EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 670
- 113
Nothing I've said should be taken to mean that I think instruments cannot measure physical attributes of the world. I'm not saying that instrumentation can't give us relatively accurate representations of the world; but I am saying that even these purportedly "objective" readings can only render physical phenomena in a particular way in order for humans to actually read them.
Nothing about instrumentation is objective, for one glaring reason in particular: "objective" means that something exists in a particular state whether it is observed or not, but instruments interfere with the objective reality that they aim to observe. Therefore they cannot test any objective reality of an object. It's a logical paradox.
Heisenberg's uncertainty relation effects every situation, not just the measurement of microscopic particles.
I think im also getting sick of your 2-deep-4-U philosophical mental exercises. You arent entirely wrong, but this kind of analysis reminds me of that philosophy 101 horseshit that makes you question whether or not you even exist. You suffer from a bad case of philosophical pedantry. This discussion went from being a philosophical science discussion to one that is just pointless. Have fun if you want HB, but im with @Baroque here.