Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

Put another way, you're confusing the ability to quickly determine velocity or direction, which is greatly aided by having multiple concurrent points of reference (but not impossible with a single point of reference), with the ability to perceive some object as a three dimensional object.  We even perceive 2d things -as- 3d things with regularity...those people on the movies we're watching...2d.

(as to the question, that appears to be one explanation...never heard the term before, choice)

---

Found something fun for you -lol, the real value of these boards is in finding new shit to look up that would never have occurred to me.

We found that this phenomenon of “seeing in 3D” (technically referred to as “stereopsis”) can be induced simply by looking at a single picture of an appropriate 3-dimensional scene with one eye through a small aperture (a pea-sized hole). While 2-eye vision is important in many ways for depth perception, we’ve shown experimentally that it is not necessary for experiencing “seeing in 3D”. Anyone can try it at home using the method described in our paper.

http://pexlab.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/2013/1...uestion-1/

According to these folks, not only can you perceive in 3d..with just one eye, you can see in 3d with just one eye as well...with a little help.

[emjay]

It might not be 'saccades' but it's something like that... I think that's the right spelling. Very rapid, imperceptible eye scanning movements, involved in reading among other things as I understand it.

Anyway I take your points on board and accept them, and they make sense. But ultimately I need convincing in a way I don't think you or anyone can do, because there's no way I can know if you and I (assuming you have 20 20 vision) see the same thing when we look at an object or if there is some subtle difference between what I consider 'flat' and what you see. My intuition is that it's flat, but you may see the same thing. But there's no way to compare and there's also no way to rule out the possibility of my mind coming up with that conclusion somehow for its own sake. I don't know how to put that. In my view, the neural model is extracted from what (sensory data) it's got to work with so my actual neural model could have essentially compensated in some way for the deficiency in what it represents.

[The Grand Nudger]

 But ultimately I need convincing in a way I don't think you or anyone can do, because there's no way I can know if you and I (assuming you have 20 20 vision) see the same thing when we look at an object

Well, I wouldn't go that far.....

or if there is some subtle difference between what I consider 'flat' and what you see.

Consider a far more mundane divergence.  Assume for the moment that we -are- looking at prcisely the same thing, pretend that you're a direct realist...and that we see things as they are because that's the way they are....and we -still- might not see the same thing, if for no other reason than us both looking through ever so slightly different eyes.  Some portion of my eye has damage at some point, yours at anther point.  An odd bulge here, a concavity there.  

My intuition is that it's flat, but you may see the same thing. But there's no way to compare and there's also no way to rule out the possibility of my mind coming up with that conclusion somehow for its own sake. I don't know how to put that. In my view, the neural model is extracted from what (sensory data) it's got to work with so my actual neural model could have essentially compensated in some way for the deficiency in what it represents.

I can help you put that into easy terms.  You have unreliable or less than certain means of determining the uniformity of our qualitative experiences even assuming or being in the the presence of a quantitatively identical object.

[emjay]

I'll reply properly tomorrow if that's okay Rhythm? I need to go to bed. Thanks for turning my world upside down nighty night

[bennyboy]

@benny. I'm still having trouble with your (2), maybe because I see it more likely that instead of "truth in context" it's "truth is context". In the sense that the only time you are certain about something is when you have no questions... ie you understand it... all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. But as soon as you have questions... ie there's an unexplained gap in the context... some relationships are unknown... then you feel doubt and uncertainty until they're resolved. So from that perspective I would argue that it's impossible to have an isolated truth in a context and instead the stable context itself is truth, and that's how I see it both phenomenally (as described above)  and neurally. So where in (2) you allow for an isolated truth to have different values in different contexts and still be the same thing, I disagree and suggest that the truth includes the context that surrounds your isolated truths and therefore each context is a separate truth.

Okay, I'm reading this as something like plurality really being subsets of a singular truth. So a coin has two faces, and talking about face-up and face-down states as different is to unnecessarily isolate aspects of a single coin which always embodies both those states.

