How can an "objecive observation" exist?

If you believe it can, how do you cope with the idea that you have been proven wrong?

I.e.

1. The Uncertainty principle.

2.The fact that Schrodinger cat is obviously bullsh*t.

observed, there is a 50% chance it will be dead, and 50% chance it will be alive." Its one or the other, it cannot be both.

If you cannot see that logical flaw you are a moron.

3. The Gettier problem.

4. The thousands of men who were released from prison because they were "proven" guilty and now were "proven" innocent because of the new evidence.

If they were "beyond a shadow of a doubt to be "proven" guilty, and now thousands are proven wrong, how can these objective observations of their guilt be correct when they are now obviously proven wrong?

And how do you know that some of them were not doctored? do you have to make an assumption that none of the "new" DNA evidence was doctored to make it look like he was innocent when he was guilty?

So your not assuming then? you have "knowledge" that they all were proven innocent that, "all" of those people got it wrong the first time and NOW they are right.

Obviously they were making some assumptions then, and making some assumptions now.

So OBVIOUSLY making ANY kind of observation requires some assumptions.

And if they require assumptions they are obviously INHERENTLY subjective.

Not

Objective.

Updates:
People are fine with subjectivity.

Something being subjective does not require questioning "everything."


The point is, subjective opinion is subjective because people don't wish to "question eveyrhting" and because people make assumptions based on observation, it is therefore subjective based on these assumptions.

"The uncertainty is rooted in the quantum nature of the particle. Quantum particles cannot be described like a point-like object with a well-defined velocity. Instead, quantum particles behave as a wave -- and for a wave, position and momentum cannot be defined accurately at the same time. One could say that the particle itself does not even "know" where exactly it is and how fast it travels -- regardless of the particle being measured or not."

"Quantum objects have the bizarre but useful property of being able to exist in multiple states at once, a phenomenon called superposition. Physicist Erwin Schr̦dinger illustrated the strange implications of superposition by imagining a cat in a box whose fate depends on a radioactive atom. Because the atom's decay is governed by quantum mechanics Рand so only takes a definite value when it is measured Рthe cat is, somehow, both dead and alive until the box is opened."


0|0
04

Most Helpful Guy

  • With Schrodinger's, you have to realise. The cat, while unseen, can not exist. It's not a 50/50 thing. We have no basis on which to prove the cat is there, other than to look. It isn't bullsh*t, it's just logical.

    Now to the interesting bit. You're sort of asking a 2+2=5 question. How can we be sure the information on which we base ANY decision is right? What if everything we thought was right is in fact, wrong? We have to believe what we have at that point is right. We have no choice but to do that. If not, we end up going nuts questioning the existence of everything. 2+2=4 because it is logical to the basis of our understanding of the universe.

    Or something like that...

    0|1
    0|0
    • Schrodingers cat says its both dead AND alive. that's the result of the supposed test

      and THATS why its bullsh*t.

      IT would be like me saying EVERY stranger on the internet is a hermaphrodite. YOU are a hermaphrodite. Why? because its a 50/50 chance that you could be a girl or a boy. Because I don't know which one you are, you must therefore be BOTH.

      THIS is the entire logic of Schrodingers cat. And its bullsh*t.

    • Show All
    • I don't know anything about quantum anything, no. But I know what it was intended to demonstrate, which was a paradox within the logic of the Copenhagen Interpretation (which you seem to not be aware of - a cursory read on the subject tells you this). Where did you hear about Schrodingers Cat? There are lots of different interpretations of it, many of which un-paradox it - fix the problem presented, justify dead-and-alive, but that's not really what you have issue with.

    • Every single source on the web pretty much says that the results are if its dead or alive. I have yet to find one that makes a claim that its not about being both dead and alive.

      and not ONE of them "solves" the problem.

      They attempt to "peek" into the box using different methods.

      But CHEATING isn't fixing a problem, and any 3rd grade child will tell you that one.

      Not one justifies the dead and alive, it cannot be justified. as I pointed out. even with quantum entanglement.

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

03
  • On most matters concerning just about anything it is near impossible to have an objective opinion. But you can have an objective opinion that would say that the letter "t" is in fact the letter "t" because it just is. As childish of an answer that may seem, it holds true and is objective and as the guy below me said if you start questioning EVERYTHING, you'll go insane or close to it.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Facts require knowledge, knowledge requires observation and therefore facts require observation.

      And observation is inherently subjective.

  • Quantum uncertainty is not observable at the macroscopic level.

    0|1
    0|0
    • "The uncertainty principle is of course still true," the researchers confirm. "But the uncertainty does not always come from the disturbing influence of the measurement, but from the quantum nature of the particle itself."

    • Show All
    • obviously if something cannot be measured its even less "uncertain" to be true. regardless of the claim in question.

      Which is the point of the post, and supports the idea of subjective observation rather than objective observation.

  • I don't need you hitting my head with your bad noise, man. Give me a break, with your objective/subjective. It's far too early in the morning and I've just had my first drink. I don't need to hear about THIS

    0|0
    0|0

Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 1 more Xper point!

Recommended myTakes

Loading...