Comments on “Objects, objectively”

Comments

b-but the wave function is the objective object!!

Alexander Davis's picture

This is incredibly illustrative and convincing! Especially the concept of technologies that make reality less nebulous.
There is but one final rationalist gambit I can think of: as you say, the “absolute” truths of quantum theory.

Could the rationalist assert that THE wave function is the objective object?

I would say that the P(the wave function is the objective object) = 1 sense is fairly senseless, because it would require a solution to the problem of induction. And could not reality have deeper layers, which are undetectable merely because they are currently static? Q: What is the probability of these scenarios? A: Impossible to know, and who cares!

But even if we were to grant that absurd proposition, the idea of doing anything but quantum physics on the scale of the entire fucking universe seems to require our other more nebulous ontologies. And so it seems the rationalist cannot escape from nebulosity.

That would be my refutation. Does it seem on point?

One object, one truth

Glad this made sense!

Yes, I think an ontology with one “object” (the wave function) and one truth (the state of the wave function) is possibly absolutely accurate. It’s also completely useless and unknowable.

Add new comment

Navigation

This page is in the section Part One: Taking rationalism seriously,
      which is in In the Cells of the Eggplant.

The next page in this section is Is this an eggplant which I see before me?.

The previous page is The National Omelet Registry.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book. Start with an appetizer, or the table of contents. Its “metablog” includes additional essays, not part the book.

Subscribe to new content by email. Click on terms with dotted underlining to read a definition. The book is a work in progress; pages marked ⚒︎ are under construction.