I think light particle-wave "duality" is a good example of this dilemma of perspective that matters a little more. Is a photon a wave, a particle, neither, or both? The scientific view, I believe, agrees with your (and Rhythm's I think) idea of truth: it is truly both, a state of superposition, and only by changing the context completely (by observing it, for example) would you change your truth statement. But you could argue that the question is no longer the same-- you're talking about something different, now, and there's no reason the truth value should be the same. I think this is close to what you mean by "context IS truth," right? And I think, if Rhythm happens to read this, that he'd take this position as well.

However, in this case, a photon will eventually be resolved into a particular nature-- either a particle or a wave-- so saying a photon is (If observed, particle) <-> (if not observed, wave) as a single state doesn't really make sense to me. I prefer to view it as truth-in-context. In the context of an observer, the photon has a single value (acts-like-particle), and not the other. In the context of a lack of observer, the photon in the end has a single value (acts like wave), and not the other. That theoretical trickery of a photon in motion no longer matters when you're looking at a photographic plate and collecting your result.

In other words, WITHOUT context, the truth of statements about photons must either emobody ambiguity or be called undefined. WITH context, you can have a singular truth value, and with multiple contexts, you can have multiple truth values.

[The Grand Nudger]

Close enough, sure.  Ask a different question, get a different answer.

You know photons aren't unique, in that? They're not an outlier.  Other elementary particles, atoms, even molecules exhibit wave particle duality.  

As to your difficulty in making sense of something having the properties of both simultaneously, are you familiar with Bohmian mechanics? It's one example of a set of quantum theories that either have no trouble resolving the apparent paradox..or simply do not see or describe any such paradox at all. I don't mention it to take a side, or to declare one interpretation the right interpretation, only to bring to your attention that others have made sense of what does not make sense to you, right or wrong.

[bennyboy]

Close enough, sure.  Ask a different question, get a different answer.

You know photons aren't unique, in that? They're not an outlier.  Other elementary particles, atoms, even molecules exhibit wave particle duality.  

Yes, and I've read that even sets of macro objects, like say a few quadrillion office chairs, if treated properly, will also do so, though of that I'm pretty dubious.

As to your difficulty in making sense of something having the properties of both simultaneously, are you familiar with Bohmian mechanics?

I don't have a problem with it, because I view truth values in this case context-dependent.

 It's one example of a set of quantum theories that either have no trouble resolving the apparent paradox..or simply do not see or describe any such paradox at all.  I don't mention it to take a side, or to declare one interpretation the right interpretation, only to bring to your attention that others have made sense of what does not make sense to you, right or wrong.

I've often argued against science, at least as described by materlialists like you. But in this case, I'd say that many of the new contexts through which we view our experiences, could only come about through scientific theorization and experimentation. While duality/ambiguity have been around for thousands of years, science has really given us tools to play with them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, and I've read that even sets of macro objects, like say a few quadrillion office chairs, if treated properly, will also do so, though of that I'm pretty dubious.

I'd love an attribution on that.  That other elementary particles, atoms and molecules present themselves as-such has been experimentally demonstrated...but I'm not aware of any experiment to that effect involving office chairs.  Would be interesting to see how they draw the conclusion, at least.  

I don't have a problem with it, because I view truth values in this case context-dependent.

You just said it didn't make sense to you.  I'd call that a problem.  I'm suggesting that you've invented a dubious solution for a non-existent problem.   

I've often argued against science, at least as described by materlialists like you.  But in this case, I'd say that many of the new contexts through which we view our experiences, could only come about through scientific theorization and experimentation.  While duality/ambiguity have been around for thousands of years, science has really given us tools to play with them.

Indeed it has, some of those tools may speak to the things that don't make sense to you. Bohmian mechanics, for example, doesn't require a "truth-in-context" workaround to the issue that vexes you. It has the benefits of predicting everything that the models which -do- see paradox predict, but also of handling things which completely baffle other interpretations. This isn't to say it's without objections (or even remotely true). One common objection is that it's merely the same model, supplied with an ontology....but..given your previous statements, ontology is -precisely- what you seem to be wondering about.

