved once one considers that as the decision involves processing these variables, they must first be observed in order to be utilised, and therefore have a fixed state at the point of decision.
Lemma I - Objectivity Exists
Objective: adj; Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality; Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices; Based on observed facts.
Given that all is matter (proposition 1) and that all matter has a defined eigenstate at the point of observation (proposition 2), any problem may have an objectively correct solution, given a means of reaching such a solution and full knowledge of all variables at the point of decision.
Proposition 3 - Context is Everything
All problems exist only within the scope of their context. The most basic, seemingly clear problem - "What is 2+2?" only exists within the implied context "according to classical mathematics and assuming no unstated interference". Likewise, "can I trust this man?" is a question only valid in further implied context - the answer may be "yes" for medical advice and "no" for mechanical.
Conclusion
All problems have a correct answer. Given that problems exist only in their context (proposition 3) and that this context is entirely made up of observable matter (lemma I), all that is lacking is a means to process these observed states. Formal Logic provides a true conclusion given true propositions (et al.).
--
The above, whilst interesting, is of little utility in the majority of scenarios. If nothing else, the Uncertainty Principle states it is physically impossible to measure all required variables in a problem in unity.
This brings us to the area of subjective logic, for which I can only recommend the Wikipedia article (written nearly entirely by Jøsang, who defined the field).
Subjective logic offers a means for obtaining the correct answer to a problem with uncertain or unknown inputs. It also allows for the representation of belief - however, if a problem is fully defined within its context this is already taken into consideration, so this aspect of subjective logic is of little interest to this thesis (though obviously may be used in formally defining a context).
The answer to a problem with uncertain inputs is no longer a scalar, but a probability distribution. This distribution may be arbitrarily skewed, and of any dimensionality. The maximum value of the distribution, or the entire distribution itself, may then be used in taking a decision (cf. decision theory) but a correct answer has been ascertained.
--
We may now answer any question - from "what is 2x2?" to "is this art?" or "what brushstroke/chord/word should I use next?" correctly. Subjectivity does not imply an answer may not be found, just as objectivity does not imply that there is only one correct answer to any given problem. The objective reality of the full context of the problem both defines, and answers that problem.
I'm still not going to iron my own shirts though.
Xx
--
Finally, of potential interest, a lovely (if not quite so scientific) rant on subjectivity in art criticism.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Subjectivity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello, world!
Leave a comment, or read the 4 comments so far.
Okay, so you have proven that there is an objective reality out there.
What is not proven from your demonstration is that there is a certain way to find what that objective reality is like.
If you can't ever be absolutely certain of the real nature of the objective reality - then how do you know that your demonstration of the existence of it applies to it?
I'll simplify your argument:
1. matter exists and it's made up of quanta
2. at a point of observation there is a thing
If there is a way to process all the variables in a point of observation, one can determine the objective thing
The uncertainty principle says that it's impossible to measure all variables
subjective logic allows us to represent a belief about a thing but only as a probability,
with a certain answer to be basically picked ( decision theory) from the probable scale.
So, you want to set out to prove that an objective reality exists. To prove that, you can't start with stating it, because it's the conclusion.
The conclusion cannot be contained by the premises.
How your argument is like:
Premise 1: objects exist
Premise 2: they exist within a varied context
Premise 3: there is no way to observe all variables but one can determine a probability about them
Conclusion: objects exist
You're presupposing the existence of objects. Plus, if you haven't yet shown that they do exist, how can you be sure they are within a context? This bears resemblance to "The present king of France is bald." dilemma. This proposition is neither true nor false because there
is no king of France. If you haven't proven that objects exist, then you can't say anything about them, as a proposition about them
presupposes their existence.
Therefore, each sentence of your argument should be preceded by "if objects exist"
IF objects exist, matter exists and it's made up of quanta
IF objects exist, they are within a varied context
IF objects exist there is a way to observe most of them and determine a probability of their nature
Objects therefore exist?
It is not right, because all your theory is BASED on objects existing.
If objects don't exist, ALL your theory is defeated.
If you had at least demonstrated the absolute certainty of the existence of objects which can be CERTAINTLY verfied by anyone... then you would have been at least closer to demonstrating they exist - even though you based your demonstration on a presupposing their existence.
You have shown that if they exist, we have a way to PROBABLY determine them? that's very interesting, so if x (which we are not sure exists or not) does exist, we might know it. :) Sounds like we're grabbing at thin air here.
No wonder it's been so long between posts.
Nice :)
I was taking 'all matter is made up of quanta' as an axiom there, rather than merely using it as part of some torturous circular logic. An object - by standard definition - is some grouping of, or interactions between matter (depending how scientific you'd like to get). Therefore, all objects are made up of quanta. Further to this, all non-object entities (thoughts, abstract concepts) are also made up of quanta (see proposition 1). However, I agree that if you don't accept 'matter exists' and 'it is made of quanta' my argument is worthless, but that's a rather nihilistic viewpoint - matter and quanta are fairly readily observed and quite rigorously proven.
I'm confused by your point about objects existing in a context. I think it stems from your simplification of proposition 2 - my point there is that yes, whilst all quanta exist in all possible states, at the point of observation their observables are of fixed value. Objects therefore objectively exist; however, any given observer is unable to determine this objective state due to the uncertainty principle. Q.E.D. objects objectively exist, yet may only be viewed subjectively.
Finally, if objects exist, we have a way to probabilistically determine them, not merely to probably determine them. I accept that subjectivity is by its very nature flawed, but still believe that if a problem is fully defined within its subjective context, that a correct answer to that problem may be obtained. I still believe in the concept of objective truth, but can't see any way to observe this without the taint of subjectivity.
I still need to think about this further, so comments to follow. Still, thank you for putting it down into am argument so I can actually think it through :)
Post a Comment