[bennyboy]

Yes, and I've read that even sets of macro objects, like say a few quadrillion office chairs, if treated properly, will also do so, though of that I'm pretty dubious.

I'd love an attribution on that.  That other elementary particles, atoms and molecules present themselves as-such has been experimentally demonstrated...but I'm not aware of any experiment to that effect involving office chairs.  Would be interesting to see how they draw the conclusion, at least.  

I wish I could remember. I think it was in an introductory video on QM, specifically the ones where you check your detector AFTER the photon has already passed the slit, with the result that detecting spookily affects the resultant interference pattern anyway. Super spooky, amirite?

I can't find the thing about chairs (it might have been another mundane object tbh), but here's an interesting article where they used molecules with 5000 each of neutrons, protons and electrons:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo....xwikveurq

and in that source I found (though not explained):

According to quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality and quantum superpositions must also occur for macroscopic objects such as viruses, cells and even baseballs larger objects.

I don't have a problem with it, because I view truth values in this case context-dependent.

You just said it didn't make sense to you.  I'd call that a problem.  I'm suggesting that you've invented a dubious solution for a non-existent problem.   

I think the way I wrote the dual-nature with the '<->' appeared confusing. I didn't mean that ambiguities in QM don't make sense to me, but that defining QM particles outsude of some observational context (i.e. an all-inclusive objective "truth") didn't make sense to me. But I can see now that that wasn't expressed very clearly.

I've often argued against science, at least as described by materlialists like you.  But in this case, I'd say that many of the new contexts through which we view our experiences, could only come about through scientific theorization and experimentation.  While duality/ambiguity have been around for thousands of years, science has really given us tools to play with them.

Indeed it has, some of those tools may speak to the things that don't make sense to you.  Bohmian mechanics, for example, doesn't require a "truth-in-context" workaround to the issue that vexes you.  It has the benefits of predicting everything that the models which -do- see paradox predict, but also of handling things which completely baffle other interpretations.  This isn't to say it's without objections (or even remotely true).  One common objection is that it's merely the same model, supplied with an ontology....but..given your previous statements, ontology is -precisely- what you seem to be wondering about.

There's no conceivable real-world framework that is conceivable at least to me in which you could say, "The buck stops here. For sure there's no other framework, no greater context of which all this is a subset, and which must be accounted for in determining that some truths are actually global."

[The Grand Nudger]

I wish I could remember.  I think it was in an introductory video on QM, specifically the ones where you check your detector AFTER the photon has already passed the slit, with the result that detecting spookily affects the resultant interference pattern anyway.  Super spooky, amirite?

Not really, that's another thing that Bohmian mechanics does away with, lol.  

I can't find the thing about chairs (it might have been another mundane object tbh), but here's an interesting article where they used molecules with 5000 each of neutrons, protons and electrons:

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo....xwikveurq

and in that source I found (though not explained):

According to quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality and quantum superpositions must also occur for macroscopic objects such as viruses, cells and even baseballs larger objects.

So, just as a point of interest, why do you tend to focus on photons when the issue is apparently common to..well...everything?  What is it about photons that jumps out at you and makes itself the constant source of comment.  Long wondered this.

I think the way I wrote the dual-nature with the '<->' appeared confusing.  I didn't mean that ambiguities in QM don't make sense to me, but that defining QM particles outsude of some observational context (i.e. an all-inclusive objective "truth") didn't make sense to me.  But I can see now that that wasn't expressed very clearly.

Ah, rgr.

There's no conceivable real-world framework that is conceivable at least to me in which you could say, "The buck stops here.  For sure there's no other framework, no greater context of which all this is a subset, and which must be accounted for in determining that some truths are actually global."

Nor for me.  If we're still talking about qm.  For all we know there's something under that as well...and we aren't really talking about waves -or- particles, but some third wholly unexpressed thing which exhibits the qualities some of us associate as being exclusively the domain of one or the other.  Yet another possible way that a potential paradox is resolved.